Pop User: 'Howard Phillips Welcomes Ron Paul (1997)'

Source:Pop User- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Howard Phillips Show, in 1997.

"Howard Phillips, founder of the Constitution Party, welcomes Ron Paul to the Conservative Roundtable. This is a classic edition from 1997. Paul talks about his run to reclaim his seat after imposing his own belief in Congressional term limits on himself, focusing on what kind of character voters are comfortable supporting. Ron Paul of course ran for president in 2008. He also discusses the 9th and 10th amendment, honest and sound money, public housing, runaway government deficit spending, inflation, the Federal Reserve - Fed, and how the public must demand real change."

From Pop User 

What I personally respect about Ron Paul is that the Ron Paul you see back in the late 1990s (in 1997) is the same Ron Paul today and fighting and believing in the same things, in what he views as a constitutional government and that the Federal Government is grown way too big and it must be limited back to where it was pre-New Deal of the 1930s and so-forth. And that we need more individual freedom both economic and personal and eliminate prohibition all together.

What I like about Ron Paul as a Liberal myself (and not a Libertarian, in Ron Paul's case) is the whole idea of individual freedom both economic and personal as well, as well as personal responsibility. But even though I believe the Federal Government is too big and more power needs to be sent down to the states and people themselves, we disagree about how much smaller the Federal Government should be. 

But where Ron Paul was sixteen years ago is the Ron Paul that we see today and is one politician that you can count on. At least to the extent that you know what he believes and that he won't change his politics when the politics change. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Canada Classic Sports: CFL 1974- Grey Cup- Montreal Alouettes vs Edmonton Eskimos: Full Game

Source:Canada Classic Sports- the 1974 CFL Grey Cup, from Vancouver, British Columbia.

Source:The Daily Times 

"1974 Grey Cup Championship Game, Canadian Football League, Montreal Alouettes vs Edmonton Eskimos." 

From Canada Classic Sports

An interesting year for the CFL, at least in the sense that only one team won ten games the entire year, the Edmonton Eskimos, who finished 10-5 in the regular season. Which would be like having only one team in the NFL only winning 10 games, which is rarely if ever has happened. At least since the 1960s or so. Or only have one team in the NHL or NBA only winning 50 games, which may of never of happened, at least yet. 

At least in the NFL and I imagine the CFL as well since both leagues play 16 and 18 games respectfully, a ten win season for a team means they are a good team and had a good year. So when you only have one team in the entire league accomplish that, it means there weren’t a lot of real good teams. Unless you’re a big fan of parity or something where everyone is fairly equal.

Bleacher Report: Matt Eichel- 'CFL: Expansion a Risky Business'

Source:Bleacher Report- the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and Calgary Stampeders in CFL action.

"Expansion. Sounds like a word that can bring joy, anger, hostility, and a whole host of other emotions to fans in any sports league.

To some, expansion throws tradition and history out the door. To others, it's a chance to create something new.

In the Canadian Football League, expansion has always seemed to be a hot button subject of debate.

Back at the start of the 1990s, the CFL, in an attempt to compete with the rival National Football League to the south, decided to expand into the United States. In 1993, the first US-based CFL team—the Sacramento Gold Miners—was admitted into the league." 

From Bleacher Report 

To put it simply, CFL expansion into America didn't work because it had bad management, bad marketing, lack of funds, lack of homework. They seemed to have this idea that if the CFL just came to America, it would automatically work especially in markets that didn't have NFL franchises, because of how much Americans love football and it doesn't work like that.

The main reason NFL expansion works in America. Is because for a city to be rewarded an NFL franchise, it has to meet certain requirements. The city has to have the right management group of people who can show they not only know how to run a sports franchise, but a business as well. And that's exactly what sports franchises are, they are business's, companies even and they must have money up front to succeed.

Perspective NFL franchises also have to show they can make money down the road. And they have to sell a certain amount of tickets up front what are called season tickets to show that their expansion team will have the support they need up front to survive. And only Baltimore showed they had that type of support and management.

