Firing Line With Margaret Hoover: Maya MacGuineas & Robert Reich

Source:Firing Line With Margaret Hoover- left to right: Margaret Hoover, Maya MacGuineas, and Robert Reich.

"Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and federal budget expert Maya MacGuineas discuss America's staggering national debt and what should be done about it." 

From Firing Line With Margaret Hoover 

"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

A few interesting points here: 

Maya MacGuineas (whose a real life fiscal Conservative, which is rare in Washington and perhaps in America as well) and left-wing economist Robert Reich (who I describe as a Democratic Socialist) agreeing that when the national debt and budget deficit, grows faster than the economy, (meaning economic growth) that is bad for the economy and the country as a whole.

Another interesting point being what Robert Reich said that it doesn't natter how much you borrow, just as long as that government borrowing is used for promote economic growth. And he said those government investments being things like infrastructure, job training, education, all things that I support, but I would disagree that you should borrow the money to pay for those investments. 

The other interesting point being that there's no set number as far as how large the national debt and deficit needs to be, even as a percentage of the economy. But with Maya MacGuineas with the great counterpoint being that we don't want to find out what that number is before out economy crashes because the American dollar is not worth anything and no one, including the U.S. Government can pay any of their bills.

My point for the Robert Reich's of the world: if deficits and debt doesn't matter (which is not what Reich said) then you don't need taxes. for anything that government actually does. Reich said in this interview that there is actually a limit to how much the U.S. Government can borrow before it's too much. But then he said that now is the time for more government borrowing, because the interest rates are now, which just begs a certain question and answer. 

Why are our interest rates so low? Because the Federal Reserve up until last year, kept them low. But then they started raising them last year to deal with high inflation and high borrowing, to deal with the rising national debt and deficit Part of President Biden's and the last Congress's social welfare package from last summer, was to deal with the national debt and deficit, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act.

Anyone who pays taxes and pays their own bills in general, knows that inflation, as well as the debt and deficit, have been major issues in the American economy the last two years. And the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 deals with inflation, as well as the national debt and deficit. 

Again, if deficit and debt doesn't matter, then government, including the U.S. Government doesn't need taxes for anything, because it now has unlimited borrowing authority. And no serious economist actually believes that even the Uncle Sam's government, has unlimited borrowing authority.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Secretary Dean Rusk- 'The Revisionist Historians (1974)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- with former Secretary of State Dean Rusk (1961-69)

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Revisionist Historians. Episode S0123, Recorded on January 23, 1974."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

"Dean Rusk is, I suppose," Mr. Buckley begins, "by everyone's reckoning the

principal historical victim of the Vietnam War"--reviled by the elite press and the

revisionist historians and exiled, as his Ivy League friends see it, to the wilds of Georgia. He is, however, unbowed: "Well, legitimate historians are always in the process of revising history, whether it's based upon new archaeological finds or some documents of the 19th century that crop up. But I don't believe that we should roll over and play dead just because someone writes a political tract and calls it history." A rich discussion starting with the beginnings of the Cold War, moving to the early days of the Kennedy Administration--when Cuba and Berlin and, soon, Vietnam were all clamoring for attention--and on to the American campus of today."

From The Hoover Institution

I think what I'm getting from Bill Buckley in this interview here with former JFK and LBJ Secretary of State Dean Rusk (1961-69) is that he's interested in what I guess left-wing (Far-Left, really historians) historians takes on important and controversial events in American history. And he was trying to get Secretary Dean Rusk to talk about that and what the Secretary was doing was essentially trying to dodge Buckley's jabs about these left-wing historians.

A good case to talk about when you're talking about so-called left-wing historians and leftists (Socialists and Communists) in America, as well as anti-government Libertarians (if not Anarchists) and their take on a major historical event in America, is of course the JFK assassination. Almost 60 years later you still have a faction of leftist Americans and anti-government Libertarians who'll never accept the official report of the Warren Report about the JFK assassination, no matter how many facts and how much evidence you throw at these people.

You literally have leftists in America who can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, simply because L.H. Oswald was a Socialist. And they say that Socialists don't murder people. Apparently unaware and perhaps never heard of Soviet Russia or Communist China or Communist Korea, Nazi Germany, etc. Even though it was Oswald's gun that shot President Kennedy. The bullets that killed JFK came from Oswald's gun. The shots came from where Oswald was and where he was working at the time of the assassination. Oswald had motive, opportunity, and the ability to assassinate JFK when he was in Dallas that day in 1963.

