Pages

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1979-All Star Game-National League @ American League: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Playing an all-star baseball game at a football stadium. The Kingdome despite being fairly close to the action for baseball and a very loud stadium for both baseball and football, was basically a football stadium, because of its size, sixty-five thousand seats for football. And in the high fifty-thousands for baseball, but this was a great game. Where Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Dave Parker who was a five- tool player up until the mid 1980s, throws out a baserunner from the outfield wall unassisted. Perhaps the best defensive play in MLB All Star game history.
For all the talk about this game being a slugfest with the lineups that both teams had and the stadium they were playing at, this game could’ve been played at Shea Stadium in New York, or Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, Kaufmann Stadium in Kansas City. Because this was a pitchers duel with the Americans beating the Nationals 3-2. Goes to show you that great pitching, especially when that great pitching throws hard with control, will beat great hitting. Especially if those great hitters are expecting a big game because of the ballpark that they are playing at.

Canadian Blaster: NASL 1979- Semifinal-Vancouver Whitecaps @ New York Cosmos: Overtime

Source:Canadian Blaster- The Vancouver Whitecaps and New York Cosmos from 1979.

"In what many consider to be the greatest match in the history of the original North American Soccer League, this is ABC's broadcast of the second leg of the 1979 National Soccer Conference final between the Vancouver Whitecaps and the defending NASL champion New York Cosmos.

This match was held at the now-demolished Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Vancouver had taken the first leg of the NSC final in Vancouver by a score of 2-0. For the Cosmos to advance to the Soccer Bowl, they would have to win this leg, then win a 30-minute 'mini-game' after that.

This video shows the conclusion of the match, which included the conclusion of the extra time period and the NASL shootout to decide the winner.

As it turned out, the 30-minute 'mini-game' would indeed be needed, and even that had its own extra time period and subsequent NASL shootout following it.

The announcers calling the match are Jim McKay and Paul Gardner, with Verne Lundquist on the sideline.

This video is intended for entertainment purposes only and no infringement of any kind is intended."  


"There seems to be little disagreement (famous last words) among fans of the original NASL that the greatest game in that league’s 17 seasons was the second leg of the 1979 semifinal between the New York Cosmos and the Vancouver Whitecaps.

That this bitter rivalry produced a heated battle was no surprise. There had been bad blood between the Cosmos and the Whitecaps throughout the 1979 season, including a fight that had seen four players sent off, and it continued into the first game of their semifinal series, a 2-0 victory for Vancouver at Empire Stadium in Vancouver.

The spark that set off the trouble in that game was the second Vancouver goal, on a breakaway by Trevor Whymark. The Cosmos felt that the goal should have been disallowed for offside. Carlos Alberto led the Cosmos’ futile protest against the goal, and the atmosphere wasn’t helped any when Andranik Eskandarian was red carded after taking a run at a Vancouver player. Then, in the tunnel leading to the locker rooms after the game, Carlos Alberto got into an altercation with an official that, according to the league reports, included spitting on him."  

Source:US Soccer History- The New York Cosmos and Vancouver Whitecaps from 1979. 

From US Soccer History

One of the best played soccer games in both American and Canadian history. I’m not a soccer expert American or otherwise and at best a casual soccer fan. I do have some appreciation for the sport, but do not follow it closely. But I do know this was one of the best games in soccer history between these two countries. Because of the two teams that were involved, how evenly matched they were and the fact that either team could’ve won it. 

American soccer needs more games like this and need more Americanized rules as well to bring more Americans fans in to today’s MLS. Which is something that the NASL understood 30-40 years ago which is why they were able to draw baseball and football size crowds to their games. And not stuck 15-10 thousand attendance and that would be good crowds for todays MLS. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

American Throwback- NBC Sports: NFL 1979-NFL 79 Pregame Show, 10/14/79




The New Orleans Saints starting to look like contenders in 1979 finally drafting well and had a good head coach in Ted Nolan to get this team to play well and even make a playoff run in 1979. But falling short of their first winning season and playoff appearance finishing 8-8.

The 1970s Saints didn’t fail to make the NFC Playoffs or even have a winning season, because of their quarterback Archie Manning. As Archie said on this show, a quarterback is only as good as his talent. A lot of that is true, but great quarterbacks have done well and even great with average or above average talent. John Elway with the Denver Broncos comes to mind very fast. But the Saints up until the late 1970s didn’t even have average talent around Archie on offense. They had a lot of players that most other teams didn’t want and who didn’t play very long in the NFL.

