NationStates Jolt Archive

His granddaughter apparently thinks so (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/magazine/27wwln_q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), at least using today's terminology, and you know something? She's probably right.
He emerges as a complex figure — a half-Jewish cowboy from Phoenix who believed the government should stay out of our hair. He thought gays should be allowed in the military and was also pro-choice.

My mom had an abortion in the mid-50’s, before she had me. She was in college, and she wanted to finish and get a degree and not have a child then. Barry felt it was a woman’s right to make that choice.

On the other hand, what does it say about the current state of American politics if Barry Goldwater is held up as a model of social enlightenment? Many people considered him a bigot because he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That was a wart on his career, and he knew it. He was the furthest thing from a bigot there was.

In the film, you manage to assemble a chorus of mostly admiring Democrats — Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, James Carville and Hillary Clinton, who actually campaigned for your grandfather in 1964, when he ran against Lyndon Johnson for president.

Hillary was a Goldwater girl. Isn’t that hysterical? She passed out cookies and lemonade at his campaign functions.

Ben Bradlee {editor of the Washington Post during Watergate} calls your grandfather “an unsung hero of Watergate.”

Barry didn’t go to Nixon’s funeral. He ended up feeling that Nixon really cheated the country and lied to the country, and that was something you just didn’t do in Barry’s book. You don’t lie.
You know, if there were more conservatives like Goldwater around today, I think this country would be in a hell of a lot better shape. Hell, I might even consider myself one.

Considering the fact that the source is The New York Times, kinda throws the vadility of the article content into question. Good job on the talking point Nazz.

Don't know about him, but Nixon would be... not that we want him mind you.

Don't know about him, but Nixon would be... not that we want him mind you.

You could make a case for Nixon.

wasn't he the guy who wanted to nuke vietnam?? Not very liberal standpoint if you'd asked me.

Considering the fact that the source is The New York Times, kinda throws the vadility of the article content into question. Good job on the talking point Nazz.

Did you read the article? Can you read may be a better question? The person giving the answers--in the regular type, just in case you couldn't tell--is Barry Goldwater's granddaughter, a woman doing a documentary on her grandfather. If there's anyone guilty of using a talking point here, it's you with your "NY Times is a liberal rag." :rolleyes:

We need to ditch the parties and the electoral college... (and, while we are at it, take out those pesky age limits on driving, flying, voting, and maybe the whole "victimless crime" category... and we should spend more on Healthcare and Science and less on Military (not research, just the actual military) and try to get people to live on the Moon by 2060... maybe make labor camps instead of prisons... build some nice houses with those...) We CAN fix America. We just have to rid ourselves of some of the traditional stuff... like Republicans and Democrats... just make it people running... that'll solve everything!

Frankly, I don't care what you call him. He was an asshole who I'd never vote for, just as much as I'd not vote for Franken, Clinton--either one--or anyone else on that list. So who cares what he's considered? It really doesn't matter.

wasn't he the guy who wanted to nuke vietnam?? Not very liberal standpoint if you'd asked me.

It's a statement as to just how far rightward the country has been pulled over the last thirty years that Goldwater as a liberal is even considered anything other than ludicrous.

Considering the fact that the source is The New York Times, kinda throws the vadility of the article content into question. Good job on the talking point Nazz.

Pot, kettle, black.

His granddaughter isn't half bad looking though.

Did you read the article? Can you read may be a better question?


Can you stop the insult, no, that what I thought. I'm just pointing out your contradiction.


The person giving the answers--in the regular type, just in case you couldn't tell--is Barry Goldwater's granddaughter,


Duh.


a woman doing a documentary on her grandfather. If there's anyone guilty of using a talking point here, it's you with your "NY Times is a liberal rag." :rolleyes:

And your guilty of your talking point that Conservative are the reason the world is mess up today.

As for was Barry Goldwater a Conservative. I still say he is, because of wht he did politically, and how his 1964 campagin was run. He was also opposed to the New Deal, which was the foundating of the Modern Conservative movement. What he did in office, and what he contributed to the modern Conservative movement and what he did and said in the 1964 campagin. I'm sorry, but to compare a newspaper article to books, dedicated to the life of Barry Goldwater and other books outlining the Modern Conservative movement from Goldwater to Reagan has him as a Conservative. One little article and a film on HBO isn't going to change that.