As long as there is money to be made and fame to gain off the backs of controversial, historic events in American history, you're going to have people try to make as much money and gain as much fame as they can off of those events regardless of the facts and they'll let the facts be dammed. Roger Stone on the Right and his own bullshit (to be frank) book at the JFK assassination is a perfect example of that, where he argues that Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordered the JFK assassination, is a perfect example of that.

This is just one of the consequences of having a First Amendment and a constitutional right to free speech in America, as well as a private enterprise economic system. And I wouldn't have it any other way as a Liberal. What honest Americans need to do and our educators need to do is separate the facts from the fiction and make sure as many Americans are aware of them as possible. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Norman Mailer- 'Crime & Punishment: Gary Gilmore'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Author Norman Mailer, talking about his book about convicted murderer Gary Gilmore, in 1979.

"Episode S0390, Recorded on October 11, 1979, Guest: Norman Mailer"

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

This is about convicted serial murderer Gary Gilmore who was obviously guilty of multiple murders out in Utah in the mid 1970s. Gilmore, not only admitted to his murders, but wanted to take responsibility for all of them by paying the ultimate price for them with his life and getting the death penalty for them.

Most convicted murderers who are facing the death penalty fight to the very end and even if they admit to their murders, they at least try to get their death sentence overturned and get life in prison instead. But Gary Gilmore perhaps similar to a cancer patient who perhaps knows they can be alive indefinitely, but will be in pain the rest of their lives, or at least under heavy medication for the rest of their lives, to relieve the pain and be able to stay alive and decide that its not worth it to them and decide to end their own life through physician assisted suicide, Gilmore knew he was a murderer and believed his life wasn’t worth saving or preserving and fought to get the death penalty.

Gilmore, was sentenced to death for the two murders that he committed and instead of appealing his death sentence, he instead decided that he would just accept and be put to death. And anti-death penalty groups in the mid 1970s fought to get his death sentence overturned and his case gets to the Supreme Court where they decided that would be put to death. And I guess Gilmore in a sense and won that case even though the prize was the death penalty, but that’s exactly what he wanted to begin with.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr: The Equal Rights Amendment- Phyllis Schlafly Debates Ann Scott (1973)

Source:Firing Line With William F Buckley- Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

"Episode S0089, Recorded on March 30, 1973. Guests: Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Scott, Judith Areen, Father Edmund G. Ryan, Brenda Eddy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution  

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as WFB puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn." 

Source: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- William F. Buckley, Ann Scott & Phyllis Schlafly. 

From the Hoover Institution

My issues with the Equal Rights Amendment is that everything that so-called feminists (who are really radical feminists, but people who view women as superior to men) what they want with the ERA is already in the U.S. Constitution and under Federal U.S. law. What they want which is for women and men to be treated equally which is what mainstream feminists really want, is already part of the U.S. Constitution and under Federal statue under the Equal Protection Clause and under our civil rights law. 

Before 1973 even, it was illegal for women to be discriminated against based on gender. Or for men to be discriminated against based on their gender, or for either gender to be rewarded based on their gender. So what radical feminists were fighting for in the 1970s, they already had.

My issues with radical feminism which is just a form of socialism and part of the broader socialist movement in America and outside of America, is that they believe that women are superior to men and therefor should be treated better than men. That it's not equal rights for women that they are seeking, since they already had those under the U.S. Constitution and under our civil rights  laws. But they want women to be treated better than men not just in the culture, but under law. 

Radial feminists want women to be the boss in general instead of women or men just becoming the boss based on their education, skills, and production, but just be treated better than men and having more power than men simply because they're women. Not because they earned that right simply because of their intelligence, qualifications, and productivity. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Future of Conservatism (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Mr. Conservative: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R, Arizona (Republican, Arizona) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Future of Conservatism. Episode 016, Recorded on June 9, 1966. Guest: Barry M. (Barry Morris) Goldwater."

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Under Arizona law, Mr. Goldwater had had to give up his Senate seat to run for the Presidency, and so at the moment he was a private citizen-though still, even after his disastrous defeat, the acknowledged leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. This rich conversation ranges from the specific and immediate (Medicare, the prospects for the 1968 election) to the general (Has too much power accrued to the Presidency? How can it be curbed?). BG: "I think the country has become pretty much a two-term country. So I think it's pretty much up to the President. If he decides to run again, the chances of the Republicans beating him are not excellent. However, if he keeps on with his lack of success in Vietnam, the downfall of NATO, ... the growing cost of living in our country, the chances get better. But we don't like to win on those kinds of chances."  

