| Revision as of 05:18, 21 August 2005 editFDR (talk | contribs)1,193 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:01, 11 October 2024 edit undoKerdooskis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,691 edits →Cross CountryTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (286 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader|search=yes}} |
|
==Independent ads?== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Goldwater, Barry|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=High|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Aviation=yes|Biography=yes|US=yes|WWII=yes|Cold-War=yes|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=Person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=high|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Civil Rights Movement|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Barry Goldwater/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Barry Goldwater/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Barry Goldwater/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=19:30, 28 June 2006 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Barry Goldwater/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=60853706 |
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|action2date=28 February 2007 |
|
|
|action2result=not listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=111292291 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== UFOs == |
|
Hector, the ad was aired as part of Johnson's campaign, according to every source I have encountered. You may be thinking of the famous "Daisy Girl II" aired against Al Gore in 2000, which was created and run by Arelino Industries in Texas, which CBS calls a "mysterious group". These kinds of "non official" ads were largely unknown in the 1960s. From my understqanding, they arose in large part because of limitations of campaign finance that were not enacted until after ]. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section is repetitive. ] (]) 07:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
==The Party moves right== |
|
|
|
:{{reply to|Jack Upland}} Please offer a constructive suggestion for making the section less repetitive. ] (]) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Combine the two references to Curtis Le May. They seem to be essentially the same.--] (]) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have trimmed the section some. ] (]) 14:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You have eliminated the problem just as some have apparently eliminated the ].--] (]) 02:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Image vote == |
|
Did he "moderate his position" or did the Party go off the deep end? Goldwater told Dole in Feb '96: "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<small>] has enforced consensus and reverted the new image I have uploaded for Goldwater's page. I thank them for doing so, for assuming my good faith, and for giving a reason for the revert. Because of this, I wish to amend the consensus with an image vote to replace Goldwater's long-standing image. I believe that Image B would serve better since it is much higher resolution, being 2,052 × 2,736 pixels large, compared to the current image (Image A) which is 576 × 789 pixels large, meaning that the image I wish to replace the consensus image with is 12 times larger. There is also the issue of quality. The Senate website has compressed the current image to the point of making it somewhat blurry. While the picture I wish to replace it with (B) isn't bullseye perfect, it is much higher resolution, and isn't nearly as compressed. |
|
==Goldwater's mental health== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I vote for '''Image B'''.</small> |
|
Is it true that Barry Goldwater seeked the help of a psychiatrist, therapist, or in some similar area before he ran for PResident in 1964. This was taboo at that time and it seems that I recall it affected his ability to win. PLease verify..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''I withdraw the vote, I have found a higher resolution version of the first image.''' |
|
:The Johnson campaign tried to ''portray'' Goldwater as mentally unstable, but I believe you've conflated him with ], the McGovern VP nominee who withdrew his name what it was disclosed that he had had psychiatric treatment. ] 17:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<gallery> |
|
==Goldwater as founder of the movement== |
|
|
|
Senator Goldwater 1960.jpg|Senator Goldwater 1960.jpg '''(Image A)''' |
|
|
Barry Goldwater 1952 (cropped).jpg|Barry Goldwater 1952 (cropped).jpg '''(Image B)''' |
|
|
</gallery> <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">]</span> of Alaska ^_^ 18:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Replace controversial claim about Goldwater's support for civil rights with a more neutral sentence that contrasts his actions locally versus nationally == |
|
Cut this sentence: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Barry Goldwater|answered=yes}} |
|
:An original thinker, fearlessly outspoken, ''he built the political machine that was inherited by ].'' |
|
|
|
