Pages

Sunday, November 24, 2013

NBC Sports: MLB 1979- All Star Game- National League vs American League: Full Game

Source:NBC Sports- Cincinnati Reds 2B Joe Morgan.

“1979 MLB All-Star Game (Seattle) Original Broadcast”

From Classic MLB 

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.

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. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

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. 

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

NBC Sports: NFL 79- Halftime Scores: Mike Adamle & Bryant Gumbel

Source:NBC Sports- left to right: NBC Sports anchors Mike Adamle & Bryant Gumbel.

"A young Bryant Gumbel and Mike Adamle run down week 11 scores from 1979." 


From 1967-77, the New Orleans Saints never even had a 500 season. Their best record during this period was 5-9, which they accomplished 3 times. But in 1978 under new head coach Dick Nolan, they were in the NFC playoff race up until the last few weeks of that season and finished just a couple games out of the NFC Wildcard at 7-9, after going 3-11 in 1977 under Hank Stram.  

So in 1979, going into that season and into that season, with the Los Angeles Rams dealing with all sorts of key injuries and never being at full strength until the end of that year, the Saints looked like they were about to not just become winners for the 1st time ever, but perhaps get an NFC Playoff birth, and perhaps even win the NFC West, with the Rams down, the 49ers still very bad and the Atlanta Falcons, who finally made it to the playoffs in 1978, but it looked like the Saints could at least be as good as the Falcons in 79.  

I only mention all of this because the Saints-49ers game was one of the scores that Bryant Gunbel and Mike Adamle mentioned. The Saints won that game to move to 6-5 and move into 1st place in the NFC West.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger.  (No pun intended)

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

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

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

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

Source:The New Democrat

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. 

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

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)
You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.
You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.
You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (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. 

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

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: Why JFK Still Matters

Source:Los Angeles Times- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th President of the United States (1961-63)

"This week even Americans who weren’t alive on Nov. 22, 1963, are reading, writing and reflecting about the assassination of the 35th president 50 years ago. In the view of some critics, the fascination with both John F. Kennedy and his assassination is disproportionate and media-driven. We disagree. Despite political and personal weaknesses that were widely acknowledged within a few years of his death, Kennedy was a transformative figure, not just a charismatic celebrity. And his violent death rightly is remembered as a rupture in what had seemed an age of optimism and inexorable progress.

True, much of the adulation for Kennedy during his life and since originated in arguably superficial attributes: his youth, personal attractiveness and sophistication. But his election at age 43 to succeed the 70-year-old Dwight D. Eisenhower represented a generational shift in American leadership that was as much a source of popular excitement as Kennedy’s individual qualities. As he said in his inaugural address, “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.” Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism also made his election historic. Difficult as it may be for younger Americans to conceive, anti-Catholicism was endemic in American society half a century ago, and Kennedy’s election was nearly as dramatic a breakthrough in that era as the election of the first African American president was in this one.

Kennedy was also forward-looking in his policies. On June 11, 1963, the day on which National Guardsmen escorted two black students as they enrolled at the University of Alabama, Kennedy declared that equality for African Americans was a “moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.” He announced that he was asking Congress to enact legislation to ensure equal access to public accommodations. It is true that the Civil Rights Act became law not during Kennedy’s term but during the administration of his less charismatic (but more politically adroit) successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. But Kennedy’s acknowledgment of the urgency of racial equality allowed supporters of the law to portray it as an homage to his memory. 

Was Kennedy a great president? Probably not. He wasn’t even a good one, according to the JFK revisionists who constitute at least as much of an industry as those who mythologize “Camelot.” Yes, they concede, Kennedy deftly defused the Cuban missile crisis with a combination of public resolve and a private openness to compromise — but perhaps the Soviet Union wouldn’t have installed missiles in Cuba in the first place if Kennedy hadn’t approved the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. It’s a reasonable point.

