Monday, August 28, 2023

WGBH News: 'What Alan Dershowitz Said About Impeachment During Watergate'

Source:WGBH News- criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz in 1973.

"On Nov. 1, 1973, Alan Dershowitz appeared with two other legal scholars on the WGBH News program "The Reporters." The one-hour show focused on the theme "Treason, Bribery Or Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors," and aired as the U.S. House was considering impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon." 

From WGBH News 

On this panel, on this Boston public TV show called The Reporters, they're basically discussing when a President of the United States should be impeached and for what for. Should there have to be evidence that the President (in that case Richard Nixon) committed a felony or multiple felonies, while in office. Or should there be a lower standard for when and why a President should be impeached, like failing to adequately supervise his own appointments and the people that he's supposed to supervise while they're in office. 

As far as Alan Dershowitz in general: I don't think the Alan Dershowitz in 1973, even recognizes the Alan Dershowitz of 20 years later, 30 years later, 40 years later, or even today. Which is probably a good thing that he never became a politician. He defended O.J. Simpson when Simpson was on trial for a double murder in 1995. And he defended Donald J. Trump when former President Trump was on trial in the Senate, for being impeached for the second time, for his role in the 2021 insurrection in Washington. 

I believe the only thing that's consistent about Alan Dershowitz, is that he's a criminal defense lawyer. And when you are a criminal defense lawyer, it's not always facts and evidence that matter. Which is something else that he has in common with Donald Trump and the broader MAGA movement. What really matters when you are a criminal defense lawyer, is what's the best thing that you can do for your client at the time, regardless of the facts and evidence that's against you and your client.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Hear What George Conway Thinks About Mark Meadows' Defense Argument in Georgia Case'

Source:CNN- left to right: (for anyone whose just waking from a coma) former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Conservative Washington political lawyer George Conway.

"Conservative lawyer George Conway discusses the Fulton County criminal trial against former President Donald Trump, his former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and 17 other co-defendants." 

From CNN

Of course I'm not a lawyer (if you are just reading my blogging for the very first time) but here's my argument for why Mark Meadows case shouldn't be in the Federal court system and why it should say in Fulton County, Georgia. 

The Meadows legal team is going to have to answer the question where is it in the interest of the United States and under Mark Meadows job description, for the White House Chief of Staff, to try to convince the Secretary of State of Georgia, to throw out enough legal votes, for then President Donald Trump to win that election in 2020. Which is what Meadows was trying to do on behalf of then candidate Trump in 2020, so the President could overturn the 2020 election and be declared the winner and be able to stay in office. 

The Meadows legal team is not going to be able to do that because Meadows was clearly acting as a Trump campaign official, not as Federal Government official. And so was President in November or December of 2020, when he was trying to do the exact same thing, when he was talking to the Georgia Secretary of State as well. 

George Conway already explained in this video (that's linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony. 

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don't serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they're supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

TED: Barbara F. Walter: Is The US Headed Towards Another Civil War?

Source:TED- democracy expert Barbara F. Walter speaking.

"Based on her work for a CIA task force aimed at predicting civil wars, political scientist Barbara F. Walter examines the rise in extremism and threats to democracies around the globe -- and paints an unsettling picture of the increasing likelihood of a second civil war in the United States." 

From TED

Is the United States headed to a civil war? Interesting question, but there is no easy answer to that. Are we going to have a civil war even within the next 10 years or so? I would still say of course not and I'll explain that later.

I'll just explain why I don't think America is actually in danger or having a civil war in the near future. 

I think you should look at the possible factions in America that could start that war, if they were actually serious about that. 

You could look at the so-called Far-Left in America (Socialists and Communists) people who are always claiming that America is racist, sexist, homophobic, materialistic, overprivileged, etc. They always are the first to say what a hellhole (or use stronger language than that) America is and are saying how much America sucks and that we should be like Europe, not just ethnically and racially (as we are now) but politically as well. And are the first people to say that they will leave America, if so and so is elected, but then actually never leave the country. 

I think the main problem with assuming that the Far-Left would start a civil war against the U.S. Government, is that they don't believe their own bullshit. (To be frank) I'm sure there are some real Socialists and Communists in America who at the very least, tend to believe what they say. 

But far-leftists in America by in-large are just political hipsters who think it's cool to put down America down from a left-wing perspective. But as they're doing that, they're drinking their capitalist coffee house coffee, capitalist alcohol, looking at their capitalist smartphone and laptop, hanging out in the most yuppie and overprivileged parts of America, with the most yuppie and overprivileged Americans that you could dream of, enjoying American liberal democracy and capitalism as much as everyone else. So don't expect the Far-Left to start an American civil war. 

People, especially in the so-called mainstream media, always look at the Far-Right, people who are called Christian Nationalists. But the fact is there's nothing very religious, or even Christian about thee folks by-en-large, at least not in the classical and traditional sense. Just saying Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, doesn't make you Christian or religious. You actually have to believe in and practice the values of Jesus and Christianity, to be a real Christian. 

