Larry David: A Letter From Ghislaine Maxwell

"Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime confidante of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, told a top administration official she never saw President Trump engage in improper or illegal acts during his long friendship with Mr. Epstein, according to transcripts.

—The Times.

I’m writing this at 3 a.m. in my cell, since I’ve been unable to sleep after reading the transcript of my recent meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. I realize now that I left out vital information and details, so I’d like to take this opportunity to clear up any lingering doubts, particularly in regard to President Trump’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s life.

First off, I want to reiterate that, although President Trump did have a friendship with Epstein, I can state unequivocally that he never did anything wrong—ethically, morally, or legally. On the contrary, all the girls held him in the highest esteem and had nothing but the greatest admiration for him. Many of them called him Uncle Donald, and one of the Latina girls even referred to him as El Magnífico, which always made him blush, endearing him to them even more.

In fact, he was a rock for those girls. A shoulder to cry on. He was someone to whom they could confide their innermost thoughts and secrets without being judged or criticized. He was part therapist, part chaplain, and part teacher. Every night before bed, all the girls would gather in the main house in their pajamas in front of the fire, and Uncle Donald would read the classics to them. Shakespeare was his favorite, and he would often perform some of the Bard’s greatest soliloquies. The awestruck girls never failed to give him a standing ovation, and he would always respond with an exaggerated, comedic bow, which delighted them to no end.

And nobody told funnier stories. A highlight was the one about the time a Black woman tried to rent an apartment in one of his buildings and he told her that it was ten thousand dollars a month. His imitation of her reaction was pure vaudeville and had the girls in stitches. He also tutored them in math and was a whiz at calculus, able to solve complex problems in his head on demand. He said that he had the same gene as his Uncle John, who’d taught Ted Kaczynski at M.I.T.

Making sure the girls got plenty of exercise was a top priority for Uncle Donald as well, which included coaching them in daily rounds of golf. One of the girls—let’s call her Donna—became his regular caddy and liked to secretly improve his ball position by kicking it and moving it all over the course. Had he known, he never would’ve tolerated it. Cheating in any way, at anything, was anathema to him. But Donna did it anyway, because she knew that nothing made him happier than winning. Back at the lodge, he would recount his round, his cheeks flush with excitement, his strong, elephantine hands wildly gesticulating. It was a sight to behold.

Of course, it was inevitable that some of the girls would fall in love with him. Donna became inconsolable when he told her that she was too young for him. He asked her to wait five years, but, when you’re fourteen, five years seems like an eternity. Unfortunately, her obsession got the best of her and, one night, distraught, she walked into the ocean. Uncle Donald, who was doing his regular evening meditation at the time, sensed that something was amiss. In spite of his bone spurs, which have caused him a lifetime of intense pain with nary a complaint, he ran into the surf fully clothed to save her. I still have the red tie he was wearing that night. It’s one of my most treasured possessions, reminding me of his bravery and what the human spirit can accomplish.

I only wish I could say the same for some of the others who were on that island, two of whom were former Presidents. That’s right—two. I’m not making this up. Nobody’s putting words in my mouth. And no one on the island liked either of these former Presidents. One was a bad tipper who the girls liked to call El Producto because he smelled of cheap cigars. And the other was known as Biscuit because he always wore an unflattering tan suit. Then there was the woman who was Speaker of the House and would walk around talking to herself, screaming out epithets to imaginary people. Crazy! And the former goody-two-shoes Vice-President who’s not actually so goody and lacked the courage to do the right thing on January 6th.

There was also that Republican congressman who co-hosts a morning show and happens to be a murderer. (I’ve got proof!) And let’s not forget the Senate Minority Leader who got caught stealing sunblock and Q-tips. Finally, Jeffrey had to tell him not to come back. The guy cried like a five-year-old lost at the beach, but Jeffrey held firm.

There were Hollywood people as well. One was a bald comedian with glasses who complained constantly and had an inordinate fear of halitosis. He spent more time on that island than anyone. Once, when he was stung by a jellyfish, he kept calling out for his mother and demanded to be airlifted to a hospital in Miami. Jeffrey said he was the worst guest that he ever had.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg. And, again, I want to reiterate that I’m not writing this expecting or seeking any pardon or commutation. I’m merely telling the truth about what I observed, both on and off the island. As far as the girls—grown women now—are concerned, they are all doing well, leading happy, productive, and, from what I understand, very luxurious lives.