Change "Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality" (in the section "Local support for civil rights") to "Despite his vote against the ], Goldwater supported local racial equality organizations in Arizona" ] (]) 05:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> This may be worth forming some consensus on and perhaps finding a source for, as it fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence. The section already talks about specific work in Arizona, and his vote on the 1964 Act is mentioned later on in the section. Do you potentially have a source that links his vote as something that qualifies "staunch support"? ] ⬡ 17:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think we should at least remove the terms “staunch” and “fundamentally” due to Goldwater’s vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Staunch” implies he was an unwavering advocate of civil rights, when in fact he voted against one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history. At the very least that deserves less absolute qualifiers. ] (]) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I’ve edited the wording as well as included a quote from MLK drawing the distinction between his “support” for local civil rights from his voting record. ] (]) 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Can you explain why you have scare quotes around the word 'support', and are insisting that straightforward characterizations of his civil rights record are "lie(s)", a claim for which you don't appear to have any actual RS support? Goldwater desegregated (i) his family's department stores, (ii) the Arizona Air National Guard, two years before Truman desegregated the military outright, (iii) befriended black families in Phoenix and was instrumental in desegregating schools, restaurants, and airports in Arizona (three separate initiatives, not one), (iv) cofounded the Phoenix (Maricopa) chapter of the NAACP, and belonged to both the Phoenix and Tucson chapters, (v) founded the Arizona chapter of the ], and further bankrolled its operating deficits for its first two years, (vi) as a newly elected Senator from a segregated state arriving in segregated Washington DC, nonetheless made as his first hire a black woman, as his legislative assistant, in '''1952''', (vii) forced the desegregation of the senate cafeteria in his first year as a senator after a black legislative assistant of his was denied service, (viii) backed every federal civil rights bill except the 1964 act, which he only opposed on account of two titles. |
|
|
::::Most, if not all, of these statements are in the article; all can be easily and copiously sourced to RS across the entire partisan spectrum. That Goldwater rejected one particular civil rights bill on advice from his legal counsel, backed up by a second opinion, both from jurists of unsurpassed rank hardly impeaches this - if you disagree, can you cite several other major articles where a consensus exists that one cannot be a staunch supporter of X if one does not support bills that would advance X that one sincerely believes are unconstitutional? @] @] ] (]) 08:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> As mentioned above, some discussion may be in order. I agree that we should portray this matter accurately, but to do so, we will need reliable sources. Do you have any you could point us to? ] (]) 11:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cross Country == |
|
I disagree with the italicized text. After the 1964 election the national Republican party was in a shambles - the Democrats had their largest House and Senate majorities since the Depression, if not since the Civil War. Goldwater certainly didn't "build a political machine" in the sense in which that is ordinarily understood i.e. by winning elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that Goldwater did not want to run cross country (his parents encouraged it to his dismay). Is there any source or evidence for this? ] (]) 20:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
The party was brought back to life by the Nixon victory in '68, in which Goldwater had no part - although he did get back into the Senate, winning an open seat. |
|
|
|
:I didn't have much luck. There are references to him running track, and even one stating that he threw the javelin: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Barry_Goldwater/ntamDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22track%22. But I found nothing for him running cross country or his feelings on the matter. I inserted a "citation needed" tag in the article. ]] 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I tend to concur with Theo Lippman that Reagan was elected president in 1980 primarily because he'd been running for 16 years and the political climate was finally right for him. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:The phrase "political machine" may be a poorly chosen one, but the basic point about the continuity between Goldwater and Reagan should be made. The Goldwater campaign not only gave birth to Reagan's political career, it was a watershed moment for the Republican Party, and more specifically, the conservative movement which came to control it. ] ] 00:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree, but I believe that the sentence as originally written (and perhaps the article as a whole?) gives Goldwater a bit too much credit.<br><br>To take just two of the planks of Goldwater's campaign platform: 1. he opposed the ] and other civil rights laws directed at private (as opposed to governmental) economic discrimination against minorities and 2. he favored complete privatization of Social Security.