We also now know that the telegenic husband and father of young children was serially unfaithful to his wife. Yet despite scores of biographies and endless tell-alls, the revisionists never have been able to dispel the Kennedy mystique.

Any assassination of a president is wrenching for the nation, and some of the admiration of JFK is refracted through the trauma of Nov. 22, 1963. But there was a special poignancy to JFK’s passing because of his youth, his optimism and his ability to inspire. It’s neither surprising nor lamentable that he remains a compelling and beloved figure half a century later."  

From the Los Angeles Times 

I think a lot of the talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy 50 years later, has to do with the personal appeal of the man. So I agree with the Los Angeles Times on this, because everyone from center-right Republicans, to far-left Democrats and far-leftists outside of the Democratic Party, have something that they like about the man. 

Conservatives love the fact that Jack Kennedy believed that Americans, as well as American businesses, were overtaxed, even wealthy Americans were overtaxed. JFK was also a staunch anti-Communist and a big believer a large, strong, national defense for America and that we couldn't lose to Russia on anything that's positive. 

Liberals (meaning the real Liberals, like JFK) loved that fact that JFK was forward-thinking (a true Progressive) and believed that government had a role in seeing that everyone had a shot to succeed in life and just need that opportunity to make the best out of life that they can, but that government couldn't do everything for everybody. He was also, perhaps along with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the strongest proponents of liberal democracy for all Americans. 

Socialists (of far-leftists, if you prefer) loved the fact that JFK talked about peace, even with Russia and that famous peace speech that he gave at American University. Hipster-leftists (as if they're leftists who are not hipsters) loved the fact that JFK was hip or cool, handsome, tall, good-looking, etc, into American pop culture and very familiar with it, had a lot of cool celebrity friends. 

JFK for American politics, was like the hit NBC TV show from the 1970s and 80s called Fantasy Island: there's something for everyone about him and on that island, that everyone can like and admire. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Gene Healy: 'John F. Kennedy Was No Conservative'

Source:The American Conservative- John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th POTUS.

"There are, by now, thousands of books on the Kennedy presidency’s thousand days, and 2013 has brought dozens more to coincide with 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. But in JFK, Conservative, Ira Stoll, former managing editor of the New York Sun and current editor of FutureofCapitalism.com, has managed something truly original—and truly odd. This may be the first book-length attempt at Kennedy hagiography from the Right. 

Stoll lays it on pretty thick: in his telling, JFK was a great president, a good man, and—no kidding—a good Catholic. Moreover, Kennedy’s policies—his “tax cuts, his domestic spending restraint, his pro-growth economic policy, his emphasis on free trade and a strong dollar, and his foreign policy driven by the idea that America had a God-given mission to defend freedom”—show that he was, “by the standards of both his time and our own, a conservative.”

It’s a cramped, reductionist account of conservatism, one that collapses the entire political tradition into its neoconservative variant. But an even less charitable person than I could make the case that it’s a fair approximation of “actually existing conservatism,” and Stoll’s thesis has already received a fair bit of praise from commentators on the Right. 

God help us. If our 35th president—fiscally profligate, contemptuous of civil liberties, and criminally reckless abroad—is a paragon of modern conservatism, conservatism is in even worse shape than I thought. Let’s review the Kennedy record... 


"Author Ira Stoll joins Glenn to make the case that President  John F. Kennedy was actually conservative."

Source:BlazeTV- Ira Stoll talking to Glen Beck.

From the BlazeTV 

I agree with Gene Healy that John F. Kennedy was no Conservative either. As I wrote the other day at The New Democrat why JFK was not a Conservative. At least in the Neoconservative or the religious-conservative sense. 

Again, just look at JFK's own personal life, as well as the belief in civil and equal rights for all Americans, as well as personal freedom. 

JFK was a cold warrior Liberal Democrat, the real Liberals Democrats of the time, who advocated for liberal democracy home and abroad. The so-called Neoconservatives, but when they were Democrats. That's JFK politics. You want to look at the Wendell Willkie's and Henry Jackson's, the Gerald Ford's, even, of the world, to get yourself a good idea about Jack Kennedy's own personal politics. 

