Pages

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

ABC News: Hillary Clinton's Full Concession Speech- Election 2016 Finally Comes to an End

Source: ABC News- President Bill Clinton, Secretary Hillary Clinton & U.S. Senator Tim Kaine-
Source: ABC News: Hillary Clinton's Full Concession Speech

I'm going to start with Hillary Clinton's speech here and then go through the election. As Senator Tim Kaine put it, no one ever thought for a second whether or not Hillary Clinton would concede if she lost the election. (Not a partisan statement, just a fact) Because Secretary Clinton respects and loves American liberal democracy. Secretary Clinton said she hopes that Donald Trump is a successful president. And whether you like that fact or not and I and over fifty-million people who voted against Mr. Trump including Republicans, we hate this fact, but if he turns out to be a bad president which a lot of the country fears, it won't be just President Trump who suffers, but America will suffer. If the country goes into recession, sure President Trump will take a hit. But he'll still have a job at least until January, 2021, but millions of Americans will be out of their job wondering what they will do now. If he makes any foreign or national security policy blunders, the country will suffer not just President Trump. So I believe Secretary Clinton had the perfect tone here.

As far as the election 2016 itself, CNN commentator Van Jones who has taken a lot of heat today about the so-called whitelash in the country as he put it, I believe he had the best comment for why Hillary Clinton lost last night. I'm going to paraphrase here but what Mr. Jones said was essentially that the Clinton Campaign was expecting Donald Trump himself would bring African and Latin-Americans to the polls himself against him. And vote overwhelmingly with a huge turnout against the Trump Campaign simply because of the campaign that he ran. And not what the Clinton Campaign offered them and a positive vision for why they should vote for her. That they didn't do  a major investment in Latino and African-American turnout. Unpopular president's can drive the other party to the polls against them during Congressional elections and vote for whoever the opposition party candidate or incumbent is for House or Senate. If you don't believe me, just ask GW Bush and Barack Obama.  But when it comes to the presidency, Americans have to have positive reasons why they should vote for someone. And saying the other guy is horrible is not a good enough reason.

So this election to me is about turnout. The Trump Campaign found whatever is left of the Reagan Democrat coalition in Pennsylvania and the Midwest and that is how they won Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. States where Secretary Clinton had clear leads pre-election day. And the Clinton Campaign didn't get their African and Latino-American base to the polls, as well as Millennial's. That great get-out-the-vote operation that the Clinton Campaign supposedly had, apparently took the night off or fell asleep, perhaps because of how long election 2016 felt. It just wasn't there. 2016 looks like 2004 to me with the Kerry Campaign expecting millions of Gen-Xers and Millenia's, to come to the polls and vote against President Bush. Which was how they expected to win Ohio. But President Bush won Ohio with a hundred-thousand plus votes. When 2016 could have easily had been 1988 where Americans by enlarge thought things were going well and weren't ready to take a chance on a governor with no Federal experience in Mike Dukakis. And stuck with the status-quo in H.W. Bush.


Friday, November 4, 2016

Emi Music: Tom Cochrane- Life is a Highway


Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily View

“Life is a highway, I want to ride it all night long! Tom Cochrane is really on to something with those lyrics. To use a cliche, “life is a marathon and not a sprint.” Meaning you’re going to around a long time, you might as well enjoy it and not try to accomplish everything at once, or let one setback and negative thing destroy you. So you should make out of life as much as you can and live your own life instead of trying to live someone else’s, or trying to live like someone. You your favorite celebrity (if you have to have one) should be just that. The famous person you like and admire most. But remember they have your life and you have yours. And not everything they do in how they live their life will work for you. And in many cases work against you and get you into trouble. So we should all be ourselves and be the person we can be and make ourselves happy, but not try to be something we’re not simply because we think that would make us cool or awesome or whatever, at that time.
Emi Music: Tom Cochrane- Life is a Highway

Friday, October 28, 2016

PBS: NewsHour- Paul Solomon- Interviewing Charles Murray: 'Why Economic Anxiety is Driving Working Class Voters to Trumpism'

Source:PBS NewsHour- AEI Scholar Charles Murray, being interviewed by PBS News's Paul Solomon, about Donald Trump and working class voters.
"Economic anxiety has taken center stage in this year’s election, driving many angry voters to rally  behind Donald Trump. According to conservative Charles Murray, this anxiety can be traced back to deep-seated feelings of marginalization among working class families, exacerbated by the perceived disconnect between themselves and the political elite. Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports."

From the PBS NewsHour

The American middle class and you could go down half of a class and look at the working class in America who tend to be blue-collar and perhaps just have a high school diploma and perhaps some college and are people who probably make somewhere around 30-60 thousand-dollars a year and would be the lower middle class in America as far as income. These people have seen an economic decline in America who think the rich have been screwing them and sending their jobs oversees. And the poor get to live off of taxpayers for free.

So they've seen the rich get richer and the poor getting more free taxpayer funded benefits. And they're thinking how about them and whose going to look out for them and empower them to do better in America. And here comes this rich guy someone who is perhaps even a billionaire in Donald Trump saying he's their champion and fighter. Talks about bad trade deals and tells them immigration is costing them their good jobs. Someone who labels Mexicans as rapists and criminals and Muslims as supporters of terrorism.

As I said in my piece Sunday about Donald Trump, Trump voters 30-40 years ago would have been called Reagan Democrats and are now Trump Republicans. Southern and Midwestern blue-collar Republicans who tend to Anglo-Saxon and Protestant  and have other European backgrounds and are also male. The so-called angry white-males that voted heavily against Bill Clinton and other Democrats in the 1990s. Donald Trump has as much in common with working class voters as the Christian-Right has in common with Communists.

But one thing that the The Donald has been successful and good at in his career has been as a salesman. The man could sell water to fish if given the opportunity and I and many other people would say he's a great con-man in the amount of success he's had at coming on fifty-years in business.

And The Donald loves power and what's more powerful than the President of the United States. And decides he'll try to convince millions of Caucasian working class voters in America who perhaps have never heard of Donald Trump before he ran for president that he's one of them. And so far he's had great success with this voting block. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Al Jazeera: 'US Election 2016- Donald Trump Woos Working-Class Caucasians'

Source:Al Jazeera- take on the 2016 American presidential election.
"Hillary Clinton is maintaining her lead over Donald Trump, with one new poll showing her seven points ahead.
But one area where Trump is holding his own is among white people, particularly men, who don't have a university degree.
Al Jazeera's John Hendren reports on a group that has become the core of Trump’s support."