Eagles Nest: Video: CBS Sports: NFL 1978-Week-12-Miracle at The Meadowlands-Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

There are games that can send mediocre teams to the playoffs and end seasons for teams that may think they are good and are in the playoff race. And 1978 Miracle at The Meadowlands is that game, because both teams were still in the NFC Playoff race at this point, but basically had to win this game. Especially the Giants at 5-6, or have to win out and probably get help from other teams to get the fifth and last playoff spot in the NFC. The Eagles-Giants rivalry is one of the oldest and best in the NFL, top 3-5 and has had a lot of staple games. But when you lose or win a game where the team that is leading late in the game, only has to run out the clock with victory formation and they blow that and fumble the ball instead, that becomes the staple game of this great rivalry.



Saturday, November 23, 2013

The Film Archives: U.S. Representative Bob Dornan: 'Gets His Words in a One-Minute Speech Stricken Down in 1995'

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Representative Bob Dornan (Republican, California) they didn't call Bob Dornan B-One Bob for nothing: he was a right-wing bomb thrower.

"Robert Kenneth "Bob" Dornan (born April 3, 1933) is a Republican and former member of the United States House of Representatives from California and a vocal advocate of pro-life and social conservative causes.

A boisterous former actor and television talk show host, Dornan had a flair for the dramatic that drew him supporters and detractors well beyond his congressional districts. Though never a major power in Washington, he became one of the most well-known members of the House of Representatives and has been described as "one of the leading firebrands among American politicians."

In 1995, he received a minor reprimand from the House for stating in a floor speech that President Bill Clinton had "given aid and comfort to the enemy" during the Vietnam War. In 1996, Dornan ran for President of the United States, using his campaign primarily as a vehicle to continue to criticize Clinton. In a GOP debate in Iowa on January 13, Dornan called Clinton a "criminal" and a "pathological liar." When asked why voters should choose Dornan over his Republican rivals to challenge Clinton in the general election, he argued that he had more children and grandchildren than the others, with only Richard Lugar coming anywhere near him on that score...  


Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called ‘B One Bob’ for nothing" he had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought. 

Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber, or Kamikaze Bomber,  because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did. 

B-One Bob also had an overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997. 

Bob Dornan’s approach is very well-suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress, even in the House of Representatives, where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

The Young Turks: -Cenk Uygur- 'President Obama Sets Bear Trap, Republicans Walk Right Into It'


Source:The Young Turks- Fox News, talking about President Barack Obama.
"Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, where he called on Congress to end discriminatory workplace practices that "belong in a Mad Men episode" Fox News host Martha MacCallum proclaimed on the program American's Newsroom that women did not want special laws ensuring equal for equal work because they already were compensated "exactly what they're worth." On the Fox program, two men, liberal radio host Alan Colmes and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, debated equal pay for women. Carlson assertedthat women actually made more than men if the time they "voluntarily" took off work to raise children was factored in. "The numbers don't lie," he insisted...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

The current Republican governing policy is, “if Democrats are for it, we are against it, even if we are for it, or were once in favor of it”. And even offered it in health care reform a perfect example of that where the Affordable Care Act actually has a lot of good conservative ideas like the health care mandate and the health care market place in it. Which is the main reason why there hasn’t been much compromise in Congress between the House and Senate because when Democrats say okay we’ll agree to that, the House GOP just moves the ball further to get more compromises.

Then instead of Republicans saying okay let’s do that, Republicans just move the ball and say well, “if Democrats are willing to give us this, we can get them to give us this as well and hold off on a deal”. The deficit reduction negotiations are a perfect example of this where Democrats have put entitlement reform on the table and what Republicans is do is to say well, “if they will do that, then they’ll take exactly what type of entitlement reform we are interested in”. Like cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees or cutting benefits to current beneficiaries.

The only goal Republicans have right now is absolute power. And to accomplish this, they need to hold onto the House and 2014 and retake the Senate in 2014. To give them a united Republican Congress and to win back the White House in 2016 as well. While hanging onto Congress and the hard right partisan Republicans in the House and Senate have one clear strategy. “If Democrats are for it, it must be a bad idea even if it is our idea. So we are only going to put policies that are as far to the right as possible to get our partisan right-wing base behind us to avoid primary challenges”.