You are not going to learn anything factual about JFK's politics, from some  hyper-partisan Republican, who believes that conservatism is about big defense spending home and abroad,  deep tax cuts that can't be paid for, and the only fiscal restraint having to do with social welfare spending, but probably nothing else, and that government should advocate and perhaps even enforce what they cal American traditionalism. Which is what you get from the Ira Stoll's of the world. 

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

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

New America Foundation: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists


I disagree with this article 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. 

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

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. 

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

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, I believe during Super Bowl 26 in 1992.

"Former Washington Redskins tackle Joe Jacoby is a semi-finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the second straight year. 

Jacoby made the cut when the initial list of 126 nominees was trimmed to 25 modern-era semifinalists announced Wednesday. Jacoby played for the Redskins from 1981 to 1993 and was one of the beloved “Hogs”. If elected, he would join guard Russ Grimm in representing the Hogs in the Hall of Fame. 

The 25 semifinalists include Marvin Harrison, Tony Dungy, Walter Jones and Derrick Brooks, who made the cut in their first year of Hall of Fame eligibility. Jimmy Johnson, Joe Jacoby, Steve Wisniewski, Morten Andersen, Steve Atwater, Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Don Coryell, Roger Craig, Terrell Davis, Edward DeBartolo Jr., Kevin Greene, Charles Haley, John Lynch, Karl Mecklenburg, Andre Reed, Will Shields, Michael Strahan, Paul Tagliabue, Aeneas Williams and George Young. 

The list of modern-era semifinalists will be cut to 15 on Jan. 8. They’ll be joined by seniors committee nominees Ray Guy and Claude Humphrey. The select media members who serve as Hall of Fame voters will elect four to seven candidates during a meeting scheduled for Feb. 1, the day before the Super Bowl." 


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 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. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Roger Sharp Archive: 'Roger Sharp On JFK50: Oswald/Ruby Wrapup'

Source:Roger Sharp Archive- ABC News correspondent Roger Sharp.

"Following the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, ABC Correspondents Bob Walker and Roger Sharp anchor primetime coverage recapping the events of the day.  Correspondent Bill Lord interviews the detective who had been escorting Oswald when the latter was shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby. (November 24, 1963)" 
I guess this is easy to say 50 years later, but even back in late 1963, you would have to think the Dallas PD would know exactly how important Lee Harvey Oswald is and that they would do everything that they could to make sure nothing bad and illegal happens to him while he's in their custody. There should've been no public presence at the attempted transfer of Lee Oswald from the city jail to the county jail. That whole area should've been blocked off from the public.  
You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 
You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)
You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

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

Source:The New Republic- John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) President of the United States (1961-63) 
"There are many reasons to wish John Kennedy had dodged those rifle shots in Dallas 50 years ago this week. One that’s rarely mentioned is how his martyrdom raised expectations for future presidents that are nearly impossible to meet. Liberals, who put so much faith in federal power, have been particularly reluctant to free themselves of that burden.

Historians and journalists will probably argue forever about what JFK achieved and what he would have accomplished in the remainder of his first term and a probable second one. But most Americans seem to have no doubts. In a new Gallup poll of presidential approval rates, Kennedy scores higher, by far, than do any of his successors. Three-quarters of the public rank his time in the White House as “outstanding” or “above average.” Reagan places second in this retrospective competition, with a paltry 61 percent. JFK’s enduring appeal just confirms liberals’ admiration for what David Greenberg has called “his commitment to exercising his power to address social needs, his belief that government could harness expert knowledge to solve problems.”

Source:The New Republic

I guess my main response to Michael Kazin would be: "It depends on what you mean by liberal and liberalism." His idea of what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism is, is very different from John F. Kennedy's. He talks a lot about the federal state and federal power, as if that's what liberal ism is and what liberalism is based on: "What can the national government do for the people, if we just gave them the power and money .to do those things for us. 