Uncle Donald would be proud.

Yours sincerely,

Ghislaine Maxwell

Source:The New Yorker with a look at convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Perhaps even from her private suite at Club Fed. 

From The New Yorker

In case this isn't obvious enough: Larry David is a professional comedian, who writes humor pieces for The New Yorker. Not that you really should take anything that Ghislaine Maxwell says seriously, but she actually didn't write this... as far as I know. 

From what my colleague Fred Schneider wrote about the Epstein files last week: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public...

From The New Democrat

And from what Fred wrote about Ghislaine Maxwell yesterday: 

"I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time... 

From The New Democrat

So imagine this is a Saturday Live skit and they have someone playing Ghislaine Maxwell (perhaps because they really hate that actress, but don't want to fire her) and it's a skit with Ghislaine in her Club Fed prison cell, perhaps just on her bed, in her dormitory, writing a letter to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States (Todd Blanche) trying to convince the DAG that President Trump had 100%, absolutely (which is redundant) nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. 

Ghislaine is trying to convince the DAG that those videos and photos of Mr. Trump at the Epstein house in the 1990s and 2000s... Donald and Melania simply went to the wrong house by mistake. (Over and over and over again) When they discovered that, they also noticed that their car battery was dead and Mr. Epstein invited them to wait at his house until AAA got there to repair their car... I mean limo. 

And now imagine this: in this SNL skit, before Ghislaine can even write a "letter", (piece of trash would be more accurate) a fellow inmate slipped Ghislaine some truth serum in her dinner drink (perhaps scotch, since this is Club Fed) and she's not aware of it and she's writing this letter while being forced to be honest. (For perhaps the first time in her life) So I just want to give you an idea of what an honest letter from Ghislaine Maxwell to Todd Blanche would look like, about the relationship between her and Donald, as well as Jeffrey Epstein.  And my fictional letter, won't sound that different from what Larry David wrote. 

"Mr. Deputy Attorney General

I'm writing you from the comfort of my queen-sized bed, from my private bedroom, I mean suite... here at Club Fed, to tell you that your boss President Trump, was best party friends with my boss Jeffrey Epstein. Every time 1 of Donald's wives was out-of-town, (perhaps just to get a break from him) he would call Mr. Epstein to ask if he could come over to the Epstein mansion and would he throw a party for him and have all his girls there waiting. Especially his latest recruitments. 

I'm telling you all of this, because as much as I appreciate my new accommodations here at Club Fed... I miss the Manhattan party scene and lifestyle... not to mention all those girls that I recruited to our parties and all the money I was paid for doing my part. 

Mr. Blanche, I would tell you that Donald John Trump is Jesus Christ himself, (even though DJT doesn't even believe in God) if it meant I could leave prison and go home immediately. Whatever you want me to say, however many times you want me to perjurer myself on behalf of the President, I'm your girl, just as long as it gets me out of prison immediately and I can go home. 

Best regards, Federal prison inmate Ghislaine Maxwell". 

If the truth and honesty had anything to do with these conversations that Ghislaine Maxwell had with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, (and the Cleveland Browns played the Detroit Lions in the Super Bowl) this is what her letters to Todd Blanche, or anyone else who works at Trump DOJ right now, would look like. But we're talking about a woman who probably lies as much as Donald Trump does, who sense of morality might even be lower. So she's probably only capable of telling the truth, when it doesn't hurt her, or she can gain from it. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson: How Joe Biden Handed the Presidency to Donald Trump

"At a fateful event last summer, Barack Obama, George Clooney, and others were stunned by Biden’s weakness and confusion. Why did he and his advisers decide to conceal his condition from the public and campaign for reëlection?

President Joe Biden got out of bed the day after the 2024 election convinced that he had been wronged. The élites, the Democratic officials, the media, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama—they shouldn’t have pushed him out of the race. If he had stayed in, he would have beaten Donald Trump. That’s what the polls suggested, he would say again and again...

Source:The New Yorker with a look at Jake Tapper's & Alex Thompson's book about President Biden.

If you are a paid subscriber to The New Yorker, you can see the rest of this article at The New Yorker

From Penguin Random House: 

"In Greek tragedy, the protagonist’s effort to avoid his fate is what seals his fate. In 2024, American politics became a Greek tragedy.

