PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks On The MidTerm Mood

Source:The New Democrat

Most likely and for me that means the best guess and best educated guess, Senate Republicans win back the Senate on Tuesday and perhaps add five seats to their House majority as well. I don't see a wave for 2014 where Republicans win 8-10 seats in the Senate and twenty or more in the House. But things are so bad for Democrats right now that Republicans despite their own problems with voters, do not need a wave to do well in Congress on Tuesday.

Democrats still have hope even in the Senate. They win Georgia and Kansas where they are currently ahead with Michelle Nunn over David Perdue in Georgia and Greg Orman over Republican Senator Pat Roberts has been in Congress since 1981 and maybe Democrats hold Republican gains to four or five and barely hold the Senate having to rely on a couple of new Independents to hold their majority. But they would also need to hold North Carolina and New Hampshire with Kay Hagen respectfully to pull that off. Also may need to hold Arkansas or Louisiana as well.

What may be the only victories for Democrats on Tuesday night could at the state level and not in Congress. But governor's races and legislature races where Democrats have real pickup opportunities in both areas. Pennsylvania, Florida, perhaps even Georgia, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan. If they win those states or just a few of them and not lose any big states where they currently are in power, we could see better redistricting that could favor House Democrats in the future.

Lib Dem Voice: Barry Holliday- Electoral Reform, How To: How to Reform the U.K. Parliament

Source:Lib Dem Voice-

Source:The New Democrat

Things are already changing very fast in the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Scottish independence referendum in September, devolution and federalism is coming to Britain perhaps as early as next year. At least an agreement on what a federalist United Kingdom would look like. With the unitarian socialist state in Britain collapsing, with more power headed to the states as Americans would call it and the people of Britain over their own domestic affairs.

But devolution and federalism I believe will only work as an American outsider looking in on Britain, if they reform their Parliament as well. Because at the end of the day, for England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland to be able to function properly in the United Kingdom, they will need to be well represented in Parliament in London with a functioning bicameral Parliament so not all over the power and resources are not so centralized in London with the national or federal government and in England.

For a bicameral Parliament to work in Britain the House of Lords or whatever they may call it in the future, perhaps the U.K. Council or Lordship, perhaps even Senate, needs to function like the upper chamber of Parliament that it is supposed to be. Where they actually have a say in what laws are passed in Parliament and not just be a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. Where they can conduct real oversight of the U.K. Government and have at least the same power and authority as the House of Commons. And where members of this body can be part of Prime Ministers Questions.

The way I would reform the U.K. Parliament is similar to how the U.S. Congress looks. The lower chamber the House of Representatives where Representatives represent districts inside of states. And where the upper chamber the Senators represent the whole state in America. But since Britain is a lot smaller physically and in population to America, where they would represent districts as well inside of a state. But with each state lets say in the U.K. Senate getting an equal amount of Senators. But in the House the Commons would be proportioned based on population.

England would still have more Commons than anyone else because they are by far the biggest state in the United Kingdom. But this would be a real bicameral parliament and the Lordship or Council or even Senate, each state would be represented equally. So England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would all have the representation in parliament needed to bring back the resources that their districts and states need from London to be able to function properly.
Source:UK Parliament

National Journal: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

Source:The New Democrat

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people that chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein's what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren't crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let's say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don't caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership's in both parties aren't interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we've seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus's. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever will holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed. 

CBC Sports: NHL 1979- Game 5 Stanley Cup Finals- New York Rangers @ Montreal Canadians: Full Game

Source:NHL- game 5 of the 1979 Stanley Cup Finals.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Check out this classic game between two original six teams - The Montreal Canadiens clash against the New York Rangers in Game 5 of the 1979 Stanley Cup Final." 

From the NHL 

The Montreal Canadians accomplishing something in 1979 which may sound impossible today, which was to win their fourth straight Stanley Cup. Winning two in a row is a huge deal now and has been going back to the Pittsburgh Penguins of the early 1990s, 1991 and 1992 when they won back- --to-back cups. The Detroit Red Wings did in the late 1990s in 97 and 98, but no one else had done it since. Because of expansion and free agency with the parity, it is very hard to dominate the NHL for more than one season now.

The Canadians not only won four straight from 1976-79, but five overall in the 1970s. The team of that decade, which is what the Edmonton Oilers were in the NHL in the 1980s. And with the way the NHL is set up today, no other team has dominated an entire decade and been the team of the decade in the NHL since. Because there's so much parity and so much traveling and so many other things that players have to go through to get through a long 82 game NHL season. 