Source:The National Review- Firing Line With William F. Buckley & Barry Goldwater in 1966. 

From the Hoover Institution

When you have a discussion with someone like Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, who admittedly was the most conservative member of Congress, when he was in the Senate from 1953-65 and then later from 1969-87, you are talking about what some would call conservative libertarianism today or constitutional conservatism. Which is someone who bases their politics around the U.S. Constitution and conserving that document and all of the individual rights that come with the Constitution, including the protections that we get from government. And William F. Buckley was from that same branch on the Right in America, the Center-Right in the Republican Party. 

What Buckley and Goldwater were talking about here was how Conservatives could succeed not just in the Republican Party, but in American politics. And were talking about a movement where Republicans would run as Republicans, as Center-Right Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats and as Progressive Republicans, but as Center-Right, Constitutional Conservative Republicans. And this political movement led to people like Ronald Reagan and other Conservatives in America getting elected in the future past 1966, as Conservative Republicans. Not as light-Democrats or Progressive Republicans.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

University of California Television: An Evening With Christopher Buckley (2009)

Source:The Daily Review

I like Chris Buckley’s line saying that it is unfair for satirists, because they are now in competition with USA Today. Applying that a lot of jokes come true, or as I would put it, get elected. We do now have a Congress that represents America. Not exactly the best of America, I hope now anyway. Or maybe I’ll join Alec Baldwin the next time he threatens, or is generous enough to leave America. USA Today, in the business of news and report serious issues. Satirists, are in the business to make fun of what’s going on and life in general. The problem for satirists is that USA Today and other news organizations now report on a lot of things that look like comedy. Like the government shutting down, because the House of Representatives can’t get the President to repeal his own signature legislation.

Sarah Palin, who I actually have a lot of respect for as a satirist, comedian and a beautiful women, even if someone who has just graduated from high school is more qualified to be either President, or Vice President of the United States, is the perfect example of satire, or a real-life comedy story. In Supreme Courtship, Chris Buckley, writes about a fictional character from Texas, a very attractive female judge who loves firearms and the Southwestern Texas lifestyle. Sarah Palin, who other than being from Alaska instead of Texas, has a lot in common with the fictional Texas judge. A very attractive women with a keen sense of humor, from rural Alaska, who loves the country lifestyle and is a big fan of guns, who has a great personality. But who is more qualified to be a fictional TV character than Vice President of the United States. And yet she’s nominated for Vice President by the candidate who comes within a few large states of winning the presidency.

As I’ve blogged before you can’t follow Washington politics and that is national politics and I’m sure Washington city politics as well, without a sense of humor. Unless you have a lot of money that you don’t know what to do with and decide to spend all that money on shrinks and vacations at mental institutions as a patient. Because you’re suffering from a severe case of depression. Because there’s so much nonsense (to be nice, bullshit to be accurate) that happens here that we all pay for.

U.S. Senators, who rather be president to the point that they their main job becomes running for president, instead of serving their people in Congress that the taxpayers have to pay for. A taxpayer-funded Defense Department that is so big that it can’t be audited. One f the funniest true stories of all-time. Taxpayer Congressional investigations that purely designed to hurt the leading presidential candidate from the other party. The largest entitlement programs in the world that are going broke if they’re not fixed. That no one in Congress has the balls to actually fixed, because that might mean that they have to go home and find a real job. That they’re a lot less qualified for.

But again the problem with satirists and people who write satiric books for a living about current affairs, is that it becomes harder to find new stories to write about even if you think you have something that is really funny. Because chances are that story is actually true, or something very similar to that has already happened. Tobacco companies have said under oath that tobacco is not addicted. Which was the story in Chris Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking.

We actually do have a Congress that makes con man, used car salesman, personal injury attorney’s, gold diggers, look popular. As well as the nerd in class whose hand is always up to not only answer every question, but answers the questions that the teacher puts to other students and then wonders why they never have any money for lunch, or are always getting kicked in the butt, because their lunch money is always stolen and they’re wearing a kick men sign on their butt.