Joe Biden launched his successful 2020 bid for the White House with the stated goal of saving the nation from a second Trump presidential term. He, his family, and his senior aides were so convinced that only he could beat Trump again, they lied to themselves, allies, and the public about his condition and limitations. At his debate with Trump on June 27, 2024, the consequences of that deception were exposed to the world. It was shocking and upsetting.

Now the full, unsettling truth is being told for the first time. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson take us behind closed doors and into private conversations between the heaviest of hitters, revealing how big the problem was and how many people knew about it. From White House staffers at the highest to lowest levels, to leaders of Congress and the Cabinet, from governors to donors and Hollywood players, the truth is finally being told. What you will learn makes President Biden’s decision to run for reelection seem shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless—a desperate bet that went bust—and part of a larger act of extended public deception that has few precedents. The story the authors tell raises fundamental issues of accountability and responsibility that will continue for decades.

The irony is biting: In the name of defeating what they called an existential threat to democracy, Biden and his inner circle ensured it, tossing aside his implicit promise to serve for only one term, denying the existence of health issues the nation had been watching for years, dooming the Democrats to defeat. The decision to run again, the Original Sin of this president, led to a campaign of denial and gaslighting, leading directly to Donald Trump's return to power and all that has happened as a consequence. Rarely does hubris meet nemesis more explosively. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, Original Sin is essential reading... 

From Penguin Random House

From The Guardian: 

"A press release by Penguin Random House says Biden, “his family, and his senior aides were so convinced that only he could beat Trump again, they lied to themselves, allies, and the public about his condition and limitations.

white man wearing navy suit and light blue shirt sitting on a light yellow chair looks up with his hand raised

Biden’s health and threat of a second Trump term loom over Nato summit

Read more

“What you will learn makes President Biden’s decision to run for re-election seem shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless – a desperate bet that went bust – and part of a larger act of extended public deception that has few precedents,” it goes on to say.

Tapper served as a moderator for the infamous presidential debate in June 2024 hosted by CNN in which Biden’s poor performance essentially ended his campaign. After intense scrutiny on his mental acuity and age, Biden announced his decision to drop out of the presidential race and endorse Harris a few weeks later.

“Toni Morrison once said, ‘If there’s a book that you want to read, but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it,’” Tapper said in a statement to CNN Business. “That’s what inspired this book: we wanted to know more about what we all just lived through. More than 200 interviews later, Alex and I have a much better idea. And soon you all will too.”

From The Guardian

From Chris Cillizza: 

"In this video, Chris Cillizza reacts to revelations from the upcoming book "Original Sin" by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, which claims that senior White House aides deliberately shielded President Joe Biden from even his own staff starting in 2023 due to concerns about his mental and physical decline. Cillizza highlights a striking quote from a former aide who quit over Biden's decision to run again, calling it a "disservice" to the country.

Cillizza argues this goes beyond political strategy—it was a cover-up that withheld critical information from the public, media, and even parts of the administration. While acknowledging that Biden is no longer president, Cillizza insists the lack of transparency is damaging to American democracy, and draws a parallel with Donald Trump’s limited disclosure of his medical records. He calls for accountability from Democratic leaders and stresses the need for honesty from public officials, regardless of party." 

Source:Chris Cillizza talking about Jake Tapper's & Alex Thompson's book about President Biden.

From Chris Cillizza

From what I wrote about this story back in December: 

"Remember then citizen Joe Biden promising not to run for President in 2020: 

"Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.

“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.” 

Even by October, 2023, it would've been too late for President Biden to drop out. But it would've been better than dropping out 6 months ago:

"Bill Maher called on Joe Biden to drop out of the 2024 presidential election, saying the 80-year-old incumbent is too old to run for president and likened him to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The host of “Real Time with Bill Maher” mocked Biden on Friday night, describing the president as the “only democrat who can lose to Trump,” despite the men only having a four-year age difference.

“Someone has to convince President Biden that if he runs again, he’s going to turn the country back over to Trump and go… down in history as Ruth Bader Biden, the person who doesn’t know when to quit and so does great damage to their party and their country,” Maher said, referring to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg notoriously decided to not retire during the Obama administration when she could have been replaced with a liberal justice, only to die at the age of 87 in September 2020 during the Trump administration." 

