Buddy Roemer: 'Reform America Ad in New Hampshire'

Source:Buddy Roemer- for President (2011-12)

"A Buddy Roemer for President radio ad to air in New Hampshire." 

From Buddy Roemer

An Independence Party, or an Independence movement, isn't exactly about centrism, or running to the middle on most if not all the major issues, or splitting the difference. To me that would be what a centrist movement is about: looking for what's been labeled and the mushy middle,  accurately so to a certain degree. 

To me Senator Joe Lieberman and I could name a few others isn't a centrist. He has clear liberal views on most if not social issues except when it comes to national security where he's more of a Neoconservative and he tends to be fairly liberal on economic policy as well. But Joe Lieberman is definitely an Independent more interested in governing than fighting partisan battles. And always looking for the solutions to problems, rather than continuing to fight. As a Liberal Democrat myself I tend to disagree with Senator Lieberman on most if not all national security and foreign policy issues.

But Senator Lieberman is an Independent looking to govern and looking for solutions. Looking to do what's in the best interest of the country. Rather than fighting partisan battles and just to give his party an edge or to gain more power. Which is basically what Democrats and Republicans are doing right now: "How do I get that extra edge on the opposition to win this partisan battle to give me leverage in the next political battle. As well as winning the next election." 

This is why I believe an Independence movement as well an Independence Party is needed where people would come together and Senator Lieberman could be one of their leaders, especially as he leaves Congress in 2013. But a party and movement and that could be made up of Classical Liberals, Classical Conservatives, Libertarians, Centrists who agree on enough. And can work out their differences to form a united party to push Democrats and Republicans.

An Independent Party could push Democrats and Republicans hard enough where they can get on the ballot everywhere, where their leaders and members are former Democrats and Republicans, where they recruit Democrats and Republicans, as well as liberal and conservative Independents who don't like the big government tendencies of either party or the partisan fighting. And want to see America working again, by laying out an agenda that accomplishes not by running to the center and avoiding big decisions, but putting down solutions that work and throwing out the junk that doesn't work. 

And someone like a Buddy Roemer who twenty-years ago would've been considered a great Republican presidential candidate before the Religious and Neoconservatives took over the party, could be the Independence Party's presidential nominee, because he'll take on both Republican and Democratic special interests. And Independence movement and an Independence Party should be about a couple of things.

A real Independence Party could blow up the current two-party duopoly that only serves the leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties. We are way too big and politically diverse as a country, where we are represented across the political spectrum to only have two major political parties. And to push Democrats and Republicans to tell them, either figure out how to govern this country and then do it. Or get out-of- town, because they're going to replaced. 

The American Experience: 'President Jimmy Carter and The Economy: Curbing Inflation (2003)'

Source:American Experience- 2003 documentary about President Jimmy Carter (Democrat, Georgia)

"In the summer of 1979, inflation rose to 14 percent. In response, Carter cut the budgets of social programs, leading to criticism from African American leaders and members of the "traditional FDR coalition." 

From the American Experience

President Jimmy Carter wasn't really at fault for the problems and issues that confronted him as President. He inherited a lot of those issues from the Nixon and Ford Administration's. Where President Carter was at fault is how he responded to probably the worst economy America had since the Great Depression and perhaps since. With high unemployment, interest, and inflation rates to go with low economic growth and the 1979-1980 recession.

All of these thing happening under President Carter's watch and he didn't seem to have much of an idea in how to respond to them. President Carter is one of the most intelligent President's we've ever had: even Conservative Republicans would acknowledge that. But he's one of the weakest leaders we've ever had. I believe even Democrats would acknowledge that I'm one of them. Which is one reason why Senator Ted Kennedy ran for President against him in 1980. Taking on the leader of his own party.

President Carter had a great ability analyze and understand what the problems that the country were facing. But did have a much of an idea in how to address them except for energy policy and fiscal policy as well, to a certain extent calling for eliminating waste in the Federal Government and to reform the Federal Government and balancing the Federal budget.

But the problem was President Carter put a lot of those goals ahead of growing the economy. One of the reasons why it was so weak from 1978-81 under his watch when you have a weak economy especially a recession, you have to concentrate on economic growth to produce job growth. In order to put people back to work and when those things happen. 

Then you can concentrate on balancing the Federal budget with extra revenue you've obtained from the economic growth and more people working and paying taxes, as well cutting back in government spending in areas you don't need to spend as much, as well as reforming government.

The Carter Administration did the opposite: they cut back in spending, when they should've focused on creating more economic growth. Like with tax cuts, infrastructure investment, aid to states so they don't have to lay off workers, expanding foreign trade so American business's can sell more of their products, job training for unemployed workers, deregulating certain industries so they could hire more people by expanding their business's. They did do that with airline industries which did help the economy but later on in the 1980s.

To be a strong leader you have to know what the issues are and then what to do about them and then be able to communicate your policy's to the country to get them passed through Congress. It's a lot more work than just being able to figure out what the issues are. But also have an idea what to do about them and then communicate your message as well. President Carter was an excellent analyst, but poor visionary as far as what to do about the problems that he saw. 