From Al Jazeera

Source:The New Democrat- Working-class voters for Donald Trump.
When you think of the Republican Party generally you think of country club Republicans, people who tend to be very conservative when it comes to economic policy and believing in low taxes and low regulations, but tend to be moderate to tolerant on social issues, perhaps even neutral. And then there's another faction of Republicans the Christian-Right. Anglo-Saxon Southern working class Protestants, who looks at politics especially social issues from their very conservative if not theocratic religious values.

And there's their still solid, but no longer dominant conservative-libertarian base that came to power in the GOP thanks to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and others. But there's another base in the GOP that use to be a solid part of the Democratic Party. The so-called Reagan Democrats that first voted overwhelmingly for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 72 and then later Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 84. European ethnic Catholics people of Eastern European, as well as Irish background, who tend to be Midwest and working class.

Reagan Democrats are now Trump Republicans. People who tend to be blue-collar, Catholics, as well as Protestants, who tend to have Anglo, as well as Irish and Slavic backgrounds. Who come from working class areas of the Southeast and Midwest, who are very conservative, but in a traditionalist and nationalistic and religious sense. (Not so much political) who came of age when their people (so to speak) were in charge in America. Where only needed a high school diploma earn a middle-income and live well. Where women weren't expected to work. Where you stood out if you didn't go to church every week.

People who hang out at sports bars, bowling allies, drink beer and not wine. Who now live in a country where they're becoming a minority if not are already there. And are seeing their wages and economic security decline in an era where education is the key to being successful in America. Not just a high school diploma and a little college perhaps at a community college, but a college degree and then re-training later in life in order to be successful.

It's not just Trump Republicans, working class religious conservative Caucasians who've been left behind in the New America. But they're the voters that Donald Trump represents. Whose been running on this theory that if he can dominate the Caucasian working class in America in the votes, he'll win the presidency without having to appeal to anyone else. The polling and numbers don't show that when you look at the fact that Donald Trump's base is somewhere around 35-42% depending on the polls.

But that is what he believes he needs and all he needs to be the next President of the United States. Essentially blue-collar Tea Party Republicans, who oppose free trade, immigration, internationalism, integration and even equal rights. The so-called Alt-Right in the Republican Party that is now the new term for Far-Right Nationalists. Who again believe there America is disappearing and their America is the 1940s, (to be frank about it). When women and ethnic and racial minorities, were not prevalent in America.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he's not a dumb man. He even has political skills and real sense of politics and what he can do and how to appeal to his own base. Which is by speaking their game even though he represents nothing as far as what this community represents in lifestyle and everything else, other than a similar complexion. But he's getting away with it at least in the sense that he's never lost this lost place in America, because they've been losing and have been falling behind for decades now as the New America has become prevalent and we're now a very diverse country ethnically and racially and where higher education post-high school is the key to how well you'll do in this country economically.

The Lost America now wants that country back the country they grew up in, a country that overwhelmingly looks and thinks the way they do and they want their lifestyles back and those blue-collar jobs back that funded their lifestyles. And they see Donald Trump as their savior even as he goes down in a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

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

Friday, September 23, 2016

Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Source: Laura Flanders-
Source: Laura Flanders: Is A Socialist Future Possible? Sarah Leonard & Bhaskar Sunkara

Is a socialist future possible? Well I guess anything is possible at least in the future. I don't think this is the right question, because it's sort of like asking will we one day see cars that fly for people who don't want to sit in traffic on the way to work. I guess that is possible, but who is expecting that. We need to separate the possible and the reasonable and realistic, because they're different things. The next President of the United States, won't be a Socialist or Social Democrat. (Sorry Jill Stein supporters) The next President will either a moderate pragmatic Progressive (which is what Progressives are) in Hillary Clinton, or a right-wing authoritarian fascist in Donald Trump. Whoever controls the next Congress, the Speaker of the House won't be a Socialist, even if it is Nancy Pelosi and the Speaker's members won't be social-democratic, at least the majority. Once you get past the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus. The next Leader of the Senate, won't be a Socialist or Social-Democrat, even if it is Chuck Schumer. And his members won't be social-democratic by nature. Once you get beyond Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin. So Socialists and Social-Democrats, won't control the next Congress in either chamber.

People point to the Millennial Generation as reason to believe we're moving in a socialist or social-democratic direction as a country as far as ideology. But go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s and yes George McGovern did win the Democratic nomination for president in 1972. But most of his support came from young Baby Boomers in their twenties. And look at the Baby Boom Generation today and you see a generation (with all due respect) that grew up. They got jobs (once they started showering and got hair cuts) and started paying taxes. They go involved romantically outside of their radical political movement and got married and had kids. They got comfortable in American society and became very successful in life and perhaps also learned about the limits of socialism and what government can do for people with their taxes. And didn't become Conservatives necessarily, but certainly moderated and became what Hillary Clinton is today. And took more of a pragmatic center-left approach to what government should and can do for the people.

Again to go back to my original point about what is possible, twenties years from now can we see an America that is a social-democratic country that looks like Canada or Scandinavia when it comes to economic and foreign policy, again what isn't possible until it's proven impossible. But I'm more interested in what's reasonable and realistic. I guess I'm just not very romantic and if the Millennial's are anything like the Boomers or even Gen-Xers and a lot of Millennial's are the sons and daughters of Boomers and Gen-Xers, they'll moderate as well. Some might even move to the Center-Right. We don't know where we'll be as a country even four years from now politically. A lot of that will depend on how the first term of the next president goes. But to say that a large percentage of the young adult generation (Millennial's) like socialism and  based on that America is moving in a socialist direction, I would ask you 5-10 years from now if you still believe that. If the Baby Boomers were Socialists, than Ronald Reagan probably never becomes President. So just I believe it's way to early to decide what direction America is moving in politically until we actually get there.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Reason: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Kristin Tate: 'The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild'

Source:Reason Magazine- the so-called Libertarian Chick: Kristin Tate.
"It sounds nice to say things like, 'Oh, I really want to help the poor and everyone deserves free college and health care'," says Kristin Tate, political columnist at The Libertarian Chick blog and author of the new book Government Gone Wild: How D.C. Politicians Are Taking You for a Ride—and What You Can Do About It. "But in reality, getting people hooked on the government and not giving them pathways to becoming self-sufficient is not compassionate." 