The thing about Washington and American government is that jokes are not just funny, but they get elected and a lot funny made for Hollywood stories actually come true. You would go nuts and became Michelle Bachmann’s roommate at a mental institution if you couldn’t laugh about it. But that is democracy for you and as the great political satirist George Carlin said, “politicians are a reflection of the people.” They’re not God, or aliens from another planet, or even robots. (Even if they look and act like them for their lobbyists) And they represent the best and worst of us.

The Week: Sam Fragoso- 'How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry'

Source:The Week- William F. Buckley debating Gore Vidal on ABC News, at the 1968 Republican National Convention, in Miami Florida.

"This summer, the silver screen has been dominated by microscopic superheroes, prodigious dinosaurs, sexually uninhibited trainwrecks, and gyrating strippers — you know, the usual summertime fare. But the most entertaining film released this summer revolves around something different: a pair of loquacious, Anglo-Saxon intellectuals who wanted nothing more than to extinguish one another on public television.

Directed with precision and panache by journalists-turned-documentarians Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon, Best of Enemies begins in the spring of 1968 with a failing network desperate for viewership. With nothing to lose, ABC — dubbed the "budget car rental of television news” by New York's Frank Rich — settled on an unconventional approach to the Republican and Democratic conventions. The plan? Put William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, two ideologically opposed scholars, in front of a live an audience to do what they do best: debate.

Hailed as the "St. Paul of the conservative movement," Buckley (founder of National Review) served as the voice of the right. Conversely, Vidal, an esteemed author and consummate provocateur, represented the left. As Best of Enemies meticulously documents, this mercenary ploy for higher ratings led to riveting television. For 10 debates, Buckley and Vidal engaged in vigorous, often pointed dialogue about the problems plaguing America, from the Vietnam War to the marginalization of the poor. But the real draw, some might argue, was that these conversations often dovetailed into vindictive ad-hominem attacks. The heated tête-à-têtes weren't just about Richard Nixon, or the overreach of the federal government, or any other hotly contested issue. They were about personal domination. Vidal and Buckley didn't simply want to outsmart each other; they wanted to pummel the other into submission." 

You can read the rest of Sam Frasgoso's piece at The Week. 

"In the summer of 1968, television news changed forever. Dead last in the ratings, ABC hired two towering public intellectuals to debate each other during the Democratic and Republican national conventions. William F. Buckley Jr. was a leading light of the new conservative movement. A Democrat and cousin to Jackie Onassis, Gore Vidal was a leftist novelist and polemicist. Armed with deep-seated distrust and enmity, Vidal and Buckley believed each other’s political ideologies were dangerous for America. Like rounds in a heavyweight battle, they pummeled out policy and personal insult—their explosive exchanges devolving into vitriolic name-calling. Live and unscripted, they kept viewers riveted. Ratings for ABC News skyrocketed. And a new era in public discourse was born."  

Source:Movie Clips- William F. Buckley debating Gore Vidal on ABC News, at the 1968 Republican National Convention, in Miami Florida.

From Movie Clips 

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. 

Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole debate. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game and knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. 

I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor Howard K. Smith, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The Hippie Generation (1968)

Source:The New Democrat

I find this whole show very interesting if for no other reason and there might not be any other reason why I find this episode of Firing Line interesting, but the contrast on it. You have Bill Buckley who was as Anglo-Saxon and preppie and perhaps even square as an American can get, interviewing hippies and an expert I guess on Hippies. Why Buckley would let Jack Kerouac go out on his show drunk, I have no idea other than maybe to make fun of the man and make him look like a joke.

The hippie movement was a reaction to the 1950s and every other conservative establishment decades before it. What the Hippies said was that there were multiple ways for Americans to live their lives and be productive people and good Americans. That they didn’t have to live the lives of the parents and grandparents. The Baby Boomers who probably made up most of the Hippies were giving this message and living their life differently. That they didn’t have to live the lives of their parents and could live the way that they wanted to and still be good productive people.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Newt Gingrich, Where is the GOP Headed

Source:The FreeState

Not really Newt Gingrich himself, but his movement and followers represented where the Republican Party was headed post Ronald Reagan. Not George H.W. Bush who succeeded President Reagan as President, but didn’t offer a vision other than maybe on foreign policy. Of where he would take the GOP with him. President Bush was more of an operator or pragmatist as President. 