Politico Magazine: Richard Norton Smith: 'Nelson Rockefeller's Last Stand'

Source:Politico Magazine- Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) I believe announcing his run for President in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York and future vice president under Gerald Ford, is not a patient man. For the most powerful member of the most powerful family in the most powerful nation on Earth, time is a commodity, like wealth, women, art and talent, to be experienced on his terms. “Nelson is like a polar bear,” says George Hinman, the governor’s courtly emissary to the Republican National Committee. “You shoot at him, and he just keeps coming on.”

Tonight, however, is different. On this second night of the 1964 Republican convention, a slot reserved for debate over the party platform, even Rockefeller is a clock-watcher. Although outnumbered and outmaneuvered by conservative forces supporting Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater for president, Rockefeller has come to San Francisco to register a very public protest of the direction his party is taking.

Convention organizers are just as determined to smother dissent in tedium. By shoving tonight’s duel over the platform past the 11 p.m. prime-time window on the East Coast, the governor’s enemies can figuratively achieve what Goldwater had once proposed literally—to saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea. This was no mere figure of speech. In the closing days of the deadlocked 1960 campaign between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the Arizonan had offered GOP convention chairman and Kentucky Senator Thruston B. Morton some characteristically pungent advice. Forget the urban East, said Goldwater; Nixon should concentrate his remaining efforts in Illinois and Texas. “I’d like to win this goddamned election without New York,” Goldwater rasped. “Then we could tell New York to kiss our ass and we could really start a conservative party.”

Barely eight years have elapsed since Republicans assembled in this same city to re-nominate Dwight Eisenhower for a second term. Ike’s mantra of Modern Republicanism accepted much of the welfare state improvised by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, while casting off the isolationist dogma of hard-shell conservatives led by Sen. Robert Taft. To Goldwater, the Eisenhower years represent “a dime-store New Deal.” The senator has suggested making Social Security voluntary, repealing the graduated income tax and suspending American financial support of the United Nations should the world body admit Communist China. Goldwater frowns upon foreign aid, farm subsidies and federal assistance to education. He tells Newsweek that as president he won’t hesitate to drop a low-level atomic bomb on Chinese supply lines in North Vietnam or “maybe shell ’em with the Seventh Fleet.” With equal pugnacity, he would direct Fidel Castro to turn on the water supplying the American base at Guantánamo, “or we’re going to send a detachment of marines to turn it on and keep it on.”

His followers are populists in pinstripes, middle-class revolutionaries who mirror the migration of talent and industry from the moneyed East to the burgeoning Sun Belt. To Atlanta Constitution editor Eugene Patterson, the Goldwater legions are “a federation of the fed up,” as dismayed by the moral laxity of liberal America as the greed of the tax collector and the erosion of yesterday’s individualistic, aspirational culture by social engineers and legislators masquerading as judges. Outside the candidate’s suite at the Mark Hopkins, one proverbial little old lady in tennis shoes is gently turned away, but not before trilling, “I just wanted to tell Senator Goldwater to be sure and impeach [Chief Justice] Earl Warren.”

A decade after the Warren Court banned racial segregation in the nation’s schools, this is carrying coals to Newcastle. Two weeks ago, Republicans on Capitol Hill provided the margin of victory for the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination in public accommodations. Goldwater cast one of six GOP votes against the landmark legislation. Anything but a racist, in the 1940s the senator had taken the lead in desegregating his family’s department store, as well as the Arizona National Guard. Yet his brand of rugged individualism recoils from anything that smacks of federal coercion at the expense of local sovereignty.

Rockefeller hails from a very different tradition. The struggle for racial equality is as much a part of his family lineage as oil wells and art museums. In the 19th century, his grandfather, otherwise stigmatized as the prototypical robber baron, had endowed Atlanta’s Spelman College to educate black women. Nelson’s father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., supported the Urban League and United Negro College Fund. As an adolescent, Nelson paid the tuition of a youngster attending Virginia’s historically black Hampton Institute. When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., hero of the Montgomery bus boycott, was stabbed by a crazed assailant during a 1958 visit to Harlem, the preacher’s medical bills were quietly paid by Nelson Rockefeller. More recently, Rockefeller has helped rebuild black churches burned to the ground by Southern bigots and furtively supplied bail money to sustain Dr. King and his Children’s Crusade against the rigidly segregated power structure of Birmingham, Alabama. Rockefeller’s New York state government has banned racial discrimination in the sale or rental of apartments, commercial space and private housing developments.