The other thing with the Far-Right (and there are exceptions to every rule) is that they tend to be the biggest loser of the losers in this country. People who are not very educated, tend to have at least done some time in prison and are at least somewhat familiar with the criminal and justice system, who in a lot of cases were kicked out of mainstream society because mental issues, or for being prone to violence and end up in some militia/cult, because these are the only groups that would accept them and welcome them in their community. 

The folks on the Far-Right, simply don't have the resources, including money, but training, education, and experience, to take on the most powerful uncle in the world, meaning Uncle Sam. Every time they do, they end up doing long stretches in prison. Just look at 2021 insurrection, or Tim McVeigh from 25 years earlier, and there are a lot more examples like that.

Every free society has fringes in it that would like to see their country be a lot freer and perhaps even take over the government, if they could do that. But one of the things that makes America exceptional, is we love freedom so much and have created government that's simply in the business to defend our freedom, as well as rule of law, and limited government, and our other great liberal democratic values, that most American cherish, but perhaps take for granted too much.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Michael Cohen: This is The Mistake Donald Trump is Making in His Georgia Case'

Source:CNN- former Donald Trump Manhattan attorney Michael Cohen, talking to CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins.

"CNN's Kaitlan Collins speaks with former President Donald Trump's one-time attorney and fixer Michael Cohen about Trump's legal troubles." 

From CNN

If I was under the legal pressure that Donald Trump was: 

multiple jurisdictions 

multiple felonies

I also happened to be 77 years old, with the last place that I would ever want to spend my golden years, would be in a state or federal prison (or perhaps a state or federal hospital, where Donald Trump could finally get a head examination)

I was obviously guilty, based on the evidence that was against me, the fact I don't seem to have any credible defense, (free speech is not unlimited and Donald Trump is not above the law) 

the last thing I would do, would be to personally incentivize people who are around me, like my co-conspirators, to talk to law enforcement and prosecutors about me, especially what they know about me and my role in this conspiracy against me. But that's me.

Donald Trump's co-conspirators are not rich. At least based on the legal bills that they're now pilling up and the fact that they work for someone who doesn't pay them meaning Donald Trump. 

The Donald's co-conspirators may not have any choice but to become rats against The Donald, because they run out of money, are not just looking at being convicted, but multiple convictions against them, perhaps 10-20 years in a state or federal prison, perhaps both prisons. 

If Donald Trump is the billionaire that he says he is and is not buried in debt, he can afford to cover the legals fees of his co-conspirators out of his own pocket, or raise the money from his cult followers. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, August 21, 2023

Associated Press: 'SYND 20 8 74 FORD NOMINATES VICE PRESIDENT'

Source:Associated Press- President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) nominating Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) to be Vice President of the United States, in 1974.

"20 Aug 1974) United States President Gerald Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President." 


After President Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election for President to Jimmy Carter, he later said that he regretted not keeping Vice President Rockefeller on his ticket with him. But President Ford thought he needed a more populist, more of an outsider to the Republican Leadership in Washington and someone who had better relations with the populist base of the Republican Party. which is why he replaced Rockefeller, with Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole just happened to be Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the early 1970s, but that's a different story. 

I think Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller, represented the two dominant and competing factions of the Republican Party, before the populist Christian-Right base took over the party in the early 1990s. Ford was a Conservative Republican from Michigan. Rockefeller was a Progressive Republican from New York. So one of the reasons, to go along with Ford having a lot of respect for Rockefeller, that Ford nominated him for Vice President, was perhaps to unite the Republican Party behind him, when he ran for President in his own right in 1976.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Logical Cowboy: 'THE UNAPPRECIATED DANNY WHITE'

Source:The Logical Cowboy- Dallas Cowboys starting QB Danny White (1980-88)

"Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing." 


This is follow up piece that I wrote about the decline for Tom Landry's Dallas Cowboys, from last week on The New Democrat.

This is also from a follow piece on The New Democrat about Danny White.

Just to start on a personal not first: when I think of Danny White's Dallas Cowboys, I think of him in Tom Landry's shotgun formation, throwing post passes down to the field to either WR Tony Hill or TE Doug Cosbie, against the excellent pass rush that the Redskins had with Dexter Manley, Dave Butz, and Charles Mann, right in Danny White's face, if White doesn't get rid of the ball very quickly. And despite being under that pressure, still able to not just get the ball off, but make a perfect throw down the field, to either Tony Hill or Doug Cosbie, for either a big gain or TD pass against the Redskins.

I think Danny White when he had time to throw the ball, was one of the most accurate and best QB's in the entire NFL. He didn't have a cannon like Gary Hogeboom, but he had a strong arm. He was 6'2, 200 pounds or so, he was very mobile, made plays on the run or scramble. I think he had the same physical skills as the legend that he replaced, which was Roger Staubach, who I still consider to be the best QB in Cowboys history. (Sorry, to any Troy Aikman fans who may read this) 

But the problems that were around Danny White, even though they weren't problems that he created, he still had to try to deal with them and make the best of them. 