I don't agree with comedian Bill Maher on everything. But when he's right, he's damn right. (You put that stronger) And he called it in October, 2023: 

"The issue with President Biden isn’t if he will be replaced - it's who will replace him." 

To put it simply: if President Biden announced let's say by April, 2023, that he promised not to run for reelection in 3-1/2 years a go to assure voters that he would pass the torch (so to speak) and because it was time "for a new generation of leadership", the Democratic Party would've had a full primary season and Vice President Kamala Harris probably wins the nomination anyway. And she would've been my preferred candidate right out of the gate. And all those townhalls, those debates, those TV interviews, that she didn't want to do this summer and to a certain extent this fall, all those things would've been taken care of during late 2023 and early 2024. 

And it's not just that President Biden broke his promise not to run for reelection. It's why he did that is even worst, his lack of reasoning for it. He made it about the economy and that he was the only person up to task of bringing down the high cost of living. When the fact is he knew damn well that his background as a public servant is not economics. He made his carer in Congress as a foreign policy and national security expert. As well as criminal justice and the Constitution. Not economic policy... 

From The New Democrat

From what Ederik Schneider wrote about this in April: 

"But as Erik Schneider said, had President Biden simply kept his promise to to a one-term President and announced like in April of 2023, that he wasn't running for reelection, he might not have been an issue in 2024, at all. Because whoever the new Democratic nominee would be, that person would have had about a year or so to introduce themself to the country and lay out exactly what they want to do as President and not have to worry about what the President thinks of their agenda. And Vice President Harris might have won the nomination anyway. 

We'll never know this because the people around the President, who knew he was struggling mentally and had low energy, didn't have the courage, the character, to either tell the President that he shouldn't run for reelection and why, or at the least leak what they know about his physical and mental conditions, or resign and go public with what they know about him. 

You think Democratic donors would've been backing the President the way they did, financially, up until his debate, if they knew he was struggling to remember names of people he knew very well, struggling just to get through his work schedule, physically, getting stuck in-between thoughts when trying to speak? Of course not. If they knew this 2 years ago, if the public knew as well, the Democratic leadership, even, would've called for the President not to run for reelection... 

From The New Democrat

And from what I wrote about this last Thursday: 

"So I give President Biden credit for at least acknowledging that he's somewhat responsible for the American nightmare (also known as President Donald Trump) returning to The White House as President again. Rare, if ever, that you even hear a former politician take any responsibility for anything that goes wrong on his or her watch, especially when they're an executive. It's like seeing people jumping out of air conditioners, flying rattlesnakes with wings... you almost feel like you have to be high on meth to see any of those things. Especially even a former politician take any responsibility for anything bad happening on their watch, especially an executive. So I give President Biden credit for that. 

But the problem here is (and you can rewatch the interview with The View) it's what he's taken responsibility for. He's taking credit for doing all these things like the infrastructure, the research and development, the prescription drugs, the jobs and economic growth, etc. But the only problem was (according to President Biden) that these benefits come later before Americans can feel them and his administration (perhaps including the President) didn't do a good enough job of selling the benefits of what they were doing. 

So on 1 hand President Biden is taking responsibility for the fact that he was too unpopular to even run for reelection, but then he's sort of qualifying that concession by saying it's the voters fault for not seeing the benefits if what he and his administration were doing. But that's more than Donald Trump would give you when he screws up, or any other crooked politician... 

From The New Democrat

Just to throw something else in (in case there's an inch of space left in this post's trunk): So about 1/2 hour ago, maybe an hour (I wasn't looking at a watch or a clock when I saw this) MSNBC anchor Katy Tur was interviewing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Back in the summer of 24, Leader Schumer was still the Senate Majority Leader. And she pulled a quote from Jake Tapper's and Alex Thompson's book about Leader Schumer trying to convince President Biden to drop out of the presidential race, back in July. And apparently Leader Schumer told the President: 

"If you stay in this race, you'll not only lose, but you'll throw away the work that you've done and everything that you accomplished the last six years". And apparently the President, who is 1 of the quickest-witted, and most frank American politicians that we've ever had (at least before he became President) responded to Schumer by saying: 

"You have the biggest pair of balls that I've ever seen". She used the word "kahunas", but the point was made. And Katy Tur asked the Minority Leader, what he thought about that. 