George H.W. Bush took  issues and problems as they came up, but not having a set of ideas and policies, or direction where he wanted to take the Republican Party. Whereas Newt Gingrich and his Conservative Opportunity Society group had a vision where they wanted to take the Republican Party. That later became known as the Contract with America in 1995. Shortly after being elected to the House in 1978, December, 1978, Rep. Elect Newt Gingrich when House Republicans were still in the minority. 

The House HOP had around 160 or so seats during the Carter Administration. They put together working groups that would work on bringing a House majority for the GOP. Raising money recruiting like minded candidates, putting together and agenda. That they would try to pass, that later became the CWA of 1995-96. But it took them sixteen years to get there. But only he and his group believed they had any shot of taking back the majority. This was back in the day when the House Republicans had for the most part had around 160-180 seats, the late 1970s and 1980s. 

And House Democrats controlled the House since 1955. I don’t agree with Newt on much and he has personal characteristics that I don’t like, but I respect him a lot as a political strategist. Probably the best we’ve had since Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. He could see things happening that no one else could. Because he knew how to get there and deserves a lot of credit for that. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The Future of the GOP With Richard Nixon (1966)

1966 is where Richard Nixon rebuilt his political career as someone who can not only raise a lot of money, but build up a lot of support not just for himself, but for candidates he endorsed and use that influence to get other Republicans elected and reelected. To the point that so many Republicans in Congress by 1968 owed the former Vice President lots of favors and he had countless political endorsements he could count on when he ran for president against in 1968.

Dick Nixon spent a lot of 1966 campaigning for Republicans especially in Congress and campaigning for Congressional Republican candidates to the point that House Republicans picked up forty-seven seats in 1966. And Senate Republicans picked up four seats and this was when House Republicans only had one-hundred forty seats out of 435 in the House of Representatives in 1965-66 and only had thirty-two seats out of a hundred in the Senate.

1966 is where we get a real good look at the American political landscape changing and where we were no longer a country dominated by Democrats politically. Because Republicans moved into the South and West by winning races there not just in Congress, but at the state level as well with Ronald Reagan being elected Governor of California. And at the same time Republicans were able to hold on and manage their strength in the Northeast and Midwest.

Saul Alinsky: Mobilizing The Poor (1967)

Source:Tapa Talk- Saul Alinsky talking about community organizing.

"When William F. Buckley met Saul Alinsky, one of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s biggest influences.

The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor-- mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag- out from start to finish.

SA: I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around."  

From Tapa Talk 

"William F Buckley engages community organizer Sal Alinsky regarding his actions and guiding philosophy. Liberty Pen" 

Source:Liberty Pen- community organizer Saul Alinsky on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1967. They talked about Mr. Alinsky's philosophy on community organizing.

From Liberty Pen

What I got in from this discussion from the few moments that Saul Alinsky got to talk about his own personal philosophy (even though this is about a fifteen-minute video) is that Mr. Alinsky was saying that: 

"Democracy that of course it is not perfect, is the best political system on the planet. But that democracy needs to work for everyone and not just be there for people who have money, or a lot of money. That everyone should have power and the ability to live in freedom. And that freedom shouldn't just be for people born to wealth and even just for people who create their own wealth."

Mr. Alinsky I believe sounds very mainstream to me and values that I believe Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and perhaps even Conservatives can all agree on. But the only question being what is the best way to make that happen so we don't have a country with very few wealthy people and a lot of poor people. But where where a lot of people are at least successful with money in the bank and not living paycheck to paycheck and struggling just to pay their bills. Whether they are rich or not. 

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Leander Perez- 'The Wallace Crusade (1968)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Judge Leander Perez: Louisiana.

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Movement. Episode 095, Recorded on April 15, 1968: Guest: Leander Perez."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Crusade. Episode 088, Recorded on January 24, 1968 Guest: George C. (George Corley) Wallace."

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Interviewing Governor C. Wallace in 1968.

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: The Wallace Crusade. Episode 088, Recorded on January 24, 1968 Guest: George C. (George Corley) Wallace For more information about this program, see...

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Governor George C. Wallace: D. Alabama.

From Rick Donald

Bill Buckley was a true Conservative and he would've taken the more progressive or liberal stance against Wallace when it came to civil rights and segregation. Or least that it how it would seem. I even as a Liberal believe you can be a Conservative and still believe in commonsense American values like liberty, equality, equal rights and civil liberties. But that is me.

