Crooks & Liars: Report: Allison Lundergan-Grimes Unleashes Epic Smackdown Right to Mitch McConnell's Face

Crooks & Liars: Report: Alison Lundergan-Grimes Unleashes Epic Smackdown Right To Mitch McConnell's Face

This is a prefect example of why as a Democrat I'm not worried about Democrats losing the Senate this year. Because the most unpopular member of Congress that is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for reelection in a state where Democrats are not only still competitive, but in power controlling the governor's mansion and the State Senate. Allison Lundgren Grimes who will be Mitch McConnell's opponent in November also just happens to be Secretary of State for Kentucky and a popular Secretary of Kentucky. Who is thirty-five, an outsider with a lot of energy to combat Leader No. The Do Nothing Senator, just a couple of nicknames that Mitch has picked up, Leader Obstruction would be another one.

Kentucky is a red-state at the presidential level, but in Congress it is a purple state. They have at least one U.S. Representative and will have a competitive U.S. Senate election this year. Kentucky is more like Ohio or perhaps Michigan or Indiana politically. Not Mississippi or South Carolina which means Democrats don't have to sound like they are with the Christian Right on social issues and the Tea Party on economic issues to get elected. Which means Lundgren Grimes can run as a center-left New Democrat and still win the election there because of how blue-collar that state is.

Mitch McConnell on the other hand has been more of a national Republican really since he became the Assistant Majority Leader back in 2003 when Republicans won back the Senate. And then became Senate Minority Leader in 2007 when Republicans lost Congress House and Senate. And he is tied to the national Republican Party and the base of the party that is so unpopular right now. And tied to a very unpopular Congress as Senate Minority Leader. And is just right for the picking to be defeated and sent back to Kentucky for retirement or becoming a Washington lobbyist.

The Nation: Mike Konczal & Bryce Covert: 'The Real Solution to Wealth Inequality'

Source:The Nation- if you are a Socialist, you probably hate George Washington for multiple reasons.

"Both Republicans and Democrats want to solve economic insecurity by giving people more purchasing power. There’s a better solution. 

With this issue, we’re inaugurating “The Score,” a monthly feature about the economy by Bryce Covert and Mike Konczal.

The wealth controlled by the top tenth of the top 1 percent has more than doubled over the past thirty years in the United States, approaching levels not seen since the 1920s. The left’s two recent intellectual blockbusters—Thomas Piketty’s bestselling Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “The Case for Reparations”—published by The Atlantic—indicate the profound uneasiness with this trend.

Wealth is the ownership of the productive economic elements in society, such as land and corporations. The wealthy control the direction of the economy, and they claim an increasing share of what it produces. But as their influence increases, they avoid being held to the same standard of accountability under a system of democratic politics, while those of us without wealth find ourselves vulnerable." 

From The Nation 

"Chris Matthews on Redistribution of Wealth"  

Source:Jan Helfeld- interviewing political commentator Chris Matthews.

From Jan Helfeld

Before I explain why I disagree with the wealth redistribution argument when it comes to the income and wealth gaps in America. I'm first going to be (excuse my American English) an asshole about socialism and the authors of this piece from The Nation. Granted The Nation is nothing if not provocative and for that is always worth reading. And thank God (well actually our Founding Fathers) for our First Amendment Freedom of Speech and that the state doesn't control our media. Even though some on the far-left have advocated for nationalizing the media this country.

But about this latest piece from The Nation from Mike Konczal and Bruce Covert. For you Seinfeld fans and people familiar with this show I'm going to take you back to season four of that series. The Gay Episode (for lack of a better term) when a college reporter overhears Jerry and George pretending to be gay (no offense) and pretending to be boyfriends. And Jerry and George finding out about this and confronting the reporter and strongly telling her " we are not gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that if that's who you are". Well that is how I feel about Socialists in this country and I'm going to explain that.

Even as late as 1993 when that Seinfeld episode went on the air there were plenty of Gay-Americans who were still in the closet for obvious reasons. Most of them having to do with bigotry and ignorance about homosexuality. Well then and now we probably have millions of Americans who are stuck in the Socialist closet because they are afraid to let Americans know they are Socialists. Because of all the negative stereotypes that still remain in this country about socialism. With it constantly being linked to communism and other authoritarian philosophies.

What too many Americans still do not understand even with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is that Socialists tend to be democratic. And if you look at Europe as well as America Socialists tend to believe in a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise to go along with a robust welfare state that they believe should provide the basic human necessities. The reason why Socialists get called Liberals or use the liberal label for themselves (which is an insult to me as a Liberal) or Progressives is because of how unpopular the word Socialist is still in America. So they constantly advocate for socialist policies and programs, but go with the liberal or progressive label instead.

