Reagan Endorses Barry Goldwater

Reagan Endorses Barry Goldwater


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

When Ronald Reagan, as spokesperson for General Electric, gives his “Time for Choosing” speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential run, he establishes himself as an important player in the Republican Party and jumpstarts his political career.


Did David Brooks Tell the Full Story About Reagan's Neshoba County Fair Visit?

Mr. Crespino is the author of In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution (Princeton, 2007). He teaches American history at Emory University.

In his November 9, 2007, column in the New York Times, David Brooks discussed Ronald Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in 1980 and his use of the term “states’ rights.” Brooks absolved Reagan of racism, but he ignored the broader significance of Reagan’s Neshoba County appearance.

A full account of the incident has to consider how the national GOP was trying to strengthen its southern state parties and win support from southern white Democrats. Consider a letter that Michael Retzer, the Mississippi national committeeman, wrote in December 1979 to the Republican national committee. Well before the Republicans had nominated Reagan, the national committee was polling state leaders to line up venues where the Republican nominee might speak. Retzer pointed to the Neshoba County Fair as ideal for winning what he called the “George Wallace inclined voters.”

This Republican leader knew that the segregationist Alabama governor was the symbol of southern white resentment against the civil rights struggle. Richard Nixon had angled to win these voters in 1968 and 1972. Mississippi Republicans knew that a successful Republican candidate in 1980 would have to continue the effort.

On July 31st, just days before Reagan went to Neshoba County, the New York Times reported that the Ku Klux Klan had endorsed Reagan. In its newspaper, the Klan said that the Republican platform “reads as if it were written by a Klansman.” Reagan rejected the endorsement, but only after a Carter cabinet official brought it up in a campaign speech. The dubious connection did not stop Reagan from using segregationist language in Neshoba County.

It was clear from other episodes in that campaign that Reagan was content to let southern Republicans link him to segregationist politics in the South’s recent past. Reagan’s states rights line was prepared beforehand and reporters covering the event could not recall him using the term before the Neshoba County appearance. John Bell Williams, an arch-segregationist former governor who had crossed party lines in 1964 to endorse Barry Goldwater, joined Reagan on stage at another campaign stop in Mississippi. Reagan’s campaign chair in the state, Trent Lott, praised Strom Thurmond, the former segregationist Dixiecrat candidate in 1948, at a Reagan rally, saying that if Thurmond had been elected president “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.”

Brooks’s defense of Reagan seemed to be a response to his fellow Times columnist Paul Krugman, who in his book, The Conscience of a Liberal,mentions the Neshoba County visit several times. Krugman’s account of modern conservatism is not without problems. He reduces the success of modern conservatism to the fact that “southern whites started voting Republican.” Such a formulation singles out white southerners alone as providing the racist element in conservative politics. It ignores the complex intersection of racial issues with cultural and religious concerns to which liberals have not always been sufficiently sensitive. And it obscures the fact that Democrats continued to win elections in the South after the 1960s by appealing to populist economic issues—a history that Democrats today should recall before they start “whistling past Dixie.”

Brook’s column, however, is a good example of conservatives’ discomfort with their racial history. Reagan is to modern conservatism what Franklin Roosevelt was to liberalism, so it’s not surprising that Brooks would feel the need to defend him. But Brooks’s throwaway remark that “it’s obviously true that race played a role in the GOP ascent” understates what actually happened.

Throughout his career, Reagan benefited from subtly divisive appeals to whites who resented efforts in the 1960s and 70s to reverse historic patterns of racial discrimination. He did it in 1966 when he campaigned for the California governorship by denouncing open housing and civil rights laws. He did it in 1976 when he tried to beat out Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination by attacking welfare in subtly racist terms. And he did it in Neshoba County in 1980.

Reagan knew that southern Republicans were making racial appeals to win over conservative southern Democrats, and he was a willing participant. Despite what Brooks claims, it’s no slur to hold Reagan accountable for the choice that he made. Neither is it mere partisanship to try to think seriously about the complex ways that white racism has shaped modern conservative politics.


50 years ago today, Ronald Reagan gave a speech that 'changed America forever'

"A Time for Choosing," Ronald Reagan's wildly successful and impactful half hour paid ad for Barry Goldwater, is 50 years old today. As Stevens discovered, the speech almost didn't happen:

Not surprisingly, some around Barry Goldwater thought it was a lousy idea. &ldquoA few days before the speech was scheduled to go on the air,&rdquo Reagan later wrote, &ldquoI got a call from Barry Goldwater. He sounded uneasy and a little uncomfortable. Some of his advisers, Barry said, wanted him to use the airtime that had been purchased for my speech to rebroadcast a videotape of a meeting he&rsquod had at Gettysburg with Ike Eisenhower.&rdquo

Reagan knew the speech worked in front of a Republican audience and was savvy enough in the ways of television to appreciate the awfulness of the proposed replacement. &ldquoI&rsquod seen the film showing Barry&rsquos meeting with Eisenhower at Gettysburg and didn&rsquot think it was all that impressive,&rdquo Reagan wrote in a nice bit of understatement. Reagan made the case for his speech, and Goldwater was persuaded.

Reagan's powerful speech tapped an emotional wellspring in all Americans regardless of party. And GOP heavyweights were astonished when the reaction to the speech resulted in an outpouring of cash for the Goldwater campaign. Election chronicler Theodore H. White recalls in his book "America in Search of Itself" that senior citizens had signed over their Social Security checks to the campaign following the speech. Small donations of $5 or $10 overwhelmed the volunteers charged with counting the money. The Gipper had not only plugged into the American psyche, he had opened their wallets. That, more than anything, convinced the GOP moneymen that Reagan could win the governorship.

Stevens recalls some of the memorable quotes:

It was a deeply contrarian speech when the hope of a &ldquoGreat Society&rdquo was at a peak, when it was still possible to believe we could win decisively in Vietnam and housing projects were a sure stepping stone to a better life.