Which leaves us with gridlock when you have the Republican Leadership saying no to anything that the Democratic Leadership especially in the Senate and White House say yes to. Because now Democrats are in a position where they are only negotiating with themselves. Trying to find more moderate members in Congress to go along with some of these more conservative ideas in broader packages, while not losing any of their more, well lets say progressive members. Instead of negotiating with their own caucus’ in the House and Senate, along with Congressional Republicans. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

Roger Sharp Archive: ABC News Late Wrapup of The Ruby-Oswald Shooting

Source:Roger Sharp Archive- ABC News anchor Roger Sharp, anchoring ABC News's coverage of the JFK Assassination.

"Following the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, ABC Correspondent Roger Sharp anchors late coverage recapping the events of the day.  Features Correspondent Bill Lord in the field. (November 24, 1963)"  
ABC News was still not a major news operation yet. CBS News was the biggest TV news division at this point at least in America. Thanks to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. And NBC News with Meet The press and the Huntley Brinkley Report was its closest competitor at this point. But ABC News did the best job that they could even being buried in the ratings and with limited resources. And this like with CBS News and NBC News was the biggest story they ever had. I can honestly say I don’t believe Jack Ruby shooting and killing Lee Oswald was a bad thing and no I don’t consider it murder. Because of course Oswald hadn’t been convicted of assassinating President John F. Kennedy yet. But he is obviously the shooter of Jack Kennedy, the man who assassinated JFK. And he would’ve been convicted of that crime.
You can also see this post at The Daily Post on Blogger. (No pun intended)

Friday, November 22, 2013

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: 'Mark Shields and David Brooks Look At Impact of Senate's Rule Change'

Source:PBS NewsHour- syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House."  

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss their takes on Senate Democrats' move to invoke the "nuclear option" and how that rule change will affect partisanship. They also look back at how President John F. Kennedy shaped public service in America."  

From the PBS NewsHour

As I said yesterday, Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used by saying: 

“Even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts, based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now."

Senate Republicans were not blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not, which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. 

Again Leader Harry Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while. (But stranger things have happened) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Thom Hartmann: Video: We Are Subsidizing Low Wage Employers!



Here’s an idea. Instead of having taxpayers who mostly work in the middle class be forced to subsidize low-income workers for their food, housing and health care, instead penalize employers who pay their employees so low, that they need to collect public assistance from taxpayers in order to survive. Eat, housing, health care and so-forth, instead of subsidizing low-wages in this country. And tell employers the money we are now paying for Food Assistance, Public Housing and health insurance, they can get that back if they train their low-income workers so they can get a better job even in their company. Or somewhere else and not have to collect from public assistance at all.

What taxpayers are doing now and again mostly in the middle class, is being forced to make up the difference in income that employers do not pay their low-income workforce. Because these low-income workers whether they work or at Wal-Mart, or for a fast food chain, do not make enough money to cover their housing, groceries and health insurance. They have to get that money from taxpayers instead of their employer so they have what they need to survive. Along with the corporate welfare and paying corporations to send their jobs oversees. When these employers have more than enough resources to pay their employees what they need for the basic necessities. Not so they are rich or even middle class, but so they can afford their rent, their groceries and their health insurance.

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Why JFK Still Matters

Los Angeles Times: Editorial Board: Why JFK Still Matters

I’m a Liberal Democrat because of Jack Kennedy, the more I read and watch about him, the more I like about the man. At least when it comes to his politics and it was really just his slow move to finally come out in favor of civil rights for all Americans and not just Caucasian-Americans that I give him mediocre marks. As opposed to the marks I give him when it comes to economic and foreign policy and even when it came to the safety net and public assistance in America. Where he saw the role of these programs was to empower the less-fortunate to be able to get on their feet and was a big believer in job training and education.

And if you are a Center-Left Liberal-Democrat such as myself, there are plenty of reasons to like Jack Kennedy. Because he represented the potential of American liberalism and what it could do for people. Not how it could expand government especially the Federal Government, but what it could do for people to be able to take charge of their own lives and be able to live in freedom at home. Which is what liberalism actually is rather, than being what government can do to run people’s live for them.
In many ways Bill Clinton represented Jack Kennedy had JFK lived and finished out his presidency.

Because then Governor Clinton when he was running for president in 1992 spoke in terms like, “there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed with what is right with America”. Rather than speaking in terms of doom and gloom which is how Democrats were stereotyped in this era. Bill Clinton represented a positive approach into the future of America about how to make an already great county a more perfect union that benefits more if not all Americans.