Danny White was replacing the best all around QB of the 1970s in Roger Staubach. 

White's Cowboys were in decline, at least in the sense that they were no longer dominating the NFL. 

The rule changes of the 1970s had weaken their defense, especially their secondary. 

The Cowboys didn't have the same depth in the 1980s, that they had in the 1970s. 

The Cowboys starters were still some of the best players in the NFL, but their backups weren't ready to start and when they suffered key injuries, they became an ordinary NFL team. 

The rest of the NFL, at least in the NFC had not just caught up with the Cowboys, but became better, like the Redskins, San Francisco 49ers, New York Giants, and Chicago Bears. 

And perhaps the worst problem of all for Danny White, he played for a head coach who didn't appreciate him, who blamed him personally for the 3 NFC Championship losses in the early 1980s. And as a result tried to replace White with an inferior QB in Gary Hogeboom, before he realized that he made a big mistake and put White back in as the starting QB. 

Danny White was a very good, Pro Bowl caliber NFL QB, who just happened to play for the Dallas Cowboys, when the Cowboys were transitioning to one of the top 2-3 franchises in the entire NFL, to becoming am ordinary playoff team, where making winning your division or just making the playoffs, was a good year. And he gets way too much blame for the decline of Tom Landry's Dallas Cowboys. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thursday, August 17, 2023

SportsChannel: NBA 1985- Portland Blazers @ Boston Celtics: Larry Bird Highlights

Source:SportsChannel Boston or New England, with this 1985 Blazers-Celtics game.

"Larry Bird - 48 pts vs. Blazers (Famous Buzzerbeater) From 1985. Bird also hit another buzzerbeater vs. Pistons the next night." 

From FISH

This was one of several, great, Blazers-Celtics games that they played against each other in the mid and late 1980s. Not sure a lot of people who aren't NBA history junkies (such as myself) are aware of this, but those Blazers teams in the 1980s, were really good, especially on offense. They had so many people who could score a lot of points and who played very well together. 

The Blazers back then weren't just Kiki Vandeweigh, Clyde Drexler, Sam Bowie when he was healthy. But Calvin Natt, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Steve Johnson, Mychal Thompson, before he was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers in 1987. And they had several great games against the Celtics in 1985, 86, 87, and 88. Lost all of them, but they were really good team back then, even before Rick Adelman became their head coach. But were a few steps behind the Celtics, Lakers, 76ers with Moses and Dr. J. and the other great NBA clubs from that era.

As far as Larry Bird's buzzer beater: think about Jerry West and Rick Barry, when you are thinking about how good and talented Larry Bird was. But add about 6 inches and 50-60 pounds of muscle and you get Larry Bird. He was a man who could defend and rebound like a power forward, or perhaps even center, but could shoot, pass, and handle the ball like a great point guard.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Rudy Giuliani Makes Desperate Appeal To Donald Trump To Pay Legal Bills'

Source:CNN- former "America's Mayor" and now street beggar Rudolph Giuliani.

"With his attorney in tow, Rudy Giuliani traveled to Mar-a-Lago in recent months on a mission to make a personal and desperate appeal to former President Donald Trump to pay his legal bills. CNN's Kaitlan Collins is joined by former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean to discuss." 

From CNN

Again, I'm not a a lawyer, but it seems to me that Rudy Giuliani (unless he's already done this ) could sue Donald Trump for not paying him the money that Trump owes him for the work that Rudy has done for The Donald in the last 6-8 years.Which is what Michael Cohen did successfully against President Trump, when he got out of prison a few years ago. 

I almost want to feel sorry for Rudolph Giuliani, because of the public service that he gave America the previous 20 plus years, before leaving the New York Mayor's office in 2001. But I simply can not. When you make your own meals and there's no one left to eat your food, you got to eat them yourself. You are responsible for your own actions for good and bad. 

Rudy Giuliani is a lifelong New Yorker, someone who built his professional career in Manhattan. No one knows Donald J. Trump better than Rudolph Giuliani, other than perhaps Michael Cohen. Rudy knew exactly who he was going to work for and be doing business with, when The Donald hired him to assist his presidential campaign back in 2015 and they went into business together. 

And like with what former Attorney General William Barr told CNN's Kaitlan Collins last week, you need to have legal protection and insurance when you go into business with Donald Trump, because you are going to be involved in, witnessing, and even doing illegal activities, when you work for that man.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Wednesday, August 16, 2023

NBC Sports: NFL 1985 Week 14- Los Angeles Raiders @ Denver Broncos: Highlights

Source:NBC Sports with this Raider-Bronco matchup.

"Raiders (9-4) and Broncos (9-4) in another AFC West battle for first place after a close Silver and Black win 2 weeks earlier in Los Angeles." 