In other publications like Dissent and TruthOut, Mr. Kazin seems to have no issues being associated with terms like leftist or social democrat, democratic socialist, or even socialist. But since he wrote this article for The New Republic, which thanks to Chris Hughes and company, they're now more of a social democratic publication (even if they are closeted Socialists) and they've given up their liberal tradition of arguing in favor of the individual and individual rights, I guess you are not allowed to use words like socialist over there, for fears of seeming like a radical, Even if you share the same values and beliefs of the Socialists.

As far as John F. Kennedy, he was obviously not a leftist. It's hard to imagine a stronger, more effective, cold warrior and anti-Communist, than John F. Kennedy, especially as President. Perhaps Ronald Reagan, but certainly no one else from the Democratic Party. 

It's true like any true Progressive (not Socialist) that Jack Kennedy believed that government, including the Federal Government, could be a force for good in helping people in need get the tools that they need to live a better life and live in freedom like anyone else. But we're not talking about Eugene Debs, or Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, David McReynolds, George McGovern, or any of the other great Democratic Socialists from the past, or Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren today. 

President Kennedy puts limits on what he believed government should try to do for people, as well as what he believed Americans would want government to do for them and be willing to pay for. Because as all American taxpayers know, there's nothing free about government. Which is something that every leftist, or center-left politician has to weight when talking about new government reforms and programs. How are these policies going to be paid for and what are taxpayers willing to pay to receive those services. These are things that Jack Kennedy understood very well.  

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

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

Source:American Thinker

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.

Senator Mike Lee: 'Bring Them In'

Source:Heritage Foundation- U.S. Senator Mike Lee (Republican, Utah) in Washington.

"It’s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.  Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on.

It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it’s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us. 

And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line.

Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility.

A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program – which provides health insurance to the poor – produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade.
We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up.

We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech - America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it...  


"In a speech at The Heritage Foundation, Senator Mike Lee identifies the next steps for Republicans to develop a conservative reform agenda. He also introduces four legislative proposals that are part of the conservative reform agenda that he identifies." 

Source:U.S. Senator Mike Lee (Republican, Utah) at The Heritage Foundation, in Washington.

From Senator Mike Lee 

If you look at President Lyndon Johnson's so-called War On Poverty, that his administration launched in 1965 and say that goal of President Johnson's antipoverty agenda was to wipe out poverty by the year, I don't know, 2013 (just to throw out a year) then of course I agree with Senator Lee here and say that the WOP has been mostly a failure. Poverty was roughly in America 20% in 1965, perhaps higher than that, 1/2 African-Americans in the 1960s, lived in poverty. 

But, if you look at the so-called War On Poverty and say that the goal of the WOP was to fight poverty and make it easier for people in poverty to survive, then there has been some successes: 

hunger is down 

more low-income Americans have access to health care 

affordable housing 

thanks to Welfare To Work from 1996, more low-skilled Americans are part of the American workforce 

and perhaps other examples as well. 

I think the real question here should be where do we go from here and how we move more Americans out of poverty. Not should we expand or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society, but instead how we move more Americans to get themselves out of poverty. And that gets to things like more education, more work, while allowing low-skilled Americans to keep their public assistance, while they're educating themselves and becoming part of the American workforce. 

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

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

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

Source:VOA News in Afghanistan.

"The number of U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014 depends largely on what the Loya Jirga, or gathering of tribal elders, decides in the coming days when it reviews a draft security agreement between the Afghan and U.S. governments. An Afghan government spokesman said the two sides have agreed to allow home raids by U.S. troops if President Barack Obama acknowledges mistakes by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The US says it has not agreed to this, and that Washington has its own conditions. VOA Pentagon correspondent Luis Ramirez reports from the Pentagon." 

From VOA News

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest of the U.S.–funded international broadcasters.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Its targeted and primary audience is non-American... 

From Wikipedia

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.
You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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