Before this Democrats were seen as negative all the time “and how can we make America look bad and we need to become like Europe and stop pretending to be something that we aren’t.” And I believe President Clinton got this positive forward-looking view of America to make it a more perfect union from President Kennedy who is also one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes. Jack Kennedy represented the next generation of Liberal Democrats that was moving pass the Progressive Era and the New Deal and looking for ways to make government work for the people who need it to live better lives.

JFK wanted all Americans to be able to live in freedom. Instead of having a new agenda of social insurance programs designed to take care of people. Jack Kennedy wanted all Americans to live in freedom instead and be able to take care of themselves. And had President Kennedy lived, we do not get a Great Society of new social insurance programs. But more of what Bill Clinton was in favor of an Opportunity Society for more Americans to be able to live in freedom.

The American Conservative: Opinion- Gene Healy- John F. Kennedy Was No Conservative

Source: The American Conservative: Opinion- Gene Healy- John F. Kennedy Was no Conservative

Damn I found something that I agree with Conservative-Libertarian Gene Healy on. Jack Kennedy was no Conservative and I we completely agree. And you can say he was moderate on some things like his late entry for pushing for civil rights legislation. But the fact is if you are a real Conservative or Liberal, you do not believe in legal discrimination based on race. And Jack Kennedy was always in favor of civil rights legislation, including voting rights legislation. But had a more moderate approach before the summer of 1963 in how to get those bill through Congress.

Because he knew the uphill battles he would have and the political capital he would need to spend before being reelected in 1964, because of the power of the Southern Neo-Confederate Democrats. And a lot of these men in Congress were basically racists who had no interest in passing this legislation. Whether you agree with the Kennedy Administration’s strategy on that or not, that was what it was about. But he was always in favor of those bills but was slow to come out in favor of them.

As far as President Kennedy being in favor of tax cuts and a strong, but limited national defense. This is in the liberal democratic tradition that today’s so-called Progressives and today’s overly partisan right-wingers do not understand, or want to acknowledge. Because they both want liberalism to be seen as soft, dovish and about big government spending programs for the people. And giving them so-called free stuff and having a big centralize federal state deeply involved in the economy and in people’s lives for our own good.

Because today’s so-called Progressives and hyper partisans on the Right, want Liberals to be viewed as people who view private and individual power as dangerous. But it is the type of tax cuts and why President Kennedy wanted a large tax cut that made this policy liberal as well. Because the tax cuts that yes were across the board, but that were designed to benefit middle class families. And also cut a lot of wasteful tax loopholes in them to pay for them and to have a cleaner tax code that was more beneficial to everyone.

There are liberal tax cuts and there are conservative tax cuts and to a certain extent there are even progressive tax cuts. But in the classical progressive tradition like the Earned Income Tax Credit. That even President Ronald Reagan was in favor of. Three out of the last five tax cuts were signed into law by Democratic presidents. Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and just one more reason that made Jack Kennedy a Liberal Democrat. Because he believed in tax cuts that benefited middle class families and believed in individual power and freedom that benefited the many. As opposed to the few and a strong, but limited national defense that was based on defending America, not trying to govern the world.



New America: The Weekly Wonk: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists

New America: The Weekly Wonk: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I disagree with this blog from the New America Foundation the author of it Mark Schmitt. Liberal Democrats have a clear agenda and clear proposals coming from President Obama who is a Liberal Democrat, at least on economic policy, even though he comes up short when it comes to civil liberties and the War on Drugs. But President Obama has clear liberal leanings when it comes to economic policy. And has had a liberal economic agenda since becoming President of the United States.

And Senate Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since taking control of the Senate when Democrats won took back Congress back in 2007. And House Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since they took back the House in 2007 as well. And so have liberal or progressive governors at the state levels as well. And it’s just that these policies and agenda have been blocked in many ways by a partisan Senate Republican minority that has only had one goal since losing the Senate in 2006. Win back the Senate.

Senate Republicans believe the only way to win back the Senate is through obstructionism and make Senate Democrats and President Obama look like they can’t govern. And House Republicans winning back the House in 2010 have only made these problems even worst for Democrats. Liberal Democrats aren’t out of ideas when it comes to economic policy. And neither are Republicans, it just that Republicans have a lot of bad ideas right now that aren’t gaining in popularity.