I never heard of Leander Perez from Louisiana before I saw this video. But apparently he was both Governor of Louisiana and a judge in Louisiana and this interview was done in 1968. And they were talking segregation and the civil rights laws. And the Governor telling Bill Buckley that he’s not a racist even though he says Negros (which is what African-Americans back then were called) are morally inferior to Caucasian-Americans. And Perez saying that he’s being honest and that is the truth, “why hide it”? With Buckley replying “so you are an honest bigot”.

Governor George C. Wallace was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing (at least on social cultural issues) Nationalist who was basically still fighting the Civil War and wanting to lead Confederates in that war. Not ready to perhaps even see African-Americans as people, let alone as Americans deserving of the same rights and protections, as well as responsibilities as European-Americans. Bill Buckley was a Conservative. And one of the conservative values is treating individuals as exactly that. And not treating people as members of groups. Worst or better simply because of their race.

The so-called Wallace Movement of the South of the 1960s and 1970s, was different. And more of a racially based nationalistic movement of Southern Caucasians, predominantly Protestant and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon. Who felt having African-Americans in their community was some type of an invasion. When the fact was and still is that Africans are just as American as Europeans and as such deserving of the same rights as European-Americans and every other race in America. The Wallace Movement simply saw African-Americans as inferior. And not deserving of the same rights and protections.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

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

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Leander Perez (1968)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Judge Leander Perez, ( D, LA) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

"Episode 095, Recorded on April 15, 1968

Guest: Leander Perez."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

Judge Leander Perez (Democrat, Louisiana) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley in 1968. The video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- interviewing Judge Leander Perez, of Louisiana in 1968.

I never heard of Leander Perez from Louisiana before I saw this video. But apparently he was both Governor of Louisiana and a judge in Louisiana and this interview was done in 1968. And they were talking segregation and the civil rights laws. And the Governor telling Bill Buckley that he’s not a racist even though he says Negros (which is what African-Americans back then were called) are morally inferior to Caucasian-Americans. And Perez saying that he’s being honest and that is the truth, “why hide it”? With Buckley replying “so you are an honest bigot”.

This video is called The Wallace Movement, but very little if any mention at least in this short video of Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Who was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing (at least on social cultural issues) Nationalist who was basically still fighting the Civil War and wanting to lead Confederates in that war. Not ready to perhaps even see African-Americans as people, let alone as Americans deserving of the same rights and protections, as well as responsibilities as European-Americans. Bill Buckley was a Conservative. And one of the conservative values is treating individuals as exactly that. And not treating people as members of groups. Worst or better simply because of their race.

The so-called Wallace Movement of the South of the 1960s and 1970s, was different. And more of a racially based nationalistic movement of Southern Caucasians, predominantly Protestant and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon. Who felt having African-Americans in their community was some type of an invasion. When the fact was and still is that Africans are just as American as Europeans and as such deserving of the same rights as European-Americans and every other race in America. The Wallace Movement simply saw African-Americans as inferior. And not deserving of the same rights and protections. 

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

The Bully Pulpit: JR Benjamin- William F. Buckley on Legalizing Drugs: The Failure of the War on Drugs

Source: Liberty Pen- William F. Buckley-

Source:The Bully Pulpit 

William F. Buckley's basic position on the War on Drugs was that it was a failure. That he wasn't in favor of legalizing illegal narcotics which is really what the War on Drugs is. And that is just one problem with the War on Drugs. It is simply not real and not a real war for multiple reasons. And two of them being wars are fought between militaries and armed forces. Not between law enforcement, prosecutors and drug addicts just looking to get high who wouldn't hurt innocent people intentionally at any point. But the other reason is that even the title War on Drugs is fake because it is not a War on Drugs. But a war on drugs that the U.S. Government views inappropriate for private use.

Bill Buckley didn't favor legalizing narcotics because he liked them and wanted to consume them and other Americans to consume them. But that he disliked the War on Drugs even more and believed the War on Drugs with all the people it arrest's and in a lot of cases good people who are again just looking to get high and need to be in drug rehab, prison and lives that the War on Drugs ruins. That the War on Drugs is worst than illegal narcotics itself.