Tate sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about her new book—which she has designed to be a libertarian manifesto for millennials—and why the 2016 election wants to make her "projectile vomit." "I don't really see any liberty-friendly candidates," Tate laments. 

She also stresses that libertarians need to "shine a spotlight" on the idea that getting people hooked on government programs is not a compassionate position and how focusing on individual liberty can create an uplifting message that will appeal to millennials and voters of all ages. "

From Reason

I know I'm going to over-generalize here and I'm not a Libertarian, but it's good to hear a Millennial who is not a Socialist . Who doesn't think speech they disagree with should be censored. Who doesn't believe there's a government program to solve everyone's problems for them. Who doesn't believe government services are free. Who doesn't believe government should protect people from themselves either from an economic or personal standpoint. 

Not saying all Millennial's are Socialists. (Not over-generalizing that much) but the Bernie Sanders movement are Millennial's and New-Left Socialists from the 1960s who still believe the Fidel Castro Marxist Revolution is still alive and well in Cuba. The 1-2% of the Jill Stein Green Party movement, is the same movement as the Bernie Sanders movement. The difference believing that Senator Sanders isn't as partisan as Dr. Stein and doesn't see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the same: "So what's the point of voting for either?"

Millennial's are a diverse population politically. You have a democratic socialist wing. 

You have what I at least would call a classically-liberal wing. People who are very liberal and anti-big government on social issues and believe in a lot of personal freedom as far as allowing people to make their own decisions. Who don't want big government taking care of them financially either, but don't want the safety net for people who truly need it to disappear. And that is the Gary Johnson base right there and he has Millennial support. He's says he's someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. 

And then you have the Ron Paul libertarian wing that Kristin Tate represents. People who have very little if any role for government at all. Who are way to the right of Gary Johnson on economic and fiscal policy. 

And then you have the non-political wing of the Millennial Generation. Who are too busy staking out Apple Stores so they're the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone. And are too busy with new technology and celebrity culture, to follow politics at all.

Millennial's aren't Socialists, they aren't Liberals, they aren't Centrists and they aren't Libertarians. This is a generation that's still finding their way politically. I mean the oldest Millennial right now is 36 years old. 

We didn't know how to label the Baby Boom Generation at least until the 1980s when they started entering their forties. They started off as part of the New-Left radical socialist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Then they finally grew up, started taking showers, discovered barber shops, got their hair cut, got jobs, got married, had kids and moderated their political views at least to the point they were no longer bombing schools and banks, because they thought capitalism was unfair and racist. 

What I hope happens with the Millennial Generation is that they grow up as well as a generation and discover that part of living in a liberal democracy (and yes, liberal democracy) is from time to time hearing political viewpoints that they disagree with and even find insulting. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Source: Phyllis Schlafly-
Source: Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

"The question for Republicans at their 1964 National Convention was: At this crucial point in American history, will we send in our bat boy? Or will we send in our Babe Ruth — a man who is not afraid or forbidden to take a good cut at all major issues of the day? [p.28]

He is the one Republican who will not pull his punches to please the kingmakers. He can be counted on to face the issues squarely. He will make the kind of forthright hard-hitting campaign that American voters admire. This is why he is the man the left-leaning liberals most fear. He is the only Republican who will truly offer the voters "a choice, not an echo". [p80-81]

Behind the scenes, the kingmakers prepared the publicity buildup of several candidates to replace Barry Goldwater. How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:

1. A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.

2. Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.

3. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs.

4. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.

5. Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic. [p.88]

Meanwhile the kingmakers engaged in a frantic search to dig up anybody — just anybody — to prevent Republicans from selecting their obvious candidate. [p.89]

Even after he was dropped by the kingmakers, Romney was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing

rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: "I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice." [p.89-90]

As it turned out, no Republican could have won the Presidency in 1964, but Goldwater inspired conservative Republicans for many years later."

In 1964 pre-Barry Goldwater's win essentially taking over the Republican Party, his conservative-libertarian wing, the Republican Party was very similar to what the Reform Party looks like today. A fiscally and economically conservative party, that worried about debt and deficits, high taxes, centralized big government, over regulation of the economy and taking power away from the states to give it to the Federal Government. As well as believing in strong national defense and being strong anti-Communist Cold Warriors. It was the party that Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, put together in the 1940s and 1950s. It was also a party that believed in the safety net for people who really needed it and supported things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, and other public assistance programs. Just as long as they were paid for and people who could were expected to work. They were somewhat moderately-conservative on safety net issues. They didn't believe government had no role, but that government shouldn't try to do everything for everybody.

What Conservative-Libertarian Republican Senator Barry Goldwater argued in his 1961 book Conscience of a Conservative, was that America needed another vision. Something to counter the progressive New Deal of the 1940s and that government was becoming too big and taxing too much and we needed a new political philosophy to counter the New Deal Progressives. Conscience of a Conservative lays out that conservative vision for America. Phyllis Schlafly, agreed with Barry Goldwater that America did need a right-wing alternative vision to progressivism. But her politics was a bit different. Barry Golwater, was a anti-big government Conservative across the board. He didn't want big government in our economic or personal affairs and not trying to tell individuals how they should live their own lives. As long as being a strong defense anti-Communist Cold Warrior.  Phyllis Schlafly, was with Goldwater on the economic and foreign policy issues, but they separated when it came to social and cultural issues.

When I look at Phyllis Schlafly's politics today, I see Ron Paul plus Pat Buchanan. Someone who was anti-big government and even anti-safety net when it came to economic policy. But believed in standards and limits to what government should allow people to do in their personal lives. Not just anti-abortion, but anti-homosexuality, anti-gay marriage, they believed women working was not good for the American family and that government shouldn't encourage women to work. They believed pornography should be outlawed across the board. They were anti-immigration and multiculturalism. That America should be governed based on their Christian religious and cultural beliefs. Phyllis Schlafly, to me at least is responsible for launching the Christian-Right and even the Alt-Right today. And Alt-Right radio and commentary from people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Phyllis Schlafly, is responsible for launching a major political movement in America and one of our most powerful and influential political activists. And deserves some credit for that.
The Dove TV: Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

ABC News: 20/20- First Episode: 6/06/1978

Source: Logopedia-
As the lead in to this video said ABC News, was a small player if not joke in the network news business in the 1970s. They basically remained that way until the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979-80 that launched Nightline with Ted Koppel and their nightly newscast World News Tonight started drawing real ratings then, This Week With David Brinkley emerged in 1981, 20/20 became a hit when Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of it. ABC Sports with their NFL coverage with Monday Night Football and their MLB coverage with Monday Night Baseball and their college football coverage and a handful of entertainment shows that they had especially in daytime, were really the only hits that the ABC network had. Back then America had two great broadcast networks in CBS and NBC, as far as entertainment, sports and news. With ABC giving you same type of programming, but without the hits and affiliates that the big two had in the 1970s. And being a distant third to CBS and NBC when it came to news, but entertainment as well.