But the liberal democratic economic agenda is built around building an economy. Where everyone has the opportunity and good opportunities to succeed in life and doing a lot of this through the private sector. With the Federal Government laying out priorities and goals for building this economy. By empowering people who need it to be able to move ahead on their own. President Obama’s and other Liberal Democrats economic agenda is pretty clear.

Investing in around a trillion dollars in new infrastructure investment to rebuild this country. Which would create millions of private sector jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries.
A national energy policy designed to move America to energy independence by investing in American energy resources and investing in all of them so we can get off of foreign oil in the future.
Comprehensive immigration reform to bring in new workers with the skills to do the jobs we need done. And to bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and have them pay the taxes they owe. So American citizens do not have to pay as much in taxes.

Education and job training especially for our low-skilled adults so they can get themselves good jobs. And become members of the middle class and not need public assistance in the future.
Tax reform to encourage more economic investment inside the United States and that even includes lower corporate taxes on investments in the United States. And closing wasteful corporate welfare. Today’s so-called Progressives though seem to hate the notion of lowering corporate taxes inside the United States, even if that means cutting corporate welfare.

It’s not that Liberal Democrats are out of economic ideas and ways to expand the American economy. But we do not have the power that we need to put our agenda through right now. And are dealing with a Republican opposition that has taken the, “our way or no way approach to economic policy.” And only having one goal of retaining control of the U.S. House, winning back the U.S. Senate. To set up a Republican winning back the White House in 2016.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Andrew Kaczynski: 'When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) talking about changing the Senate filibuster in 2005.

"When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster"  

From Andrew Kaczynski

Newsflash: there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating (and the ten percent are probably comatose or living oversees right now) because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. 

And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. 

The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power to the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and when to debate them. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

C-SPAN: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid- 'Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about the Senate filibuster, in 2005.

"Harry Reid: Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees. Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05."  

From Filibuster Flashback

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. 

But whoever is against  the Senate filibuster (when they're in the majority) is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. 

One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy, as well as long so-called work vacations, getting paid while not working  and perhaps a few other things, but Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

The Daily Beast: Congress: Ben Jacobs: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

The Daily Beast: Congress: Ben Jacobs: Harry Reid Goes Nuclear on Filibusters

Just to be perfectly clear, the Senate filibuster on executive and lower judicial nominations, meaning non-Supreme Court appointments to the federal bench have been removed from possible future filibuster challenges. Which means President Barack Obama and any other future president from either party, as long as the rule is in place, will be able to get their executive administration nominees through with just fifty-one votes. And if their party is in the Senate majority and they have a clear majority and their Senate caucus is united, the president will get their non-Supreme Court nominees through all the time.

Unless the president has bipartisan opposition against their appointments and they are clearly unqualified and both sides see that. Which is what happened to President Bush in his second term. But as long as the president has his party behind him or possibly her in the near future, the president Democrat or Republican will get their executive nominees through. Generally speaking I’m against this for both political, but also practical reasons. Because this means in the future if the Republican Party ever figures out how to win back the White House and stops nominating Far-Right Neo-Confederates to run for the Senate in swing states, they’ll get their nominees through all the time.

And that even means some pretty bad ones as President Bush did send up. But under the circumstances Senate Leader Harry Reid did the right thing, because not only were qualified nominees being denied even a vote on the Senate floor, like U.S. Representative Mell Watt, who I believe to serve run the Federal Housing Administration, the first sitting Member of Congress to be blocked because of a Senate filibuster in eighty-years to serve in the Executive Branch, but it was how these nominees have been blocked.

Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, probably the lead strategist for the Republicans when it comes to blocking President Obama’s nominees, but it was how they were blocked. With Senate Republicans changing the rules and debate in how they obstruct. The advise and consent tradition in the Senate is pretty simple and clear.

The President nominates people to serve in his administration or to a court. The Senate gets to decide almost always by majority rule whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Not whether a particular senator would nominate that person or whether they believe that agency, office or court should exist. Or whether this is the right time to fill that vacancy or not. But whether the nominee is qualified for the job or not. Senate Republicans have gone way past that.
Senate Republicans have changed advise and consent to, “we’ll decide we the minority party in the

U.S. Senate when the President of the United States can appoint people to his administration or a court. Based on whether or not we believe that office or agency should even exist or not and if this is the right time to fill that position”. And Senator Grassley has been very clear about this and this was the main argument. That Senate Republicans used to block nominees to the Washington, DC federal court, because they believe that court didn’t need new judges right now.