The Baltimore Stallions had a major league caliber management team led by Jim Speros, who was their Governor running a CFL franchise. And the CFL all due respect and many ways it's a great league, but its not major league compared with the NFL where the other American CFL franchises like the Birmingham Barracudas , the Memphis Mad Dogs, and, San Antonio Texans playing in huge 70-80 thousand seat stadiums and drawing 15-20 thousand fans a game.

What these American CFL franchises should've been able to do just before being rewarded a CFL franchise, was to show that they could sell 15-20 thousand season tickets per season, come up with local TV and radio deals, be able to market their clubs and promote their players, have the money to spend on quality players and were committed to putting a winning product on the field each season. Again, only the Stallions and maybe the San Antonio Texans showed they could do this. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

TLC: Prison Diaries- Till Death Do Us Part

Source:Barguz Nasila- from the TLC show Prison Diaries.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Prison diaries full episodes – Till death us part- – [Prison life documentary 2015]” 

From Barguz Nasila 

Source:The Daily Times- from the TLC show Prison Diaries.

Just because I’m not a complete cynic, I tend to be willing to give prison inmates the benefit of the doubt when they say they are sorry for what they did that landed them in prison and sorry for the crime they committed. Of course not knowing whether they are truly sorry, or not especially if they are up for parole, or have a shot at one day being released from prison.

I have this forgive, but not forget aspect about me. But we have a prison system in America and I imagine in other countries have prison systems for other reasons as well.

That we hold people accountable for the decisions that they make in life for good and bad. And that if you make good decisions in life, chances are you will be rewarded for those decisions. But if they make bad decisions in life, like hurting innocent people, you’ll also be held accountable for those decisions as well. And as it turns out, we tend to hold people more accountable for their bad decisions than their good decisions.

The prison system is filled with people who’ve made a lot of bad decisions in life. And we also have a lot of people who are in prison for making bad decisions, but who didn’t hurt people. And have never been a threat to anyone in society and aren’t now except to themselves perhaps. But generally speaking, we have a lot of people in prison because they’ve hurt other people either intentionally, or unintentionally. But they are there for hurting people and are being held accountable for what they’ve done.

And this represents a perfect example of why prisons are a place which of course aren’t perfect, but that place where we hold people accountable for making bad decisions and hurting other people. And that’s what they should be for holding people accountable for hurting other people. Generally physically, but economically as well. And they shouldn’t be for people who hurt themselves. We have too many people in prison for that. And there are better ways we can be dealing with addiction than prison.

Prisons are full of people who’ve made a lot of bad decisions as you can see in this video. And these people just of made better decisions with their lives starting as adolescents. And then moving on as adults, which is why they are probably not in prison today. Which tells me at least that people need to think before acting. And not act off of anger, or emotion, but take the time to think about what they are doing and what’s the best course to take from there.

Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget (2011)

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- CNN host Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

"Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising."

From Only Waxing

I disagree with Andrew Sullivan on one point. Paul Ryan doesn’t take on Social Security, or even Medicare in his budget plan. He just says we should do those things and tries to force senior citizens on private health insurance, with his voucher program. Republicans are supposed to believe in freedom of choice when it comes to economic policy, but Paul Ryan would take Medicare away from seniors.

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget. And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs.

If you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan’s attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes.

Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes, the stuff that fills people up in the meal, normally, what Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction, instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 billion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In other words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

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.

Huffington Post: Sasha Brookner- 'From Blue to Green: Why I Left the Democratic Party'

Source:Fox News- a Democratic Congress: I wish!