Glenn Beck: 'Progressive Three Tactics'

Source:David Yeubanks- Glenn Beck, talking about people he calls Progressives.

"This is an excerpt from Glenn Beck's FOX show that aired Wednesday night, October 21, 2009.  It has been edited to fit the YouTube time slot.  You can watch the full clip (and read the article/transcript) at Glenn Beck's website:Glenn Beck.  The video is also available at FOX News website:FOX News." 

From David Yeubanks

Glen Beck is right that the Progressiïe Caucus in Congress and their allies in America want profits to at least be limited. Where some industry’s even get nationalized, or where there’s at least public options to them. Health care would get nationalized, Medicare would be the only health insurer in America and perhaps private hospitals would be nationalized as well. Or there would at least be a Federal health care system with Federal hospitals and clinics. Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, managed to get public funding for community health clinics in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Under a democratic socialist system in America, the banking system would either be nationalized, or for-profit banks would become illegal. And there would be Federal Banks. Private schools would probably get nationalized, or the entire education system in America would be nationalized. 

Whatever is left of the private sector if the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party ever came to power in America, would be highly taxed and regulated with strict limits on profits. There would be strict limits on how much individuals could make. And when they go over at, the Federal Government would collect that money in taxes.

And all of this money would go to fund a vast welfare or superstate looking something like they have in Sweden. Or it would trump that, paying for everything from health care, health insurance, Unemployment Insurance, retirement, education. All things provided for by the Federal Government, none of it free by the way. With tax rates ranging from 25-90% if not higher like back in the 1950s. 

Where Glen Beck goes off the deep end to the point where he’s drowning in his own hot water, (you can’t drown in hot air, but I wish politicians could.) is lumping Barack Obama and his Administration in with the Progressive Caucus/Party.

Beck is right about the basic goals of the Democratic Socialist movement. But wrong that the entire Democratic Party is in favor of it. It's only a faction maybe 20% of the party that believes in this agenda. Which is a good thing otherwise I wouldn’t be a Democrat. 

Glen Beck has a habit of making good points and speaking out of his ass in the same editorial. He’s like a doctor making a brilliant diagnosis about someone with a bad back who doesn’t feel any pain. Even though they were injured and this person has had a back for a long time. But then the doctor gives a speech about nuclear energy something he knows nothing about. He diagnosis’s the wrong problems and issues.

Glen Beck has a pretty good idea about democratic socialism in America. But knows very little about the Democratic Party, except the Socialists in it. That again only make up around 20% of a very large party. It's like someone who thinks they can be a great football coach, because they watch the games on TV. And have the opportunity to say that didn’t work, they should’ve done this instead. And then they get a chance to coach and have no idea what to call, or why their calls didn’t work. People should just speak to what they know about, which for Glen Beck is probably only a few subjects.

Glen Beck is no more an expert on the Democratic Party a party I’m a member of (and I’m a Liberal Democrat, by the way) than Sarah Palin is an expert on anything important. But let's use foreign policy for the sake of time: and he should just speak to the subjects that he understands like socialism and libertarianism. And let people who understand liberalism and the Democratic Party like myself analyze those things. And I won’t try to analyze nuclear physics or engineering subjects, because I know basically nothing about as well. 

The other thing that Glenn Beck gets wrong about Progressives: people he calls Progressives aren't Progressives. He's like a guy on the street who criticizes the bad driving of airline pilots, when he should be talking about the bad driving of cab drivers, or at the least the bad driving of a particular cab driver. The people he calls Progressives are Socialists. In some cases Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats. But would you want to be right-wing commentator or journalist with these folks in power?  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

PBS: NewsHour- Dan Balz- Newt Gingrich: Surging in The Polls

Source:PBS NewsHour- "PBS is an American Public Broadcast Service. Wikipedia Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz.

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.” 

From Wikipedia

"A month away from the Iowa caucuses, two new polls show that the race for the Republican presidential nomination has a new frontrunner: Newt Gingrich. Judy Woodruff takes a look at the latest poll results with The Washington Post\'s Dan Balz and J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Company, which conducted one of the Iowa polls." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I'm not a Newt Gingrich fan in the sense that I would ever vote for him. I'm a Liberal Democrat in the real sense of the term. And Newt is a Progressive-Republican (not what you probably think Progressive is) on most things, but has neoconservative leanings on the War on Terror that I don't like. But on the economic policy issues, the War on Poverty and other social welfare issues, I tend to respect Newt and even agree with him from time to time. 

He's got a lot of baggage that will probably prevent him from being President of the United States and even the Republican nominee. Unless there's a new Newt like there was a new Nixon in 1968. There's some positive aspect about him we don't know about yet. Like he's grown up as a campaigner and a manager and can avoid making cheap mistakes that could ruin his presidential campaign. But the reasons for his success right now, are what people like about him. He loves to speak to people individually, he speaks his mind.

Newt loves and is very good about retail politics. He's very provocative, his positions and answers are not poll driven. He probably doesn't have much of a budget for polls right now to begin with. Which could change quickly if Newt were to win Iowa, but we are still four weeks away from that. But Newt is doing what really works for him, which is speak to the people. 