On hearing it said that Goldwater is in the mainstream of their party, Nelson replies acidly that it must be a meandering stream indeed. In any event, it flows to the right if the party platform is any indication. Written to Goldwater’s specifications, the document nods dutifully in the direction of “full implementation” of the new civil rights law, though avoiding the politically charged word “enforcement.” Instead, the party credo denounces what it calls “federally sponsored reverse discrimination,” language seen by Goldwater’s opponents as a crude appeal to resentful whites, whose existence in the millions is confirmed by a casual glance at the day’s newspapers. The  New York  Times reports that the owner of the Hotel Martha Scott in Opelika, Alabama, is closing his establishment rather than “bow to tyranny” by admitting blacks. A few days ago, three black youths attending a Fourth of July rally at the Atlanta fairgrounds were beaten with metal chairs.

At the White House, meanwhile, President Lyndon Johnson is assigning 50 FBI agents to lawless Mississippi, where Northern civil rights workers have been murdered and white-sheeted Klansmen roam at will. White backlash is by no means restricted to the South. Goldwater backers read into the recent strong showing of Alabama’s segregationist Gov. George Wallace in Northern Democratic primaries the stirrings of a political realignment that will dissolve at last the old New Deal coalition that for 30 years has dominated American politics. It is a prospect that holds little appeal for Rockefeller Republicans.

When convention chairman Morton repairs to a nearby trailer command post to quench his thirst, his place behind the podium is taken by Oregon Gov. Mark Hatfield. Less than 24 hours ago, Hatfield made history as the first keynote speaker ever to be booed by his own party’s delegates. His offense? Lumping the right-wing John Birch Society—whose leader Robert Welch Jr., had linked Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles to the international communist conspiracy—with the Ku Klux Klan and the Communist Party USA in a denunciation of political extremism.

It is on the extremist issue that Rockefeller has chosen to make his stand, just as soon as those dictating the convention schedule allow him five minutes to address the nation. Asked over the years why he hasn’t simply changed his party registration, something first urged on him by FDR, Rockefeller replies that he would much rather be pushing the GOP elephant forward than holding the Democratic donkey back. Until now, the governor’s need to woo conservatives in the hinterlands has acted as a brake on his free-spending instincts, producing a “pay as you go” liberalism that supplants racially charged talk of states’ rights with a muscular federalism grounded in states’ responsibilities. Fiscal prudence and social conscience: These are the building blocks of Rockefeller Republicanism. To many on the right, the term is an oxymoron. Already they detect in the governor’s creative use of state bonding authority the seed corn of future bankruptcy. They argue that there is no gauging the financial consequences of Rockefeller-style activism untethered to ideology.

It is a few minutes after nine o’clock, midnight in the east, when Rockefeller bounds up to the platform. “They were throwing paper at him,” Joe Boyd, a loyal Rockefeller aide, remembers. An angry Boyd hands Rockefeller’s speech to the governor’s one-man security detail and charges off into the stands. Grabbing one of the ringleaders, the diminutive Boyd lifts him out of his seat. “OK, who’s next?” he shouts. An uneasy quiet is restored.

On the platform, an even nastier confrontation is only narrowly averted as convention Chairman Thruston B. Morton, professing concern for Rockefeller’s safety, urges him to postpone his remarks. To drive his point home, Morton resorts to a little body language.

“You try to push me again,” snaps Rockefeller, “and I’ll deck you right in front of this whole audience.”

His introduction elicits a thin chorus of cheers from the New York delegation, quickly lost in a swelling chant of “We Want Barry.” A tight smile, not extending to his slitted eyes, creases Rockefeller’s handsome face. Impassively, he scans the seething hall until his glance comes to rest upon his wife, occupying a box high above the delegates. Less than six weeks after giving birth to their first child, Happy Rockefeller wears a stricken look.

The new Republican majority is in no mood to be lectured by Nelson Rockefeller. Having cooked his own goose, conservatives reason, Rockefeller is now serving it up stuffed with sour grapes. “Remember he was waging war on a platform they had written,” explains Doug Bailey, then a Rockefeller policy researcher. “They were absolutely convinced that the only reason he was doing what he was doing was to hurt Barry Goldwater in the general election. They knew that. They knew that to the marrow of their bones.”

Taking advantage of a lull in the derisive chorus, Rockefeller begins speaking. “During this past year I have crisscrossed this nation fighting to keep the Republican Party the party of all the people and warning of the extremist threat—” Outraged voices interrupt him. Below and to the left of the podium, Californians in bright orange Mae West jackets jeer their nemesis. Their catcalls are taken up by red-faced Republicans from Texas, Ohio and Washington State. As the decibel count rises, Morton spreads his hands helplessly. The governor should be allowed to speak his piece, the chairman says. “It’s only fair and right.”

The hall begs to differ. Rockefeller’s mention of a speech he’d planned to give at Loyola and its “cancellation by coercion” days before the crucial California primary—a blatant public condemnation of the divorced and remarried governor by the Catholic hierarchy—drives a tall blonde woman on the floor over the edge. “You lousy lover,” she shrieks, “You lousy lover.” A youthful Goldwater runner chimes in “You goddamned Socialist,” before adding, less than eight months since John Kennedy’s assassination, “I wish somebody would get that fink. Maybe it would save this country.”