&ldquoIf government planning and welfare had the answer, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?&rdquo Reagan asked, &ldquoShouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? But the reverse is true. Each year, the need grows great, the program grows greater.&rdquo

All good speeches have a consistent theme, and Reagan&rsquos was mistrust of government and faith in the individual. As he would later prove in sweeping victories, it was a message he believed transcended ideology and party.

&ldquoI believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines,&rdquo he said, reminding the audience of his history as a Democrat. &ldquoYou and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down.&rdquo

Read today, the speech still vibrates with a passionate intensity rarely found in any contemporary political discourse. This wasn&rsquot a focused-grouped, calculated appeal to different constituencies. It was the voice of one man, deeply troubled by the course of his nation. Just as the Gettysburg Address was written without expectation that it would find greatness, Reagan&rsquos speech was not intended to launch a career or a movement. It was a message from the heart.

Also, some good commentary from John Fund at The Corner.

But you don't want to know what I or anyone else thinks of the speech. Make up your own mind about it.

A very nice tribute in the Daily Beast by Stuart Stevens, former Romney advisor and Republican political consultant, to a speech that Stevens says, "changed America."

"A Time for Choosing," Ronald Reagan's wildly successful and impactful half hour paid ad for Barry Goldwater, is 50 years old today. As Stevens discovered, the speech almost didn't happen:

Not surprisingly, some around Barry Goldwater thought it was a lousy idea. &ldquoA few days before the speech was scheduled to go on the air,&rdquo Reagan later wrote, &ldquoI got a call from Barry Goldwater. He sounded uneasy and a little uncomfortable. Some of his advisers, Barry said, wanted him to use the airtime that had been purchased for my speech to rebroadcast a videotape of a meeting he&rsquod had at Gettysburg with Ike Eisenhower.&rdquo

Reagan knew the speech worked in front of a Republican audience and was savvy enough in the ways of television to appreciate the awfulness of the proposed replacement. &ldquoI&rsquod seen the film showing Barry&rsquos meeting with Eisenhower at Gettysburg and didn&rsquot think it was all that impressive,&rdquo Reagan wrote in a nice bit of understatement. Reagan made the case for his speech, and Goldwater was persuaded.

Reagan's powerful speech tapped an emotional wellspring in all Americans regardless of party. And GOP heavyweights were astonished when the reaction to the speech resulted in an outpouring of cash for the Goldwater campaign. Election chronicler Theodore H. White recalls in his book "America in Search of Itself" that senior citizens had signed over their Social Security checks to the campaign following the speech. Small donations of $5 or $10 overwhelmed the volunteers charged with counting the money. The Gipper had not only plugged into the American psyche, he had opened their wallets. That, more than anything, convinced the GOP moneymen that Reagan could win the governorship.

Stevens recalls some of the memorable quotes:

It was a deeply contrarian speech when the hope of a &ldquoGreat Society&rdquo was at a peak, when it was still possible to believe we could win decisively in Vietnam and housing projects were a sure stepping stone to a better life.

&ldquoIf government planning and welfare had the answer, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?&rdquo Reagan asked, &ldquoShouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? But the reverse is true. Each year, the need grows great, the program grows greater.&rdquo

All good speeches have a consistent theme, and Reagan&rsquos was mistrust of government and faith in the individual. As he would later prove in sweeping victories, it was a message he believed transcended ideology and party.

&ldquoI believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines,&rdquo he said, reminding the audience of his history as a Democrat. &ldquoYou and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down.&rdquo

Read today, the speech still vibrates with a passionate intensity rarely found in any contemporary political discourse. This wasn&rsquot a focused-grouped, calculated appeal to different constituencies. It was the voice of one man, deeply troubled by the course of his nation. Just as the Gettysburg Address was written without expectation that it would find greatness, Reagan&rsquos speech was not intended to launch a career or a movement. It was a message from the heart.

Also, some good commentary from John Fund at The Corner.

But you don't want to know what I or anyone else thinks of the speech. Make up your own mind about it.


Contents

The following political leaders were candidates for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination:

Major candidates Edit

These candidates participated in multiple state primaries or were included in multiple major national polls.

Favorite sons Edit

The following candidates ran only in their home state's primary, caucus, or convention. They ran for the purpose of controlling their state's respective delegate slate at the national convention and did not appear to be considered national candidates by the media.

  • Governor Spiro Agnew of Maryland (endorsed Nixon) [4]
  • Governor Dewey F. Bartlett of Oklahoma (endorsed Nixon) [5]
  • Senator Frank Carlson of Kansas[6]
  • Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey[7]
  • Governor Daniel J. Evans of Washington[8]
  • Senator Hiram Fong of Hawaii (endorsed Nixon) [9]
  • Governor Wally Hickel of Alaska (endorsed Nixon)
  • Governor James A. Rhodes of Ohio (endorsed Rockefeller) [10]
  • Governor Raymond P. Shafer of Pennsylvania (endorsed Rockefeller) [11]
  • Senator John Tower of Texas (endorsed Nixon) [1]
  • Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (endorsed Nixon) [12]
  • Governor John Volpe of Massachusetts (endorsed Nixon) [13]

Declined to run Edit

The following persons were listed in two or more major national polls or were the subject of media speculation surrounding their potential candidacy, but declined to actively seek the nomination.

  • Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois
  • Retired Lt. GeneralJames M. Gavin
  • Former Governor John Davis Lodge of Connecticut (endorsed Nixon)
  • Former Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona(Note: Goldwater was already in the midst of what would become a successful comeback bid for the U.S. Senate.)
  • Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon
  • Governor Claude R. Kirk, Jr. of Florida (endorsed Rockefeller)
  • Mayor of New York CityJohn Lindsay (endorsed Rockefeller)
  • Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. of Massachusetts (endorsed Reagan)
  • Senator Thruston Ballard Morton of Kentucky (endorsed Rockefeller)
  • Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois (endorsed Rockefeller)
  • Former Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania
  • Representative Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio

National polling Edit

Before November 1966 Edit

  1. ^ Nixon's official state of residence was New York because he moved there to practice law after his defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial election. During his first term as president, Nixon re-established his residency in California. Consequently, most reliable reference books, including the January 6, 1969 edition of the Congressional Record, list his home state as New York.
  2. ^ Robert Taft Jr. with 4%, Mark Hatfield with 3%, and Charles Percy with 2%
  3. ^ Robert Taft Jr. with 4%, Mark Hatfield and Charles Percy with 2% each
  4. ^ John Lindsay with 5%, Robert Taft Jr. with 3%, Mark Hatfield with 2%, and Charles Percy with 1%
  5. ^ John Lindsay with 3%, Robert Taft Jr. with 3%, Mark Hatfield with 2%, and Charles Percy with 1%
  6. ^ John Lindsay with 2%, Robert Taft Jr. with 2%, Mark Hatfield and Charles Percy with 1% each
  7. ^ John Lindsay with 4%, Robert Taft Jr. with 3%, Mark Hatfield with 2%, and Charles Percy with 1%
  8. ^ John Lindsay with 4%, Robert Taft Jr. with 4%, Charles Percy with 2% and Mark Hatfield with 1%
  9. ^ John Lindsay with 2% and Mark Hatfield with 1%
  10. ^ John Lindsay with 11% and Mark Hatfield with 7%
  11. ^ John Lindsay with 6% and Mark Hatfield with 5%

After November 1966 Edit

  1. ^ Mark Hatfield with 3% and John Lindsay with 2%
  2. ^ This poll was withdrawn from national newspapers by the Gallup organization after allegations of inconsistent methodology.
  3. ^ Mark Hatfield with 3% and John Lindsay with 2%
  4. ^ Mark Hatfield with 4% and John Lindsay with 2%
  5. ^ Mark Hatfield with 3% and John Lindsay with 2%
  6. ^ Mark Hatfield and John Lindsay with 2% each
  7. ^ Charles Percy with 6%, John Lindsay with 3%, and Mark Hatfield with 2%
  8. ^ Mark Hatfield and John Lindsay with 2% each
  9. ^ Mark Hatfield and John Lindsay with 1% each
  10. ^ Mark Hatfield and John Lindsay with 3% each
  11. ^ Mark Hatfield with 2%, John Lindsay and James M. Gavin with 1% each
  12. ^ Mark Hatfield with 2%, John Lindsay with 2%, and James M. Gavin with 1%
  13. ^ John Lindsay with 4%, Mark Hatfield with 1%, and Harold Stassen with 1%

Head-to-head polling Edit

Statewide polling Edit

New Hampshire Edit

Nixon was the front-runner for the Republican nomination and to a great extent the story of the Republican primary campaign and nomination is the story of one Nixon opponent after another entering the race and then dropping out.

Nixon's first challenger was Michigan Governor George W. Romney. A Gallup poll in mid-1967 showed Nixon with 39%, followed by Romney with 25%. However, in a slip of the tongue, Romney told a news reporter that he had been "brainwashed" by the military and the diplomatic corps into supporting the Vietnam War the remark led to weeks of ridicule in the national news media. As the year 1968 opened, Romney was opposed to further American intervention in Vietnam and had decided to run as the Republican version of Eugene McCarthy (The New York Times 2/18/1968). Romney's support slowly faded and he withdrew from the race on February 28, 1968. (The New York Times 2/29/1968).

Nixon won a resounding victory in the important New Hampshire primary on March 12, winning 78% of the vote. Anti-war Republicans wrote in the name of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, the leader of the GOP's liberal wing, who received 11% of the vote and became Nixon's new challenger. Nixon led Rockefeller in the polls throughout the primary campaign. Rockefeller defeated Nixon in the Massachusetts primary on April 30 but otherwise fared poorly in the state primaries and conventions.

By early spring, California Governor Ronald Reagan, the leader of the GOP's conservative wing, had become Nixon's chief rival. In the Nebraska primary on May 14, Nixon won with 70% of the vote to 21% for Reagan and 5% for Rockefeller. While this was a wide margin for Nixon, Reagan remained Nixon's leading challenger. Nixon won the next primary of importance, Oregon, on May 15 with 65% of the vote and won all the following primaries except for California (June 4), where only Reagan appeared on the ballot. Reagan's margin in California gave him a plurality of the nationwide primary vote, but when the Republican National Convention assembled, Nixon had 656 delegates according to a UPI poll (with 667 needed for the nomination).

    – 1,696,632 (37.93%) – 1,679,443 (37.54%) – 614,492 (13.74%) – 164,340 (3.67%) (write-in) – 140,639 (3.14%) (write-in) – 44,520 (1.00%) – 31,655 (0.71%) – 31,465 (0.70%)
  • Others – 21,456 (0.51%) (write-in) – 15,291 (0.34%) (write-in) – 14,524 (0.33%) (write-in) – 5,698 (0.13) (write-in) – 4,824 (0.11%) – 4,447 (0.10%) – 1,223 (0.03%) – 724 (0.02%) – 689 (0.02%) – 598 (0.01%) – 591 (0.01%)

At the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, Reagan and Rockefeller planned to unite their forces in a stop-Nixon movement, but the strategy fell apart when neither man agreed to support the other for the nomination. Nixon won the nomination on the first ballot. Nixon then chose Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew to be his Vice-Presidential candidate, despite complaints from within the GOP that Agnew was an unknown quantity, and that a better-known and more popular candidate, such as Romney, should have been the Vice-Presidential nominee. It was also reported that Nixon's first choice for running mate was his longtime friend and ally, Robert Finch, who was Lt. Governor of California since 1967 and later his HEW Secretary, but Finch declined the offer.