I tend to agree with that myself, but I'm not in a position where I believe we should legalize all illegal narcotics. I support marijuana legalization and even would go as far decriminalizing all the other illegal narcotics to prevent more good Americans from having criminal records and filling up our prisons even more. And getting them in drug rehab. But the War on Drugs is worst than illegal narcotics and we need an approach to illegal narcotics that is better than legalization versus continuing to fight the bogus War on Drugs.
Liberty Pen: William F. Buckley Jr- Drug Legalization

National Review:Jim Geraghty Interviews Ralph Reed at CPAC 2014

The face of the GOP is really the religious right, the "get big government into our personal lives wing of the Republican Party." I wonder what the Conservative Libertarian wing of the GOP led by Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Ron Johnson, Representative Justin Amash, and others think about that.  They have been working on getting big government out of our lives completely and not making the case that some big government is good.

Yaluc SD: PBS Firing Line- Bill Buckley Interviewing Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Taxes in 1988

Where Ron Paul loses me is when he comes out in favor of abolishing the CIA, an organization without which we would never have won the Cold War, because of all the information it provided about the Soviet Union. The CIA was critical to America in winning the Cold War because it could give us information about the Russians and their allies that we weren't able to get before. As far as the income tax goes, it is now in the United States Constitution, thanks to the constitutional amendment process, and government has the constitutional and legal right to tax people in the because of it.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Representative Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- talking to Libertarian Party 1988 presidential nominee Ron Paul, in 1988.

“Ron Paul and William F. Buckley discussing a Constitutional Republic and the necessary evils of government. In 1988, Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate…

From YALUC SD

Where Ron Paul loses me is when he comes out in favor of abolishing the CIA, an organization without which we would never have won the Cold War, because of all the information it provided about the Soviet Union.

The CIA was critical to America in winning the Cold War because it could give us information about the Russians and their allies that we weren’t able to get before.

As far as the income tax goes, it is now in the United States Constitution, thanks to the constitutional amendment process, and government has the constitutional and legal right to tax people in the because of it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Thomas G: Video: ABC News 1968 RNC Coverage Debate: The GOP Platform, Gore Vidal vs. William Buckley

By 1968 the Republican Party was definitely moving right ideologically, with Barry Gooldwater and Ronald Reagan having enormous influence in bringing to the GOP what would be called conservative libertarians today. And Richard Nixon with his 1968 presidential campaign did a lot to bring in what is now called the Religious right, but the GOP still had a solid progressive faction led by Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York and others whom the GOP leadership had to take seriously.

ABC News: Gore Vidal vs William F. Buckley: 1968 Republican National Convention

Source:ABC News- political commentator and author Gore Vidal in 1968.

"Gore Vidal vs William Buckley Republican Convention 1968 Debate" 

From Thomas G

The ultimate debate, when it comes to wit, humor, and intelligence was between Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley. You don't need a moderator in a debate like this and there really wasn't one, with Howard Smith letting Vidal and Buckley basically just go at it because the two men could carry the conversation by themselves and knew where to go and what they wanted to say. They also both listened to each other and knew how to respond to their opponent's legitimate points in an intelligent way.

It would be nice to see more debates like this, with two people literally just going at it and no one asking questions but just giving them topics to talk about.  They already knew what to say because they knew what they thought. That should go without saying, but a lot of politicians and candidates either don't know what they think or do not know how to express it in a way that doesn't hurt them politically, so they are afraid to say what they think.

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

The Chomsky Videos: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- The State of The Democratic Party (1985)

What happened to the Democratic Party in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 in those presidential defeats and in the case of 1980 when the not only lost the White House in a landslide, but lost the U.S. Senate and eleven seats at that, was that their Far-Left rose up in the late 1960s in response to the Vietnam War and to against American capitalism. As well and made the Democratic Party look way out of the mainstream than they actually were.

The Democratic Party lost five out of six presidential elections from 1968-88. They won in 1976, but Jimmy Carter ran against the Democratic establishment and to a certain extent the Far-Left. And went out-of-the-way to convince people who was a New Democrat and mainstream and someone who shared a lot of American values. Like hard work, honesty and so-forth who ran against Washington. But lost in 1980 partly because he wasn’t able to solve a lot of problems that he inherited. But also because the Far-Left didn’t like him and took their support somewhere else.

And because of the Far-Left rising in the Democratic Party, partisan right-wingers and Republicans were successfully able to paint all major Democrats especially national Democrats, as out of the American mainstream and somehow Un-American and big believers in big government. And anti-capitalist, anti-success, anti-military and other things and even though only a small faction of Democrats believe in these things. Republicans were able to paint most major Democrats as supporting these things.