Rockefeller isn’t going anywhere. He doesn’t control the audience, he reminds Morton. It’s up to the chair to impose order. Only then, he mutters into the live microphone, can he finish what he came here to say. A Louisiana alternate delegate points to the explosive galleries and directs his neighbor, “Look at that. It’s America up there.” Glancing around him, Bailey, the policy researcher, observes a deputy of the San Mateo County Police booing Rockefeller. “I looked down at his arm, he has a pistol in an unsheathed holster, and I decided from that point I couldn’t dare take my eyes off that guy, because I had no idea what he was going to do,” recalls Bailey. His colleague John Deardourff is reminded of a German Bund meeting in the 1930s.

Strangely subdued in the pitching sea of noise is Alabama’s solid-for-Goldwater delegation. Their eyes are all on a tall, athletic black man standing in a nearby aisle and shouting, “That’s right, Rocky. Hit ‘em where they live.” Jackie Robinson is a Rockefeller Republican, a baseball legend and a hero to millions of Americans. At one point a ’bama delegate, enraged by Robinson’s chant, leaps to his feet. He is about to commit physical assault on the star athlete until he is restrained by his wife.

“Turn him loose, lady, turn him loose,” bellows Robinson.

At the podium Rockefeller is openly taunting the crowd. “This is still a free country, ladies and gentlemen,” he declares. Here is the incident that Goldwater’s opponents have tried all week to provoke. It comes far too late to prevent the senator’s nomination. But it pins the extremist label on Goldwater and his movement more effectively than Lyndon Johnson ever could. As the minutes crawl by the Cow Palace becomes a political slaughterhouse, wherein any prospects for Republican victory in November are rapidly expiring before a stunned television audience.

Behind the lectern Rockefeller nervously taps his foot like a bull pawing the ground.  You don’t have to nominate me is the unspoken message delivered to the bull-baiters.  But you’re going to have to listen to me. It is one of those rare moments in history when a page is visibly being turned, a past noisily discarded. The drama of personal confrontation obscures much of what Barry Goldwater’s party is rejecting: the polarizing governor of New York, to be sure, and with him the presumption of regional superiority, the stranglehold of eastern money and the liberal consensus which, for most of the 20th century, has offended fundamentalists of various schools. In politics as in art, it is Rockefeller’s fate to be surrounded by primitives.

The booing escalates as he decries “anonymous midnight and early morning phone calls. That’s right.” A fresh wave of anger swamps the podium, as Rockefeller lashes out at “smear and hate literature, strong-arm tactics, bomb threats and bombings. Infiltration and takeover of established political organizations by Communist and Nazi methods!” His Aldrich jaw protruding like a ship’s prow, Rockefeller half shouts into the din, “Some of you don’t like to hear it, ladies and gentlemen, but it’s the truth.” More boos. Renewed cries of “We Want Barry.” At the lectern a glowering Morton wields his gavel as a weapon. “I’m going to finish this last line,” Rockefeller insists. “I move the adoption of this resolution.”

At last, with a flippant wave, Rockefeller turns to go, appearing “for all the world like he had been given a standing ovation,” marvels Governor Hatfield. “He couldn’t have had a happier look on his face.”

The next morning, hours after all three moderate motions went down in flames, Rockefeller ran into his communications director Hugh Morrow. “You look like the wrath of God,” he told Morrow, who blamed his appearance on the previous night’s fiasco, described by the  New York Times as “Bastille Day in Reverse,” and his subsequent quest for alcoholic oblivion.

“I had the time of my life,” said Rockefeller.

This same bleak Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Bill Scranton telephones former President Eisenhower, still a powerful party figure, to inform him of plans to withdraw from the race (something Ike has been urging on him for days). Out of the question, says Rockefeller, when he hears about the call. If Scranton gets out, then Rockefeller will get back in. Someone has to carry the moderate banner. Too much is at stake to allow their actions to be governed by bruised feelings, bogus appeals to party unity or the specter of public humiliation. His pep talk convinces the patrician governor of Pennsylvania, mocked by detractors as the Hamlet of Harrisburg, to let the drama play itself out. And it illustrates the central paradox of Nelson Rockefeller, who is never more appealing than when fighting for his life, even if it is his own conduct that places him in that precarious condition.

Though denounced as a party wrecker, he refused to switch political allegiances, even for the presidency. An emotionally guarded extrovert happiest in the world of artistic contemplation; a scion of the American Establishment who was most comfortable playing the renegade: All his life Rockefeller went against the grain.