Now as far as the piece on The Nation. Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert are essentially arguing for a social democratic or socialist economic system. Not state controls the means of production, which is different. Just most of the money that is produced by the private sector to finance their robust welfare state. That would be in charge of the pensions, health care, college financing and perhaps education in general. And taking those services out of the private sector completely to be controlled by the U.S. Government.

As I've argued many times before the problem with the American economy is not that we have too many rich people. But that we have too many poor people and lower middle class people that if they were out of work would qualify for public assistance because of their lack of savings. Where government can make a real contribution here is to empower the people at the bottom and near bottom to get themselves the skills that they need to get a better job and make more money and obtain economic security. You empower people to be able to take care of themselves and live in freedom, they generally will if they have strong character and strong core of values. Government doesn't need to do that for them. 

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

The Weed Blog: Johnny Green: Debunking The White House's Response to The New York Times

Source:The Weed Blog

I've written several posts this year already about why the drug warriors have lost the War on Drugs especially when it comes to marijuana. So here's another one and this one comes thanks to the White House because they are using the same old tired lame arguments that drug warriors have used forever.

Lets concede that marijuana is not good for juveniles. Lets concede that people who are driving should not be high before they get behind the wheel. Lets concede that there is and would be an underground meaning black market for marijuana even if it is legalized. I can answer all of these points with two words. So what! No I'm not taking those issues lightly or laughing at them. But the same issues come with both tobacco and alcohol which are both legal narcotics in this country. As far as the black market, that argument can be made about every product that is legal in this country. Because we have people who do not like paying taxes so they pay and sell products under the door.

If you want to lock people up for something that is dangerous we would end up with a country of convicts. We have countless number of products from junk food to soft drinks to caffeine to firearms to alcohol and tobacco. That are all potentially dangerous if they are either over consumed, or used incorrectly. Yet they are all legal because we've made decisions as a country that locking people up for simply doing something to themselves that comes with bad risks is something that we can't afford and not a country that we want to be.

There has yet to be a study that has been published that shows marijuana consumption whether it is used responsibly or over consumed is more dangerous than any of those other legal products that come with serious risks is they are used correctly or incorrectly. Yet marijuana is illegal at the Federal level and those other products are regulated and taxed. And why? Could it be because those other industries have very effective lobbying machines and marijuana is just getting started and will be legal in either your state, or a state near you in the near future? I would love an answer to that question.

National Review: John Fund: Setting the Record Straight on Jim Crow

National Review: Opinion: John Fund: Setting the Record Straight on Civil Rights

What John Fund doesn't seem to understand or perhaps is ignoring, which is possible because he is a bright guy is that the Southern Democrats who blocked the civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s are Republicans today and would be Republicans today. They would probably be part of the Tea Party coalition or the Christian Right or both factions since they overlap. You can't be a Democrat today outside of maybe Mississippi and be against civil rights. You would simply not get elected even if you won the Democratic primary.

Of course Congressional Republicans in the 1960s voted in favor of civil rights more than Congressional Democrats. And if it wasn't for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen who was the Republican Leader those laws never overcome the Southern Democratic led filibuster let alone become law. Democrats aren't denying the party's history against civil rights. What I'm saying is that is history and the party today is completely different from what it was during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Back in the 1960s the Republican Party was still a conservative limited government low-tax party that believed in decentralizing government. But they also believed in civil rights which means equal rights for all Americans. And that part of the party is gone for the most part with a few exceptions in the Northeast and perhaps the Midwest. They inherited the Southern Democrats who are today called the Christian Right and the Traditional Values Coalition. Who believe Americans especially Caucasians have a right to deny access to people of different races when it comes to their own property.

C-SPAN: Washington Journal- Steve Scully Interviewing Christopher Hitchens: What Did Bill Clinton Lie About?

Source: The Film Archives- President William J. Clinton-

Source:The Film Archives

I'm not a mind-reader obviously, but Chris Hitchens was an admitted Socialist and was his whole life. Even though late in his career he became more of a Neoconservative on foreign policy and national security. He supported the War in Iraq and admitted that 9/11 changed his take on foreign policy and national security. If Hitchens was a Democrat he was from the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party, the New Left that came into existence in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The McGovernites that are Occupy Wall Street today are Social Democrats who probably had as much influence over the Democratic Party as the Christian Right has over the Republican Party today. And the McGovernites essentially ran the Democratic Party from 1968 or so until Democrats lost their fifth out of six presidential elections in 1988. Bill Clinton is a New Democrat and comes from the New Democratic wing of the Democratic Party that now runs the party today.

New Democrats believe in using government to empower people. Not support them indefinitely without expecting anything from those tax dollars. New Democrats believe in foreign trade, a strong but limited liberal internationalist foreign policy. Infrastructure, education and job training over government dependence. Smart on crime, not soft on crime which means punishing hardcore criminals and not blaming society for their crimes.

