The McLaughlin Group: The Best & Worst of 2014

Source:The McLaughlin Group- The father of The McLaughlin Group, John McLaughlin.

Source:The New Democrat

"Special Encore Presentation of Year End Awards 2014, Part One" 

From The McLaughlin Group

I hate to say this as someone who voted for Barack Obama twice, but he is definitely the loser of 2014 at least as far as American politicians. 

In October, 2013 thanks to House Republicans shutting down government over the Affordable Care Act, House Democrats actually looked like they had a shot at winning back the House in 2014 and perhaps picking up thirty seats and holding the U.S. Senate. But then ObamaCare, the start of the ObamaCare website is bungled and completely screwed up by the Obama Administration. And it is downhill for Democrats especially in Congress for the rest of 2013 and all of 2014.

I think the winner of 2014 is then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who faced a tough reelection for his own seat and wins that going way. And presides over his party picking up nine seats in the Senate and making him Leader of the Senate in this Congress. And even though Speaker John Boehner outranks Leader McConnell in the Constitution, McConnell is the most important Republican in Congress right now, because he has a good grasp over his own caucus, doesn’t have to worry about his job and knows how to govern, unlike John Boehner. Which means working with Senate Democrats, the Obama Administration and the House Republican Leadership.

The what I would call the enough award would go to Al Sharpton and the rest of the MSNBC talk lineup except for the Morning Joe. Which is a good show and Andrea Mitchell. The rest of that network is like being at a Democratic Socialist USA meeting and hearing about how bad America is and how much we suck and everything else with not a lot of evidence to back any of that up. They could all move to Canada tomorrow and get their own shows and no one in America would miss them. But even social democratic Canadians may want to revoke their green cards and kick them out.

PBS NewsHour Shields & Brooks On CPAC & Homeland Security Shutdown

Source:The New Democrat

As far as CPAC, the one thing I respect about that group is that they do actually bring in lets say Classical Conservatives or Conservative Libertarians and actual Libertarians. It’s not just about mushy-middle establishment Republicans who always play it safe and the Christian-Right and the broader Far-Right of the Republican Party. So with this event you really get to see the state of the Republican Party and what they are thinking. And right now the Conservative Libertarian wing of the party that Senator Rand Paul seems to lead, seems to have the strongest voice.

As far as the Homeland Security shutdown in Congress, thank God for gerrymandering if I’m a Republican and water is dry and fire is cold! Otherwise they would never be in charge of anything with the current state of the party and their inability to govern and work with people who don’t agree with them on everything. I would say how do Democrats keep losing to people who believe the Earth is flat and climate change is a hoax and gays are responsible for 9/11 and America is being invaded by Latinos and every other conspiracy theory that they have. But I know about gerrymandering.

If the Republican Party actually had leadership in the House instead of a punching bag or puppet in John Boehner, someone would’ve told and convinced that caucus that you don’t attach riders to bills that have to be passed in order for the government to run. You do those things separately. The first rule of government is do no harm. And that means performing the basic functions of government like funding the basics like homeland security and law enforcement. And issues where you disagree with the President, you debate those things separately and through other bills that don’t have to pass. So you can make your point and case, but still do your job at the same time.

Late Night With Conan O'Brien: Norm MacDonald & Courtney Thorne Smith (1997)

Source:Bruce Illest- Norm MacDonald & Courtney Thorne Smith.

Source:The New Democrat

“This is an interview with a girl from MELROSE PLACE… Thank GOD, Norm Macdonald cannot resist giving her the business.”

From Bruce Illest

Thank God for Norm MacDonald otherwise this interview would’ve been about Chairman of The Board. That so far I’ve been a hundred-percent successful in not seeing. I guess they could’ve talked about Melrose Place which was a great show, at least the last two seasons of it that I saw. But Courtney was on the show to talk about Chairman of The Bored, I mean Chairman of The Board.

I mean who would want to be Chairman of The Bored. You would constantly be chairing over people having trouble staying awake at your bored meetings, I mean board meetings. But that was why Norm was there so they wouldn’t have to spend 5-10 minutes talking about the movie and having to listen to people snoring in the audience. Which would’ve been distracting for the audience. And losing people to more interesting things like PBS fundraising drives and high school plays on public access TV.

Politics & Prose: James Mann On President George W. Bush

Source:The New Democrat

Just to state out first George W. Bush is the worst U.S. President in my entire thirty-nine-years on Earth. And that includes Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush’s father, who is G.W.’s father of course and Barack Obama. And all of these president’s aren’t looking very good right now and all had plenty of issues. The differences being that other than G.W. the other president’s by in large successfully dealt with the issues that came up under their presidencies.

You can’t say that about G.W. if you look at the economy, national debt, deficit, banking system, two wars oversees and I could probably go on. American president’s are judged by the situation of the country when they came to office and the situation of the country when they leave office. And other than not getting hit again inside of the United States after 9/11, which of course he deserves credit for as Commander-in-Chief, its hard to find an area of the country where it was better off in 2009 when President Bush left office and 2001 when he came into office. And even 9/11 a big fact is we got hit in the first place in America because of intelligence failures.