From POLITICO

"Governor Nelson Rockefeller's 1964 Republican Convention Speech. Grandson of billionaire John D. Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller's 1964 Republican Convention Speech." 

Source:Enemy Nation- Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller (Republican, New York)

From Enemy Nation

To understand Nelson Rockefeller's politics, you have to first understand the 1964 Republican National Convention, in hippie, left-wing San Francisco (of all places) and where the Republican was pre-Barry Goldwater under Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Because the pre-Goldwater Republican Party, was Nelson Rockefeller's party. The post Rockefeller/Eisenhower Republican Party, is a classical conservative (if you don't like libertarian) political party. Both center-right parties, but fairly different. 

I know this going to sound like an Oxymoron to anyone whose not a political history junkie, such as myself or Richard Norton Smith, but the Republican Party really up till the 1990s, had a strong, center-right Progressive Republican faction in it. And, no, I'm not talking about left-wing, antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionaries, who want to take over the American Government and replace it with some type of socialist state, which is how Progressives tend to get stereotyped today. 

During the Eisenhower/Rockefeller and even Richard Nixon era, in late the 1960s and early 1970s, there were center-right, Progressive Republicans. People who tended to agree with Conservatives on foreign policy and national security, law enforcement, the U.S. Constitution, individual freedom and personal responsibility. 

But these Progressive Republicans also believed in civil rights, a commonsense regulatory state, equal rights, equal justice, and a public safety net for people who truly needed it, and infrastructure investment. Newt Gingrich up until the time he dropped out of the presidential race in 2012, was a Progressive Republican and perhaps still is. 

So, in 1964, when then Governor Nelson Rockefeller, knew that he didn't have the votes at the Republican National Convention to be their nominee for President, took a stand at that convention and laid into that party about where they were going and where thought the Republican Party should still be at that point. And the Goldwater delegates booed the hell out of him, but they didn't stop him from getting his point across.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller: 1968 Presidential Announcement

Source:History Comes To Life- Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Republican, New York) announcing his bid for President, in 1968.

"Nelson Rockefeller announces for the Presidency 1968"

Source:History Comes To Life

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, (which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service) what party would he be affiliated with? I think it’s clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe Governor Rockefeller would’ve had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party that’s now dominated by the Christian-Right. 

This is going to sound like it just came from someone whose spent the last 10 years on the Moon doing nothing by drinking alcohol and smoking pot, but what I'm about to tell you is completely true. The Republican Party up until the 1990s or 2000s, had a very strong progressive faction in it. People who I would call Right-Progressives, people whoa are center-right, but who believe not just in progress, but that a limited government could be used to help create that progress, especially for people who need to move forward and need help moving forward. 

Along with the Classical Conservatives that Barry Goldwater and others were part of in the Republican Party, the Right-Progressives used to be other dominant faction in the Republican Party. I think you could argue that Nelson Rockefeller would still be a center-right Progressive Republican today, because he tended to agree with Conservative Republicans on foreign policy and national security, as well as criminal justice. But he was very different from them as it related to a public safety net for people who truly need it, as well as a regulatory state to protect consumers and workers from predators in the economy. So I don't think it's clear which party Nellie would fit in with today. 

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

Billy Hill: 'Tattoo TV Episode- Questions For Danielle Colby Cushman'

Source:Billy Hill- Danielle C. Cushman and Billy Hill. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Billy Hill’s Tattoo TV Episode #66 – Questions with Danielle Colby-Cushman (Part 4 of 4).” Originally from Bill Hill, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

I'm not a big fan of History Channel's American Pickers. But I am a big fan of Danielle Colby Cushman on American Pickers, who is way underused on the show. And basically treated by Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz who own American Pickers, as a little girl who can't handle big responsibility. Danielle might be as cute as a little girl physically, but she's clearly a grown up, at least physically who can do more than just answer the phone and try to bring in new perspective clients for the business.

American Pickers is a real life business owned by these two guys, somewhere in Iowa, which could be said about a lot of towns in Iowa. Who find old pieces that people have had forever that still have value. And they try to buy them a a fair price and then try to sell them for profit. The guys do most of the traveling and picking, why cute Danielle stays at home so to speak, answers the phone and try's to find perspective clients and people that Mike and Frank can work with.

But the few opportunities that Danielle gets to hit the road, you not only get to see her knowledge for the business. Which granted is not as deep as Mike's or Frank's, but she has also hasn't been doing it as long. But you get to see her personality, her humor, how adorable she is physically and personally. And last, but certainly not least, her great body. Tall, curvy, athletically built women who fills out a pair of Levis denim jeans well enough to get her a modeling contract for Levis.

The New York Times: All The King's Men- Broderick Crawford Playing Huey Long

Source: The New York Times- Broderick Crawford, as the Louisiana Kingfish Huey Long.