It's a statement as to just how far rightward the country has been pulled over the last thirty years that Goldwater as a liberal is even considered anything other than ludicrous.

If Goldwaters a liberal, who isn't a liberal?

Wanting to nuke a country solely because its communist is a black-belt in warhawk Jitsu.

If Goldwaters a liberal, who isn't a liberal?

Wanting to nuke a country solely because its communist is a black-belt in warhawk Jitsu.
I never understood why people had to be on one side or the other of that spectrum. Warhawk or Peacedove. Pacifist or Warmongerer. Why can't more people be Realistic Pacifists*?


*Realistic Pacifism is the term I apply to my philosophy: violence is an option, but a last resort option. Take care to exercise all diplomatic avenues available, but if they fail, do not hesitate to resort to the only means left. That said, try to avoid resorting to it at all costs. It is a last resort option, but an option nonetheless.

If Goldwaters a liberal, who isn't a liberal?

Wanting to nuke a country solely because its communist is a black-belt in warhawk Jitsu.

Depends on who you ask. Goldwater isn't a liberal in the FDR/Truman mold, to be sure. But considering where the Republican party is today--and that they use liberal as a smear term to include anyone not them--the the case might be made. But it's only in this particular context that you could make the argument stick. That's why I've been careful to make sure of the context we're talking about. Wilgrove doesn't seem to understand that.

I never understood why people had to be on one side or the other of that spectrum. Warhawk or Peacedove. Pacifist or Warmongerer. Why can't more people be Realistic Pacifists*?


*Realistic Pacifism is the term I apply to my philosophy: violence is an option, but a last resort option. Take care to exercise all diplomatic avenues available, but if they fail, do not hesitate to resort to the only means left. That said, try to avoid resorting to it at all costs. It is a last resort option, but an option nonetheless.

two reasons. first of all, in politics, you're seen as being indecisive if you don't jump to one side or the other. And secondly, the human brain works in dichotomies...black/white, good/bad, war/peace...its just a part of our nature to look at things as being either/or.

Depends on who you ask. Goldwater isn't a liberal in the FDR/Truman mold, to be sure. But considering where the Republican party is today--and that they use liberal as a smear term to include anyone not them--the the case might be made. But it's only in this particular context that you could make the argument stick. That's why I've been careful to make sure of the context we're talking about. Wilgrove doesn't seem to understand that.

Sorry if I'm critical of one newspaper article Vs. the books I've read detailing his life, his politics, and his involvement in the Conservative movement. I promise I won't question The New York Times or the Liberals anymore Nazz. :rolleyes:

two reasons. first of all, in politics, you're seen as being indecisive if you don't jump to one side or the other. And secondly, the human brain works in dichotomies...black/white, good/bad, war/peace...its just a part of our nature to look at things as being either/or.

And yet, I've never been one to do that. Ever since I first started actively thinking about these kinds of issues, I've always been one to see the various shades of grey. It always puzzles me when I meet those who do not seem able to do the same.

Sorry if I'm critical of one newspaper article Vs. the books I've read detailing his life, his politics, and his involvement in the Conservative movement. I promise I won't question The New York Times or the Liberals anymore Nazz. :rolleyes:

Your making it sound like we would like for Barry to be considered a liberal, thats far from the case this is instead about the terror we feel that the country has drifted so far right that this notion could actualy be proposed by a world class newspaper without being taken as a sick joke.

Sorry if I'm critical of one newspaper article Vs. the books I've read detailing his life, his politics, and his involvement in the Conservative movement. I promise I won't question The New York Times or the Liberals anymore Nazz. :rolleyes:

The only reason you're being pissy is because you have the reading comprehension of a mutated swamp rat. I am not calling Goldwater a big L Liberal. He is a conservative, unquestionably. What I am commenting on--as I noted in the post you quoted above--is the current political situation, wherein anyone not licking Bush's browneye and commenting on the tastiness of his dingleberries is called a liberal by the idiots who dominate what passes for current political discourse. Do you get it? Please tell me you get it this time, because I don't want to have to break out the head-bangin-on-the-wall smiley. I really hate that smiley.

two reasons. first of all, in politics, you're seen as being indecisive if you don't jump to one side or the other. And secondly, the human brain works in dichotomies...black/white, good/bad, war/peace...its just a part of our nature to look at things as being either/or.