Now to try to sound somewhat positive about President Bush and even factual. I give him credit for giving the Republican Party alternatives to how to look at poverty in America which he actually took seriously and providing a vision for how government can help low-income people when it comes to poverty and education. By empowering state and local government’s, as well as non-profits in the private sector to help Americans in poverty. But also help people in poverty around the world. That so-called Reform Conservatives people like Representative Paul Ryan and his brother Jeb Bush are pushing today. Which is something that Republicans desperately need to do in order to connect with Americans who aren’t wealthy.

Another thing about President Bush. Imagine had President Bush’s foreign and national security policy been what he ran on in 2000. A humble foreign policy where we are engaged around the world with out allies, but not trying to govern the world ourselves. 9/11 happens and we invade Afghanistan which is what she should’ve done to knockout that terrorist state that was harboring terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. But we don’t go to Iraq at least by ourselves and certainly not on the evidence that we had. Because Collin Powell is chief national security and foreign policy adviser. Instead of Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or Condi Rice as Secretary of State. Collin Powell becomes G.W.’s Henry Kissinger.

The last thing I would say about George W. is that he’s not stupid. Which probably puts me in a tiny minority inside of the Democratic Party. But he’s not stupid, but unqualified to be President of the United States which can be said about probably ninety-percent of the country. Had G.W. continued as Governor of Texas, maybe he goes down as a great Governor and runs for President in 2004 or 2008 as an experienced Governor of a huge successful state. Takes a couple of years off before running for president and learns about foreign policy and national security and becomes the Ronald Reagan of his generation. But we’ll never know.

Celebrity Universe: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher- Christopher Hitchens, Whoopi Goldberg & Communism

Source: Celebrity Universe- Whoopi Goldberg & Christopher Hitchens, on Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher, in 2002.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Christopher Hitchens On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher discussing Vietnam and Communism.” 

From Celebrity Universe

The Vietnam War was an obvious mistake at least looking back it lets say 40-45 years later, but the U.S. Government knew it was an obvious mistake by 1967-68. They knew the war was lost by then and continued to fight it anyway because Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon wanted to look tough and not be the first American president to lose a war. 

You don’t fight other people’s wars in places you are not prepared to fight in that your own people aren’t prepared to fight in. Especially when the people there that you’re supposed to be fighting for won’t fight for themselves. A huge lesson from the Vietnam War.

As far as communism: if communism is as Whoopi Goldberg described it about people acting together for the betterment of the country under the direction of their government and not an authoritarian ideology similar to Islamism, then how is communism different from socialism. Because that is what socialism is about that if you have a lot of individualism and individual freedom some people will do very well and others won’t for whatever the reasons. But if you put a lot of the resources all into one big collectivist pot managed by the central government, then everyone will thrive. Because no one will have too much or not enough.

RAND: Christopher S. Chivvis: Libya, The Somalia on The Mediterranean?

Source: RAND Corporation-

Source:The New Democrat

Unlike the War in Iraq, America and Europe went into the Libya and knocked out the Gadaffi Regime and let the Libyan rebels take over to try to build their own government and society for the people. Iraq of course is much different where America by itself went in and knocked out the Hussein Regime and tried to establish a new state itself and then brought in the Iraqi people. The thing about Libya is that new government wasn’t prepared to govern and defend their own country. Plus the new government had Islamists authoritarian ties that moderate Libyans didn’t want to be part of and as a result a new civil war has broken out.

Libya as a failed state is not in the best interest of the United States, United Kingdom and European Union. Especially in that part of the world where ISIS is already in Libya. That country with only six-million people, but with a lot of land the size of Algeria and Saudi Arabia, a large country would be disaster for the Democratic West if it were allowed to become a terrorist state. Which means America, Europe and the Arab League should step up and try to reestablish order in that country and allow for the Libyan people to go in and try to establish a new state that will represent the Libyan people as a whole. Not just the Islamists or the Democrats, but the whole country.

Which is why I would be in favor of an international force involving the United States with NATO, the European Union and Arab League to go into that country with a peacekeeping force while Libyans with democratic and responsible intentions go in and either work with current Libyan Government in Tripoli and build a new Libyan state that can govern and defend the entire country, or replace the current regime with a more democratic oriented that will work to bring peace to the country. Instead of trying to eliminate the opposition. And you could send in people from the United Nations, European Union, Arab League and even U.S. Foreign Service to help Libya develop a government and state that represents and governs the whole country.
Source:RT

Dennis Miller Live: Interviews George Carlin (1997)

Source:HBO- The Real George Carlin, talking to Dennis Miller, in 1997.

Source:The New Democrat 

"George Carlin on Dennis Miller" 

From Dennis Miller Live

I’ll give George Carlin credit for one thing when it comes to his military opposition and opposition to use of force: at least he served in the military so he has at least some idea what the hell he’s talking about when it comes to opposing military force. Unlike a lot of these pussies on the Far-Left from Salon, The Nation and AlterNet, who never served a day in their life in the military not even in the reserves. And yet they go out of their way to put down the American military and our involvement in wars. And call our soldiers murderers and terrorists and everything else.