The hypocrisy in this debate from both sides is pretty clear from both sides. Senate Republicans were against filibustering executive nominees before they were for it. And now Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering executive nominees before they were against it. Because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules and their strategy for how they block nominees no longer based on qualifications, but when and if vacancies should be filled or not, Leader Reid didn’t have much of a choice today. Otherwise President Obama wouldn’t be able to fill key offices in the future.

Hail To The Redskins: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame Class

Source: Hail To The Redskins: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For Hall of Fame

To be blunt about this, it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame.

And Big Jac as he was called is right there with them as the top OT’s of this era. Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.
Leader In Sports: Chris Hamburger Presents- The Redskins Legends





Roger Sharp Archive: Video: JFK at 50, Jack Ruby Killing Lee Harvey Oswald Coverage



I doubt any American who wasn’t a hater of John F. Kennedy and wasn’t suffering from some form of mental illness felt sorry for Lee Harvey Oswald being killed by Jack Ruby. Not that many people were celebrating Ruby’s killing of Lee Oswald. But it is clear now that Oswald shot President Kennedy. The only question is left was there anyone else involved in the assassination of JFK. Was the other people involved in the planning of the assassination. Like other communist forces, or perhaps organized crime, especially in the Italian Mafia community in America. Of course what Ruby did was wrong and he should’ve been charged with second degree murder or manslaughter. Because he did intentionally kill a man who wasn’t a threat to him and his physical health. Who wasn’t going to get the opportunity to ever murder again, at least not on the outside as a free man.

The New Republic: Opinion- Michael Kazin: 'JFK's Assassination Made Governing Harder'

Source; The New Republic- President John F. Kennedy 35th POTUS 
Source: The New Republic: Opinion: JFK's Assassination Made Governing Harder

There were columns and blogs posts written about a month ago talking about why there hasn’t been a liberal version of the Tea Party movement. Which is something I believe Liberal Democrats need if we ever want to move the country in a strong liberal democratic direction with the people behind us. So we have not only the troops behind us to get our agenda passed, but also the political support to stay in power once we get our agenda passed. And in 2009-10 we came pretty close when it came to the economy.

Health care reform obviously and financial reform, but didn’t have the political support to stay in power after we got these policies passed through Congress and signed by a Democratic President into law. Because the Tea Party in the Republican Party came to power and cost House Democrats not only their majority, but sixty-two seats and turned a large majority in the Senate, 59-41 to a tight majority of 53-47 going into the next Congress. So Democrats have come close and in recent years to moving the country in a clear liberal democratic direction, but came up short thanks to the 2010 Congressional midterms.
The future of the Democratic Party looks good if the aftermath of the Healthcare.Gov start up doesn’t ruin it of moving the country in that liberal democratic direction where personal and economic freedom will be available to everyone, where everyone in the country will have the ability to reach their full-potential in life. And not be judged by their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality and not be denied the ability to succeed in life because they come from low-income families.
Where everyone will have the ability to get the skills that they need to live do well in life and where even low-skilled adults will have those opportunities as well. And I say this because the country is moving in a liberal as well as libertarian direction. More liberal than libertarian, but these are probably the two fastest growing political factions in the country. This doesn’t mean we are moving to an era where big government will become popular and where Americans will want an even bigger government, which is different.
Americans and the younger generations are part of this and aren’t interested in big government. Or small government, or looking for a bigger government or a smaller government. But a government that is a good government that is efficient and spends the tax dollars that it needs and spend those dollars wisely. Which is a good opportunity for Liberal Democrats to say, “we aren’t tax and spenders either. And we aren’t looking to gut the programs that people need as well.”
Liberals should say they want to create a society where everyone is treated fairly and where everyone can live their own lives and not be denied things simply because people do not like people like them, because of who they are and are bigots. And a country where everyone can succeed economically as well and these are the voters that Democrats should be speaking to. Because they can say, “we aren’t looking for the Federal Government to takeover everything, but instead empower people who need it to be able to takeover their own lives instead.”
The money is in the Democratic Party and on the liberal Left to build this movement. Barack Obama proved this in 2008 and someone like Hillary Clinton who’ll be looking to take the safest positions possible she can when she starts running for president in 2015 and go straight for Independents, is probably not the right person to build this movement. But someone with serious liberal credentials who’ll have the message that, “we don’t want government to try to do everything, but see to it that everyone can succeed on their own instead.” And that Democrat hasn’t emerged yet for president.
Helmer Reenberg: President John F. Kennedy- Full Speech at California Berkley: March 23, 1962