Newt simply can't afford to make mistakes right now because of his tight budget, which I believe has benefited him, because it's disciplined his campaign because of the fact that he can't afford to make mistakes right now. So his tight budget is actually paying off for Newt right now.

Newt's path to the Republican nomination in 2012, knockout a heavy favorite and heavy financed frontrunner in Mitt Romney. Which is something a lot if not of a consensus of the Republican Party would like to see and a lot of Democrats would like to see, is to first avoid any further big mistakes. Don't take any positions that you have to change later, don't run away or try to cover up things from the past. When facts about his past come up, especially bad ones, acknowledge them and say you were wrong. Don't try to cover them up. No more ethics violations, dig deep to get all of those out in the public. Obviously don't commit any new ones. Newt is leading right now because of the debates and his retail politicking.

And Newt has done well in his press conferences. He should put his new and provocative policy positions on the table. Newt does well when his campaign is about his ideas not his past, because then he's on the defensive. He's been in politics for over thirty years in one capacity or another. As far as the Republican primary's, 

Newt's Path to the Republican nomination, is win Iowa or New Hampshire. Both is preferable and puts him in excellent shape in South Carolina and with fundraising. If Newt wins Iowa or New Hampshire and finishes a strong second in the other primary and someone other than Mitt Romney wins the other primary, like Ron Paul, Newt is still in good shape going into South Carolina. So would the other Republican primary winner, because then Mitt Romney has to go full-out in South Carolina to save his campaign, taking on two strong contenders that he trails. Thats Newt Gingrich's path to the Republican nomination for President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer: 'Mark Shields & David Brooks: On Newt Gingrich's Skeletons, Bill Clinton's Second Act, Tax Cuts'

Source:PBS NewsHour- "PBS is an American Public Broadcast Service." Wikipedia

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks discuss the week\'s top political news, including the likelihood of Newt Gingrich being elected president, Bill Clinton\'s post-presidential work, lawmakers\' struggles over the payroll tax cut extension and Rep. Barney Frank\'s legacy."

From the PBS NewsHour

As a Liberal Democrat out of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, I rather have President Obama face Newt in the presidential election. Even though I expect the President to beat either. Because Newt has a lot of baggage that will easily be exploited by the Obama Campaign with their 1B$ plus budget. And a lot of that baggage they won't have to exploit, it will just come out in the media. With Mitt he's a much smoother politician, very intelligent debater as is Newt who both could go head to head with the President.

But Mitt is King Flip Flopper which is one reason why the Republican Party doesn't like him or hasn't fallen in love with him. And if they nominate him to be their next leader it will be because they believe he can win. Sort of how they nominated Richard Nixon in 1968 and the Democratic Party nominate John Kerry in 2004, because they believed those guys could win. But with a Gingrich-Obama presidential campaign, it will make for great TV and great debates. Newt will be able to run the presidential campaign he'll want to, but that presidential election would never be in doubt.

Newt would always be behind: it would look like McGovern-Nixon in 1972. But I don't believe President Obama would win 49 States but 35 plus definitely, with 55-60% of the popular vote. Because Newt has a habit of offending everyone and there's so much baggage in his personal life and professional career. Unless there's a new Newt, like there was a new Nixon in 1968, President Obama would cruise to reelection in 2012 and take the House with him. Senate Democrats would hold the Senate because all of their incumbents would be able to run with the President.

With a Romney-Obama presidential election, if Romney is able to bring the Republican Party with him with again with his public record, is no guarantee, you're looking at a 50-50, 52-48 where a handful of Midwestern States decide the presidential election. As well as Congress , with Independent voters making a lot of these decisions. But if the GOP doesn't back Romney, you're looking at a 55-45 presidential election in favor of President Obama. Because he will have the Democratic Party behind him for the most part with 1B$ to spend to bring them with him.

President Obama would have the Liberals, the question is the Socialists, will they come back to the President or recruit their own presidential candidate. Do they want to run their own campaign with their own policies and see another Republican President and Congress. Or will they stay with the Democratic Party instead and be winners and try to recruit more Social Democrats in the future instead. 

With an improving economy as we are seeing now, if that continues and if so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really ) come back to the Democratic Party, Independents will come back to the President as well. And President Obama will win with 52-55% or more and be reelected. If the GOP nominates Romney, they have a shot but if it's Gingrich, Barack Obama two-term President.

The House GOP are finally in retreat mode a little bit on the payroll tax cut and perhaps and extension of Unemployment Insurance. Both will get extended because the House GOP does not want to look like tax hikers and people throwing unemployed workers out on the streets. 

We'll probably know by the end of the month if Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are both for real as presidential candidates. With one winning Iowa and the other winning New Hampshire, if that happens. The Romney Campaign is in serious trouble and they'll have to spend a lot of that money they raised, that they were probably saving for the general election, in South Carolina.

Glenn Beck: 'History Lesson: Progressivism in America'

Source:Fox News- talking about Progressive President's.

"Glenn Beck History Lesson Part 1 of 5" 

From Glenn Beck

I believe in Glen Beck Land or Glen Beck America, that we would go back to the days pre-New Deal, Progressive Era. And we essentially go back to being a libertarian nation (for rich, Anglo-Saxon-Protestant men) where we are all on our own and when we need assistance, we get it through private charity. 