I was talking about the opinions of the two different idealogies at the time, most(keyword) liberals at the time were trying to avoid conflict with the USSR as much as possible. Whereas alot of conservatives were in favor of stronger, more direct action against the red threat.

Another problem with Goldwater being considered a liberal, is that The New York Times and his granddaughter are putting what he did, and his life into the context of today's world, and not the context of his time. You just cannot do that! You have to put what he did, and his political views into the context of the time period.

The only reason you're being pissy is because you have the reading comprehension of a mutated swamp rat. I am not calling Goldwater a big L Liberal. He is a conservative, unquestionably. What I am commenting on--as I noted in the post you quoted above--is the current political situation, wherein anyone not licking Bush's browneye and commenting on the tastiness of his dingleberries is called a liberal by the idiots who dominate what passes for current political discourse. Do you get it? Please tell me you get it this time, because I don't want to have to break out the head-bangin-on-the-wall smiley. I really hate that smiley.

*vomits furiously*

The only reason you're being pissy is because you have the reading comprehension of a mutated swamp rat. I am not calling Goldwater a big L Liberal. He is a conservative, unquestionably. What I am commenting on--as I noted in the post you quoted above--is the current political situation, wherein anyone not licking Bush's browneye and commenting on the tastiness of his dingleberries is called a liberal by the idiots who dominate what passes for current political discourse. Do you get it? Please tell me you get it this time, because I don't want to have to break out the head-bangin-on-the-wall smiley. I really hate that smiley.

I would like to make a deal with you Nazz. See, I actually enjoy these debates, because they're fun for me. However, it irks me when people use petty little insult. Of course, I use petty little insult back so I'm not innocent myself. So, here's my proposition for you. How about me and you try to be civil to one another and put an end to the petty insults?

Another problem with Goldwater being considered a liberal, is that The New York Times and his granddaughter are putting what he did, and his life into the context of today's world, and not the context of his time. You just cannot do that! You have to put what he did, and his political views into the context of the time period.
I won't disagree with that. It's a good point, one people should keep in mind, methinks.

That said, there is nothing wrong with occasionally taking something out of context and comparing it to modern standards. Helps keep us from forgetting that perspectives change, that what was once one way is now another, and so on.

I would like to make a deal with you Nazz. See, I actually enjoy these debates, because they're fun for me. However, it irks me when people use petty little insult. Of course, I use petty little insult back so I'm not innocent myself. So, here's my proposition for you. How about me and you try to be civil to one another and put an end to the petty insults?

Seconded

*continues vomiting*

I would like to make a deal with you Nazz. See, I actually enjoy these debates, because they're fun for me. However, it irks me when people use petty little insult. Of course, I use petty little insult back so I'm not innocent myself. So, here's my proposition for you. How about me and you try to be civil to one another and put an end to the petty insults?I will confess to holding a grudge against you for the shit you said in the New Orleans thread. That's my childhood home you so completely and utterly dismissed, and I don't forgive that level of stupidity easily. Apologize for that, and I'll be civil to you as long as you don't take my statements out of context or misrepresent the facts of a matter.

I will confess to holding a grudge against you for the shit you said in the New Orleans thread. That's my childhood home you so completely and utterly dismissed, and I don't forgive that level of stupidity easily. Apologize for that, and I'll be civil to you as long as you don't take my statements out of context or misrepresent the facts of a matter.

Ok, ok, so I did go over the top on that thread, I admit that and I'm sorry.

Ok, ok, so I did go over the top on that thread, I admit that and I'm sorry.

Thank you. Truce.

Thank you. Truce.

Truce.

Truce.But I ain't kissing you. :p

Truce.

Awwwwwwwwe

Frankly this is another one of those moments where I look at the United States in disbelief.

What we talking about is IDEAS AND BELIEFS. You cannot take all of humanity, and place them into two ideological groups, especially as constricted as the American boundaries are.