Source:The Daily Times

"A. O. Scott reviews Robert Rossen's 1949 oscar-winner for best picture."

From The New York Times

I think the best way to describe Huey Long (aka Louisiana Kingfish) would be compared him with the recently deceased President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Even though Huey was a lot more democratic than Hugo and believed in a greater deal of freedom. But they were both basically dictators who were corrupt who meant well and wanted to do good things. But weren’t really cutout to be chief executives and people with strong Socialist-Communist leanings.

Both Huey and Hugo spoke about share the wealth and Social Justice, but wanted as much power as possible even centralized all the power with them to do these good works for the people. Huey Long was clearly a Democrat as far as party and politically and believed in democracy except when it went against him. And Hugo Chavez was a Socialist, but certainly not a Democratic Socialist.

Hugo was not a full-blooded Communist like Fidel Castro, but probably more like Neo-Communist. Someone who allowed for political opposition and a certain level of economic and personal freedom, but someone with strong dictatorial leanings as well. Huey was probably more democratic than Hugo, but politically they were similar.

The Prodigy: Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry (1970)

Source:The Prodigy- Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry, from 1970.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry 1 was fight for The Ring World Heavyweight title.Held on October 26.1970. at Atlanta, Georgia.” 

From The Prodigy

As I mentioned yesterday, Muhammad was simply too big, strong, tall and quick for Jerry Quarry. Muhammad was 6’2 or 6’3, 215 pounds or so of solid muscle, speed and intelligence. Speed in his hands and feet and you combine that with his strength, his ability to both take a good punch and deliver several great punches in a few seconds, plus his accuracy, he was simply too much for Jerry Quarry. Who was 5’10 or 5’11, under 200 pounds. For Quarry to make this a good fight, he simply had to get inside of Muhammad and pound on him.

The problem being that the only short heavyweight boxer to have any success at that, was Joe Frazier who was bigger and stronger than Quarry and could take more punishment and still move in on you and pound your body. Quarry left both of the Ali fights a bloody mess, because he took so much punishment in both fights before he was able to deliver any punishment. The two Quarry fights were a tune up to fight for Ali to fight Joe Frazier for the first time in 1971 and the second time in 1973.

Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs. Jerry Quarry 2 (1972)

Source: Sweet Fights-Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry.

Source:The Daily Times

Jerry Quarry simply didn’t have the defense to fight a big strong fighter like Muhammad. And ended up taking too much punishment in these two fights. Muhammad was simply too big, strong and fast for a brawler like Jerry Quarry, who needed his opponent to be in front of him and not have the great footwork and quickness to beat him. Jerry Quarry was the ultimate fighter’s chance boxer. Meaning he had a fighter’s chance to win fights. That if he delivered enough punishment, especially against a stationary boxer, he could win the fight and beat his opponent before his opponent beat him. The problem that he had against Ali, was Ali was not a stationary fighter. But someone with great quickness and footwork. Who could punch hard and hurt you.
Source:Sweet Fights

The Triple Play TV: 'Montreal Expos history (1969-2004)'

Source:Triple Play TV- MLB trivia question of the day: who's this Montreal Expos pitcher? If you get the answer right, then we'll both know who he is. The stakes could. be a lot higher.

The Expos for the most part were never marketed well in Montreal or the broader Province of Quebec. They seemed to believe that fans would automatically come to their games if they just won or were competitive. Apparently not being aware that Montreal was really never a baseball market and is a big city of over 1M people. In a market of over 3M people with plenty of things to do besides just baseball. And that there were other sporting events to go to besides baseball and not just Canadians hockey but CFL football and pro soccer.  Other pro sports have done well in Montreal because these are sports that Quebecers grow up with, enjoy playing and watching. But that wasn't the only problem with the Expos. 

The Expos started off playing in a real ballpark in Jarry Field. But then in the late 1970s move to the huge Montreal Olympic Stadium. Which by that point with its 65-70,000 seats was a football stadium that the Montreal Alouettes played in as well. And  pro soccer was being played there. Big mistake on the Expos management part. 

The Expos needed to market their club better and actually explain baseball to Montreal, which is not Toronto. A big market near Detroit and other Major League Baseball cities where Toronto already liked and enjoyed baseball before it got there. Montreal was new to baseball in 1969 and Montreal Olympic Stadium was simply too big with the fans being too far away from the games and not enough people wanting to go there to watch baseball. And these are the main reasons why the Expos left Montreal for Washington.  