What Beck is forgetting is back in those days, African-Americans were treated basically like Colonial Americans (or like the pets of Colonial Americans) before the United States was formed, even though they were American as anyone else in America (except for American-Indians) their constitutional rights were not enforced under law or enforced equally.

So progressivism has made at least some positive reform in America. And not I’m going to interpret whether Mr. Beck believes if its okay for African-Americans to be treated like second-class citizens or not. Let him do that for himself. We had of course had the Great Depression of the 1930s, which lasted at least through the 1930s. The New Deal did not pull us out of it, our involvement in World War II did that. But what the New Deal did and no one including myself would design the New Deal, the same way today as back then, was give the Great Depression a floor and allow of the economy to start recovering.

I would’ve not have given the Federal Government all of that power to run the safety net and instead empower the states and private sector with that responsibility. Same thing with the Great Society in the 1960s. But what the New Deal and Great Society did was at least give people in need some floor of income that they could rely on. When they are out of work and that sort of thing. But of course none of those programs would’ve been designed the same way today by anyone.

The Glen Beck World that he talked about before the Progressive Era had some advantages: as we were becoming the richest country in the world, thanks to American private enterprise and our natural resources, but it also had some holes in it as well with all the racial, ethnic and gender discrimination that was going on back in that era. That government let go on and did nothing about. Even though these people had the same constitutional rights in America as Caucasian men. But they were just not being enforced equally, which is how bigotry was able to take place.

Not laws against hate crimes, which is why government was needed to step in. And make this bigotry illegal and try to put a stop to it. And when people were unemployed, or didn’t have enough skills to get a good job and be self-sufficient, unless they were able to get help from private charity, they were out of luck. Which is why the New Deal was created and again I wouldn’t have designed the New Deal the same way.

No one would, but at least it was something that people in need could turn to. Things were definitely done differently pre-Progressive Era, but not exactly better in every sense, sometimes better. And in others like with equal protection, done worse. Sometimes moving forward and progressing as a society can be better, especially since we’ve never lived in a perfect world. Which is why we should always try to get better. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

The Independent Institute: Beyond Politics- 'Roots of Government Failure: William Shugart Interviews Randy T. Simmons'

Source:The Independent Institute- Randy T. Simmons, talking about his book about big government.

"William Shughart interviews Economist Randy T. Simmons, author of "Beyond Politics: The Roots of Government Failure."

To order copies of Simmons' book "Beyond Politics: The Roots of Government Failure," visit:The Independent Institute." 

From The Independent Institute

Government tends to fail and become inefficient when it tries to do too much. When it tries to get involved in areas that it tends not to be very efficient at. Like regulating how people live their own lives and trying to protect people from themselves. Which is what Christian-Conservatives and Theocrats believe in and claim that national security and morality is paramount over everything else. And that we need some type of moral code to govern how people can live their own lives. Even if what they are doing isn't hurting anyone, including themselves. Just because they don't like what people are doing with their lives. 

Or when government tries to get involved into the economy which would be another example of government trying to do too much. Which is what Socialists want to see whether they are looking for government to nationalize private enterprise or not.

Or Social-Democrats want to create a welfare state and have government provide services or leave government to provide services that are traditionally handled by the private sector, because they don't believe the private sector can be trusted to provide these services, because they have a profit motive. 

Which is why I'm a Liberal Democrat, because I believe in individual liberty which is what liberalism is about. Not how Conservatives and Libertarians have stereotyped it making it look like democratic socialism. And why I believe in limited government, to limit what government can do. To allow the people to be as free and self-sufficient as possible in living their own lives and only be dependent on government to provide the services that they can't provide for themselves.

This is why I believe we need a national debate about what the role of Government, especially the Federal Government is. Because that government effects everyone in America and what government's role should be in America. 

And why I believe we should have a National Constitutional Convention to figure these things out. What the U.S. Constitution says and means, what the Federal Government is doing today, is what they are doing constitutional or not. And things that they are doing that are constitutional, should they being doing them at all. Or can they be best handled better in the private sector and then limit the Federal Government to the things that they should be doing that are constitutional and eliminate or cut their role in the things that they shouldn't be doing. Whether their role there is constitutional or not and perhaps even we'll find some things. 

Even though I wouldn't put any money on that, that they aren't doing currently that they should be doing . And find a way that they can best perform that role in the most fiscally responsible way possible.

Me personally I believe the role for the Federal Government should be very limited, not as limited as Libertarians, but very limited. And then dramatically cut back its roles in the things that I believe it has too much of a role today. And I would limit the Federal Government to, national security, foreign policy, Federal currency, law enforcement and regulation. 

Not even social welfare except for regulating it. I would turn our safety net and I mean all of it, over to the States and then let them set up their own social insurance systems. But then have them convert those programs into semi-private non-profit self-financed community services. And if we had a national debate like this, then we could figure out what the role of government is in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Buddy Roemer: 'Goldman Friggin Sachs- Governor Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe'

Source:Buddy Roemer- Reform Party presidential candidate Governor Buddy Roemer, talking to MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit." 