Wednesday, November 20, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion- J.R. Dunn- Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

Source: American Thinker: Opinion- J.R. Dunn- Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

Again it depends on what you mean as a Liberal and I’m getting tired of writing that, just as I hope you are tired of reading that. But it is important because if your idea of liberalism is so-called free stuff from government, that isn’t my brand of Liberalism and isn’t liberalism. Or government’s main role is to take care of people, is your idea of liberalism, than again you aren’t a Liberal. But my brand of liberalism and this blog’s brand of liberalism the real brand of liberalism.

Liberalism is about empowering people who need it to live in freedom, while at the same time defending freedom for everyone else. This would be the score that I would use to judge President Barack Obama in how he stacks up when it comes to Liberalism. And I have a mixed bag for him even though he still has another three years to go in his presidency. Where I give President Obama high marks when it comes to liberalism is his overall grade on what he believes government can do to help people in need and defend freedom for everyone else.

And President Obama’s overall vision for government especially as it relates to the economy and despite how he’s been inaccurately stereotyped as some big government Socialist that has a new program, or new tax hike to solve all of our nation’s problem, he’s simply not that and his record is pretty clear. No new programs to expand the safety net in America, the New Deal or Great Society. As much as partisan right-wingers do not understand this or refuse to acknowledge it, the Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of health care in America.

The ACA is simply regulating the private health insurance industry and subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance on their own. And if you still do not believe that Barack Obama is not a big government Socialist, why don’t you ask Socialists or Social Democrats or today’s so-called Progressives about how they feel about President Obama. Where President Obama scores badly with me as a Liberal when it comes to liberalism, has to do with national security and civil liberties and things like privacy, the Patriot Act.

President Obama has given a Christmas sized gift to Neoconservatives as far as the Patriot Act and the weakening of privacy in America. And of course the failed War on Drugs that has been expanded in this country under him. The Healthcare.Gov roll out has been a failure, but that doesn’t have much to do with liberalism as it has to do with bad governing. Not doing their homework and being prepared for all the people who would be interested in going to the site to get health insurance.

I’ve blogged this before, but Barack Obama is not a hard-core Liberal and hasn’t been one at least since he left the U.S. Senate to become President of the United States. His record in Congress shows a fairly liberal record, but as President he’s moderated more to meet the challenges that his administration has faced and still faces. And at best he’s a Moderate Liberal and not that Liberal Democrat that I believe a lot of Democrats were hoping for to move this country back to liberalism. And the next phase of American liberalism following Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

United States Senator Mike Lee: Blog: Bring Them in: War on Poverty Fifty-Years Later

United States Senator Mike Lee: Blog: Bring Them in

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Poverty in America is the thing that we should be talking about right now for a couple reasons. One and the most important one I believe, 1/5 Americans live in poverty. We have the highest poverty rate in the developed world which is twice that of the poverty average. In the developed world and the fiftieth anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called War on Poverty. Speech from his 1964 State of The Union Address is coming up in I believe January, January or February. So now is a very good time to see how we are doing well in this so-called War on Poverty.

A term I hate by the way but perhaps that should be a subject of another blog. Like terms not to be used in describing things or false terms. Simply because similar to the so-called War on Drugs, these aren’t real wars. Wars are combat involving generally militaries or private militia’s and involved weapons and people getting. Physically hurt and killed and in many cases innocent people being injured and killed.

What the Federal Government has in actuality is a campaign against poverty. Using federal resources and programs to help people in poverty, which is obviously different from a war. And now is the perfect time to see how this campaign has gone. Fifty years ago we had 1/5 to 1/4 Americans living in poverty. Today we have about that same number of Americans despite all the economic growth we’ve had in. This time and the obvious answer would be that this campaign was a failure, a complete failure.

I agree that a lot of it has failed simply because of how these programs were designed for the most part. Giving people in poverty money to help them pay their bills and so much public assistance. Like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing to use as examples along with cash assistance which is. Welfare that these people do not technically qualify as living in poverty because of all the financial. Assistance they get even though it is not technically cash assistance.