You don't serve 44 years in Congress, the last 8 as Senate Democratic Leader and 10 years before that as chief political strategist, and Senate Campaign Committee Chairman, for the Senate Democrats, if you don't have "skillz". (To use a hip hop expression from the 1990s) 

Leader Schumer responded to Katy Tur's question by saying: 

"We're about to see the largest cuts to Medicaid in the history of this program in this Congress. Right now I'm focused on defeating that bill. I'm focused on the future, not the past." The old artful political dodge. There was a bell going off in the lobby on Capitol Hill, that's right between the House and Senate chambers and Katy Tur said something like: "I'm now out of time and you are saved by the bell". That's a paraphrase, but very close. 

So I get why the Democratic Leadership doesn't want to talk about this. It's not just the House that they'll probably take back next year and could do that with a pickup of at least 20 seats, but thanks to MAGA and President Trump, Chuck Schumer might be the Senate Majority Leader again in less than 2 years. But people who aren't in the Democratic Leadership, who are in the blogosphere, we can talk about this Joe Biden story all we want. Which is what I'm going to do today. 

I partially agree with Chris Cilliza here. Joe Biden was the President and he should've been able to see the writing on the wall (so to speak( about his campaign and all the mental lapses and that his energy wasn't as good in 2023, even as it was in 2021 when he just became President. But isn't that the point: he wasn't able to see those things. 

The whole point of The White House staff, is look out for the best interest of the President. And trying to protect the President from himself, is not looking out for his best interest. I hate to break it to anyone who is new to Washington, but not every thing here is political. There are actually times when the people around the boss, actually have to think about something other than their boss's political future and what his or her political goals are for the future. I made this point about President Biden last December: 

"The reason why President Biden tried to run for reelection, is the same reason why any other President who ran for reelection did that, because he wanted to be a two-term President. It's almost embarrassing for President's to not get the 2nd term. And probably feels worst when you don't bother to run. Worst than that when you own damn party doesn't want you to run for reelection... 

And the reason why politicians have staffs, is not to tell them how great they are and great they're doing. They should do that when things are going well for the boss. But to paraphrase author Chris Whipple: the staff is there to serve as the gatekeeper for their boss. That's why we have a White House Chief of Staff, that's why we have a Vice President, that's why the President has a team of political advisors. They're not just there to tell their boss how "awesome" they are, but to also break bad news for them and tell them not just when things aren't "awesome", but to tell them when they're reached the end of the road, politically, and when it's time to pass the torch. (To put a couple of cliches together) 

And the President's Chief of Staff Ron Klain and his own Vice President Kamala Harris, even though they both saw and talked to President Biden everyday, as well as the rest of his political team, didn't do that. His family and political team didn't have that intervention (if I can use that word) with the President telling him to step down the from presidential race, until 2 weeks after the disastrous debate in June. Too late by then. You don't wait until you boss basically collapses on national TV, before you try to save him, especially after being so close to him and seeing what everyone else got to see, 6 months, maybe a year before the June, 24 debate. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The New Yorker: Steven Markow: 'Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party'

Source:The New Yorker- Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing

"The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote."

Read more of Steven Markow's piece at The New Yorker

Source:Newsy: 'What does a moderate voter look like?'- Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?

"Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise."

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It's that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they're simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn't mean that they're a Centrist. It just might mean that they don't like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you're talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you're talking about and don't automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they're Centrists.

Just like you shouldn't assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn't assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they're automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don't believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according to the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they're not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can't be true.

I don't think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government, at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country, civil rights laws, so people aren't denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you're definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there's a consensus to do so, whose motto: "I'm willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing." If that's your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial's who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it's cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O'Rourke's base. ( Or what's left of it at this point )  A man who proved at last Wednesday's Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he's wishy-washy in two languages.

If you're idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago.  What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

The New Yorker: Osita Nevanevu: 'Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & Two Paths For The American Left'

Source:The New Yorker- The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party.

"This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.

But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”

This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected."

Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu's piece at The New Yorker

“Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s new tax plans would make sure the super rich pay their fair share.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”

Source:Now This- Bernie vs. Liz 

From Now This

 When you’re talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you’re talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on what the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn’t interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren’t denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics.

Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.