"In the 15th century, the Eastern Orthodox Christians had a unique aphorism: “Better the turban than the mitre.” They were referring to the preferable conquer of the Balkans by the Ottoman Turks rather than the Western Roman Catholic empire. Today, that lesser of two evil principles isn’t about maintaining freedom of religion; rather it’s used by Democrats to justify genocide, drones, Guantanamo, rendition, kill lists and cutting heat subsidies for the poor under the past its sell-by date defense that Republicans would double these demons. It is evident that this perpetual comparative doctrine has reached steroid proportions. Although President Barack Obama may wear the “turban” when it comes to certain domestic policies, such as gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research, when it comes to foreign policy, corporate interests, and saying farewell to Magna Carta, both the Elephants and the Donkeys are wearing the Bishop’s hat." 

From The Huffington Post

I get the disappointment on the Left from Progressives in President Obama when it comes to the War on Drugs and civil liberties. Why is that, because I share the same disappointments as a Liberal myself and believe we would be moving in a different direction on these issues with a liberal democratic President. But what has happened is that the Obama Administration has made these things worst instead.

I do not get the disappointment in President Obama on lets say the Far-Left Social Democrats in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party for President Obama not being progressive or socialist enough. Because then candidate Obama never ran as a McGovern Democrat, but a JFK or RFK Democrat especially on foreign policy. Not someone who was running to create a new New Deal or Great Society. 

Social Democrats already had their opportunity to vote for those candidates in Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. What candidate Obama wanted to do was to make the current safety net programs work better, not expand them. And put more people to work and making it on their own in America.

This whole deal about why Sasha Brookner left the Democratic Party for the Green Party, is a perfect example of why we need to blowup the two-party system in America. And get a political system that represents the entire country ideologically. 

We need a political system where Social Democrats who still see the Democratic Party as that George McGovern Social Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s, which we aren't now, would have their own Social Democratic Party to go too. Whether it's the Green Party or a Democratic Socialist Party and where they could elect their own socialist, pacifist non-aggression anti-authority, candidates. Except when it comes to the economy, of course candidates to political office or at least vote for them and know about them and see them debate and so-forth. And on the ballot, because people whoever saw Barack Obama as that type of Democrat. Probably do not fit in very well in the Democratic Party anymore.

If you put the entire so-called progressive lets call them (to be nice) but really the entire New-Left social democratic movement that was created in the 1960s that today spans over several different parties in America and put them all in one party, you might have a political party that represents 10-15% of the country and wouldn't be seen as outsiders in their own party. But part of the mainstream which is where Social Democrats should be headed whether it's the Green Party or Democratic Socialist Party. But one united party they would call home. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Universal Newsreels: President Eisenhower & President Khrushchev- 'New Diplomacy: 8/03/1959'

Source:Universal Newsreels- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) talking about the visit of President Nikita Khrushchev (Soviet Union)

"Ike special press conference, reads joint text, that Khrushchev has accepted invitation to visit U.S., and Ike will visit USSR (partial newsreel)."

From Universal Newsreel

Just another example of why Dwight Eisenhower was such a qualified and effective Cold War President, because he was such a high ranking general during World War II leading Allied Forces in Europe and being in charge of defeating Nazism and other fascists ideologies in Europe during World War II. So when he became President of the United States in 1953. he was more than well-prepared to take on another form of fascism which was communism and the leader of communism in the world at the time being the Soviet Union of Russia. 

So when President Nikita Khrushchev comes to America in 1959 to visit President Eisenhower to talk and even negotiate with the United States, Dwight Eisenhower because of his World War II and Cold War background, was more than capable and credible to discuss issues with Communist Russia. Because you could never accuse Dwight Eisenhower of having Far-Left or other communist leniencies and respect for the Soviet Union. Because he was a man who just didn't hate communism publicly, but someone who fought against Nazism and fascism in the 1940s in Europe leading Allied Forces. 

President Eisenhower's credibility against communism, was fairly similar to the record that Richard Nixon had against communist first in Congress, but later as Vice President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

C-SPAN: George Carlin- 'Lying Politicians & Words'

Source:C-SPAN- Comedian George Carlin, at the National Press Club in Washington, in 2008. 

"Lying Politicians And Words: George Carlin comments."