There is NO reason why 'Conservatives' can't be pro-abortion. In my own country, the United Kingdom, pro and anti abortion advocates are visible right across the political spectrum, the same is true of just about every country, the only exception being in those countries with a strong Christian Democrat and Classical Liberal , the US is the only seeming exception, at least to the extent of one ideology being explicitly identified with one position. You also fail to ignore differences within one ideology. Take Conservatism. What is Conservatism? Simply put it is an ideology that emphasises tradition, that is it. That usually means some emphasis of traditional social values, but that can be from my own country's Conservative Party's tacit support of family-friendly policy to the rabid anti-gay beliefs of Poland's Law and Justice Party. It usually includes some nationalism, but that can range from Sweden's Moderate Party's wish to integrate immigrants, combined with a tacit support for the EU to the Australian Liberal-National Coalition's strict anti-immigration stance and patriotism. In Anglo-Saxon countries they tend to preach free markets and economic liberalism, but in France Conservatives are rather wary of capitalism.

'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are generic terms, which can describe a massive range of opinions. Indeed, while in the US it is common to see them as diametric opposites in Scandinavia they are seen as similar, with the main rightist parties in several Scanadinavian countries expressly identifying their ideology as 'Liberal-Conservative'. Albeit 'Liberal' used more in terms of Classical Liberalism than the Social Liberalism of what Americans refer to as 'Liberals', that type of Liberalism Americans would more closely identify with their ideas of Conservatism anyways.

All ideologies are highly varied, especially with differences in time and place. Barry Goldwater was a Conservative, but a different sort of Conservative than Bush, or Cheney. Despite his rebuke of Nixon he probably had more in common with him, ideologically, though he was perhaps closest to Reagan.

But I ain't kissing you. :p

lol, well would you settle for a handshake? :)

Seems to me that he would be more of a libertarian who believes in foreign intervention because he seems to be fiscally conservative with socially liberal views doesn't he? He most certainly isn't a liberal given his pro-active foreign policy and his belief in state rights or limited government, nor is he the perfect conservative on social issues either as he hates the religious right so I think libertarian is the best place to put him.

How about we just say he was human and, being human, had a wide range of contradictory beliefs?

Heck, Sen. Reid, the minority leader is pro-prayer and anti-abortion, and he's being painted as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

To Nazz's point though, we have been pulled right, but when you compare to, say, the 50's, we're still hanging around the mid-line.

Frankly this is another one of those moments where I look at the United States in disbelief.

What we talking about is IDEAS AND BELIEFS. You cannot take all of humanity, and place them into two ideological groups, especially as constricted as the American boundaries are.

There is NO reason why 'Conservatives' can't be pro-abortion. In my own country, the United Kingdom, pro and anti abortion advocates are visible right across the political spectrum, the same is true of just about every country, the only exception being in those countries with a strong Christian Democrat and Classical Liberal , the US is the only seeming exception, at least to the extent of one ideology being explicitly identified with one position. You also fail to ignore differences within one ideology. Take Conservatism. What is Conservatism? Simply put it is an ideology that emphasises tradition, that is it. That usually means some emphasis of traditional social values, but that can be from my own country's Conservative Party's tacit support of family-friendly policy to the rabid anti-gay beliefs of Poland's Law and Justice Party. It usually includes some nationalism, but that can range from Sweden's Moderate Party's wish to integrate immigrants, combined with a tacit support for the EU to the Australian Liberal-National Coalition's strict anti-immigration stance and patriotism. In Anglo-Saxon countries they tend to preach free markets and economic liberalism, but in France Conservatives are rather wary of capitalism.

'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are generic terms, which can describe a massive range of opinions. Indeed, while in the US it is common to see them as diametric opposites in Scandinavia they are seen as similar, with the main rightist parties in several Scanadinavian countries expressly identifying their ideology as 'Liberal-Conservative'. Albeit 'Liberal' used more in terms of Classical Liberalism than the Social Liberalism of what Americans refer to as 'Liberals', that type of Liberalism Americans would more closely identify with their ideas of Conservatism anyways.

All ideologies are highly varied, especially with differences in time and place. Barry Goldwater was a Conservative, but a different sort of Conservative than Bush, or Cheney, or Reagan. Despite his rebuke of Nixon he probably had more in common with him, ideologically.
Thank you! A dash of common sense is just what this thread needed.

To Nazz's point though, we have been pulled right, but when you compare to, say, the 50's, we're still hanging around the mid-line.
How about the 20's?

How about the 20's?
I've always thought of the 20's as the 60's with flapper girls. ;)

Actually the 20's were a very mixed bag and I've yet to read a good history that deals with the effects of prohabition on the populas respect for the government.