But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they’re both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.

This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn’t not just fly, but it doesn’t get off the ground. Sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it’s too hot and the plane overheats. (Something that I’ve experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there’s too much snow on the ground.

For one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system. When Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist. That she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question. She was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.

The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn’t, is how they self-describe their politics.

Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet, Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )

Bernie and Liz, both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

The New Yorker: 'A Hundred Years of American Protest, Then and Now'

Source:The New Yorker- American liberal democracy in action.

"A split-screen look at how protests in America have evolved over a hundred years. From the civil-rights movement and the Ku Klux Klan to the March for Our Lives and Unite the Right, here’s how mass protests have changed."  

From The New Yorker

There's an old American cliche that this is as American as apple pie. Baseball is as American as apple pie. Hot dogs are American as apple pie. Going to church or your house of worship on Sunday is as American as apple pie. Which is all true and I like apple pie as much as the next American, especially with vanilla ice cream and I love baseball and hot dogs especially when they go together. But there's something even more American than all of those things that is older than all of those things as well and I would argue even more American than all of those things and as liberal democratic as anything you'll ever find which is our First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech which includes our right to protest.

Source:The New Yorker- Americans marching fro civil rights in the 1960s 

The phrase American exceptionalism gets thrown around a lot and considered racist by the Far-Left and some now on the Far-Right don't like it because it's used to complain about how undemocratic right-wing government's around the world operate, but this expression not only exists, but is true. 

Our diversity not just ethnically, racially, culturally, religiously including people who aren't religious at all such as myself, and our political diversity all makes America very exceptional. And one thing that Americans all have in common is that they believe in the right to protest and are more than willing to express ourselves when we see something in government or is going in the private sector that we don't like and feel the need to express ourselves about what we don't like.

To just use the example from The New Yorker about American protest from the last 50 years, but I would take that up to the last 55, 60, 65 years with the civil rights movement that was about expanding civil rights to African-Americans who were being denied their constitutional rights in America simply because of their race and denied access in America simply because of their race. 

And someone like Dr. Martin Luther King comes along and says this is not only wrong, but needs to stop and that there is not only something that can be done about this racism, but has to be done for the Constitution to mean anything when it says that all American men ( which includes women ) will be treated equally in America with all of us having the exact same basic constitutional rights.

The anti-war movement from the 1960s and 70s with all of those Baby Boomer Americans protesting the Vietnam War, is another great example of liberal democracy in action in America. Americans protesting for a cleaner environment, the women's movement that said that women shouldn't be treated inferior to men in America simply because of their gender and should be allowed to pursue their own American dream just like men. The gay rights movement from this era that said that gays shouldn't be locked up institutionalized or denied access in America simply because they're gay.

If you want a Republican leaning example at least, I would give the start of the Christian-Right movement in the late 1960s that protested the cultural changing of America with personal freedom on the rise with Christian-Conservatives protesting against what they see as immoral. Like women's and sexual liberation, homosexuality, pornography, essentially protesting against the 1960s. 

As well as Conservatives protesting in favor of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the 1960s and then again in the late 1970s which you could at least argue was the start of the early Tea Party movement in America before the Tea Party movement from 10 years ago.

You don't have to agree with every protest and every political movement that happens in America to believe in free speech and the right to protest, you just have to understand the First Amendment in the Constitution and our constitutional right to free speech which of course includes political speech which is just one thing that it protects. 

But I think you'll have a hard time arguing with any credibility whatsoever that you believe in America and love America and are a true American Patriot, if you don't at the very least acknowledge our right to free speech and to protest. Even if you don't agree with that fundamental right, because our right to protest and free speech in general is as American as the American flag itself. 

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

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

The New Yorker: Will Storr: 'How Millennials Became The Selfie Generation'

Source:The New Yorker- Narcissism on display.

"We look at how society became fascinated with its own image, and try to find the truth behind selfie-taking. How Millennials Became the Selfie Generation | Annals of Obsession"

Source:The New Yorker

Just on a personal I note: I'm really glad I went to and graduated high school in the early and mid 1990s and not today with the personality I have then and now. Going to high school today must feel like you're on a reality TV or daytime talk show or something. With practically every teenager in school feeling the need to talk, look, and act like they're favorite celebrity that they saw or read about online the previous night. Social media narcissism and faddism is in and individualism is dying with the Millennials and we'll see what Generation Z is like when they're out of high school and college as well.