I sort of look at ABC in the 1970s the way I look at Fox today, but with ABC putting a lot more emphasis on news. Fox still doesn't have much if any impact on network news other than their Sunday morning talk show. ABC was trying to be CBS and NBC at least as far as influence and in size, but until Roone Arledge took over ABC Sports in the 1970s and then later ABC News in the 1980s, they were a distant third. Rooney Arledge with Monday Night Football and then Monday Night Baseball and ABC Sports college football, 20/20 World News Tonight, Nightline, This Week With David Brinkley, is responsible for making ABC the powerhouse it is today. With the ability to compete with CBS and NBC, when it comes to entertainment, news and sports. And have the affiliates to be able to do that. Whatever you think of this version of 20/20 and I'll get to that later, this was the start of ABC becoming a force in network news.

It's a damn good thing that Barbara Walters and Hugh Downs, became the anchors of 20/20. Even for 1978 the layout of this first show with two no-name anchors and one of them not even being an American and the other making his living as a writer and not a broadcast journalist and the cheesy music (even for 1978) and covering stories like how greyhounds are treated, just showed you that ABC News wasn't quite ready for prime-time. CBS's 60 Minutes even though they had already been around for ten years at this point, looked so much better and more professional. It looked like a network news magazine show. And not some weekend morning show that mixes in soft stories with a few real news stories and interviews, to make the show look serious. But they were trying and got much better again when Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters, took over the show in 1979-80. And were together for twenty years and made 20/20 the hit that it still is today.
ABC News: 20/20- First Episode: 6/06/1978

Monday, September 19, 2016

Lock Carge: Real Time With Bill Maher- Christopher Hitchens in 2010

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The way I look at Catholics and Christians in general when it comes to terrorists and other bad apples like child molesters, is the way I look at Muslims in this sense. There are roughly two-billion Muslims in the world, maybe a hundred-thousand of them are terrorists. You could do a lot with a military of a hundred-thousand especially if you're a mid-size country. But out of two-billon people that is not much of an army when it comes to percentages. The overwhelmingly majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people. Who may have far-right cultural views, but not to the point they're willing to kill themselves and others to express those views. I'm not Catholic, even though a lot of Germans American and otherwise are Catholic or Lutheran, but most Catholics are good moral people. The sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in the early and mid two-thousands, was a horrible scandal with a lot of people hurt badly. But if that scandal represented Catholicism in general, we would see a lot more people come forward and share their abuse stories at the hands of Catholic priests and other Catholic leaders. Chris Hitchens and to a certain extent Bill Maher, are guilty of over-generalizing here.
Lock Carge: Real Time With Bill Maher- Christopher Hitchens


Sunday, September 18, 2016

World Opinion Forum: President Richard Nixon's Resignation Speech- Dan Rather vs Roger Mudd

Source:World Opinion Forum- Roger Mudd v Dan Rather on CBS News: "Go soft on President Nixon." 
"The night Nixon resigned word came down  from the top at CBS to - as Dan Schorr put it - "Go soft on Nixon."
 Schorr added: "I guess Roger didn't get the word."
See also responses of Walter Cronkite and Eric Severeid

Video from Nixon Library."

From World Opinion Forum

CBS News covering President Richard Nixon's resignation speech in August, 1974. (I wasn't born yet!) Of course because of President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break in in 1972 where employees of the Richard Nixon Reelection Campaign, broke into Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington in the summer of 1972.

After it became clear because of President Nixon's presidential tapes that the President ordered the coverup. he lost most of whatever support he had left in Congress. At least enough in the House and even in his own party to prevent him from being impeached by the House with a bipartisan majority and win a conviction trial in the Senate. The President would have been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

That is how Congress can remove the President and Vice President from office. Congressional Republicans led by Senator Barry Goldwater, but Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, told President Nixon that the gig was up, so to speak. Went to the White House and told the President he can't survive Watergate and if he tries to he'll be removed from off by Congress.

That is why President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Because had he not he would have faced a worst embarrassment of being removed from office by Congress and perhaps losing half of his own party in the House and Senate on those votes.

Senate Republicans told President Nixon that he might have twenty votes for acquittal in the Senate if it went that far. You need 34 to defeat impeachment in the Senate and Republicans had 45 seats in the Senate in that Congress. More than enough to defeat an impeachment trial if they're united on it.

President Nixon had calculated that he would probably get impeached by the Democratic House that had roughly 260 seats, but the win the conviction trial in the Senate. But Senator Goldwater told the President that he didn't have enough votes in the Senate for that and that he Barry Goldwater would vote for conviction.  Perhaps Richard Nixon did want to end this and save the country from seeing their President impeached and convicted. But it's clear that a big part of him resigning was to save himself from further embarrassment.

This Democratic Congress of 1973-74, was ready to get past impeachment and deal with other issues. Like making sure the Vietnam War ended swiftly and properly, the country was going through a recession and lacked affordable energy, inflation was becoming a big problem, rising unemployment, etc. But just as long as President Nixon was removed one way or another from office. Whether they had to do that themselves or the President voluntarily stepped down.

So as Roger Mudd and Dan Rather were talking about as far as whether the House would go through on impeachment anyway even with the President resigning, there was no appetite for that in either the Democratic Caucus or Republican Caucus. And the Democratic Senate wanted nothing to do with an impeachment trial and neither did Senate Republicans, especially if the President already decided to voluntarily resign. Richard Nixon being the master politician he was, knew when to fold and when he lost all support which is why he resigned from office.