The 1985 Denver Broncos were 11-5, but missed the AFC Playoffs. Back then, 5-14 teams in each conference made the NFL Playoffs, unlike 6 that started in 1990. So you could argue that the 1985 Broncos are one of the best NFL teams ever, at least in the Super Bowl era, that didn't even make the playoffs. 

The 1985 Los Angeles Raiders, we're looking to get back to the Super Bowl. The 1983 Raiders are one of the best NFL teams ever (at least as far as I'm concern) but 1984 was very disappointing because they just got back to the AFC Wildcard that season and lost that game. 

So this is a great matchup of two very good teams on both sides of the ball, that have a lot of very good players at every position, who simply hate and yet respected each other. Which is what made these Raider-Bronco games so good in the 1970s and 80s. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Maggie Haberman On The Irony of Rudy Giuliani’s Indictment For Racketeering'

Source:CNN- New York Times political reporter Maggie Haberman.

"CNN political analyst Maggie Haberman joins CNN’s Kaitlan Collins to discuss Rudy Giuliani’s Georgia indictment and reveals how Donald Trump is reacting to it." 

From CNN

PBS made a documentary about Richard Nixon in 1990 and they talked to Richard Nixon's White House counsel John Dean and they were talking about Watergate. One of the things that Dean told PBS about working at The White House during Watergate that even though he was a lawyer, he wasn't a criminal lawyer. And that he didn't know that he needed to be a criminal lawyer in order to work for President Richard Nixon. 

CNN's Kaitlan Collins interviewed President Donald Trump's Attorney General William Barr last week and he said that one of the things that you need to have when you work for Donald Trump, is a legal insurance policy. That you better have a good lawyer working for you before you work for President Trump. 

What Attorney General Barr was basically saying here, is that when you work for someone like Donald Trump, you are going to be involved in things and doing things that at the very least, could make a witness against someone else, like your boss, or someone else who works for your boss, in a criminal case, or a criminal defendant yourself. Of the 18 other criminal defendants in the the Fulton County case, 1/3 of those folks, are either Donald Trump's lawyers or people who served Donald Trump as his lawyer in the past.

As far as Rudy Giuliani: who is this man? What the hell have they done with Rudy Giuliani? And where is he? It's like he's been kidnapped and was replaced by some clone or someone impersonating the man, but doing it with a completely different character and personality. Pre-Donald Trump, he was a very successful and wealthy Manhattan, New York lawyer. Now, he's looking to sell his New York apartment, just to pay his current legal bills.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

PBS NewsHour: Judy Woodruff: 'Conservative Retired Judge Says Donald Trump 'Corroded & Corrupted American Democracy'

Source:PBS- talking to retired Conservative U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig.

"An influential group of Republican legal voices called for a Jan. 2024 trial date to be set for Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the presidential election. The group included former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and one of the nation's leading conservative legal minds. Judy Woodruff spoke with Luttig for her series, America at a Crossroads." 

From the PBS NewsHour

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and non-commercial,[1][2][3][4][5] free-to-air television network based in Arlington, Virginia.[6][7][8][9] PBS is a publicly funded nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programs to public television stations in the United States,[10][11][12][13] distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Arthur, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[14]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[15] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.[4]

As of 2020, PBS has nearly 350 member stations around the United States." 

From Wikipedia 

If you want to know why the so-called Republican Party, is not even a Republican Party today, let alone a conservative party, just listen to former U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig and listen to any so-called Republican who even struggles to criticize Donald Trump about anything, let alone to so-called Republicans who act like they're blind, death, and braindead, every time they hear or see Donald Trump to or say anything that's corrupt and authoritarian. 

When I think of Conservative: 

"Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. 

In a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas." 

These definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com. 

When I think of a Republican, I think of someone who believes: 

"Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect, republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the whole people were." 

From Wikipedia 

What you hear Michael Luttig doing here, is defending key Republican values, like the rule of law, tradition, checks and balances, personal responsibility, and American democracy. 

What you get from Donald Trump and his supporters, as well as Republicans who know better and who don't technically like or respect the man and even see him as a threat to the American Republic, but who don't have the political balls (to be frank) to admit it publicly, is that it's not illegal or corrupt when Donald Trump does it. Or they act blind, death, or braindead, when Donald Trump does it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'See How Donald Trump Responded To His Fourth Indictment'

Source:CNN- Donald J. Trump: "I'm still the king of political reality TV, bigly."

"Former President Donald Trump said he will hold a "major news conference" at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, during which he will present a report from his team regarding his false claims that the presidential election results in Georgia were rife with fraud." 

From CNN

I guess the way I would respond to Donald J. Trump's last indictment, is similar to how Republican political strategist and now political media celebrity Ana Navarro responded to his 3rd indictment on Instagram a couple weeks ago. 

Ana Navarro had a photo with a picture of the 45th President with the caption: "I'm so indicted, I just can't hide it." With the only thing that I would add to that is: "I just want you to know I think I hate it. Except that it helps me in the Republican Party." 