Selfies similar to coffee house cups and smartphones, are props. People use them to tell everyone else that they're up to date and in style with whoever is cool or awesome at the time. And I'm willing to bet a lot of times when you see someone walking doing a street or out of a building looking down at their phone and holding a coffee house cup, the cup is probably empty and they're just looking at their phone. And that draw dropping OMG expression that you see, is just that. But there probably isn't actually anything extraordinary going on with that person at that time because again they're just looking at their phone because they want people to think they're just as cool or awesome and in as the people that see them.

Well, selfies are props as well for people who feel the need to be seen doing whatever they're doing that day and being at whatever the trendy place is and that place will probably be a coffee house or some trendy cafe and they'll feel the need to get those pics up on Facebook ( or whatever they're favorite social network is ) almost as soon as their pics are taken. The need to feel cool by the people they believe are cool and who they want to be seen with. Faddism is in with young adults today and the need to be seen like their favorite celebrities and individualism and risk in life is out. Because if people act like themselves the person they talk to in their head and see in the mirror when they're just being them self in private, they're worried that person might not be seen as cool with the in crowd.

I'm all in favor of self-esteem and people feeling good about themselves, as long as it's deserved. When someone fails at something whether it's in school or at work, the first reaction shouldn't be it will get get better. Doesn't mean it won't get better, but that shouldn't be the automatic first reaction. The first reaction should be a self-examination and be a question which is why did you fail. Failing and screwing up should be opportunities for self-improvement. "This is why I failed and this is what I can do to prevent future failures and be successful in the future." Instead of, "that is just a onetime thing and it will automatically get better in the future." Because if you don't fix what went wrong the last time, it won't get better until you do.

Self-esteem, the so-called self-esteem movement of the 1990s, was the start of the rise of narcissism in America. With people feeling the need to be seen and be seen being cool and hanging out with cool people and feeling like if something went wrong in their life it wasn't because of them and it wasn't a personal failure on their part. And we see that with selfies today with people feeling the need to be liked and popular and be told they're great, oh I'm sorry awesome and doing awesome things and being around awesome people and feeling the need to be associated with whatever the popular trend is. And the internet and social media today have just taken those issues in American culture to extreme levels, along with celebrity culture and how important that seems to be with so many Americans.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

The New Yorker: William Brennan- The Night Bernie Sanders Was President

Source: The New Yorker-

Source:The Daily Review

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana. Cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say, "capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes, but the reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like, "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like, "under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2. One job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President.

Source: Comedy Central The President Meets Bernie Sanders

The New Yorker: Mary Norris: 'Awesome Is the New Massive'

Source:The Daily Review

Just a quick note and a bit of a warning. Valley people both girls, but valley guys, are not going to like this piece. Because this is all about them and how they talk and dominate pop culture in America. Where now every news shows sound like MTV or Bravo in some cases. Instead of professional news shows. But the genius’ at these networks feel the greedy need to sound like this crowd so they can actually understand what’s being reported and will bother to watch. And I’m thinking of Erin Burnett and Brooke Baldwin, specifically over at CNN. As well as Rachel Maddow at MSNBC and Megyn Kelly at FNC.

I’m not familiar with the over usage of the word massive and maybe that’s because I can’t even find Australia on a map, yet alone actually been to it. Maybe because Australia is too small or too unimportant. Just kidding. I can find Australia on a map. But living in the Washington area in Bethesda, Maryland my whole life I’m very familiar with the over usage of the word awesome. I can’t go anywhere without hearing the word and in many cases I hear the word accidentally. Because I get stuck listening to someone else’s cell phone conversation, because that person couldn’t wait five minutes before they got out of the grocery store to call that person or call them back. That would be a typical Washingtonian for you. Someone who thinks they’re too important to have to wait for anything or anyone.

The actual definition of the word awesome is something that is ‘extremely impressive or daunting. Inspiring great admiration, apprehension or fear.’ So that cup of coffee that you had at Starbucks yesterday that was the exact same cup of coffee that you had the last five days, because you feel the need to go to Starbucks every single day, is not awesome. Now if the four previous cups of coffee you had there were average, well maybe you should find somewhere else to get your coffee, or find something better to do with your time. But if you went back to Starbucks and got a great cup of coffee on your fifth trip there after the four previous cups of coffee were average, then maybe that fifth cup of coffee would be awesome. Awesome has become the early 21st Century word for cool. I guess Millennial’s got tired of sounding like their parents and felt they needed their own hip word.