How about the 20's?

Probably to the left; however, the main difference is government is a lot bigger and a lot more powerful than it was in the 1920's and we have more civil and political rights now than we did then.

But as you get farther back, it gets a lot more distorted because society in general has moved towards supporting a far greater degree of social and political freedom. Views supported by a majority of the population today would have been seen as radically left-wing in the 1920's and views from the 1920's as radically right-wing.

Another problem with Goldwater being considered a liberal, is that The New York Times and his granddaughter are putting what he did, and his life into the context of today's world, and not the context of his time. You just cannot do that! You have to put what he did, and his political views into the context of the time period.You seem to think that Goldwater died in 1964 after losing to Johnson. Reality is that Goldwater was quite vocally critical of the later Reagan years and, especially, the willingness of the party to deal with the theocratic wannabes Reed, Robertson and Falwell in order wrest and consolidate power from the Dems. Goldwater despised the moralistic tone of the neocons and said so often and publicly.

How about we just say he was human and, being human, had a wide range of contradictory beliefs?Goldwater was quite consistent with conservative ideals of traditional conservatives. That they seem to be contradictory is because we have become used to the deficit-spending, moralistic neocons that currently control the Republican party.

Seems to me that he would be more of a libertarianThat would be in error though. Goldwater was, like his fellow country-club Republicans, pro-business but was not averse to government regulation of business, especially big business, which would put him at odds with current-day Libertarians.

It's a statement as to just how far rightward the country has been pulled over the last thirty years that Goldwater as a liberal is even considered anything other than ludicrous.

Well, he did famously comment to Bob Dole back in '96 "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"

It's a statement as to just how far rightward the country has been pulled over the last thirty years that Goldwater as a liberal is even considered anything other than ludicrous.

Well, he did famously comment to Bob Dole back in '96 "We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"

And yet, I've never been one to do that. Ever since I first started actively thinking about these kinds of issues, I've always been one to see the various shades of grey. It always puzzles me when I meet those who do not seem able to do the same.Oh, I'm much the same...however, many people are not.

Thank you. Truce.

Truce.

awwww...Big group fluffle!:fluffle: ;)

i think i said something about right and left in another thread,

jolt's so slow tho' i've forgotten my point

other than left/right is in teh eye of teh beholder

other than left/right is in teh eye of teh beholder

And moderates are in its stomach!

Well, I remember a special shortly after Bill Clinton first took office where Goldwater -- held up for years as sort of the neocon poster boy -- said gays should have the right to serve in the military, women should have a right to an abortion, and Bill Clinton was doing a good job so leave him alone. It was quite interesting to see the man once labelled as much of a bogeyman as the current crop of neocons took on a less conservative sheen.

Well, I remember a special shortly after Bill Clinton first took office where Goldwater -- held up for years as sort of the neocon poster boy -- said gays should have the right to serve in the military, women should have a right to an abortion, and Bill Clinton was doing a good job so leave him alone. It was quite interesting to see the man once labelled as much of a bogeyman as the current crop of neocons took on a less conservative sheen.

Don't forget that Barry's politics showed his a passion as a defender of personal liberties early on, as can be seen in his civil rights record. He was a founder member of the Arizona NAACP. Locally he was a supporter of the Arizona NAACP. He was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. And he supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960.

His granddaughter apparently thinks so (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/magazine/27wwln_q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), at least using today's terminology, and you know something? She's probably right.

You know, if there were more conservatives like Goldwater around today, I think this country would be in a hell of a lot better shape. Hell, I might even consider myself one.

What happened to the Kennedy Democrats and the Goldwater Republicans? We've lost a lot in this country, not the least of which is the integrity of both political parties.

I was talking about the opinions of the two different idealogies at the time, most(keyword) liberals at the time were trying to avoid conflict with the USSR as much as possible. Whereas alot of conservatives were in favor of stronger, more direct action against the red threat.

The Democrats in power at the time were seemingly the warhawks what with Vietnam and the Cuban missile crises and bay of pigs and all.

wasn't he the guy who wanted to nuke vietnam?? Not very liberal standpoint if you'd asked me.