For any of you who read this, who aren't familiar with the 20th Century or don't have memories of it, (perhaps both) this is a parody from The Pointer Sisters song "I'm So excited."

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Monday, August 14, 2023

NBC Sports: NFL 1985- AFC Divisional Playoff- New England Patriots @ Los Angeles Raiders

Source:John Morgani- Los Angeles Raiders LB Matt Millen, showing a fan at the game, how much they appreciate the Raiders fans.

"1985 Los Angeles Raiders Playoff vs. New England Patriots. Raiders (12-4) and Patriots (11-5) meet in the first round of the playoffs."


With all due respect to the 1985 New England Patriots, who did have an excellent team both on defense and offense, as far as personal and what they accomplished: if Los Angeles Raiders QB Jim Plunkett was healthy and played this game, (which is part of the broader point of this post) the Raiders not just win this game, but probably dominate the Patriots as well. 

With a healthy Jim Plunkett playing this game, instead of career, part-time, starter, Marc Wilson playing instead, the Raiders because of their great defense, would know that they just have to play their game, which is to dominate the Patriots offense. But they wouldn't have to try to win the game themselves, because they know the Raiders offense would have what they needed to move the ball and score points, which was their vertical passing game with QB Jim Plunkett and their receivers and their power running game with Marcus Allen and their big, strong, offensive line.

The 1984 AFC Wildcard lost to the Seattle Seahawks and this 1985 AFC Divisional lost to the Patriots, I believe sums up the Los Angeles Raiders of the 1980s. The team that should've taken over the NFL, or at least the AFC in the 1980s, after the Pittsburgh Steelers fell back to the middle of the pack, basically became a team that after they win their only Super Bowl in Los Angeles in 1983, that a good season for them was winning their division and making it to the AFC Playoffs. Or just making the playoffs for them was a good season for in the mid 1980s. 

But under Tom Flores in the 1980s, especially after the Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles at the end of the 1981 season, they led the NFL in talent and great personal pretty much every year. You look at what they had on defense, I would take their personal, especially their secondary, over the Chicago Bears of that era. 

Offensively, the Raiders as far as personal, were better than the Miami Dolphins and perhaps even the San Francisco 49ers, Washington Redskins, and Dallas Cowboys, perhaps just as talented as the Cincinnati Bengals of the 1980s. But the old cliche: talent doesn't win games. Players and coaches do. That probably should've been written for the Los Angeles Raiders under Tom Flores and Al Davis.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CBS Sports: NFL 1985- NFC Divisional- Dallas Cowboys @ Los Angeles Rams: Tom Landry's Last Winning Season & Playoff Game

Source:NFL- Eric Dickerson runs all over the Cowboys.

"Eric Dickerson's 248-Yard Playoff Record! | Rams vs. Cowboys 1985 Divisional Round | NFL Full Game. The NFL Presents: The 1985 NFC Divisional Game. Eric Dickerson sets the postseason single-game rushing record with 248 yards." 

From the NFL

This post isn't so much about this actual game, then it really is about the last years of Tom Landry as head coach of the Dallas Cowboys. The Anaheim Rams (as I called the Los Angeles Rams back then, who played 36 miles south of Los Angeles, in a city of 300,000 people) absolutely dominated the Cowboys. The Cowboys offense accomplished almost nothing, got shut out, and their defense just played well enough to keep it a 20-0 loss, instead of losing 35 or 42-0. This is really about the 85 Cowboys being the last winning team that Tom Landry had. 

I think a lot of people, including professional NFL historians, when they're look at the 1980s Cowboys, say that the 80s was a bad decade for the Cowboys, when the NFL was prospering and really took off and became the number one pro sports league in America. But the Cowboys played in 3 NFC Championships, won 2 NFC East titles, made the NFC Playoffs 5 times, had 6 winning seasons. That's a very good decade for just about every other NFL franchise. But we're talking about Tom Landry's Dallas Cowboys and simply winning, is not the standard that he and the Cowboys were judged by back then. 

Tom Landry set the standard for how judge the greatest NFL head coaches. It's not about winning, but winning championships and not division titles, which almost get taken for granted when you are the level of Tom Landry, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, and the other great coaches in the NFL in the 1970s and 80s. It's about winning Super Bowls and conference championships. 

When you don't win conference championships and Super Bowl for a few years and you start looking like a normal NFL franchise, people around the league and your own fans start asking questions like: "What's wrong with the Cowboys?" Because 9-7 or 10-6 and even winning making the playoffs and winning your division, is not good enough, when you reach the level of a Tom Landry and the other great coaches from his era. 

It's not like the Cowboys became the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Kansas City Chiefs or Buffalo Bills, or other franchises that struggled in the 80s, at least not right away. From 1980-83, the Cowboys played in 3 NFC Championships, lost all 3, but no one else made it to 3 straight from 1980-82, won the NFC East in 1981, a win away from winning the NFC East again in 1983. 