Cool and awesome are completely different words. Cool has multiple meanings of course. You can use cool to describe one’s personality and demeanor. ‘Joe is so cool. Nothing never bothers him. He always looks great and knows what to say. And even knows the real meaning of the word awesome. Which makes him smart and cool.’ Or you could use the word cool to describe the weather. Your food to say that was a cool meal or that was a cool meal. One could be a way to say that was a great meal and the other could be a way to say the potatoes and soup were cool and undercooked. Or maybe you just had a salad which in that case could go either way. Or you can use the word cool to describe something or someone as hip. Meaning someone whose in on the latest trends, if not sets them and perhaps actually leads the pack. Instead of like a cult follower who always follows the pack even when the pack goes off a hill at a hundred miles and hour, or jumps off a bridge.

Anyone who writes or blogs for a living, you’re not only be interested in language, but also protective of it. Because without words we would be like race car drivers without cars. Doctors without patients. Comedians without jokes and hopefully you get the point by now. When words lose their meaning it makes our jobs harder to communicate for a couple of reasons. We run out of words, but also we’re talking to people who simply don’t get the American English language, because they’ve beaten the hell out of it and no longer get it. Not everything that’s positive for you is awesome. And not only that but awesome is not always a positive thing. A car crash could be awesome, just because of how devastating it was to the people involved. A massive pile up with cars being totaled. A severe weather storm could be awesome because simply of the amount of damage that it did to that community or region. World War II was awesome in a horrible sense because of all the destruction that came as a result of property. But the millions of lives lost as well.

Pop culture, celebrity culture, tabloid culture and valley culture even, all have their places in America. But not to the point where they abuse the American English dictionary to the point that real words no longer have real meaning. When a real word like awesome becomes the way to describe any positive moment in one’s life like being able to leave work a half-hour earlier, or something as simple as that, then we have a real problem. Because what word would be use to describe your favorite team winning the Super Bowl that season when they weren’t even expected to make the playoffs. I mean isn’t that a hell of a lot more impressive than getting off work early on a Tuesday in Cleveland in February. All of these things have real relevance in America, but not to the point that it dumbs down our culture to the point that people no longer know how to talk to each other. Because they’re so worried about always looking and sounding cool.

The New Yorker: Jeffrey Frank: Rand Paul & the Eisenhower Dream

Source:The New Yorker

Back in the day, before, lets say, the Religious Right era, the Republican Party was essentially a classically conservative, if not conservative, libertarian party that used phrases like "Get big government out of my wallet, bedrooms, classrooms, and boardrooms, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, and former U.S. Senate Leader Bob Dole believed in that as well, despite his effort to appeal to Christian Conservatives in his 1996 presidential campaign.

But up until the late 1980s or so, the Republican Party not only had this conservative tradition but also a progressive faction that voted for parts of the safety net from the New Deal and Great Society but would never go along with a massive Scandinavian socialist welfare state, although it approved of a modest safety net for those who needed it. The party also voted for and supported the civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s and was really the Party of Lincoln up until the late 1980s or so.

By the 1970s, with the Goldwater Conservatives and the Nixon Federalists now in control of the Republican Party, they still believed in many of these things, especially as they related to the safety net, but they were Federalists who believed social policy is best handled by the State and local governments and that the Federal safety net in a lot of cases would be best managed at those levels where they would be more efficient.

By 1980 or so, what is today called the religious and neo-right was now part of the Republican Party, and the party cannot win in the short term without them, especially since they aren't doing much to bring in non-traditional Republicans, who aren't nearly as far to the Right as the predominantly Anglo-Protestant Southern voters, especially on social issues.  The Republican Party has now become the party of the libertarian Mountain West, Bible Belt South, and rural America.

Much different from where they were just 50 years or so ago, when Republicans were expected to be able to win statewide in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, California, and other places and when the Republican presidential nominee was expected to carry those States. The Conservative Libertarian faction is still alive and well and perhaps even growing in the Republican Party, but not big enough to govern the GOP by itself without the neo-right.