Social Democrats believe in the central state and that the job of government is to take care of people. Not empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Welfare to Work was kind of the last straw for Social Democrats in the Democratic Party after trade, the 1994 Crime Bill and deficit reduction. And not expanding the Federal state as it related to the economy and creating a welfare state for the country. And instead moving away from those traditional Democratic policies.

Again I'm not a mind-reader, but I believe a lot of the criticism that Chris Hitchens has for President Clinton has to do with President Clinton's politics. Instead of the man's personal behavior as President and that Hitchens is still angry over how Clinton transformed the Democratic Party and made it a center-left party again. And no longer a social democratic party that it was pre-Clinton that is common on the Left in Europe.

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Neither Living Nor Dead: The Relevance of the U.S. Constitution

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Neither Living Nor Dead

Before I give you my take on the U.S. Constitution, I'm going to give you takes from others further Left of me and from people who are to my Right and further Right.

Today's so-called Progressives who are really Social Democrats to be real and blunt about it see the U.S. Constitution in European democratic terms and want to and see America as their type of social democracy. Where government is more centralized with more power and more resources for the good of the people. And where most if not all all things done though government are through majoritarian means with majority rule. They probably see our constitutional amendment process as undemocratic because of what it takes to repeal or amend an amendment. As well as forcing all Americans regardless of generation and the times as having to live under the same Constitution and Rule of Law.

Conservatives and Libertarians see the Constitutional in its original form. (Or that is what they say) And anything that is not specifically laid out for government to do based on the words of Constitution, they see as unconstitutional when government tries to perform those functions. Neoconservatives or the Traditional Values Coalition lets say when it comes to personal choice and freedom say that anything that is not granted specifically with the exact words laid out in it for the people, those rights don't exist for the people. And that government can deny those actions for them. The same-sex-marriage debate is a perfect example of it.

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this which is where a Liberal would be between a Social Democrat on the Left and a Libertarian on the Right. All of the amendments and constitutional rights that we have as individuals with the constitutional amendments and Bill of Rights apply to all of us at any time. But when it comes to things for either the people or what can government can do I'm not what is called a strict-constructionist which is sort of a bogus term to begin with. And even people who call themselves that find ways to expand government power to meet their own political goals.

Just because same-sex-marriage doesn't exist in the Constitution, or marijuana, or gambling and perhaps even property rights and the Right to Privacy doesn't mean we don't have the right to practice those things as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with those practices. The Fourth Amendment clearly limits what government especially law enforcement can to when it comes to regulating individuals own lives. And the Fifth Amendment clearly limits what government can do to one's property. And can't simply decide to take it over or take it away simply because it wants to. The Equal Protection Clause clearly protect all classes of Americans equally and doesn't grant government the right to discriminate because it doesn't like one class of people.

I'm a Liberal Constitutionalist because I believe in the Constitution and more broadly liberal democracy. The rights that we have just from the words themselves will always be there unless they are repealed or amended through a super majority process. As it should be because we are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Not a social democracy and those things are different. And just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say an individual or government can do something, doesn't mean they can't. You have to look at the Constitution and see where those rights exist or not.

The American Prospect: Paul Waldman: 'Can Liberalism Survive the Obama Presidency?'

The American Prospect: Opinion: Paul Waldman: Can Liberalism Survive the Obama Presidency? Yes it Can

First of all Barack Obama when he ran for President in 2008 didn't run as a McGovernite Social Democrat which is what the Occupy Wall Street and the broader New Left in America are. He ran as a mainstream moderate Liberal or Progressive. Who combined both New Democrat liberal policies with FDR New Deal progressive polices as it related to both economic and foreign policy. He didn't run to end the War on Terror or War on Drugs. At best he ran to fight those wars better. He didn't even officially come out for same-sex-marriage until he ran for reelection in 2012. And expanded the War on Drugs and War on Terror in his first-term.

I knew all of these things before I voted for him in 2008 and 2012. The New Left in America saw him as Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, but someone who could actually get elected President. They obviously didn't do their homework and have nothing to be disappointed with other than themselves. As far as liberalism itself and how President Obama relates to it. The economic agenda is there as far as expanding economic opportunity for people in poverty through education, job training, infrastructure and trade. But the social issues including civil liberties other than civil rights is where he comes up short as a Liberal.

All you need to know about how Millennial's feel about liberalism is where they are on the issues. They believe in a lot of personal freedom, believe in civil liberties. Do not want government managing their own personal or economic affairs. This is the most tolerant and color-blind as well as race-blind generation this country has ever seen. Which is why affirmative action has lost so much support in this country. So liberalism is in good shape, but what it needs are real Liberals to step up, run for office, get elected and show them why personal and economic freedom are good things as well as tolerance. And we'll see more liberal policies get passed in this country.