From C-SPAN

I never blame, well I should say I never put the most blame (and I'm already sounding like a politician in this piece) politicians who may be very good politicians, but aren't very good public servants, because how did they get their jobs?

Well, its simple they were voted into office, receiving at least one more vote than their opponent in the last election. Election being a key word because the people vote for the politicians they get. So when I hear someone complaining about their Representative or Senator, I want to ask them did they vote for that person or not. And if they say yes, then I say you voted for who you have now. And if they respond well I didn't know this person would be like that in office. Well then I would say you didn't do your homework and you got who you voted for.

Thats the thing about democracy as former U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world except for all of the rest." And that when you leave it up to the people to decide we'll have people who'll make bad decisions because they don't know any better.

I'm not blaming democracy for the bad public servants that we get but I'm blaming the people who vote for the bad politicians that we get because we as a country have to deal with the bad decisions that these bad public servants make at least at the Federal level. That it's not so much democracy that we need but what we really need is a smart liberal democracy.

People who just don't vote but people who know how to vote and vote for the right people who'll protect our freedoms and not try run our lives for us by trying to pass new restrictions on how we should live our own lives. That what we really need is a smart democracy with smart people voting for good smart people who actually know what the hell they are doing. And what public service is about which is about representing the people. And not the small interest groups who bankrolled their campaigns for them.

Even though I'm a Liberal I really do believe in that old fashioned value of personal responsibility. That we get what we pay for and must deal with the consequences of our own decisions. So when it gets to voting that means we get who we voted for and if you don't like who you voted for, then don't vote for that person in the future. And vote for a good person instead or don't vote at all but don't repeat your own past mistakes.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Fiscal Times: Liz Peak- 'Margaret Thatcher Was Right: A Dependent Society Will Fail'

Source:The Fiscal Times- Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom) and President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, United States) and that's all I know about this photo.

Source:The Daily Times

"The Bitch is Dead,” read the banner paraded through the streets of London yesterday – proof that hatred of Margaret Thatcher lives on, even in death. Of all the extraordinary accomplishments of Britain’s only female prime minister, surely her outsized and continuing impact on the nation’s psyche is one of the most remarkable. Hardly a contemporary British story is written or West End play produced – witness Billy Elliott or even the comic One Man, Two Guvnors – that doesn’t slam the former leader. “Thatcherism” in some quarters is as loathed as “McCarthyism” in the U.S. " 

Read the rest at The Fiscal Times 

The biggest thing that Margaret Thatcher did to the United Kingdom and her biggest legacy in a positive sense, is that she moved a socialist state both politically and economically and from a country where the government was expected to take care of everyone and meet its basic needs and even run a lot of its companies and industries for them, to a country where people were expected to take care of themselves. 

Call it Welfare Reform of the 1980s (UK style) where people who are physically and mentally able, but were collecting public assistance (as Americans call it) to financially support themselves and weren’t working at all, now were expected and required to work. And at least working for welfare benefits that they were receiving.

Britain became a country where people learned how to take care of themselves and how to meet their basic needs. Where everyone had access to a quality education so they would have the skills that they would need so they could take care of themselves. And not have to need public assistance just in order to survive and pay their bills. 

Prime Minister Thatcher transformed a dependent society (in Britain) with a welfare state that’s there to take care of everyone, to a British Opportunity Society and Free Society (in their terms) where Brits were expected to finish school and get a good job. So they could support themselves and their families. And not just live off of the welfare state simply, because they lost their job, or lacked the skills to get themselves a good job.

Margaret Thatcher wanted to create a freer society where the people would have the freedom to take care of themselves, because they would have the opportunity to get themselves the skills in order to do so. And have a good job that allows for them to be able to pay their own bills and not be so dependent on government to take care of them. 