When a pacifist says they are against the use of force, so what, what else is new! What do you think they are going to say: "You know what I’ve been a pacifist all of my life, but I had a dream last night about of the damage that peace and love has done to the country. And now I’m not only in favor of using force and the military, but I think we should bomb any country that doesn’t like cheeseburgers and hot dogs and votes against us at the meaningless United Nations Debating Society.” Of course they are going to say war is no good, evil, immoral, and everything else! Because that is what pacifists do. They oppose violence at all costs.

But with Carlin you get the real thing. He doesn’t like the military at least in how its used and knows from personal experience about what it is like to serve and the costs that come from serving in the military. And the costs of war and not some fringe asshole who speaks out of his ass because their head is always stuck in it. Speaking about things he’s simply not qualified to talk about. 

If you’re going to criticize something, at least have the decency to know about what you’re criticizing. And not just jump on some bandwagon because you think that bandwagon is cool.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Bill Maher & Ann Coulter - 2004 Debate

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Political satirist Bill Maher.

Source:The New Democrat

I hate to break this to anyone who might read this who is not a fan of Ann Coulter and even seriously dislikes her and that might be when they are feeling very generous on high on pot. But I have to call them as I see them. Well strike that! I’m choosing to call this as I see it. Ann Coulter actually made two good points on this show. And those might have been the only two good points that she made in all of 2004.

A reason why John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004, which was like the 1972 Miami Dolphins losing to the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers ( and you’re not a football fan, look up the records of those two teams ) is because President Bush was seen as honest and straight with American voters. “Hey President Bush might have an IQ below zero, but at least I know where he is on the issues”. With John Kerry, “he sounds like a smart guy who didn’t need his father to get through Yale or his girlfriend to do his homework for him. But what the hell does he believe on anything controversial, like the Iraq War?”

The other good point that Ann Coulter ( AKA The Giraffe because her neck is longer than her arms ) is about the whole President Bush staying at the Florida school for a few extra minutes after he was informed about the 9/11 attacks scene. Only the Far-Left that Bill Maher apparently fell into, has an issue about that. If he suddenly got up and left the school, people there would know something is up right away and there might have been a panic. Also no one at the time knew when and where the next attack was coming from and where it was going to hit. President Bush’s best spot at least at that moment was to stay there at least for a little while longer. And then maybe take off because they need to be back in Washington for an unplanned meeting or something.

So before you accuse me of always bashing Ann Coulter, first of all I don’t write about her everyday. Because if I did I would always have a migraine headache or flu from having to listen to her. So you can’t say I always bash her anyway. The other reason being I just gave her credit for two points, which would be four points in basketball unless one of the shots was a three-pointer. But The Giraffe couldn’t hit a free with a baseball bat, or the basket was the size of an ocean. So I give her credit for two layups and you can’t say I don’t give her credit for anything.
Source:Real Time With Bill Maher

Mark Russell: Takes a Look Back at 1984

Source:Mark Russell- Political satirist Mark Russell. 

Source:The New Democrat

1984 was almost unfair for the Democrats because they had no one who can beat Ronald Reagan and they probably knew that going in. If you look at where the country was in 1980 and where it was in 1984, it certainly wasn’t good, but the country was feeling much better than it was in 1984 than in 1980. Imagine waking up with a head cold or the flu and then waking up the next morning with a cold. You aren’t feeling great, the next morning with the cold and perhaps a stuffed nose and cough. But at least the headache is gone and you’re no longer vomiting every hour were able to sleep the whole night. Well that is how the country felt in 1984 with Ron Reagan compared with 1980 with Jimmy Carter.

1984 was what the what the hell year for Democrats. “Hey I can’t win so I might as well run for president, because what do I have to lose”. Which I believe was one of Walter Mondale’s campaign themes that year. “Vote for me, what do you have to lose?” 1984 was for Democrats what 1964 and 96 was for Republicans. The country not feeling great, but much better off than it did four years earlier. And when that is the case the party in power tends to get reelected. And if that party holds at least one chamber of Congress as well, they not only hold their majority in the House or Senate, but tend to add to it as well. Which is what Senate Republicans did in 84.

It is too bad for Democrats in 84 because they had at least two good candidates. And if Gary Hart was just able to communicate what he believed in 84, the Mondale line of “where’s the beef” doesn’t play as well or is even used. Because Democrats tended to like Gary Hart and did other Americans, but with Mondale they knew him and knew where he was on the issues. He was the safe choice especially considering they knew he wasn’t going to win anyway, but at least Fritz wasn’t going to embarrass them. Ron Reagan was something special as a politician and when things were going well under his leadership or at least perceived that way, he was almost impossible to beat. Which is what Democrats found out in 1984.
Source:Mark Russell