From Buddy Roemer

Buddy Roemer is one of the few if only real Republicans (as I would put it), people who are Classical Conservatives, running for President in the Republican Party right now. The only other person I would consider would be Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul I would classify as a Classical Libertarian, Gary Johnson and John Huntsman I would classify as Liberal Libertarians. Who I believe as a Liberal Democrat myself would both make solid Democrats in an Old School sense. 

Actually, I would put Rick Perry in the same class as Newt Gingrich, but the rest of that field are Neoconservatives, except for Mitt Romney who if I had to guess by judging his track record looks like George H.W. Bush or Gerry Ford. But politically he's where ever he feels he needs to be to suit him politically. But the rest of them, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann are all Tea Party Neo-Cons. Basically trying to install round three of the George W. Bush Administration.

Running for President in an era where neoconservatism and Christian-Conservatism is out of style in most of the country. If it's a Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Republican you're looking for President, look at the Buddy Roemer and take a look at John Huntsman, because they are the closest people that the Republican Party has right now. Which to me is just more evidence that both Goldwater and Reagan couldn't get the Republican nomination for President right now. Because they wouldn't kiss up to the Religious and Neo-Right, because they wouldn't give a damn about those people. 

Because of Governor  Roemer's politics and character and the fact that he can't get the Republican nomination for President right now, because of how far-right the GOP has moved in the last ten years or so, is just more evidence that Governor Roemer shouldn't give up his presidential campaign, just not run as a Republican. What American politics needs right now is another major political party. A party that could take votes away from Democrats and Republicans.

Time to force the two big parties to speak to broader audiences other than their fringe bases. And court votes from people other than their fringe bases. We need an Independence Party, something that George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and what Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. A party thats made up of both Classical Liberals and Classical Conservatives, people who aren't on the Far-Left or Far-Right. That can appeal to American voters who aren't on these fringes and give the two parties a hell of a run for their money. To encourage them to move away from their fringes whether they win or lose. 

And Buddy Roemer, Bob Barr, Evan Baygh, Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg, Lincoln Chaffey and others, would all make excellent presidential candidates for an Independence Party. Because they are the real things on the left and right not extremists. 

Buddy Roemer represents what the Republican Party used to be and what they have moved away from. Even with the Tea Party movement, because some of them have gotten in bed with Christian-Conservatives. Buddy Roemer hasn't left the Republican Party, but they've left him politically. Which is why he should leave the GOP and work to build a real Independence movement in American politics. That can build America's third major political party.

Associated Press: 'Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As Nominee'

Source:Associated Press- Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R, GA) and now 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

"Libertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeLibertarian Party Looks to Bob Barr As NomineeThe Associated PressThe Libertarian Party on Sunday picked former Republican Rep. Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate after six rounds of balloting.  Barr left the GOP in 2006."

From the Associated Press

Bob Barr in some ways fits in perfectly with the Libertarian Party on economic and foreign policy. Similar to Pat Buchanan ,but on social issues, I would figure at least with Bob Barr's record in the House of Representatives, that he wouldn't be liberal to libertarian enough on social issues to fit in well with that party. Which is why Pat Buchanan run for President for the Reform Party in 2000 not the Libertarian Party. 

Until I heard about Representative Barr's opposition to the Patriot Act and War on Drugs, two things that I'm against as well. So to me Bob Barr would be a better fit with the Tea Party thats not in bed yet with the Religious-Right. Thats also against things like the Patriot Act and a neoconservative foreign policy and of course shares Representative Barr's views on economic policy. As well and also why I believe that Bob Barr would be an excellent fit in an independence movement that would lead to an Independence Party.

An Independence Party that Governor George Wallace tried to start in the late 1960s and Ross Perot tried to start in the 1990s. Which is a movement and party thats not exactly about centrism or splitting the difference, that does have clear positions on the issues. More conservative on economic policy, more liberal or at least neutral on social issues and more isolationist on foreign policy. 

A political party like this I believe would do very well in America right now with the right leadership. Because the largest voting block in America are registered Independents. People not registered with a political party. There is an independent political movement in America right now, but they don't have a major political party. The Reform Party is the closest thing they have right now but they've been around since 1995-96.

And the Reformers are still a fairly small political party, which is one reason why Mike Bloomberg has flirted with running for president. There are people in Congress that have flirted with leaving the Democratic and Republican parties and becoming Independents. Like Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Lisa Murkowski, Ron Paul and others. These people would make good leaders in an independence movement. To go along with people like Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan, Mike Bloomberg, David Walker who used to run Government Accountability Office. Evan Baygh who used to be a Senator and Governor from Indiana, independent commentator Lou Dobbs, the No Labels Movement and other people. Independents have the talent and personal to build their own party, that could blow up our two-party system.

A real Independence Party could  finally give America a political system that could represent our huge and diverse nation. Thats basically stuffed into two political parties. Bob Barr represents what independent politics could be in America and an avenue to blow up our two-party system. And give us a political system that has five strong parties that can represent the whole country. Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist and independent and force Democrats and Republicans to compete for voters. Across the political spectrum instead of just running to their fringes for their support.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Governor George Wallace (1968)

Source:The Art of Alabama Politics- Governor George C. Wallace (Independent, Alabama) appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

"Shortly before announcing his third-party presidential candidacy in January of 1968, former Alabama Gov. George Wallace engaged in an hour-long debate of various topics with conservative icon William F. Buckley on his “Firing Line” television program.