From Triple Play TV 

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: Mark Shields & David Brooks on Same-Sex Marriage, Voter ID & U.S. Senate Elections

Source:The New Democrat

As far as same-sex marriage where right-wingers have a 5-4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and tend to be respected by the Christian-Right in this country. Same-sex marriage is dead as an issue when not even the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up to hear appeals being made about anti-gay marriage bans that were thrown out by lower courts. Only the Christian-Right cares about this issue as far as seeing it as some threat to the country that must be defeated. Republicans need to move off of it and find issues where they can appeal to Independents and people not as far to the right as their far-right base.

The voter id laws getting thrown out in Wisconsin and North Carolina helps Democrats. Why, because those laws are designed to prevent young Americans and minorities from voting. Lets just be real about that and those voters tend to vote for Democrats because Republicans haven't done a damn thing to try to appeal to them, at least since Ronald Reagan. Close U.S. Senate race in North Carolina between Senator Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. Close governor's race in Wisconsin where Republican Government Scott Walker is fighting for his political career.

As far as the U.S. Senate races. Good news for Senate Democrats this week in North Carolina where Senator Hagan has opened up a lead and where Senate Democrats have good poll numbers nationally. Greg Orman has a lead over Republican Senator Pat Roberts in Kansas. Allison Grimes with a small lead in Kentucky against Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But her failing to answer who she voted for president in 2012 could erase that lead. She could turn that around by clearly winning the debate this Monday. So a good week for Democrats, not including President Obama.

PZI: PZI Jeans Commercial- Curvy Jeans

Source: PZI-

Source:The Daily Times

Tight jeans for curvy women. Just hearing those words in that sentence makes me feel like I've already died and gone to heaven. Or perhaps have moved to paradise and wasn't aware of that until I actually got there. Like a surprise vacation where you are blindfolded and your wife of girlfriend takes you somewhere and you're blindfolded the whole time while you are there. Might sound like an unbelievable story to anyone in touch with reality. But if you watch enough TV, something like that might seem believable to you. Forget about tight jeans denim or leather for rail-thin women, or obese women. How about instead how about we talk about tight jeans for healthy women and that includes big bone women who aren't fat, but have big bones and curves and are strong. Women who physically take care of themselves and eat right and know they are healthy and want to show off that success with the right denim jeans. To show the world how sexy they are at least on the outside.
Source:PZI Jeans

Taylor F: President Dwight Eisenhower- Address on Little Rock Integration Plan

Source:Taylor F- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) 34th President of the United States (1953-61)

Source:The Daily Times

Dwight Eisenhower, America’s first civil rights president. Not Lyndon Johnson who was our third, after Jack Kennedy who got involved in it strongly late in his presidency. But President Eisenhower was our first because he took on segregation from the executive level before the 1960s and when the civil rights movement became strong.

By taking on civil rights at the federal and executive level, President Eisenhower immediately gave credibility to the movement. Especially by being in favor of it and against school desegregation, by essentially saying that “African-Americans have the same right to a quality education as Caucasian-Americans. And that government can’t force African-American kids to go to poor schools. When Caucasians are going to good public schools”.

US National Archives: You Gotta Have Heart: A History of Washington Baseball

Source:The New Democrat

A history of the Washington Senators can be summed up in one word, cheap. And perhaps throw in a names like Bob Short, Clark Griffith and Calvin Griffith to go along with cheap. Unlike the Washington Redskins in the NFL and the Baltimore Orioles just up the road, who are essentially also a local team, especially if you live in Maryland, who were known for winning and paying for the players to win. And having the right coaching staffs to make that happen, the Senators management just wanted to stay in business.

There are other factors as well. Griffith Stadium, even though it was a nice ballpark, was small and needed to be replaced in the early 1960s, which it was. But what the City of Washington should've done to allow for both the Senators and Redskins to be successful, was to build a football stadium for the Redskins and a baseball park for the Senators. And under the right management, both clubs would've been successful. The Redskins obviously had the right management obviously and the Senators never did.

The City of Washington finally figured out what they need to do make MLB baseball profitable in Washington. The right ballpark and the right management group to run the club. They have both now in Nationals Park, which is one of the best places to watch a baseball game in MLB and has a great fan atmosphere. And the Lerner Family that runs the club and now the Nationals are one of the better run clubs in MLB. Two division titles in the last three years and three straight winning seasons. And now the Nationals are a very good big market club, with a very solid fan base that is here to stay.

Market Ex: President Dwight Eisenhower- On The American Safety Net

Source:Market Ex- Dwight D. Eisenhower quote.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

From Market Ex

Dwight Eisenhower certainly wasn’t a Tea Party Republican economically or anything else. Whatever a Tea Party Republican is supposed to be, because there are many types.

But Ike was not a classical conservative economic libertarian Tea Party Republican. Not a Rand Paul Conservative Libertarian, which is what I’m getting at. But more like a Newt Gingrich Republican at least when it came to economic policy or what they use to call in Canada a Progressive Conservative.