<br><br>These ideas were not endorsed by any serious Republican presidential candidate since, and it is questionable whether these positions commanded a majority the national Republican party as a whole - Republicans in Congress favored the CRA of '64 by a large margin, and in fact the Act never would have passed the Senate filibuster if the GOP senators hadn't supported it. ] 14:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::This is getting off-topic, but I think you've phrased those examples far too narrowly. Beginning in 1968, the Republican Party absolutely did put itself squarely in opposition to the civil rights agenda. And social security privatization has become a major cornerstone of Republican domestic policy -- it's just that no presidential candidate has been political suicidal enough to propose doing so all at once. ] ] 19:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The "civil rights agenda" shifted over time, so I agree that ultimately the Republican Party found itself at odds with the leaders of the civil rights movement on issues such as forced busing etc. - but many Democrats came into conflict with that agenda as well.<br><br>As far as the 1968 date - Nixon proposed the "Philadelphia plan" to use "quotas, goals and timetables" to improve minority participation in government employment and contracting in 1969. So I don't see how 1968 can be regarded as the demarcation line.<br><br>And didn't Bill Clinton acknowledge that Social Security is going to need some kind of overhaul in order to keep it from breaking tha bank, and appoint some kind of commission to make recommendations in that regard? |
|
|
:::::Actually, self, that was Bush, although Clinton set up a commission on the broader issue of "entitlement reform", which went the way of others of its kind... ] 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But, getting back to what's in the article, I think with that sentence removed it's pretty close to being spot-on. ] 18:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Goldwater and the liberal consensus== |
|
|
|
|
|
In American politics -- and particularly when discussing the 50s and 60s -- referring to someone as a former Communist, especially without any context, is incendiary. You might as well be telling the reader "what follows is extremist dogma which you should ignore." The only thing that's even potentially relevant as background for the comment is that he is a leftist and hence unfriendly to Goldwater. Anyone interested in Hofstadter's views on capitalism-writ-large, which are immaterial to the quotation given, can consult the article about him. ] ] 22:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The passage in contention: |
|
|
|
|
|
::At the time, Goldwater seemed to many to be far out of step with the then-prevailing ] in U.S. politics. Leftist Historian ] remarked at the time, "When, in all our history, has anyone with ideas so bizarre, so archaic, so self-confounding, so remote from the basic American consensus, ever got so far?" |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Why not just drop the quotation the context can't be agreed upon? I hardly consider Hofstadter as being the last word on Goldwater anyway. Or Lewis Lapham, for that matter - the Lapham article that's cited there is just an anti-conservative screed with a few statistical charts thrown in. Lapham goes so far as to refer to the ] besieging ], which they never did. ] 22:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am just going to drop the ] which has since been determined to have other problems with it, such as containing analysis of the 2004 Republican convention as if it had already occurred, which it had not. ] 15:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
Well, I have no problem with dropping the Hofstader quote (which I introduced), but there should be some remark on the prevailing liberal consensus of the time. Even within the Republican Party, the Goldwater candidacy was seen as an insurgency; this was a party whose leading figures at the time included liberals Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton and where John Lindsay was a rising star; Richard Nixon, who was on the party's ticket in every other presidential election from 1952 to 1972 - that's 5 out of 6 elections - was more or less within the liberal consensus, although certainly at the "right" edge of that consensus politics, nowhere near Goldwater in any event. -- ] 23:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, the quote isn't worth battling over. We do however, as Jmabel says, need to explain that Goldwater was way outside the consensus. I've added a new paragraph in the opening trying to get at that, and inserted a quote from a recent Goldwater biography that tries to get at this issue, as well as the subsequent drastic shift in that consensus. ] ] 23:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I like the way you did it, I think it gives a broader perspective to the article. ] 23:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ummm, but I have to say, Perlstein is no more an impartial observer than Lapham or Hofstadter. Did you read his post-mortem Reagan-bashing in Salon.com? Can we maybe balance Perlstein's rather idiosyncratic analogy with something from someone more kindly disposed to Golwaters philosophy? ] 16:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How is Perlstein's analogy in any way derisive of Goldwater? It's merely an attempt to describe the magnitude of the political shift that is largely a result of his political legacy. Yes, Perlstein is a lefty. But he's also a trained historian (I think at the ]) who's probably written the most comprehensive account of Goldwater's '64 campaign, which has won a fair amount of praise even from conservatives. Moreover, what do his writings on Reagan have to do with anything? ] ] 19:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
:::I'm saying, Perlstein besides writing books, has had a fair career as a liberal polemicist. Nothing wrong with that, but it renders his analysis suspect.] |