The debate between the two men proved to be both very combative and quite entertaining.

In this clip, Gov. Wallace responds when Buckley questions his conservative credentials while serving in office. It is likely the only occasion during the entirety of the 1968 campaign in which any interviewer accused Wallace of being a liberal.

[Note: The full, hour-long "Firing Line" episode is available for purchase on Amazon and is worthy viewing for devoted connoisseurs of Alabama political history." 

From the Art of Alabama Politics

George Wallace because he didn't fit in very well with either the Democratic Party because of his anti-civil rights views and he didn't fit in very well with the Republican Party because of the GOP's emerging conservative-libertarian faction (that William F. Buckley was part of) and Governor Wallace's progressive views on economic policy was right to form the Independence Party and run with them for President. 

An Independence Party back then over forty years, had relevance then and I believe has relevance today. Because there were plenty of people in both parties that didn't fit in very well with either party. As well as Independents that didn't fit in very well with either party. Because they were moderate to liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic policy. Sort of the way the Republican Party used to be before the Religious-Right took it over. 

And there were people who were progressive on economic policy but conservative on social issues like George Wallace. And some of the members of the Southern Caucus in Congress, which is how George Wallace was able to form the Independence Party and why it could've worked then if it was run right. Why it could've worked in the 1990s with the Ross Perot Movement. And why it could work today with Mike Bloomberg and other people but it has to be about an independence movement. 

An independence movement can't be about one individual or a small group of individuals, like in the late 1960s with George Wallace. Or in the 1990s with Ross Perot, but about the broader movement as a whole. To recruit enough independent minded people to make the movement powerful enough to at least influence the Democratic and Republican parties for the good and get them to act responsible. 

Or form a political party big enough to take on both parties and at least be a factor in elections. George Wallace had an opportunity to build an independence movement in 1967-68 and up till 1976 or so. Even after being shot in the back in 1972. But what he did instead was try to make the Independence Party about electing him President instead of building a party that could've been a major factor in American politics, that could nominate him for President, but could also recruit enough candidates for Governor, state legislature, Congress, and other public offices. Instead of trying to make this new party about electing him President of the United States. And screwing the Democratic and Republican parties.

As soon as George Wallace was elected and then reelected Governor of Alabama, his whole mission became about being elected President of the United States. Thats exactly what his part in the states rights movement became about. Whether he believed in forced segregation or not, I believe it was all about politics, but thats debatable. Instead of building a major third party that could take on both Democrats and Republicans for high office.

Carole Robinson: State of The Union (1948) Starring Spencer Tracy & Katharine Hepburn

Source:Carole Robinson- From 1948, with an all-star, Hollywood Hall of Fame cast.

"Entertainment Purposes Only. Frank Capra and Van Johnson - Need I say more? Oh, yes - Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, and Angela Landsbury...enjoy the scene with tow plane in midair playing bumper cars. Claudette Colbert was originally cast in the Hepburn role."

From Carole Robinson

The State of the Union from 1948 is a very entertaining and very funny movie with an excellent cast. Spencer Tracy as the presidential candidate, Katharine Hepburn as his wife, who’s somewhat reluctant to get into politics. But who’s more than capable of taking care of herself. Van Johnson as the political strategist, Angela Lansbury as Washington political insider. A leader in I’m guessing the Republican Party. And some other great people as well and the Spencer Tracy character a private businessman from New York.

The Tracy character who basically up till this point never considered running for any public office gets recruited by these party insiders. To be their presidential candidate, because he’s a very successful and wealthy outsider. Who does seem to have an interest in current affairs and has an independent streak, but never gets around to running for public office. The Tracy character reminds me a little of Ross Perot and Tom Dewey. But charming and likable and someone who these insiders believe can beat the incumbent President.

Harry Truman gets mentioned as the President in the move, that the Republicans want to beat. This movie came out in 1948 the year of that famous election between President Truman and Governor Tom Dewey of New York. And the Tracy character reminds me of Tom Dewey, even though Governor Dewey had some experience in public service at this point as a prosecutor as well as Governor of New York, but politically the Tracy character reminds me of Dewey: Progressive on social issues and foreign policy and a believer in fiscal responsibility as well.

Spencer Tracy plays the outsider of outsiders running for President of the United States. Not just because of the fact he lived outside of Washington, never served in public office or public service. Never even active in politics or current affairs, but also someone who was an outsider with his politics as well. He was farther to the left than Woodrow Wilson on foreign policy, calling for a world government. That would go past the United Nations. But someone who was also an anti-Communist and believed America should be tough with Russia.