Planned Parenthood Republicans: A Decades-Long History

Trends within politics rarely occur in a vacuum. Instead, they develop within a broader ideological and historical context, which accounts for individual elected officials&rsquo political motivations to this very day. Planned Parenthood, for instance, has always enjoyed the support of a notable component of the Republican Party, especially its moderate or Rockefeller wing, comprised of influential Establishment elitists, internationalists, and environmentalists.

The seven Republicans who voted in favor of retaining federal funding for Planned Parenthood, in addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, all hail from this tradition. Beyond their obvious support for pro-choice causes, these individuals are also characterized by a commitment to centrist policies and fiscal largesse &mdash all indicative of their opposition to the principles of traditional, constitutional government.

Ever since its earliest days, Planned Parenthood has counted among its supporters prominent members of the Republican Party. As early as 1942, Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush (picture, above), grandfather of President George W. Bush, was a supporter of Margaret Sanger&rsquos American Birth Control League, and in 1947, served as the treasurer for the first national campaign for Planned Parenthood. The political repercussions hit hard. Prescott Bush was knocked out of an expected victory for a Senate seat in Connecticut in 1950 after syndicated columnist Drew Pearson declared that it "has been made known" that Bush was a leader in the "Birth Control Society" (the original name of Planned Parenthood was the Birth Control Federation of America). Prescott Bush won a Senate seat two years later, and his son George and daughter-in-law Barbara continued to support Planned Parenthood even after George's election to Congress from Texas. In fact, he was such an advocate for family planning that some House colleagues nicknamed him "Rubbers."

In addition, Prescott&rsquos son George H.W. also supported family planning efforts while serving as a Texas congressman. President George H.W. Bush was best known for his opposition to Ronald Reagan&rsquos supply-side economics, rooted in the free-market ideas of Hayek and Friedman, deriding the conservative Reagan as a proponent of &ldquovoodoo economics.&rdquo He wrote a constituent in 1970: &ldquoI introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.&rdquo ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Although stemming from the opposite wing of the GOP, the Goldwater family of Arizona also supported Planned Parenthood. In his final term in the U.S. Senate, Barry Goldwater adopted a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. Back in 1937, his wife Peggy had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him, also as he personally approved of his daughter Joanne&rsquos illegal abortion in 1955, as recounted in the HBO documentary Mr. Conservative.

When she was in her 30s, Peggy Goldwater met Margaret Sanger and became part of a small group organizing Phoenix's first birth control clinic, called the Mothers' Health Clinic. Mrs. Goldwater developed a very strong commitment to the birth control movement which continued throughout her life. When she died in 1985, the Planned Parenthood Press (Planned Parenthood Arizona's newsletter), lauded her for her commitment to contraceptive access and developed an award in her honor.

Yet another prominent Republican family has a history of supporting Planned Parenthood. Former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential contender Mitt Romney has had a convoluted and revealing history on life issues, as well as in his relationship with Planned Parenthood. In 1994, when Romney first ran for public office, he was observed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts, with his wife Ann, who was seen handing a check for $150 from a joint bank account to Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood Federation.

Romney has flip-flopped egregiously on the question of abortion. In 2002, he announced that he supported a &ldquowoman&rsquos right to choose,&rdquo and in 1994, said he supported Roe v. Wade. Later that year, according to the Boston Herald, he "came down more firmly in the abortion rights camp,&rdquo declaring his support for the "morning after" pill and a federal bill protecting visitors to health clinics from anti-abortion violence. In a debate later that year against Ted Kennedy, Romney said that he had supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro-abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he added.

Later in 2002, Romney claimed he would "preserve and protect" abortion rights in Massachusetts, and told activists from NARAL Pro Choice America that &ldquoyou need someone like me in Washington," according to notes taken by a member of NARAL. NARAL officials interpreted this as a reference to his national political ambitions. In addition, he answered "yes" in a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood in 2002 on whether he would support "efforts to increase access to emergency contraception."

In an interview with On The Issues, Romney straddled the fence, saying: "I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment." (Emphasis added.)

To this day, Planned Parenthood sponsors a special interest group, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, which gives the annual Barry Goldwater Award to a pro-choice Republican elected official of its choosing. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) was the 2009 recipient, and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was the 2008 recipient. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who was endorsed by the group Republican Majority for Choice and was one of seven Republicans to vote for PPFA funding, currently holds Senator Mark Kirk&rsquos former House seat in a left-leaning Chicago suburb. Interestingly, the co-chair of the organization, Randy Moody, was a former chief lobbyist and executive within the ultra-liberal teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA).

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice has been issuing the self-contradictory Barry Goldwater Award since 1995, and almost all of the awardees come from the steady, yet dwindling presence of so-called moderates within the Republican Party, who are proponents of "centrism" and lack a genuine commitment to the principles of limited, constitutional government (which Barry Goldwater upheld throughout his entire life).

Despite his support for "reproductive rights," (the right to have an abortion) Goldwater is nonetheless remembered as a proponent of constitutional conservatism, placing him as an historical and ideological opponent of those who are ironically being honored in his name. Just as Goldwater&rsquos principal adversary was former New York Governor Nelson D. Rockefeller, those who are recipients of this award would have been Goldwater&rsquos political foes in the GOP, as they stem from the party&rsquos "moderate" (neoconservative) wing, as opposed to Goldwater&rsquos Old Right, constitutionalist, free-market, individualist libertarian tradition. That Old Right tradition is espoused by many in the Tea Party today, such as pro-life Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has advocated stricter crackdowns on abortion-on-demand.