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

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Rob Atsea: 'NBC News Update With Jessica Savitch- Easter 1979'

Source:Rob Atsea- NBC News Anchor Jessica Savitch.
"Jessica Savitch anchors this Easter 1979 NBC News Update, which includes a promo for the game show "Whodunnit"

From Rob Atsea

Jessica Savitch, was NBC Nightly News's weekend anchor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before she tragically died in I believe 1983. She was like 36 at that point and well on her way to becoming a lead network news anchor, or perhaps having another network news show. She had great presence, she knew what she was talking about, had great delivery and a great voice. And yes like Diane Sawyer, she was gorgeous and very cute and easy to look at and listen to.

Easter 1979, an important time. There was a Polish Pope in John Paul, who is a hero of the Christian-Right in America on social issues. But also a hero with Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to human rights. And was a major inspiration for the way falling in Eastern Europe with Slavic bloc there.

Iran was under a new regime and government and a huge energy producer that America relied on still at that point. But was becoming less predictable and stable just when America was going through an energy and economic crisis. Which just made 1979 an even more chaotic year with the bad economy and lack of affordable energy in the country. 

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

Friday, September 16, 2016

Harley Davidson: Jennifer Martin- The Motorcycle Experience: Choosing the Best Riding Boots

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

One of the reasons why I love biker culture, especially biker women in biker culture is the style. Tight denim and leather jeans with boots, very common with biker women, as well as biker men. And they biker boots with those outfits which goes as well as french fries with cheeseburgers or vanilla ice cream with apple pie. It's just the perfect combination and perfect outfit. And that biker women tend to be very attractive and feminine and stay in great shape simply because they need to for the lifestyle they live and being able to hand a big bike and being on the road, but also because they care about their physical appearance and need to look good to fit into that culture. And also because leather and denim, just make a great combination. Leather jackets, go great with denim jeans and boots go great with both denim and leather jeans. Boots are the perfect compliment for jeans denim or leather. Looking at Jennifer Martin, a beautiful biker women obviously, just makes my case for how well boots go with jeans and in this case denim jeans. And how great biker women look.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

NBC News: John F. Kennedy- 'On Meet The Press Through The Years'

Source:NBC News- U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) on NBC News's Meet The Press in 1958. 
"From the time he was a congressman for Massachusetts' 11th district, John F. Kennedy took time to appear on various NBC News programs. From Meet the Press to Home and The Huntley-Brinkley Report, Kennedy discussed the most pressing issues of the day on NBC. 

The arc of Kennedy's career can be traced by these appearances, as we see him in the various offices he held, speaking on a wide array of topics. Among these are corruption in the Democratic Party, the United States' relationship with the Soviet Union, an escalation of troops in Vietnam, and his political ambitions through the years. There are some moments, particularly on Meet the Press, in which he is forced to defend his beliefs vigorously. At other times, he leisurely engages interviewers on the joys of public service and speculates on the future of women in politics. Nevertheless, his demeanor is always that of a collected and confident leader. 

This collection spans more than a decade, from 1951 to shortly before Kennedy's death in 1963. In 1952, we see his keen political acumen, predicting four years in advance that Adlai Stevenson would likely be the next Democratic nominee for president. Kennedy has the opportunity to reject the idea that his religious affiliation could be a political setback on Meet the Press two years before his own run for the presidency. In 1960, he shares his view that technology and space travel will be a key factor in "the image of the United States abroad" as it seeks to trump the Soviet Union worldwide. Finally, in an exclusive interview with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley, which would be his last appearance as a guest on NBC, Kennedy displays a modesty that one might not expect from a war hero with a Harvard degree. When asked by Huntley if the office of the President is unmanageable, Kennedy responds that "this country and its affairs are not managed in the real sense in the White House. There's 180 million decisions being made which finally manage the country."

Fifty years after his tragic death, we remember a president that inspired millions and dedicated his life to public service.

Go to NBC Universal to license any portion of this video." 

From NBC News

John Kennedy, was perfect for NBC's Meet The Press, because he was so quick. The people there liked him and knew that he could not only answer their questions, but wanted to do it and answer them with depth. Very similar to Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, he was very quick off the cuff and could answer questions with humor. 

Meet The Press liked interviewing JFK because he was likable, popular, well-known, and very funny. The 1950s was a fascinating time and JFK was in Congress the whole time as the country was dealing with the Cold War, post World War II economic boom, the early days of the civil rights movement, and even American women starting to make important impacts out of the home in the American economy. 

Meet The Press had female anchors and questioners. There were women in Congress like Senator Margaret Chase Smith and many others. Jack Kennedy was in his thirties and early forties during this decade and had a great future ahead of him if he wanted it. Which is why Meet The Press loved having him on.

Jack Kennedy, was sort of an absentee Representative in the House. Somewhat bored and loved being a bachelor and enjoying the Washington nightlife when Congress was in session. It wasn't until JFK decided to run for the Senate in 1952 that he started taking his job more serious and making his positions known in Congress. 

There are a lot of things to love about Jack Kennedy and he is my political hero, but he's definitely someone who grew in office. Wasn't a great Representative, but a good Senator at least in the sense that he started taking issues seriously and studying them and not just going to his committee hearings, but knowing the right questions to ask. 

I don't believe JFK becomes President of the United States on his personal appeal and family name alone in 1960, had he not become a serious Senator and taken his job in Congress seriously and getting on the road and getting his political platform out there.

I'm not sure JFK gets into his politics without his father Joe pushing him. But it's clear that once JFK got into politics and ran for the House in 1946 and was elected he loved it and became a natural campaigner and politician. He gave a great speech, great interviews, knew how to excite and inspirer people. 

JFK wasn't a natural public servant and someone who actually loved doing the job that he was elected to do. His tenure in the House is a pretty good example of that. I believe he sort of grew in public service once he was elected to the Senate, especially his second term when he started considered running for president in 1957 or so. 