In that sense this character reminds me a little of Tom Dewey. This character was a strong Progressive on economic policy. In favor of very high tax rates. Even as a very wealthy businessman, to be used to pay for social insurance programs and public services: like health care, health insurance, education and other things. But also a strong believer in fiscal responsibility as well. That tax revenue shouldn’t be wasted and spent very wisely as well. Again reminding me of Tom Dewey and Ross Perot. And a presidential candidate like this today I believe could be very successful in appealing to Independent voters as an Independent. Because of their broad reach.

State of the Union was a great political movie back in 1948. And is still a great movie today over sixty years later. Because it’s very relevant to the politics back then. Third-party candidates like Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party and Strom Thurmond of the Dixiecrat Party. Candidates who could actually have an affect on the presidential election. And that the Democratic Party and Republican Party actually had to take seriously. And try to appeal to some of their supporters in order to get elected or reelected. And it would be nice if these third-parties were more of a force today. And give American voters more choices in who they can vote for. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

TNT Films: George Wallace (1997) Gary Sinise as Governor George C. Wallace

Source:TNT Films- Gary Sinise, as Governor George C. Wallace. 

"Teaser for George Wallace (1997) captured from the Contact (1997) VHS tape."

From TNT Films

Source:Wikipedia - Gary Sinise as George C. Wallace 

From what I’ve heard and seen, read about George Wallace the former long time Governor of Alabama, as well as multiple time presidential candidate as a Democrat, as well as an Independent, the 1997 TNT movie about him naturally called George Wallace, is a pretty accurate movie about him. George Wallace started off as a Progressive on economic policy. Things like infrastructure investment, public education, as well as higher education, housing. And was a moderate on social issues. Including civil rights, until he lost the 1958 election for Governor of Alabama.

And then George Wallace calculated politically that in order to become Governor of Alabama and have a future in national politics, especially as a Southerner, he could get by with being for economic progressivism, even tax hikes. As long as that money was doing some good for the State. With schools, roads and so forth. But that he had to run to the Right or Far-Right even on Civil Rights. That he couldn’t support integration, in order to get elected Governor of Alabama.

Even as someone who up to that point was basically a Progressive Democrat and had to been favor of states rights especially on civil rights. In order to get elected Governor of Alabama and reelected and have a future in national politics, or with another party. Which is what he did in 1968 running for President in the Independence Party and there was such a thing back then. The movie George Wallace I believe does a very good job of portraying the man George Wallace. Who was very different in public than in private.

Which is how Gary Sinise plays Governor Wallace in the movie. Someone who didn’t believe in integration in public. Even though in private got along very well with African-Americans and even managed to win some of their votes. Because he was a Progressive on economic policy. And built schools, roads, hospitals and other public infrastructure in their communities. Something that Alabama Governor’s apparently didn’t do much of in the past. And these African-American voters voted with their wallets when it came to Governor Wallace.

And thats what you see in this movie as well. Someone whose public persona was different from his private persona. And without the assassination attempt in 1972 in Laurel, Maryland, when Governor Wallace was campaigning for president in the Maryland Democratic primary, getting shot I believe in the back, maybe we have an Independence Party today. A clear third choice for Independent voters. And a party of their own that George Wallace could’ve continued to build. Along with John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in the 1990s.

The TNT George Wallace movie I believe was very good. As well as the PBS documentary film about him. Setting the Woods on Fire from 2003. Because both films did their research on him and interviewed people who knew him and worked for Governor Wallace. And didn’t try to portray George Wallace as a devil or as a saint. But someone who was a lot more complicated than that, as he was. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

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

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Conservative Journal: Sean Hannity- 'Sarah Palin Opens Door To Possible Third Party Run'

Source: Conservative Journal- Talk about reality TV stars: except Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin aren't acting. 

Source:The Daily Times

"In a June 3, 2011 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News , former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressed frustration over the Republican Party and hinted of a possible third party run in 2012.

"You know what, a year ago I would have said please don't even consider third party," Palin told Hannity. "I think conditions have changed in this last year...if they're not careful in the GOP there will be a third party rise up just like back in the day when the Whigs finally went away and Republicans rose up."

Please proceed to The New Conservative Journal for the full transcript of this portion of Gov. Palin's interview."

From the Conservative Journal

It would be a great day for the Republican Party and a bad day for comedians, pundits and bloggers if Sarah Palin left the GOP to run for President. Probably for some Far-Right third-party.

She doesn’t have a blizzard’s chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and perhaps ever. Because the GOP establishment has essentially told her, perhaps even to her face that she won’t win it. Because they are looking for a presidential nominee that can beat the President and win the White House in 2012.

Which is why Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty look so good to them right now. And why Mitch Daniels had he decided to run for President for 2012, would’ve look so good to them as well.

The GOP establishment wants to win in 2012. While the GOP base is looking for a presidential nominee that’s perfect in their mind ideologically. Especially on social issues where Sarah Palin fits in so well with them: anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc, where they don’t trust Mitt Romney.

 Sarah Palin doesn’t belong in a major political party like the GOP. But at the head of a fringe Far-Right party. And the GOP would be better off if she left them for good.

History Channel: 39- President Jimmy Carter and the Late 1970s

Source:The White House- President James E. Carter: 39th President of the United States.