The 83 Cowboys were 12-4 and were considered 1 of the 3 best teams in the entire NFL for most of that season. 

The 84 Cowboys were 9-7 and had they beat the Miami Dolphins during week 16 and almost won that game, they're back in the NFC Playoffs and would've eliminated the New York Giants. 

The 85 Cowboys were 10-6 and won the NFC East, swept the Washington Redskins and New York Giants, who were also 10-6 that year.

I think the main difference between Tom Landry's `1970s Cowboys and the 80s Cowboys, has to do with depth. You look at the Cowboys starters from 83-85 and even 86 and perhaps 87, they match up very well as far as the talent that they had and what those players accomplished during those careers, both on offense and defense. But when QB Danny White goes down, or Landry decides simply not to play him, because he's anxious to get back to another Super Bowl and thinks Gary Hogeboom is his ticket back to the Super Bowl, or the Cowboys lose another key starter, they go from looking like a Super Bowl contender, to a very ordinary team. 

The other problem that the Cowboys of the 80s had, was consistency. They would sweep the Redskins and Giants, but get destroyed by a 7-9 Cincinnati Bengals team, or get hammered at home by the 85 Bears, one of the best teams in the history of the NFL. But when you win as long as Tom Landry did and won as many games and championships as Landry did, 9-7-10-6, is simply no good enough based on how you are judged by the rest of the league and your own fans.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Friday, August 11, 2023

Beau Boone: 'Forgotten Legends: Ken Anderson'

Source:Beau Boone- welcome to Super Bowl 16 between the Cincinnati Bengals & San Francisco 49ers. Two of the most unlikely NFL teams to make it to the Super Bowl, going into the 1981 season.

"Ken Anderson was one of the greatest quarterbacks of his era, but in today's world his name is hardly heard. He truly is a forgotten legend." 


This is about my case for Cincinnati Bengals QB Ken Anderson to finally be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And I'll make it very simple for you.

If there is room for Dan Fouts and Bob Griese to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, then there is room for Ken Anderson as well, whose at least, at least as deserving as both Fouts and Griese to be in the Hall of Fame. 

Dan Fouts has a career losing record as an NFL QB, He didn't become the San Diego Chargers full-time starting QB until 1978, his 6th season in the league, I'm not a big stats guy when it comes to sports, but he only three 12 more TD's than INT's during his 15 year career. But he's in the Hall of Fame because he was a very accurate QB and three for a lot of passing yards.

Miami Dolphins QB Bob Griese is in the Hall of Fame because he not just won 2 Super Bowls but won them back-to-back. But if he had 2 Super Bowl losses and didn't win a single Super Bowl and the rest of his career was still the same, he's probably not in the Hall of Fame today. He was a system QB, who needed a great offensive line and running game, which he had for most of his career with the Dolphins, in order to be successful at all. He played in a ball-control, power-run offense, where he only had to throw the ball about 15 times a game, for the Dolphins to win. 

I'm not arguing that Dan Fouts and Bob Griese are not Hall of Famers or that they should be removed from the Hall of Fame. I'm just arguing that Ken Anderson just as a QB, was at least as good as both of those players. 

Ken Anderson was generally, if not always the best player on every team that he played for with the Bengals, at least on offense and his numbers, victories, including playoff victories, playing for a franchise that didn't win consistently for most of his career. And yet still won a lot of games and put up excellent numbers for the Bengals in the 1970s and 80s, when Dan Fouts was still on the Chargers bench. And Bob Griese was handing the ball off for the Dolphins and watching his defense dominate the other teams.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Ex-Federal Judge & Prominent Conservative: ‘There is No Republican Party’

Source:CNN- ex-U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig.

"Former US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative, tells CNN’s Poppy Harlow why he believes American democracy is at risk." 

From CNN

I agree with Judge Michael Lutting in this sense: there is no active, political Republican Party. Meaning, there is no political party in America that is simply dedicated in preserving the American federal republic, which is and was the original purpose of the Republican Party and why it was created in the 1850s. 

Of course there are people in the Republican Party that are still ideologically Republicans and even Conservative Republicans and represent what's left of the center-right in the Republican Party. But there is no longer a whole Republican Party that's dedicated to preserving the American federal republic. 

This is what was the Grand Ole Party: 

"The Republican Party, also known as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. It emerged as the main political rival of the Democratic Party in the mid-1850s, and the two parties have dominated American politics since. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories.[15] The Republican Party today comprises diverse ideologies and factions,[16][17][18][19] but conservatism is the party's majority ideology." 

From Wikipedia 

In the 1850s and 1860s, it was the Republican Party that was fighting for liberal democracy and equal rights for all Americans, not just Anglo-Saxon men: 

"The Republican Party's ideological and historical predecessor is considered to be Northern members of the conservative Whig Party, with Republican presidents Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison all being Whigs before switching to the party, from which they were elected.[20] The collapse of the Whigs, which had previously been one of the two major parties in the country, strengthened the party's electoral success. Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery.[21][22] The Republican Party initially consisted of Northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and from 1866, former Black slaves. It had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, but was very successful in the Northern United States where, by 1858, it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every state in New England. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. It did not openly oppose slavery in the Southern states before the start of the American Civil War—stating that it only opposed the spread of slavery into the territories or into the Northern states—but was widely seen as sympathetic to the abolitionist cause."