JFK was someone even though had a fairly thin resume outside of Congress and somewhat of a thin voting record and list of accomplishments in Congress, was someone who was great at expiring people and laying out a vision for how America could be even greater and how all Americans could succeed in America.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Britcoin Faucets: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher-Discussing 9/11 in 2001

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 after the Clinton national security team warned the Bush Administration about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden before the Bush team came into office, is like blaming the Pittsburgh Steelers for the lack of success that the Cleveland Browns have had in the last twenty years. "Hey, if only the Steelers hadn't been so good and beat us over and over, maybe the we the Browns wouldn't have had lost so much. It's all Pittsburgh's fault for our lack of success." The Clinton Administration went after Osama Bin Laden, at least since 1996 when Al-Qaeda attacked one of our ships in the Middle East. America was at peace when the Clinton Administration came into power in 1993 and we were still at peace when they left office in January, 2001. The economy was still booming and the Bush's inherited a budget surplus of two-hundred-billion-dollars and twenty-three-million net jobs.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was focused on trying to jump start the economy was starting to slow and worrying about what to do with the record budget surplus they just inherited and thinking they could be allies with Vladimir Putin's Russia and education reform. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, wasn't a huge priority for them. It wasn't until 9/11 that they became neoconservative defense hawks, thinking that our civil liberties and constitutional rights, might be threatening our national security. And coming up with indefinite detention without arrest, the Patriot Act, that spies on who Americans associate with and what we read even. Where we could become potential suspects and even detained, for what we might read or who we might know. The Bush Administration, didn't have much of a national security or foreign policy, pre-911. The so-called War on Terror, wasn't part of our national language yet.

Did Bill Clinton eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as President, of course not. But to say they weren't paying attention to him and not trying to do that when they actually tried to assassinate him both in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, is nonsense. George W. Bush and company, obviously didn't eliminate Osama and Al-Qaeda as well. But President Barack Obama, had Osama assassinated in his third year in office in 2011. And the Obama Administration has come damn close to eliminating Al-Qaeda the last eight years. And have destroyed a lot of ISIS in Syria and Iraq in the last two years. George W. Bush, obviously didn't create Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda either, but they got off to a late start to the threat of that organization. Especially since the previous administration were already going after them. And that the Clinton national security team warned the incoming Bush Administration about the threat in late 2000. According to Clinton counter-terrorism director Richard Clark.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

The Objective Standard: Dr. Martin Luther King on Government and The Individual

The Objective Standard: Dr. Martin Luther King on Government and The Individual

Politically Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a Democratic Socialist and proud of it. At least when it came to economic policy and foreign policy. He was a democratic collectivist in the sense he believed that the job of government especially the central government, was to see that everyone was taken care of and no one had to go without. And believed in the democratic socialist model of the welfare state that is common in Scandinavia, where the job of the central government is to seen that a lot of the people's needs are met by the government. Education, health insurance, health care, child care, very generous benefits for the working poor and non-working poor, etc. But he also had what's called a classical liberal streak (that I call a real liberal streak) where all Americans are entitled to basic individual and equal rights. This quote in this photo is a perfect example of that. Where he's saying that, "man is not made for the state, but the state is made for the man.

Individuals, don't get their power from government, but vice-versa. All of our elected officials are exactly that. They have to run in order to serve us and be given the power and responsibility that we the people give them. The people aren't required to serve the government and serve the politicians, other than obeying the law and cooperating with law enforcement. We don't have all of these individuals rights under the Bill of Rights, because the current party in power at any given time says we do. Those individuals rights are constitutional and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. And it's the job to make our rights are protected. Not to pick and choose who has them and who doesn't. Which is one reason why I'm such a big believer in civil liberties and freedom of choice and so opposed to political correctness. Dr. King here is speaking for We The People in an individualist way. Saying that we as Americans have basic individuals rights that don't come from government.

Something that I disagree with Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists on, is the relationship between government and society and government and the people. The socialist-left, tend to combine those groupings into one group. When they say society has done this and provided the people with these things or this country does this for it's people, they mean the government does these things for the people. When in fact government is the people that are supposed to work for the people and in many cases are elected. Society, is the people and in many cases the people are responsible for job creation, providing health care, education and so-forth and in many cases that is not done by government at all, not even through the financing. But that these services are provided by the private sector, the people who work for private organizations and business's. When Dr. King was talking about We The People here, he was talking about the basic individuals of the people. Not government and saying that government gets all of their power from the people they're supposed to serve.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Remember This-C-SPAN's BookNotes With Brain Lamb- David Brinkley: 'From The New Deal to The Contract With America, From 1995'

Source:Remember This- From David Brinkley's book: From The New Deal, To The Contract With America.
” 
“David McClure Brinkley (July 10, 1920 — June 11, 2003) was an American newscaster for NBC and ABC in a career lasting from 1943 to 1997.”

From Remember This

You could say that David Brinkley saw it all in his life at least as a broadcast journalist and anchor. He had the first and big nightly national newscast the Huntley Brinkley Report, with Chet Huntley from NBC News. During that period there was the Korean War, the start of the Cold War, General Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, the early days of the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement in the 1960s, our first Irish-Catholic President of the United States in John F. Kennedy, the 1960s, the 1970s, Watergate, etc, all as either anchor of the Huntley Brinkley Report, or co-anchor of NBC Nightly News. David Brinkley, had a long and great career as either anchor of the NBC News nightly newscast, or as anchor of the ABC News Sunday morning news program This Week. He was the first stars of ABC News when they finally merged as a major player in the network news business in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David Brinkley had an ability as a good interviewer and commentator. Like Howard Smith at ABC News, he was very good at delivering the news and analyzing it as well. Explaining what the news meant and the JFK assassination in how how he described how the country was feeling and how horrible that tragedy was in 1963, is a perfect example of that. His commentaries about Watergate in the early 1970s, is another example of that. He was very witty as well when he would get a silly story to cover and talk about on his show. He was almost like a great debate moderator on This Week between Conservative George Will and Progressive ABC News White House corespondent Sam Donaldson. The debates they had on that show made This Week worth watching by itself, along with the people they interviewed. And of course he had that great voice and gentlemen demeanor that made him perfect for news programs, because the people there didn't think he was trying to attack them.

The Huntley Brinkley Report, was a two-man nightly newscast with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. CBS News had Walter Cronkite, who was simply the best at what he did and still is and anchored the CBS Evening News. NBC News had two excellent news anchors and men who worked very well together in Brinkley and Huntley and paired them together. Which worked for a while up until the late 60s or so when the CBS Evening News, became the top not just newscast, but perhaps news show in the country up until the 1980s. David Brinkley, arguably is the first of the great broadcast news anchors and someone who was at the top or near top for almost fifty-years at both NBC News and later ABC News. And is one of the best broadcast journalists we've ever produced, because of his ability to interview, deliver the news, add with when appropriate and could explain the news in a commonsense way that made him very popular. 