The problem with the argument that if government or any other institution or even people. Are giving you money so you don’t have to live in poverty. Even though you might be able to make a technical argument that, that person does not live in poverty. Because they have what they need to survive and even live well, the fact that they are not independent. And rely on others to either pay their bills or help them pay their bills, because they aren’t able to do that. For themselves, they are still poor because they are not economically independent.

And if that assistance. For them were to be cutoff, they would be without the means in order to survive. So if you are going to have a War on Poverty or I prefer a campaign to eliminate or cut down poverty. Your programs have to be designed to actually move people out of poverty so they can take care of themselves. Which is the main lesson from the so-called War on Poverty and why it has had mixed results at best.

Either late next month or early next year this blog will have section full of posts about the War on Poverty. And how to have a real campaign and to fight and defeat poverty in America. That will be about yes temporary financial for people and families in need but going forward. It will mostly about education and job training to actually move people out of poverty because they’ll. Have the skills that they need to get a good job and actually pay their own bills.



VOA News: Video: Luiz Ramirez: Future Role of US Troops in Afghanistan Debated



The only thing that American troops in conjunction with NATO should be doing right now is helping to train and develop the Afghan military so Afghanistan can defend itself from domestic and foreign invaders including the Taliban and other terrorists groups. We’ve been there twelve years and have our own problems back at home economically and financially. That these wars being put on the national credit card have played a big role in. As well as security interests in other places that we need to address. And we can’t afford to occupy other countries indefinitely. So we should be and are working to develop the Afghan military and central government so they can govern themselves. As far as American troops accused of criminal acts, they should be tried in America, just as long as they are held accountable. And not given the message that they aren’t accountable under law.

CSPAN: Andrew Sullivan vs Dennis Prager- Same-Sex Marriage (1996)

Source:CSPAN- the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

"The House Judiciary Subcommittee heard testimony concerning the Defense of Marriage Act from activists, state legislators and others."  

From CSPAN 

Source:CSPAN- Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, arguing against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, at the House Judiciary Committee in 1996.
If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn't have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you're also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it's straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other. 

If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you're a religious fundamentalist, you probably don't believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married. 

I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone's else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they're not hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. 

The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Globalist: Opinion- Bill Hunphrey- "The Problem With Billionaires": Why Tax and Spend Doesn't Work

Source: The Globalist: Opinion- Bill Humphrey- The Problem With Billionaires

This idea that what America needs to do is just tax the hell out of millionaires and billionaires and use that money to spend more on War on Poverty programs to help the poor, as if fifty-years later that has worked very well, because the ultra-right as Bill Humphrey likes to say, has so much money that they don’t know what to do with that money, but government can come in and spend that money better than the people, and if we just do that we can solve our economic problems, forgetting about the seventeen-trillion dollar national debt and six-hundred billion dollar budget deficit, simply doesn’t work.

But of course if you are a so-called Progressive of today, debt and deficits do not matter. But if that is the case, than why do we need to have such huge tax hikes to fix our economy. Why not just continue to borrow and spend to address our economic problems. I’ve already answered my own question, because debt and deficits do matter. Otherwise this proposal to raise taxes to pay for new government spending, because our beloved U.S. Government knows how to spend this money better than the people, I mean come on who are you trying to fool. Unless the real reason for this huge tax hike is because you just want government to have a lot more money to spend on behalf of the people.

I agree that if you include all the tax breaks, the wealthy in America are under taxed, especially compared with the middle class. But if that is the concern and not just raise new money for the government, you would be interested in tax reform that eliminates most of the tax breaks for the wealthy. And go to a Progressive Consumption Tax system or PCT Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax. And everyone would be able to keep all the money they make except the money that they spend.

A PCT would benefit everyone including low-income people, because you could still keep the Earned Income Tax Credit and this system would be progressive. Lower taxes on basic necessities needed in life. Like food, health care, housing to use as examples. but higher taxes on luxury items. Luxury and sports cars, second homes, yachts, vacations to use as examples. We would tax people based on what they takeout of society including the wealthy. Instead of taxing people based on what they produce for society.

If the idea is to have a country with as many successful people as possible and with as few lets say low-income people as possible, knowing we’ll never have a country that is completely free of poverty, which is just an annoying fact, than you don’t tax people so high that is discourages them to be successful. And instead tax everyone based on what they take out of society. Especially the wealthy who spend a lot of money on things they do not need. And instead of just spending more money on social programs, design those programs so they empower people to be independent and live in freedom. So they do not need public assistance at all to pay their bills.