From Wikipedia 

The Grand Ole Party: 

"Seeing a future threat to the practice of slavery with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, many states in the South declared secession and joined the Confederacy. Under the leadership of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, it led the fight to destroy the Confederacy during the American Civil War, preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. The aftermath saw the party largely dominate the national political scene until 1932. The GOP lost its congressional majorities during the Great Depression when the Democrats' New Deal programs proved popular. Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over a period of economic prosperity after the Second World War. Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the party's core base shifted, with the Southern states became increasingly Republican and the Northeastern states increasingly Democratic.[23][24] After the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party opposed abortion in its party platform.[25] Richard Nixon carried 49 states in 1972 with his silent majority, even as the Watergate scandal dogged his campaign leading to his resignation. After Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, he lost election to a full term and the Republicans would not regain power and realign the political landscape once more until 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, who brought together advocates of free-market economics, social conservatives, and Soviet Union hawks.[26] George W. Bush oversaw the response to the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War."

From Wikipedia 

The Grand Ole Party: "The initials synonymous with the Republican Party—“GOP”—stand for “grand old party.” As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party” and the “gallant old party” to emphasize its role in preserving the Union during the Civil War. The Republican Party of Minnesota, for instance, adopted a platform in 1874 that it said “guarantees that the grand old party that saved the country is still true to the principles that gave it birth.” 

In spite of its nickname, though, the “grand old party” was only a mere teenager in the early 1870s since the Republican Party had been formed in 1854 by former Whig Party members to oppose the expansion of slavery into western territories." 

From History 

If you are a Republican ideologically, especially a Conservative Republican, but Republican none the less, you believe in this ideologically: 

"Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect, republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the whole people were. Exactly how the people were to rule was an issue of democracy: republicanism itself did not specify a means.[53] In the United States, the solution was the creation of political parties that reflected the votes of the people and controlled the government (see Republicanism in the United States). In Federalist No. 10, James Madison rejected democracy in favour of republicanism.[54] There were similar debates in many other democratizing nations."

From Wikipedia

The 2nd largest political party in America, is still called the Republican Party, but it's not a Republican party ideologically. It's now lower educated, lower class, less religious (at least in the classical and official sense) party, that believes in strongmen and cult figures, that's more likely to take the word of dictators, then Americans, including Republicans, that they tend to disagree with ideologically. You could also get into to racial and ethnic composition, as well as culture of what's called the modern Republican Party today. But I'll leave that to leftists, who are a lot more partisan than me.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Thursday, August 10, 2023

Forbes Magazine: 'Marjorie Taylor Greene, Gerry Connolly Scream About Her Amendment On House Floor'

Source:Forbes Magazine- left to right: U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene (Christian Nationalist, Georgia) & U.S. Representative Gerald Connolly (Democrat, Virginia) on the House floor, together.

"During NDAA debates on the House floor prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) put forward a NATO-based amendment which led to debate with Democrats." 


Just to give you a little background on Marjorie Taylor Greene, before I actually give her credit, for something positive: (and then spend weeks getting professional help for doing that) 

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is a self-described Christian Nationalist. What does that mean? She approaches her politics with a fundamentalist-Protestant, nationalistic point of view, that has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or even Republicanism. She has more in common ideologically with Vladimir Putin and the Russian Nationalists, then she could ever possibly have in common with the Barry Goldwater's, Ronald Reagan's, and the other great Conservative Republicans in America. 

Having said all of that, she makes a good point about NATO and Europe. I think her motives are bad and probably couldn't give a damn, even if she tried, if America did pull out of NATO and Russia took over not just Ukraine, but the rest of Slavia and Europe at some point. 

But the fact is, Europe doesn't spend enough money on its own defense, America is buried in debt, and Europe is dependent on American taxpayers for its national defense and probably economic security as well. Instead of being the great independent states that Europe should be, with all the great, developed, democratic societies that they have. 

I think the solution here is real simple: convince the European Union on the importance of having free, independent, secure and free states, that aren't reliant on the generosity of taxpayers from other countries, to pay for their own national security. Not to unilaterally gut an important program that vital for the security of Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Frank DiStefano: 'The Republican War Over a New Direction After FDR'

Source:Frank DeStefano talking about the Republican Party post-FDR.

"In this episode, we explain the war within the Republican Party after the New Deal between Robert Taft and his conservative faction and Tom Dewey and his establishment faction over the Republican Party’s Direction.