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

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Associated Press: Today in History For September 11th- Remembering 9/11, 2001

Source:MSN- The Twin Towers in NYC, going up in smoke 
Source:The Daily Review

Just to give you a personal reflection about 9/11. I was working at a movie theater and not happy about it and working the nightshift and disliked that even more. Except for the people I worked with and for and met. I believe I closed the night before and slept in that morning knowing I would be closing again on that Tuesday night the night of 9/11. I woke up early that afternoon and turned on the news and saw I believe ABC News breaking in from their afternoon soap operas to cover these explosions that were happening in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. And to paraphrase what Jack Buck said during the 1988 World Series, "I don't believe what my eyes just saw." I can't believe what I just saw on TV. It must have felt like the way people in Hawaii felt during Pearl Harbor in 1941. That the nation was under attack and what's the next horrible attack that we'll be doing with. I get ready for work and get there I guess about 4 o'clock that afternoon and find out that the theater is close because of the attacks and I had the night off.

There are only two moments during the George W. Bush presidency where I was proud of President Bush and I don't say that lightly or proudly. It's just the way I feel about this President as President. The first one is where President Bush goes to New York City to look at the destruction caused by the attacks and he's giving a speech there and talking to firefighters there. And some people in the audience yell out essentially how angry they are at the people of these attacks. And President Bush literally breaks in with a megaphone and says, "we hear you, the Americans people hear you and the people responsible for knocking down these buildings will hear from all of us very shortly." It was the perfect thing to be said at that point and I believe reflected how most Americans were feeling at that very moment regardless of their politics and party affiliation. Those last four months of 2001 starting unfortunately with 9/11, you could argue was the last time America was united as a country. And President Bush deserves credit for that. Regardless of what you think of him.

I don't live in New York City and I never had. So I can't give you an eyewitness account of what happened in New York during those horrific attacks. But what I can do as an American is tell you how I feel about people responsible for attacking one of America's great cities and one of the great cities in the world. America felt under attack during 9/11. Before that we felt invincible as a country and believe no one would attack us period. Even if they could, because we would destroy them if they did and they knew that. 9/11 changed and changed the national makeup of this country. What goes on in the Middle East and South Asia, can now happen here. Not from another country sending in a plane and hitting us with missiles and bombs, because they would get shot down. But from terrorist hijackers so warped out of their mind and hating America and our foreign policy, that they would hijack a private plane and use it as their suicide attack. Even with innocent passengers on board simply flying to New York, with no say in the matter. And America has never gotten back to pre-9/11 and the few months after that when we were one country even for that short period.
Associated Press: Today in History- September 11th


Saturday, September 10, 2016

John Paul: 'Vote to STOP HILLARY CLINTON & ELECT DONALD TRUMP'



Source:Saul Alinsky- this seems to be the wing of the Democratic Party that John Paul is referring too, but perhaps is unaware of it.

"John Paul's Conservative Buzz From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives 'Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7: The tragedy is that most o..."

From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives
"Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7:

The tragedy is that most of the people who call themselves Democrats today don’t have a clue about what their party actually stands for, the far Left ideology it promotes, and the regressive radical policies they support.  They have been effectively “duped” by the unscrupulous Democrat Party machine and media apparatus as Alinksy’s “Useful Idiots” to keep the Democrats ruling the people in perpetual power. Many believe that they are loyal Americans who stand with their party ideologically, without taking the time to study the facts and get the information they need to be informed citizens and voters. The Democrat Party of 50 years ago, that so many cling to, is long, long gone. The JFK Democrats of the early 1960’s, while still left-leaning, at least did NOT support the shredding of the Constitution, generations of dependency on government hand-outs, massive entitlement programs, identity politics and social division, socialism, or the far-Left Marxist ideology of the Democrat Party today. Nor were they Alinsky-inspired radical regressives, leveraging Alinsky’s unsavory and unethical rules of engagement to maintain political power at all costs (where as discussed in Chapter 1, the ends for these radicals always justifies the means, where ethics and morals simply have no place).

In a November 21, 2015 article written by Josh Kraushaar in the National Journal, he writes that Democrats have an identity-politics problem and have become a party defined by identity. He states, “…the main reas­on why Clin­ton is a near-lock for the nom­in­a­tion is that Demo­crats have be­come the party of iden­tity. They’re now de­pend­ent on a co­ali­tion that re­lies on ex­cit­ing less-re­li­able voters with non­tra­di­tion­al can­did­ates.”[1]  Identity politics is extremely divisive and damaging to our political discourse in America, and while it attracts certain special interests and ethnic groups to the Democrats, it pushes away people who don’t support this new dark era in politics. It has the goal of effectively ganging up a range of demographics in the US to unite against the white Christian conservative, the most reviled of all groups in the illiberal lexicon.  Their ultimate goal is to take the property, rights and political power away from the “haves” in favor of redistribution to certain special interests, in order to pursue their socialist utopian agenda.  Of course, it is all in line with the Alinsky rules of engagement, where such divisions serve to “rub the sores of discontent” to help achieve their illiberal agenda for “fundamental change”. The racial and social division in America is becoming as bad as it ever was as a result. Doubtless few self-described Democrats – Millennials and others – understand or appreciate this fact when they decide to support this party." 

From John Paul
Source:John Paul- Hillary vs Donald: come on, seriously these can't be the only choices?

"Hello all! Welcome to my channel! This video is an overview of my Cues for Conservatives book. We will be crowdfunding for the project and I would appreciate your support!"  

Source:John Paul- the U.S. Congress: our tax dollars at work.

From John Paul 

Had John Paul said that a faction of the Democratic Party believed in the New-Left Saul Alinsky socialist (if not Neo-Communist way of doing things) I probably would agree with him. But the Democratic Party is still the largest party in America. And you don't have that title by simply appealing to the Far-Left. The Democratic Party similar to the Republican Party, is essentially three parties into one. That is what you get with a two-party system in a country has huge and politically diverse as we are.

You get a Democratic Party that has a progressive, New Democrat wing that I'm from. That FDR and LBJ created and Bill Clinton brought back to life in the 1990s, that Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart and Mike Dukakis, tried to bring back in the 1970s and 1980s. The Party of Progress that believes that government can be used to help people in need help themselves and stand up on their own two feet. 

You have what's left of the classical-liberal wing (the real Liberals) that Thomas Jefferson created, that Wendell Willkie was part of in the 1930s (before he became a Republican) that John F. Kennedy was part of, that is all but dead now with the Liberals moving over to the Republican Party and self-identifying as Conservatives. (Real Conservatives)  People who believe that government can be used to help people who are struggling, but along with Progressives, believe that government should be used to help people help themselves.  

