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.