British Socialists who were in power before in Britain under the Socialist State of the Labour Party, people weren’t expected to work and too many cases even run businesses and create business’s. Because the national government ran so much of the British economy. And people who were unemployed, or perhaps didn’t have any real work experience weren’t expected to do much if anything for themselves. Because the welfare state would take care of them. That's the difference between Thatcher Conservatives and Socialists.

NPR News: Carrie Johnson- 'Some Public Defenders Warn: 'We Have Nothing Left To Cut'

Source:Carrie Johnson- welcome to public broadcasting?

"Steven Nolder joined the federal public defender's office when it opened in Columbus, Ohio, nearly 18 years ago. Nolder handled his share of noteworthy cases, including the first federal death penalty trial in the district and the indictment of a former NFL quarterback embroiled in a ticket fraud scheme." 

From NPR

We have all sorts of economic insurances in America that we can collect from when we need them. Like health-insurance, auto-insurance, homeowners-insurance (to use as examples) but we do not have an insurance system that in some case is just as much about life death as health-insurance, which is our justice system. And when we are involved in, either under criminal trial or being sued or wanting to sue, someone else for some miss-justice that we believe has been committed against us. And when we are in the justice system either in a criminal or civil sense we have to pay for those services out-of-pocket for the most part, unless we have a very good lawyer with a lot of resources that pays for our defense or representation in court on their own. 

And if we are not someone of means, either of average means who can't come up with tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills or even more than that, or we are even poor, we are looking at purchasing a second mortgage on our home or we are out of luck perhaps stuck with legal aid which are made up of fine qualified hardworking people, but who tend to be overworked.

For people without means when it comes to criminal justice or civil justice, they are left with legal aid or the public defenders office. Offices that are way underfunded and overworked that do not pay for themselves because they tend to represent clients without means. And the money they do get has to come out of general tax revenue and in tough economic and budget times like today. 

That means they can expect to not be cut but get slashed and the people who need those services are left without anywhere else to go to get legal assistance when they need it and in a country that champions justice as much as we do. And speaks in such high praise of it, that should be unacceptable and we should be looking to create a justice system thats affordable for everyone. As we are currently attempting to do with our healthcare system. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

National Post: Jesse Kline: 'Liberal Party Talks Tough But Still Struggles to Define Itself'

Source:National Post- Canadian Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau.

"TORONTO — Liberal leadership hopefuls had their final opportunity to make their pitch to party members and supporters in Toronto on Saturday. The candidates focused on personality, rather than policy, and spent little time attacking each other, choosing instead to focus on how much they hate Stephen Harper."  

From The National Post

"Justin Trudeau's major address to delegates at the 2014 Biennial Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada in Montreal on February 22, 2014."   

Source:Fact Point Video- Canadian Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau.

From Fact Point Video 

It seems to me at least as a Liberal American that if a political party is going to call itself the Liberal Party, then it should be a Liberal Party and not try to occupy the center and focus on purely centrist positions. That if you want to be a Centrist Party, then that's what you should call yourself or the Independence Party. Perhaps Mushy Middle Party, or the Radically Moderate Party. But if you are going to call yourself the Liberal Party, then that's exactly what you should be. Otherwise you are falsely representing and advertising yourself.

We all know where the Conservative Party in Canada is, they are a Conservative Party that's exactly what they are representing, the center-right in Canada. And we know where the New Democratic Party is, the lets call it the far-left party in Canada. Even by Canadian standards they are on the far-left and are a social democratic party that probably represents Quebec or Scandinavia better than Canada as a whole. Canada is not as socialist as people tend to think and actually has a smaller Federal Government as percentage of gross national product than America.

I'm not an expert on Canadian politics obviously being a life-long American whose never lived in Canada. But I do follow Canadian politics and a lot of their elections going back to the late 1990s. Thanks to C-SPAN and the internet and what I get about the Liberal Party in Canada is that the reason why they are out of power is because Canadians and perhaps even Liberals themselves up there do not seem to know what the Liberal Party stands for anymore.