The history of the Republican Party, to a degree, is shaped by a long record of GOP icons supporting the pro-abortion, socially-liberal causes of groups including Planned Parenthood. With the unitary exception of Barry Goldwater (whose support of Planned Parenthood was motivated by a libertarian belief in governmental non-involvement in human reproduction), these Planned Parenthood Republicans are also committed to other left-wing causes, such as Mitt Romney's support of universal health carewhen he was Massachusetts governor, affectionately called "RomneyCare." The commitment to the inexorably-linked "seamless garment" of fiscal and social conservatism, championed by figures such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has not always been a paradigm at home in the Republican Party.


GOLDWATER CALLS REAGAN IN ERROR

WASHINGTON, May 2—Senator Barry Goldwater, appearing increasingly worried that the Presidential quest of Ronald Reagan will irreparably divide the Republican Party, charged today that Mr. Reagan did not fully understand the Panama Canal issue he was raising and suggested that the Californian stop talking about it.

“I have to support Ford's position” of renegotiating the canal treaty, the Arizona Republican declared, following Mr. Reagan's defeat of President Ford in the Texas primary yesterday. “I think Reagan would, too, if the knew more about it.”

Senator Goldwater, the Republican Presidential nominee in 1964, had previously absolved former Governor Reagan of responsibility for “divisive” tactics used in his behalf. His comments today were made during an appearance on the NBC‐TV program “Meet the Press.”

Mr. Goldwater said he was not surprised by the Texas result, despite what appeared to he a late surge that led the President to predict on Thursday that he would win.

“To start with, President Ford has no organization in any state that I have been in, and Reagan has a fabulous organization,” the Senator said.

Nomination Forecast

Nonetheless, he said he did not see how the President could be beaten for the nomination nor did he know of any reason why it should be denied him.

Meanwhile, Vice President Rockefeller attributed the Ford defeat in Texas to his failure late last winter to veto a bill allowing only modest and gradual increases in the price of oil and gas.

Mr. Rockefeller recounted that when he was in Texas two months ago the chairman of the state Republican Party told him if the President did not veto the bill he would lose every delegate.

He said he reported this to the President, who replied that the bill was better than nothing and that he would sign it.

“And he did and he lost the election,” Mr. Rockefeller observed in an appearance on ABC's “Issues and Answers” program.

The Vice President, taking a cue from Mr. Ford's Texas stumping, accused Mr. Reagan of misrepresenting issues and relying on simplistic catch phrases.

“I think he is totally deceptive in the way he is raising the issues,” Mr. Rockefeller declared, adding later that Mr. Reagan was “a man who doesn't do his homework on key issues of national security.”

On the Panama Canal, “Mr. Reagan is telling the American people things that are not true,” he charged. “He says that we had the same sovereign rights over Panama that we had over Louisiana. That is a factual misrepresentation.”

In another political comment. Senator Goldwater was asked about the race for the Democratic nomination. He said he did not think Jimmy Carter, the former Georgia Governor, would be the choice. It will go instead to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, he said.

“I listened to his statement of refusal the other day, and if that wasn't filled with handengraved invitations I have never seen one,” the Senator said.

On a third interview program today, CBS's “Face the Nation,” Muhammad Ali, the heavyweight champion, was asked if any of the Presidential candidates had sought his support or if he had any favorites.

No, he said, nobody has sought support from him and he did not intend to vote be cause he did not know enough about politics.

He denied that he previously had meant to endorse Mr. Carter when he said, “There's a certain fellow, I just like his smile.”

Mr. Ali said today, “The only Administration that I really have liked is Ford's.”


Other Pieces You Might Be Interested In

Tuviah Friedman

Tuviah Friedman - Renowned Nazi Hunter and Yad Vashem Director: His Personal, Signed Account of His Audacious Letter to Adolf Eichmann.

James Monroe

From James Monroe, Advice on Life, Philosophy, Personal Habits, Career, and Success

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson Declares the Desired Legacy of His Administration And Wants His Secretary of War to "watch with me to the end"

Thomas Jefferson

A Great Moment in American History The European Wars Reach American Shores

Abraham Lincoln

Just One Week After His Second Election, President Abraham Lincoln Writes of a Loyal, Young Soldier Work: “I shall be very glad if this.

Abraham Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln Appoints One of Grant and Sherman’s Earliest Stalwarts, Who Was With Them Throughout the Vicksburg and.

Queen Elizabeth I

The Queen Mother Celebrates the "strong and serene character" of the New Queen - Her Daughter Elizabeth - After the Very First Public.


Planned Parenthood Republicans: A Decades-Long History

Trends within politics rarely occur in a vacuum. Instead, they develop within a broader ideological and historical context, which accounts for individual elected officials&rsquo political motivations to this very day. Planned Parenthood, for instance, has always enjoyed the support of a notable component of the Republican Party, especially its moderate or Rockefeller wing, comprised of influential Establishment elitists, internationalists, and environmentalists.

The seven Republicans who voted in favor of retaining federal funding for Planned Parenthood, in addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, all hail from this tradition. Beyond their obvious support for pro-choice causes, these individuals are also characterized by a commitment to centrist policies and fiscal largesse &mdash all indicative of their opposition to the principles of traditional, constitutional government.

Ever since its earliest days, Planned Parenthood has counted among its supporters prominent members of the Republican Party. As early as 1942, Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush (picture, above), grandfather of President George W. Bush, was a supporter of Margaret Sanger&rsquos American Birth Control League, and in 1947, served as the treasurer for the first national campaign for Planned Parenthood. The political repercussions hit hard. Prescott Bush was knocked out of an expected victory for a Senate seat in Connecticut in 1950 after syndicated columnist Drew Pearson declared that it "has been made known" that Bush was a leader in the "Birth Control Society" (the original name of Planned Parenthood was the Birth Control Federation of America). Prescott Bush won a Senate seat two years later, and his son George and daughter-in-law Barbara continued to support Planned Parenthood even after George's election to Congress from Texas. In fact, he was such an advocate for family planning that some House colleagues nicknamed him "Rubbers."