Progressive Conservatives believe in the basic safety net for people who needed it, including the New Deal. But someone who also believed in freedom when it came to economics as well as personal freedom.

A Progressive Republican (not an Oxymoron) is someone who didn’t want a big welfare state for America. Someone who believed that Americans should have the freedom to be able to do as much for themselves as possible.

Progressive Republicans believe the safety net are for those people who needed it. Ike certainly wasn’t a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (which are very common in Europe) but someone who believed in using conservative principles to accomplish progressive goals. That you needed both freedom and a safety net for the country to be as strong as possible economically.

C-SPAN: President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address & Warning For America

Source: C-SPAN-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer.

Ike didn’t believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to.

And that the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that “we have all the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something.” What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.
C-SPAN: President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address

ABC Sports: Muhammad Ali-Howard Cosell Interview

Source:ABC Sports-

Source: The Daily Times

Muhammad Ali and Howard Cosell were a comedy act talking about serious things, well as serious as pro-boxing can be. Who without each other working together, their careers wouldn’t have been as good and they wouldn’t have been as successful. Because of the chemistry that they had, as well as their intelligence, they both had great sense of humors.

But Muhammad and Howard had similar sense of humors. And not only knew each other very well, but themselves as well and didn’t try to be anyone else. What really made these interviews classics, were because they were truly unscripted and how real they were. Two good intelligent friends with real quick wits who had great chemistry together.
Source:ABC Sports

ABC Sports: Wide World of Sports- Muhammad Ali-Howard Cossel Interview

Source:ABC Sports anchor Howard Cosell interviewing The Greatest of All-Time, Muhammad Ali.

Source:The Daily Times

Before ESPN and other twenty-four hour sports networks, there was ABC’s Wide World of Sports. That was a combination of SportsCenter, 60 Minutes and sports coverage all in one show. But it was all about sports and not news that provided sports news, news magazine stories and actual sports coverage. Like boxing and olympic action, international sporting events and pro soccer and other sporing events.

It even had a talk show aspect to it that was anchored by Howard Cosell. And Cosell and Muhammad Ali made this show and made it work along with Jim MacKay in the 1970s. And made this show the place to go to on weekends from ABC Sports if you wanted the latest sports news and sports coverage. And was network sports at its best and sports TV hasn’t gotten better since.
Source:ABC Sports

ESPN: Muhammad Ali- The Greatest of All-Time

Source: ESPN-

Source:The Daily Times

How to explain Muhammad Ali, the challenge of this blog and the challenge of the day for me. Imagine a big tall man 6’2-6’3, probably more like 6’2 whose built like a statue and looks more like an NFL linebacker or running back than a boxer because he’s also 215-220 pounds depending on the fight. And who was all muscle and well-built like a statue. Muhammad was certainly not invincible as we all know now with the state of his health.

And we also know he was declining both physically and mentally when he was still fighting as early as 1975 with the third fight against Joe Frazier. Taking a serious toll on him, which should’ve been the fight that forced Muhammad into retirement. But Muhammad was so much stronger both physically and mentally than most of the fighters he fought.

That he could take so much more than most if not any other boxer who ever fought. Which allowed him to be able to deliver all the punishment that he did to his opponents. Muhammad Ali fought with a shield that you had to break in order to beat him. If Larry Bird is the genius when it comes to basketball players, then Muhammad Ali is the genius when it comes to boxers. Because he was a boxer that could see fights developing before they developed.

Muhammad knew his opponents as well as himself better than they knew themselves or him. So he was always at least a couple of steps ahead of his opponents and even his own corner. He won most of his fights before the fights happened because of all the preparation he put himself through. And being able to sike out his opponents and get them to hate him and wanting to knock Ali out instead of trying win the fight. And Ali would use that against him and simply do his job, “I can hit you and prevent you from hitting me”.

Muhammad, “even if you land shots, I’m strong enough to take them and hit you back harder. Because I’m built like a tank and with the amount of punishment that I can deliver to you I’ll beat you simply by wearing you down”. This happened against Ron Lyle where both fighters delivered many great shots, but where Ali could simply take and deliver more than Ron Lyle had to offer.

Another way to look at Muhammad Ali is not to look at him as a knockout artist. Someone who could knock you out in one or two punches like a George Forman or Mike Tyson. But look at Muhammad as a power-puncher who knocked people out unless they were strong enough to go the distance with 5-10 punches in a row or a hundred punches.

Muhammad got his knockouts by simply punishing his opponents and wearing them down. And what makes Muhammad Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time is his physical strength and stamina, as well as preparation. But also because of his intelligence that he knew his opponents a lot of times better than they knew themselves. And used that against them.
Source:ESPN