|
|
::::No, I don't think it does. The work in question is a scholarly and well-respected one, and thus an appropriate source for a quote. Other works by the writer are immaterial. ] ] 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Other works I find valuable for two reasons: 1. It gives you an insight into the writer's POV 2. It tells you whether the person is inclined to play fast and loose with the facts. For an example of Perlstein's bloviations on Reagan, Goldwater and conservatives, I give you . Just on the last three paragraphs, Perlstein berates Reagan for not being able "make peace...with the welfare queens he fabricated" (how do you make peace with someone who you fabricated?) and for not "deign to publicly acknowledge" AIDS until 1987 - this is way off, see ]. A good analyst will get his facts right no matter how great his antipathy for his subject. ] |
|
|
::::::That Perlstein personally has a left POV is certain. What is at issue is whether it seeps into the work, and the quote provided, in such a way that it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. You haven't provided any evidence that it does. As for the Reagan article, the only fact you've got him on is the AIDS matter, which is a common mistake, based on Reagan's long-standing refusal to address the epidemic in any kind of official way. ] ] 22:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There's more, much more, on Perlstein's POV extending to getting the facts wrong than just what I cited. That was just a couple examples. (Should someone who fancies himself a historian be excused for making a "common mistake"?) But that's really a discussion for the article on Perlstein, which has yet to be written.<br>I will try to parse the quote at a later time. ] 22:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As for the quote, I think it injects a needless sexual element into the analysis, that has no analog with the issues in Goldwater's 64 campaign. ] 20:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think it does, but feel free to remove that phrase with an ellipsis if you think it necessary. |
|
|
::::Also, "historian" is fine, and probably more accurate. ] ] 20:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'll leave it the way it is for now, until I can find something to counterweight it. ] 21:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Quotes section dropped == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have dropped it, as they all relate to a single subject and there's a link to the Goldwater page on wikiquote. Here's the section as last edited: |
|
|
|
|
|
:However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." <br /> |
|
|
- From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981 |
|
|
|
|
|
:Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass. <br /> |
|
|
- Response to Jerry Falwell stating he was concerned that ] might be moderate on abortion and other social issues, 1981. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country. <br /> |
|
|
- Interview by The Advocate |
|
|
|
|
|
:A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. <br /> |
|
|
- Interview to the Los Angeles Times, 1994 |
|
|
|
|
|
:By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars...Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state? <br /> |
|
|
- Speech to Senate, Sept. 15, 1981 |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't like being called the New Right; I'm an old, old son-of-a-bitch. I'm a conservative. <br /> |
|
|
- Showing his contempt for a new conservative movement focused on Republican ] of North Carolina, 1992. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dropped link == |
|
|
|
|
|
This link: |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't go where it says it does. I'll put it back if I can find the article. ] 22:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Found it, it's back in. ] 21:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nine holes == |
|
|
|
|
|
The joke about someone half-Jewish being allowed to play nine holes at the restricted golf course is an old one, told about many people. If we are going to mention it here, it should be with a citation (e.g. a particular time Goldwater told the story about himself). It's perfectly likely that he told this story about himself; it's even possible that he actually used the joke in such a situation at a real country club, but it's unlikely that he invented the joke. -- ] | ] 04:49, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In his autobiography, "Goldwater," BG attributes this joke to his brother Bob, speaking about HIS brother Barry at "a golf pro tournament near Los Angeles." B. Goldwater adds, "The story got a big laugh, but the incident never occurred." |
|
|
:Article has been changed accordingly. Thanks. ] |
|
|
Incidentally, someone who knows how to work this Misplaced Pages thing (this is my first visit) should add Goldwater's autobiography to |
|
|
the recommended reading list. It's wonderful reading. The book is: |
|
|
"Goldwater" by Barry M. Goldwater with Jack Casserly, copyright 1988, pub. Doubleday, NYC, ISBN 0-385-23947-5 |
|
|
:Done. ] 14:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Needless Daschle Bashing / Goldwater's feat == |