In addition, Prescott&rsquos son George H.W. also supported family planning efforts while serving as a Texas congressman. President George H.W. Bush was best known for his opposition to Ronald Reagan&rsquos supply-side economics, rooted in the free-market ideas of Hayek and Friedman, deriding the conservative Reagan as a proponent of &ldquovoodoo economics.&rdquo He wrote a constituent in 1970: &ldquoI introduced legislation earlier this year which would provide federal funds for research in family planning devices and increased services to people who need them but cannot afford them. We must help our young people become aware of the fact that families can be planned and that there are benefits economically and socially to be derived from small families.&rdquo ("George Bush to Mrs. Jim Hunter, Jr., Oct. 23, 1970" [Virginia B. Whitehill Papers, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University].)

Although stemming from the opposite wing of the GOP, the Goldwater family of Arizona also supported Planned Parenthood. In his final term in the U.S. Senate, Barry Goldwater adopted a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. Back in 1937, his wife Peggy had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him, also as he personally approved of his daughter Joanne&rsquos illegal abortion in 1955, as recounted in the HBO documentary Mr. Conservative.

When she was in her 30s, Peggy Goldwater met Margaret Sanger and became part of a small group organizing Phoenix's first birth control clinic, called the Mothers' Health Clinic. Mrs. Goldwater developed a very strong commitment to the birth control movement which continued throughout her life. When she died in 1985, the Planned Parenthood Press (Planned Parenthood Arizona's newsletter), lauded her for her commitment to contraceptive access and developed an award in her honor.

Yet another prominent Republican family has a history of supporting Planned Parenthood. Former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential contender Mitt Romney has had a convoluted and revealing history on life issues, as well as in his relationship with Planned Parenthood. In 1994, when Romney first ran for public office, he was observed attending a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts, with his wife Ann, who was seen handing a check for $150 from a joint bank account to Nicki Nichols Gamble, former president of the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood Federation.

Romney has flip-flopped egregiously on the question of abortion. In 2002, he announced that he supported a &ldquowoman&rsquos right to choose,&rdquo and in 1994, said he supported Roe v. Wade. Later that year, according to the Boston Herald, he "came down more firmly in the abortion rights camp,&rdquo declaring his support for the "morning after" pill and a federal bill protecting visitors to health clinics from anti-abortion violence. In a debate later that year against Ted Kennedy, Romney said that he had supported abortion rights consistently since 1970 when his mother Lenore ran as a pro-abortion rights candidate for the U.S. Senate in Michigan. He linked his support for abortion rights to the death "many years ago" of a "dear, close family relative" following a botched illegal abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he added.

Later in 2002, Romney claimed he would "preserve and protect" abortion rights in Massachusetts, and told activists from NARAL Pro Choice America that &ldquoyou need someone like me in Washington," according to notes taken by a member of NARAL. NARAL officials interpreted this as a reference to his national political ambitions. In addition, he answered "yes" in a questionnaire from Planned Parenthood in 2002 on whether he would support "efforts to increase access to emergency contraception."

In an interview with On The Issues, Romney straddled the fence, saying: "I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don't pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I'd committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment." (Emphasis added.)

To this day, Planned Parenthood sponsors a special interest group, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, which gives the annual Barry Goldwater Award to a pro-choice Republican elected official of its choosing. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) was the 2009 recipient, and now-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was the 2008 recipient. Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), who was endorsed by the group Republican Majority for Choice and was one of seven Republicans to vote for PPFA funding, currently holds Senator Mark Kirk&rsquos former House seat in a left-leaning Chicago suburb. Interestingly, the co-chair of the organization, Randy Moody, was a former chief lobbyist and executive within the ultra-liberal teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA).

Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice has been issuing the self-contradictory Barry Goldwater Award since 1995, and almost all of the awardees come from the steady, yet dwindling presence of so-called moderates within the Republican Party, who are proponents of "centrism" and lack a genuine commitment to the principles of limited, constitutional government (which Barry Goldwater upheld throughout his entire life).

Despite his support for "reproductive rights," (the right to have an abortion) Goldwater is nonetheless remembered as a proponent of constitutional conservatism, placing him as an historical and ideological opponent of those who are ironically being honored in his name. Just as Goldwater&rsquos principal adversary was former New York Governor Nelson D. Rockefeller, those who are recipients of this award would have been Goldwater&rsquos political foes in the GOP, as they stem from the party&rsquos "moderate" (neoconservative) wing, as opposed to Goldwater&rsquos Old Right, constitutionalist, free-market, individualist libertarian tradition. That Old Right tradition is espoused by many in the Tea Party today, such as pro-life Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has advocated stricter crackdowns on abortion-on-demand.

The history of the Republican Party, to a degree, is shaped by a long record of GOP icons supporting the pro-abortion, socially-liberal causes of groups including Planned Parenthood. With the unitary exception of Barry Goldwater (whose support of Planned Parenthood was motivated by a libertarian belief in governmental non-involvement in human reproduction), these Planned Parenthood Republicans are also committed to other left-wing causes, such as Mitt Romney's support of universal health carewhen he was Massachusetts governor, affectionately called "RomneyCare." The commitment to the inexorably-linked "seamless garment" of fiscal and social conservatism, championed by figures such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has not always been a paradigm at home in the Republican Party.


How the “Daisy” Ad Changed Everything About Political Advertising

On September 7, 1964, a 60-second TV ad changed American politics forever. A 3-year-old girl in a simple dress counted as she plucked daisy petals in a sun-dappled field. Her words were supplanted by a mission-control countdown followed by a massive nuclear blast in a classic mushroom shape. The message was clear if only implicit: Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was a genocidal maniac who threatened the world’s future. Two months later, President Lyndon Johnson won easily, and the emotional political attack ad—visceral, terrifying, and risky—was made.