Source:The Daily Times

“From The History Channel Series, “The Presidents”.
Copyright held by The History Channel – for educational use only!” Originally from Coach Strusky, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

This might be putting it simplistically, but Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the late 1970s might be able to be summed up in what was dubbed as his malaise speech. Even though it was a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Despite President Carter’s brilliant ability to examine issues and problems, this speech however you want to define it, sounded like a lecture on what was wrong with the American people.

Seeming to blame the problems that the country was facing on themselves. That what the center of our problems, the reason for our economic problems was materialism that we wanted too much. Instead of the fact that it’s not that the country wanted too much. But the fact that a lot of middle class Americans and low-income people were fighting just to survive, to make ends meet. Which was very difficult because of the high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation and the energy shortage.

The bad economy was the center of America’s problems and that was bad enough. And then throw in the foreign policy issues of late 1978 into 1979 and 1980, with the Monarchy in Iran collapsing in early 79, the Iran hostage crisis of November, 1979, where Americans at our Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage and held for fourteen months, with Russia invading Afghanistan in 1980. It was a lot on any President’s plate, even for a President as intelligent as Jimmy Carter.

I’ve said this before, but Jimmy Carter as President had a brilliant ability to examine issues for what they were for and understand them. But lacked the ability to figure out how to solve the problems. The economic crisis on 1978-90 and the malaise speech is a perfect example of this. He knew what the issues of the bad economy of that era were, but didn’t have a prescription to fix the problems.

He saw the economic crisis as something to do with the budget deficit. Even though compared with GDP the deficit was very small back then. Thanks to President Nixon, Ford and yes Carter limiting federal spending. The main issues with the economic crisis had to with high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation. And the way to solve economic problems is putting people back to work, even if that means running a short-term deficit. Or increasing the deficit, because once you establish solid job growth, you get the economy running again and you can address whatever budget deficit you had run up.

President Carter not only miss-diagnosed the economic crisis from a policy point of view, but from a political point of view. Because with a decent economy, President Carter gets reelected. I believe even with the hostage crisis, because President Carter actually scored decent ratings for the way he handled that situation. That election still would’ve been close I believe. But if he handled the economy properly, President Carter gets reelected and Ronald Reagan perhaps never becomes President of the United States.

CNN: Anderson Cooper: 'Keeping Michele Bachmann Honest'

Source:CNN- Representative Michele Bachmann, is always a great candidate for Anderson Cooper's RidicuList as well.

"Michele Bachmann, Queen Of The Dumb, Lies About Planned Parenthood. Michele Bachmann makes up a quote about a Planned Parenthood executive."

From Boobless 101

Back in the late 1990s and 2000s former President Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove, mastered the political strategy of divide and Conquer. He didn’t invent the political strategy. That probably happened with the Nixon Campaign, but nobody has done it better before or since.

When you know you’re in a tough election and your candidate isn’t very popular, instead of talking about what you’re good at and what you want to do, you try to destroy your opponent. So they seem worse than you are. And you take stories about your opponents and give the worst possible spin about them as you can come up with. To make your opponent look as bad as possible.

Which is exactly what Michele Bachmann has done ever since taking office in the House. And now running for President of the United States. Ah’ an American Citizen, she was born in America, she’s at least 35 years old, she’s free. So in her mind she’s as qualified as anyone else to run for President of the United States. Which by the way are her only qualifications to run for President of the United States.

Representative Bachmann is  an expert on nothing, except perhaps ignorance. Makes up things as she goes along and represents what happens when American voters vote style over substance. Representative Bachmann has style, but where’s the rest. Palin and Bachmann are both attractive, funny intentionally and unintentionally and have style. But neither one of them has any there, there.

As a Liberal Democrat my dream ticket for the Republican Party in 2012, are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Or in reverse order. The problem being that at least Sarah Palin understands that she’s not qualified to be President. At least not yet and Michele Bachmann hasn’t gotten that message. And the other problem even though there have been plenty of obvious clues put in front of her, being that the GOP is not dumb enough to nominate either one of them for President. And wouldn’t accept the other for Vice President.

Which is why I’ve always said that Sarah Palin is not going to run for President. Because the GOP Leadership has told her not to. And the Republican establishment would run away from her. I mean, can you imagine a Palin/Bachmann ticket or in reverse order. Against Obama/Biden, all the President has to do: “Look you may not like us, but look at the other crew spending all of their time denying and retracting things that they’ve said. Just trying to prove that they are qualified to be President and Vice President of the United States.”

President Obama would just have to say: “You got to reëlect me for no other reason to prevent the other crew that doesn’t even understand their jobs that they are running for from being elected.” I mean can you imagine President Palin or Bachmann getting that famous 3AM call. What would their response be: “Don’t bother me, I’m sleeping. I’ll defend the country or respond to the crisis when the sun is up.” I’m expecting President Obama to get reelected in 2012 if for no other reason, because of their competition or lack of competition.

And the divisive primary’s that the Republican Party is about to face, where Iowa and New Hampshire could be won by two different candidates and neither one of them is named Mitt Romney. Which would force Romney to make a big play in South Carolina and make a divided Republican race even more divided. But a Palin/Bachmann ticket or the other way around would represent President Obama’s free ticket back to the White House. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress. 

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