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone keeps adding back the Tom Daschle bit that I keep erasing. The sentence as it is constructed is inaccurate and is meant to convey an inaccurate impression. Tom Daschle was not the senate Majority Leader, William H. Frist was. Daschle was the Minority Leader when he was defeated. You could possibly say he was a former Majority leader because he had at one point previously been one, however McFarland wasn't a former Majority Leader when he was defeated. John Thune's victory is not equivalent to Goldwater's and bears very little relevance to Barry Goldwater himself. If you wanted an illustrative point for Goldwater’s victory why not look to the previous time it actually happened as opposed to the current time when it didn't quite happen. (unsigned, undated, presumably anonymous, was mid-November 2004 -- this annotation added by ] 22:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC))<br>Skip next para. for my response. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Have reverted the removal of the sentence that after Goldwater in '52, no one was able to defeat a Senate majority leader for re-election until 2004. This seems pertinent due to its being an unusual occurrence. Discussion? ] 21:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Would you accept "last time a Senate ] was defeated for re-election until 2004"? ] 23:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Or see the latest version. ] |
|
|
==Name change== |
|
|
Hid this text: |
|
|
|
|
|
:(and changed his name from Goldwasser to Goldwater ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Which is it? Please check sources and then put the correct text back in the body of the article. ] 14:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==cofounder of arizona naacp== |
|
|
seeing what a racist platform he ran on in the 1960s i found the NAACP founding hard to believe. Can someone back it up with a source?--] 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You'll find mention of this in pretty much any detailed biographical information on Goldwater; I'm pretty sure it's in Perlstein's book, and certainly others. It's important to understand (and perhaps this needs to be clarified), that Goldwater didn't run on a racist platform in the same way that Southern segregationists did. His opposition to much of the 60s civil rights legislation had to do with his political philosophy about the role of government. He had very little taste for appeals to white racism, and fastidiously avoided them until late in the campaign when he felt he had been unfairly smeared. ] ] 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Conspiracy Theories == |
|
|
Barry Goldwater was obsessed with conspiracy theories about the Council on Foreign Relations and other secret organizations that he believed banking clans like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were using as instruments to achieve world domination. His chief rival for the Republican nomination for President in 1964 was Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, who came from the Rockefeller banking clan. Goldwater hated Rockefeller and was obsessed with conspiracy theories about his family. Goldwater seems to me to have been somewhat paranoid. ] 20 Aug 2005) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Do you have evidence for any of this or are you just stirring up shit? -- ] | ] 15:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I say it if it were not true. He wrote that the Trilateral Commission, a group founded by the Rockefellers and similiar to the Council on Foreign Relations, was a "Vehicle for the multinational consolidation of commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States". This quote is from his 1964 book, ''With No Apologies''. I will provide more information to verify my claim later. |
|
|
] | ] 11:53 PM, August 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have thought about this some more and have some more evidence to support my claim. Jim Marrs, a New Age conspiracy theorist who rants against the Rockefeller family, cited Goldwater quotations to support his arguments in his book ''Rule by Secrecy:The Hidden History that Connects the Freemasons, the Great Pyramids, and the Trilateral Commission''. In addition another anti-Rockefeller New Age conspiracy theorist, David Icke, cited one Goldwater quotation to back his argument. I will provide a link to an article where Icke quotes Goldwater,it is the same quotation I quoted earlier: http://www.davidicke.com/articles2/rd-table.html. After making this addition and posting the link I found that for some reason the link did not work even though I gave the correct address. I apologize for the link not working. |
|
|
] | ] 12:05 AM, August 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
Change "Barry Goldwater was fundamentally a staunch supporter of racial equality" (in the section "Local support for civil rights") to "Despite his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Goldwater supported local racial equality organizations in Arizona" Csb06 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The article says that Goldwater did not want to run cross country (his parents encouraged it to his dismay). Is there any source or evidence for this? 205.172.134.223 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
Senator Goldwater 1960.jpg (Image A)
Barry Goldwater 1952 (cropped).jpg (Image B)
.jpg)
Not done for now: This may be worth forming some consensus on and perhaps finding a source for, as it fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence. The section already talks about specific work in Arizona, and his vote on the 1964 Act is mentioned later on in the section. Do you potentially have a source that links his vote as something that qualifies "staunch support"? Bestagon ⬡ 17:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)