Related Content

Half a century later, we live in the world of negative political advertising that Daisy Girl pioneered, but there are some curious aspects to the story. First, though it is a famous ad, Daisy Girl, as the ad is known, only ran once. Secondly, it didn’t even mention Goldwater’s name. And finally, by the time the ad ran, Goldwater’s chances against LBJ were slim, even though the ad is often falsely credited with assuring the win. And there were two dozen other ads from LBJ’s camp—humorous, informative, dark, and neurotic. Daisy became the iconic spot of its era not because it was the first Johnson ran in 1964 we remember it primarily because of its brilliant, innovative approach to negative advertising. 

Daisy and the other ads were made by Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB), an eclectic group of ad men at a medium-sized Madison Avenue firm with a stellar reputation for groundbreaking campaigns for Volkswagen and Avis. They didn’t set out to revolutionize political advertising what they wanted to do was to break the established rules of political ads—then dominated by stodgy 30-minute speeches mixed with shorter policy-focused spots—by injecting creativity and emotion.

Bill Bernbach, the firm’s principal founder, had long maintained advertising was an art, not a science. He favored intuition. He often reminded his employees, “Playing it safe can be the most dangerous thing in the world, because you’re presenting people with an idea they’ve seen before, and you won’t have an impact.”

Famously dismissive of advertising driven purely by research, Bernbach had written a revolutionary memo in 1947 that laid out the philosophy that would eventually characterize his firm’s work. “Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art,” he brashly told his then-employer, Grey Advertising. “It’s that creative spark that I’m so jealous of for our agency and that I am so desperately fearful of losing. I don’t want academicians. I don’t want scientists. I don’t want people who do the right things. I want people who do inspiring things.”

Inspired by Bernbach’s philosophy of relying upon instinct as much or more than research, DDB produced an extraordinary and memorable series of spots for Johnson. The firm capitalized upon Goldwater’s reckless statements by providing viewers with indelible images. DDB mocked Goldwater’s vote against the nuclear test ban treaty with a spot showing nothing but a girl licking an ice cream cone as a female announcer spoke ominously about the fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing and how it might enter the food supply.

Goldwater had once bragged that the nation might be “better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.” So, DBB served up a humorous 60-second spot of a saw slicing the East Coast from a Styrofoam model of the United States. In another spot, DDB mocked Goldwater's statement about privatizing Social Security by showing a pair of hands ripping up a Social Security card.

Viewers had never seen anything like this. It’s not that previous presidential campaigns had only been polite affairs. Dwight Eisenhower ran negative TV spots against his Democratic opponent, Adlai Stevenson, in 1952, subtly tying him to alleged corruption in Truman administration officials. Stevenson’s spots attacked Eisenhower in 1956. John F. Kennedy attacked Richard Nixon’s record as vice president in the 1960 campaign. Goldwater’s attacks against Johnson in 1964 were unrelenting. In almost every case, however, the attacks were rational, fact-based arguments. DDB’s innovation was not negative advertising, per se. It was, rather, to help make emotions (primarily, fear) a staple of political spots. By 1968, political ads—by other agencies—were also transformed.

Even the spot itself was something of a DDB innovation. Before 1964, political campaigns had used 30- and 60-second spots, but not exclusively. Instead, campaigns, including Goldwater’s, pre-empted regular programming with dry, 30-minute speeches or campaign documentaries by candidates. Under DDB’s direction, Johnson’s campaign aired nothing but 30- or 60-second spots, with the exception of two four-minute commercials, including the “Confessions of a Republican” ad (which went viral recently) purporting to show that even Republicans found Goldwater uncomfortably extreme.

DDB broke another rule by recognizing that Goldwater was such a widely known figure that voters needed no education about him. They didn’t have to remind viewers that Goldwater himself had joked about lobbing a missile into the men’s room of the Kremlin. Or that he had written that the U.S. should not fear war with the Soviets. Or that he would give NATO commanders authority to use nuclear weapons without prior presidential authorization. Or that he had declared the nuclear bomb “merely another weapon.” America knew he voted against the Civil Right Act and that, at the GOP convention in July 1964, Goldwater even branded himself an “extremist.” So DDB never once had to mention Goldwater’s name in Daisy. It only had to find viewers’ emotional trigger.

Put another way, the firm believed that viewers should not be given too much information to put their minds and emotions to work. And Daisy Girl’s DNA has continued to provide instructions for today’s political advertising: Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 “Bear” spot  used the animal to symbolize the Soviet Union without explicitly making the association. In 2004, Bush’s campaign skillfully employed the same technique with a spot that used wolves to symbolize al Qaeda.

Voting is not a purely rational act. As the late journalist Joe McGinnis observed, it’s a “psychological purchase” of a candidate. It’s often no less rational than buying a car or a house. DDB understood that arguing with voters would be a losing proposition. To persuade someone, especially in the political realm, a campaign must target emotions. Voters don’t oppose a candidate because they dislike his or her policies they often oppose the policies because they dislike the candidate.

Reagan’s optimistic 1984 “Morning in America” spot was a good example of this kind of appeal. So was George H.W. Bush’s dark, fear-inducing “Revolving Door” spot in 1988 that exploited the controversy over a prison furlough program of his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis. Bernie Sanders’ “America” spot is a current example. They are all very different ads, but are aimed at generating a non-rational, emotional response.

DDB also believed that giving data and facts was less persuasive than telling a story. The best spots provide an experience. In addition to evoking emotions and not repeating what the viewer already knew, many of the DDB spots from 1964 had a narrative arc to them. A good example in 1964 was a Johnson spot reminding viewers of the many harsh attacks on Goldwater by his former GOP opponents. The gold standard for subsequent spots in this genre may be Bill Clinton’s 60-second “Journey” spot from 1992, in which he touted his small-town American values by recounting his childhood in Hope, Arkansas.