What does it mean to be a Liberal? That if you are trying to just occupy the center and not look like Social Democrats, you are not only giving away the center-left in Canada, because you are not even trying to occupy what you claim to be which are Liberals, but you are also giving away the center because people don't know what you are. You say you are Liberals, but you are trying to tell Canadians you are Centrists instead, so what are you.

All I'm saying is that if you are going to be the Liberal Party, then that's exactly what you should be and that's what your platform should look like. "We are the Liberal Party in Canada that represents the center-left. We are not Social Democrats on the far-left and not trying to be the New Democratic Party. But we are Liberal Democrats that believe in freedom and that it's the number job of government to protect freedom for those who have it and still deserve it. And expand freedom for people who do not have it, but deserve and need it".

It's not the job of government to take care of people with a superstate. But to protect their freedom and expand freedom with opportunity for people who need and deserve it. Thats what a Liberal platform would look like, that's what the vision would be. And if Justin Trudeau are actually Liberals, then that is what they would be pushing. And perhaps even get support from the growing libertarian movement in Canada who are not Social Democrats or Conservatives either.

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.

Hoover Institution: Firing Line With William F. Buckley- The Wallace Crusade (1968)

Source:Hoover Institution- Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

"WFB had sharply criticized Mr. Wallace in print, both for his once-adamant attachment to segregation and for his New Deal statism, and Mr. Wallace came on Firing Line determined not to give an inch. GW: "Name one thing in Alabama that I have supported on the governmental level that you are against." WFB: "You want the state to take care of hospitalization, you want the state to take care of old people, you want the state to take care of the poor." GW: "Are you against caring for the poor and the old? ... I might say that no conservative in this country who comes out against looking after destitute elderly people ought to be elected to anything." WFB: "You call yourself a populist, right?" GW: "If you mean by a populist a man of the people, yes, I'm a populist. Let's get back to the old-age pension. Let's see, you're against Alabama's looking after the elderly destitute citizens of the state?" (The following month, Mr. Wallace would declare his third-party candidacy for President.)" 

From the Hoover Institution

The Wallace Crusade (if you want to call it that) at its best and at its best not saying this was all of it, but at its best the Wallace Crusade was a Federalist movement that was about local control and states rights. Not saying I agree with the Wallace movement, but at its best thats what it was: a movement that was about states-rights and local-control, that state and local governments no best how to govern their communities. And do not need the Federal Government interfering with how they govern their communities. 

Now at its worst, the Wallace Crusade was a majority over the minority movement as it related to race-relations: "There are more of us then you, that is more Caucasian-Americans then there are African-Americans in Alabama and we the majority are going to get to decide what the minority are going to have as it relates to freedom, constitutional rights and so forth. And we'll even keep you away from us and let you have what's left. If we decide to do so." 

George Wallace's movement at it's worst, was a Neo-Confederate, nationalistic movement in the South, that never got over losing the American Civil War and decided that if they had to live with African-Americans, they were going to make their lives as horrible as they could get away with. 

Mike Gardner: CBS News Campaign 1970- 'Alabama Governor's Race'

Source:Mike Gardner- CBS News covering the 1970 Alabama Governor's race.

"George Wallace, Albert Brewer, and Charles Woods mix it up." 

From Mike Gardner

The 1970 political campaign for George Wallace running once again to be Governor of Alabama so he would have a podium to stay in the news and continue to run for President of the United States. George Wallace's 1970 political campaign was about staying in the news and remaining a viable candidate for the 1972 presidential election. 

The new South (as its called) was not there yet, but emerging even in Alabama perhaps the reddest state in the union, was moving past racism in the sense that Anglo-Southerners were moving past the point where they wanted a racist Governor, whether it was because they were moving past racism themselves or because they no longer wanted a Governor who was so flamboyant who brought so much attention to it a lot of it negative. 

Plus, African-Americans were becoming a bigger force in this state and voting more. And as a voting block needed to be taken seriously by more Progressive candidates. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.