We could put a man on the moon but we wouldn't bomb a tiny country back into the stone age 20th century style :headbang:

What happened to the Kennedy Democrats and the Goldwater Republicans? We've lost a lot in this country, not the least of which is the integrity of both political parties.

I don't know either, I wish I was alive to see the Goldwater Republican.

What happened to the Kennedy Democrats and the Goldwater Republicans? We've lost a lot in this country, not the least of which is the integrity of both political parties.

The Goldwater Republicans got kicked in the nuts by the Christofacists.

That would be in error though. Goldwater was, like his fellow country-club Republicans, pro-business but was not averse to government regulation of business, especially big business, which would put him at odds with current-day Libertarians.
Right, but if he is pro-business then he is not really that much of a democrat either. It is just really hard to put somebody in a slot without forcing them into it somewhat.

Goldwater was a very good politician, a phrase I'm not fond of saying. If it hadn't been for his spying on domestic groups and his lying, Nixon would have been too.

Goldwater was a very good politician, a phrase I'm not fond of saying. If it hadn't been for his spying on domestic groups and his lying, Nixon would have been too.

You know, I thought the same thing. What really did Nixon in was Water Gate. If Water Gate never happened, people would have fonder memory of him.

Considering the fact that the source is The New York Times, kinda throws the vadility of the article content into question. Good job on the talking point Nazz.
Isn't the NY Times America's flagship paper?

Another problem with Goldwater being considered a liberal, is that The New York Times and his granddaughter are putting what he did, and his life into the context of today's world
Today's far right world?

Goldwater was still talking up til 10 years ago.

Probably to the left; however, the main difference is government is a lot bigger and a lot more powerful than it was in the 1920's and we have more civil and political rights now than we did then.

Government is bigger, yet we have more civil rights you say?

Right, but if he is pro-business then he is not really that much of a democrat either. It is just really hard to put somebody in a slot without forcing them into it somewhat.
Is Clinton much of a democrat? Most of them are pro-business.

Nixon was as paranoid as they come, but in terms of foreign policy, with perhaps the exception of not ending Vietnam fast enough, he was pragmatic and intelligent, he made peace with China don't forget. I can't comment on him domestically, as, as a Brit, I don't know anything about it beyond watergate.

Is Clinton much of a democrat? Most of them are pro-business.There have been many who have called Clinton the best Republican president of the last fifty years, and they wouldn't be far off, in my opinion.

There have been many who have called Clinton the best Republican president of the last fifty years, and they wouldn't be far off, in my opinion.

That's my opinion, but I got the idea from Michael Moore, who did a whole TV show on the concept.

Hmm... Barry "Nuke The World" Goldwater...

sorry, I don't buy the argument that he was Democrat - especially in relation to the Democrats of his time.

I think that's where the comparisons fall apart - each party is changing over time. Today's Republicans, for instance, are hardly the Republicans of the Gingrich Era, or the Republicans of the Nixon Era. Democrats have also gone through substantial changes.

wasn't he the guy who wanted to nuke vietnam?? Not very liberal standpoint if you'd asked me.

That was an election talking point that was used against Goldwater, to devastating effect. I believe what happened is he mused on the possibility that nuclear weapons might have to be used to save South Vietnam, and Johnson went on to create a devastating TV ad against him with that.

That's my opinion, but I got the idea from Michael Moore, who did a whole TV show on the concept.

Hmm... Barry "Nuke The World" Goldwater...

sorry, I don't buy the argument that he was Democrat - especially in relation to the Democrats of his time.

I think that's where the comparisons fall apart - each party is changing over time. Today's Republicans, for instance, are hardly the Republicans of the Gingrich Era, or the Republicans of the Nixon Era. Democrats have also gone through substantial changes.Okay, for starters, liberal=/=Democrat, and second, I specifically said that the only way one could make the argument that Goldwater could be considered liberal would be by using today's definition of liberal, not the 60's version.

His granddaughter apparently thinks so (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/magazine/27wwln_q4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), at least using today's terminology, and you know something? She's probably right.

You know, if there were more conservatives like Goldwater around today, I think this country would be in a hell of a lot better shape. Hell, I might even consider myself one.


By today's standards, Nixon was a liberal. He started the EPA, he opened up friendly relations with Communist China.

The US is absurdly skewed to the right these days. That's why it makes a certain amount of sense to say that reality has a left-wing bias.