Early in his career Bernbach perceived that although research had its place in persuasion, there was something more—something completely unquantifiable: “The truth isn’t the truth until people believe you and they can’t believe you if they don’t know what you’re saying and they can’t know what you’re saying if they don’t listen to you and they won’t listen to you if you’re not interesting. And you won’t be interesting unless you say things freshly, originally, imaginatively.”

For better or worse, the Daisy ad made emotions a much more potent weapon in our political campaigns, employing techniques that had previously only been applied to selling cars and soap. The next innovation, already with us to some degree, is nano-targeted TV spots, which will resemble the ads we see on the web but will be on TV. Soon, working with cable providers, candidates will offer up messages specially crafted for certain viewers. Five different people watching the same program might each see a different spot from the same candidate.

Meanwhile, social media has injected campaigns’ storytelling into communication between friends. Without Daisy, would the Facebook flame wars of Trump and Bernie fans have the same raucous fervor? But as campaigning moves further into the virtual world of computers and algorithms, it must overcome a paradox: Now, as then, the best ad campaign has a soul—and that’s something a computer or a poll can’t create for any candidate.


Ronald Reagan and 'A Time for Choosing'

Times reporter Maeve Reston noted that Reagan gave the televised speech in October 1964 on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and I thought it would be interesting to explore some of the details. The Times was a stalwart Republican paper in this era and endorsed Goldwater for president, so it seemed likely that there might be some coverage of Reagan’s speech.

My research found that if the address has become one the landmarks of Reagan’s political career, it certainly didn’t start out that way.

In fact, The Times’ clips and other news sources show that for nearly two years before his televised address, Reagan had been delivering a speech on the theme of “A Time for Choosing” to business and political groups.   Given the time references in the televised version (“Senator Humphrey last week…”) , it’s evident that Reagan revised the work and I will defer to Reagan scholars to compare drafts of the speech, although I imagine it would be a fascinating project.

The earliest reference I found in The Times was a July 7, 1963, story which noted that Reagan was to deliver an address titled “A Time for Choosing” to local Realtors at the Long Beach Arena.

A March 16, 1964, item said that Reagan would give “A Time for Choosing” at a meeting of the San Marino Republican Women’s Club. And on Aug. 5, 1964, Reagan gave "A Time for Choosing" at the Sunset Young Republican Club, which was meeting at the Smith Bros. Fish Shanty in Beverly Hills. Although we must assume the speech had not yet assumed its final form, none of these Reagan appearances resulted in a story in The Times. 

Looking beyond The Times' clips, a search of Google’s news archive shows that according to the Deseret News and Telegram, Reagan delivered a speech referring to “a time for choosing” to a convention of the American National Cattlemen's Assn. in January 1963 and a speech by Reagan bearing that title was published in the Savings and Loan Annals of 1963.

All of this would firmly establish that Reagan began formulating this speech in the John F. Kennedy era rather than the Lyndon Johnson administration.  This should not come as a complete surprise as Reagan, although a Democrat, supported Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential race (The Times, Nov. 4, 1960). 

When Reagan stepped before the camera to deliver “A Time for Choosing,” the polls showed Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

The Times TV section for the week of Oct. 25, 1964, was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on what was to become Reagan’s legendary speech. Indeed, the Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC featuring David Frost.

But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC-TV Channel 4 announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign: “A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan. 

The day after the address was broadcast, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

On Nov. 3, 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide. Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign had not whetted his appetite for public office. Running as a Republican candidate "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."

“A Time for Choosing” was published as a pamphlet in 1964. Worldcat lists it as being in two libraries.

The polls in late October 1964 showed Lyndon Johnson holding a strong lead over Goldwater (a post-election poll found that Republican voters considered Goldwater “as much a radical as a genuine conservative”).

Oct. 25, 1964: It’s certain that The Times TV section was more focused on Mr. Magoo’s Halloween than on Reagan’s speech. The Sunday listings show that the time slot was originally scheduled for “That Was the Week That Was,” or TW3,  a satire on the week’s events from the BBC that featured David Frost. But late on Monday, Oct. 26, KNBC announced that the show was being preempted by a half-hour political ad for the Goldwater campaign.

On Oct. 27, 1964, at 9:30 p.m., Los Angeles viewers had the choice of “Petticoat Junction,” “Peyton Place,” “Expedition -- Man's First Winter at the South Pole," Ansel Adams, bullfights … or “A Time for Choosing.”

The next day, Reagan went back to his regular life, scheduled for an appearance at the West Coast premiere of “My Fair Lady” and hosting “Death Valley Days,” a TV show about tales of the old West sponsored by Boraxo, a soap company.

The only recognition in The Times of Reagan’s televised speech was by Hedda Hopper, who mentioned it near the end of her column on Oct. 30, 1964.

Nov. 2, 1964: Reagan delivers “A Time for Choosing” once more, on the radio, before the election.

Nov. 4, 1964: A somber mood at the Cocoanut Grove, where Republicans gathered to watch election results and saw Goldwater defeated in a landslide. 

Despite the prevailing gloom, Reagan found a reason to be optimistic: "Sure, we didn't expect this . but take a look at the figure on our side and remember every one (vote) represents a conservative we didn't have when we started out."

Reagan said shortly after the election that his experience with the Goldwater campaign left him with no desire for politics. Running as a Republican candidate for office "has never appealed to me," he said. Asked if he could spurn a strong Republican request to run for office, Reagan replied, "I hope I could turn it down."


Watch the video: Ο Θ. Πάγκαλος για τη Θάτσερ


Comments:

  1. Rendor

    You are mistaken. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM.

  2. Grindan

    I apologise, there is an offer to go on other way.

  3. Kajir

    What words ... The phenomenal phrase, admirable

  4. Derell

    I consider, that you are mistaken. I can prove it. Email me at PM, we will discuss.

  5. Mathias

    In my opinion you are mistaken.Write to me in PM, we will communicate.



Write a message