And then you have what I at least believe is the scary wing of the Democratic Party. People who don't simply fit into mainstream American politics. And perhaps even mainstream society. You could call it the Saul Alinsky Wing, or go back back twenty years from the mid and late 1960s and you could call it the Henry Wallace wing. One of the first self-described Democratic Socialists who ever ran for President of the United States. People who believe that the central government has a program to fix everyone's problems for them. That economic freedom and individual success and even individualism, should not only not be celebrated , but are bad things, because it means some people will end up doing very well, while others struggle. 

The Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic Party believes that government should not only be big, but centralized to provide the services that people need to live well. Who aren't even that liberal on social issues either. Not fans of free speech if it offends people they claim to care about. Pro-choice on reproduction rights and sexuality, sure but not much else. Whether it's speech, what people should be able to eat and drink, how we spend our money, they all believe these decisions should be for The Collective to decide for everyone else.

But to get back to my friend John Paul's point about the Democratic Party: if the New-Left McGovernites, ran the Democratic Party, if the Democratic Party was a a McGovernite Party, the party that George McGovern created in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jimmy Carter doesn't become president in 1976. The party doesn't nominate Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mike Dukakis in 1988. Bill Clinton doesn't become president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Al Gore, doesn't win the Democratic nomination in 2000. Neither does John Kerry in 2004. 

As far as Barack Obama in 2008: he ran essentially as a McGovermite in the Democratic primaries, which is why I didn't vote for him in the Maryland primary. But then he moved to the center and Center-Left in the general election and has governed as a Center-Left Progressives as president. If the New-Left ran the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, who is to the left of even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and as far-left as Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, wins the Democratic presidential nomination in both 2004 and 2008. Jesse Jackson, would have won the nomination in 1984 and 88.

We're a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. Try to get your mind around that number for a minute. We're a huge country in-between two of the largest oceans in the world. In between two of the largest countries in the world at least in land, in Canada and Mexico. Anytime you have a country this huge and this free with all of our guaranteed individual rights (unlike lets say Saudi Arabia) with guaranteed free speech and assembly and now with our New Technology Revolution and social media wave, you're going to get a very diverse country politically, racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally and everything else. 

These are the reasons why I believe the two-party system in a country that represents the entire political spectrum is now obsolete. America is not a social-democratic country, if we were we would have had a social-democratic president. If the Democratic Party was a New-Left McGovernite socialist party, it wouldn't be anywhere nearly as big as it's today. Some 45-50 million members and instead the Green Party would probably be as twice as it as it's today and who knows what the Center-Left party would be. Maybe I and others would've created something else. 

What I believe John Paul is trying to do here with his piece, is to make Hillary Clinton look like Jill Stein: some Far-Left, radical, Socialist-Feminist, who is going to turn the country over to women who think like that and the minorities. And that Donald Trump is the new Jesus Christ who is going to save America from that socialist hell. And he's simply wrong about that, whether he knows it or not. 

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

Friday, September 9, 2016

Lisa Rinna: Marilyn Monroe- Things Happen For a Reason

Source: The Daily Review- Great Marilyn Monroe quote, from Lisa Rinna-
Source: The Daily Review

I've blogged this before and I'll say this again. Marilyn Monroe, wasn't known for saying intelligent things, at least not with people not knowing her personally. She was known as a goddess, dumb blonde, an entertainer, comedian, singer, a wild child with the baby-face of a sixteen year girl and even the personality of one. And except for the dumb blonde she was all of those things.

But she was so much more and even those she was immature and lack self-discipline and self-confidence, which is shocking if you just look at her and see that smile, she had this keen blunt way of seeing things for what they are and knowing exactly how to describe them and put things and people in their place. She had a keen sense for commonsense about life outside of her. Even if she didn't show much of it when living her own life. What's she saying here in this quote is not something that makes people think, "I wish I thought of that." Instead it's more like, "I wish I remembered that, so I could see things what they were and take life as it comes and make the best of it."

Things to happen for a reason. Which sounds like a quote from Captain Obvious, but it's so true and if more people just saw that instead of thinking their life is collapsing because they're facing some hardship. It's not whether something for good or bad happens in your life that is key. The question is how does that change you and what do you do about it. Being poor at any point in your life is only a life sentence if you make it one for yourself. You don't improve yourself, you don't get yourself the skills that you need to live your life, you don't make the necessary lifestyle adjustments needed to be able to move up in life and you'll remain poor. Instead of saying, "I hate poverty, so I'm going to do what it takes to get myself out of poverty." And that is just one example and when something positive happens in your life, you should know why and how that happened, so you don't take it for granted and stay on that positive course. Whether you get a promotion at work, get a great girlfriend, whatever it might be.

One way I would describe Marilyn Monroe, is that she has a Ronald Reagan knack of commonsense. (Sorry, my fellow Democrats) The Gipper had an ability to put things as they are and put them in a way that anyone basically could understand. That is how someone wins presidential elections with 56 and 59 percent of the vote and wins 93 states in two elections. Because you show strong leadership and layout a vision and character that everyone can understand. Even if they vote for you or not.

Marilyn Monroe, was fifteen-years younger than Ron Reagan and politically very different, but she had that same ability of putting things in a way that everyone can understand. And not introduce knew language and facts, but instead remind people of commonsense that almost everyone knows. That perhaps we forgot, because it's so common and perhaps seems so ordinary and perhaps old school and we feel the need to simply be different and fit in with current times. Marilyn was great at putting things exactly as they are and for that reason alone is worth being missed.
Love Marilyn 100: Marilyn Monroe & Her Most Beautiful Quotes



Thursday, September 8, 2016

Canadian-C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens and Patrick Buchanan, on Bill Clinton in 1993


Source:CSPAN- Left-Wing political writer Christopher Hitchens, on CSPAN in 1993.

"Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers' comments criticizing the Clinton administration. Credit to CSPAN." 

From CSPAN 

"Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers' comments criticizing the Clinton administration."  

Source:CSPAN- Pat Buchanan and Chris Hitchens on CSPAN, in 1993.

From CSPAN

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show. 

Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what's called today an Alt-Rightist: someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis's and civil wars. 

And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes. 

Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren't two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on a certain issue.

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