Here's the family history - from an Arizonan. I've lived here for longer than McCain. Barry G considered Mccain a carpetbagger with a rich trophy wife at first - he really made no secret of the fact. He finally warmed to the McCains, and they had something of a friendship, as well as an excellent work relationship. Then came the Keating 5 scandal - and that broke the families apart. Goldwater hated McCain after that - feeling he had dragged down the reputation of the entire state - and believing he got off too easy. After that, he never saw McCain as a conservative. I think McCain did reform himself more in Goldwater's mold after G died - but then the republican party left it's conservative roots.

I think the opinion's here about true conservatism, from a Goldwater who has always voted republican - are worth sharing.


Why McCain Has Lost Our Vote


CC Goldwater
Posted October 23, 2008 | 10:28 AM (EST)

Being Barry Goldwater's granddaughter and living in Arizona, one would assume that I would be voting for our state's senator, John McCain. I am still struck by certain 'dyed in the wool' Republicans who are on the fence this election, as it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting the Republican presidential candidates this year. We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. I learned a lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections. We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.

My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman's right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930's, a cause my grandfather supported. I'm not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear.

For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with the Goldwater version of Conservative thought. My grandfather had undying respect for the U.S. Constitution, and an understanding of its true meanings.

There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would "race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, and the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. The McCain/Palin plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and less safe.

When you see the candidate's in political ads, you can't help but be reminded of the 1964 presidential campaign of Johnson/Goldwater, the 'origin of spin', that twists the truth and obscures what really matters. Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to support Barack Obama. I think that Obama has shown his ability and integrity.

After the last eight years, there's a lot of clean up do. Roll up your sleeves, Senators Obama and Biden, and we Goldwaters will roll ours up with you.

CC Goldwater: Why McCain Has Lost Our Vote

__________________
Happiness is always a by-product. It is probably a matter of temperament, and for anything I know it may be glandular. But it is not something that can be demanded from life, and if you are not happy you had better stop worrying about it and see what treasures you can pluck from your own brand of unhappiness.
- Robertson Davies

Yes, indeed CC, I remember your grandfather very well; heard all his speeches and read all his books and comments. He no desire to tell women what to do about an unwanted pregnancy and talked about giving women the intelligence to make their own decisions.

He was the advocate of limited government and individual freedoms and he was right! Seldom does a day go by here when I don't hear the words "we should have listened to Senator Goldwater." I listened to him and followed his programs from the Santa Monica Mountains and still do!

Thank you for carrying on the name of Goldwater in the way intended. I'm a member of the Goldwater Institute but live in Sun City and seldom drive at night.

Sandra Price

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious right and the neocons. If Barry Goldwater were still alive he would be extremely disappointed.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Sam

I consider myself a neoconservative; and I have no problem at all with those who hold deep religious beliefs, and who believe that their worldview should inform policy decisions. (To assert that it is okay--well, sorta-kinda, anyway--for some citizens to hold deeply religious views, as long as those views are entirely privatized, is to declare such people cranks--something on the order of, say, flat-Earthers or doctrinaire vegans--and I simply do not accept that characterization of evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews, and others of a deeply religious nature.)

As for Barry Goldwater, I was just 16 (and, therefore, not yet old enough to vote) when he ran for president in 1964. And I very much supported him (to whatever extent a high-schooler's support really mattered).

But Goldwater was essentially a libertarian; so he held some views (especially on social issues) with which I disagree. And as he aged, he seemed to become more intolerant of the views of his fellow Republicans, with whom he disagreed. I find this unfortunate.

In the end, I have mixed feelings about Sen. Goldwater. Admittedly, I have more positive feelings than negative ones about him. But I disagree sharply with the anti-social conservative views that he held.

I agree that is one of the critical fracture points - and the key current fracture - whether the federal govt should regulate the moral behavior of citizens. The odd thing is that, during Goldwater's time, there was a split between govt and religion encouraged by the evangelical community. They had an awareness that that door opened both ways, and they did not want govt intrusion into religion. Now the evangelical community sees govt as a plausible outreach arm. The danger there is that door also opens both ways.

If it is constitutional for religious beliefs to be a deciding factor in law - then that power resides in Islam and Wicca as much as it does in Christianity. As we have no state religion, and law is decided by religious doctrine, then all doctrines get equal play.

__________________
Happiness is always a by-product. It is probably a matter of temperament, and for anything I know it may be glandular. But it is not something that can be demanded from life, and if you are not happy you had better stop worrying about it and see what treasures you can pluck from your own brand of unhappiness.
- Robertson Davies

Not a surprise. Goldwater was working with and to have co-authored John Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience" but passed away before it was completed.

If I remember correctly, Dean dedicated the book to Goldwater and I know he mentions him several times in the book.

John Dean, for those younger or not steeped in politics, who may not recognize the name, was Richard Nixon's counsel, is a long time Republican, although I think at this time he said he has dropped party affiliation on his registration. Other books he has written about the Republican neocon and religious fundamentalist matters in the Republican administrations and in particular, Bush administration are "Worse than Watergate" and "Broken Government".

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

I would disagree, on a couple of grounds:

(1) Most of the Founders were either Christians or Deists. And since Deism is no longer widely practiced--and has not been, since around the end of the eighteenth century--that leaves Christianity as the chief underpinning of American foundational thinking.

To say this is not to suggest that Christianity should be ensconsed as our state religion. It is simply to say that Christianity has had an influence of the sort that cannot be claimed for Islam, Wicca, or any other religion.

(2) There is a significant difference between the view that one's worldview should inform policy decisions, and the view that one's religious beliefs should be the "deciding factor in law." The latter sounds very much like the simplistic belief that one should be able to determine the law simply by citing book, chapter, and verse from the Scriptures. The former suggests no such thing.

No, religion should not influence policy, it goes against everything the founding fathers stood for. If you want theocracy then move to the Vatican. It is a complete corruption of our constitution and democracy to base policy on so called holy texts. Oh and I am a diest.

__________________

__________________
Happiness is always a by-product. It is probably a matter of temperament, and for anything I know it may be glandular. But it is not something that can be demanded from life, and if you are not happy you had better stop worrying about it and see what treasures you can pluck from your own brand of unhappiness.
- Robertson Davies

The Founders often showed considerable respect for "the Creator" or "the God of nature"--please re-read some of the early documents--and it is evident that this worldview deeply influenced the Founders' thinking, as regarding the nature of our republic.

If you view organized religion (and Christianity, in particular) as irrational or anti-rational, I would be happy to engage you in that discussion. Otherwise, you simply have no grounds for insisting that a religious worldview should be kept entirely separate from policy decisions.

I don't--and never insinuated that I did. So this looks suspiciously like a rhetorical flourish.

For more on this, please re-read the final paragraph of my previous post in this thread.

Again, please see my previous post; the last paragraph.

Okay. But that does nothing whatever to vitiate my prior observation that Deism has not neen "widely practiced...since around the end of the eighteenth century."