While Franklin Roosevelt remained president, the Republican Party had little luck at the polls. The candidates in those years, Alf Landon in 1936, Wendell Willkie in 1940, and Tom Dewey in 1944, were by modern standards quite moderate. Yet in each election the Republicans would rail against Roosevelt and his New Deal and promise, if they got the chance, to undo everything Roosevelt had done reversing his New Deal revolution. The American people soundly rejected them. 

Then in 1945, Roosevelt passed away and soon after the Second World War came to an end. For the first time since the 1930s, the Republican saw an opportunity back into the White House. Roosevelt had been unbeatable for the Republicans, but the new president, the far less popular Truman, was someone they thought that they could beat.

Over the next two elections the Republican Party broke out into an internal war between two factions with very different ideas about how to get back into power. The conservative faction, headed by Ohio Senator Robert Taft, son of former President Howard Taft, wanted to continue fighting against Roosevelt New Deal and promising to undo it. They believed the fight that had begun in the 1930s was not yet lost, and that America need the Republicans to prove a clear contrast with the Democratic Party agenda. 

Another faction, which came to be called the establishment, thought this was political suicide. They thought the Republicans had tried this strategy for election after election and gotten crushed. They believed the time had come to accept that America liked the New Deal and there is no undoing what Roosevelt had done. Republican could continuing fighting the advance of the New Deal agenda, could promise to administer the New Deal government better, and could offer alternative ways to achieve the same goals as Democrats. To even again promise to dismantle the institutions, programs, and agendas the Democrats had created however was now impossible.

This wasn’t a philosophical battle over ideas. It was a fight over tactics—how should the  Republicans sell their ideas now in his new post New Deal world?

The establishment won this internal fight. In 1948, they nominated Dewey who very nearly won using this new strategy of a positive campaign without a lot of specifics and without attacking the New Deal directly. In 1952, the Dewey’s establishment won the nomination battle with a new leader, hero of the Second World War Dwight Eisenhower. America liked Ike and for the first time in twenty years like the Republicans back into the White House.

The establishment believed they had been proved right and over the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency the establishment’s perspective became the dominant one within the Republican Party. Until a small band of dissidents began to form who thought the establishment had made a mistake. They called themselves the Conservative Movement." 


What Frank DiStefano seems to be talking about here is that the Republican Party post-FDR, the Eisenhower faction versus the Taft faction, followed by the Rockefeller faction versus the Goldwater faction in the 1960s, wasn't arguing or competing with each other over political philosophy as far as what the Republican Party should stand for going forward, but what they were really just debating each other over tactics. That every major Republican basically shared the same political and government philosophy, but differed on how best to sell that philosophy to American voters and how to defeat Democrats.

To know that Frank DiStefano is simply wrong here, all you have to do is look at Dwight Eisenhower's presidency in the 1950s and look at Richard Nixon's presidency in the 1i970s, at least as it related to economic philosophy, then look at the civil rights movement and agenda and the laws that came from that movement in the 1960s.

Dwight Eisenhower didn't run for President and govern as President in the 1950s, to reverse the New Deal. He didn't believe he had that votes to do that in Congress or the authority to repeal it by himself, and he didn't believe in that either. If he was a Robert Taft Conservative Republican as far as political philosophy, he would've ran for President in 1952 to repeal the New Deal and go back to the Calvin Coolidge philosophy of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and fiscal conservatism, of the 1920s. 

President Eisenhower simply wanted to hit pause on the New Deal and make those programs as fiscally sound as possible. He was also the first great civil rights President, at least post-Abraham Lincoln, by integrating schools in the South in the 1950s. 

The civil rights laws in the 1960s, don't pass without Republican votes both in the House and Senate. After 1960, Democrats controlled both Congress, with huge majorities both in the House and Senate and The White House for the rest of the 1960s, until Richard Nixon is elected President in 1968 and inaugurated in January, 1969.

If you are pretty familiar with Richard Nixon's presidency in the 1970s, besides Watergate, his secret, personal, national, security, unit, his resignation in 1974, thanks to Watergate and other criminal activities on his part, as well as his opening to Russia and China in 1972, and ending the Vietnam War, you know that President Nixon was a pretty Progressive President, at least as it related to economic policy and even foreign affairs. 

President Nixon introduced what he called The New Federalism. Again, not looking to reverse the New Deal or Great Society of the 1960s, but decentralized those programs and turn them over to the states to them. 

President Nixon's Family Assistance Plan of 1969, became Welfare To Work in 1996.

President Nixon's health care plan in 1974, became the Affordable Care Act of 2010.  

The Republican Party, at least until the Christian-Right and now Christian Nationalists took over the party 5-10 years ago, has always been a center-right party. They just have always have had two center-right establishment factions in it. 

The Conservative Republicans, or Constitutional Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians even, on the right of the party, and the Progressive Republicans on the left of the party, but people who are definitely to the right of the FDR/LBJ Progressive Democrats, have been for most of the history of the Republican Party, the two competing factions in it. And these two competing factions have been competing with each other, at least since the Progressive Era of 100 years ago.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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