C-SPAN: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid- 'Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about the Senate filibuster, in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Harry Reid: Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees. Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05." 

From Filibuster Flashback

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. 

But whoever is against  the Senate filibuster (when they're in the majority) is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. 

One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy, as well as long so-called work vacations, getting paid while not working  and perhaps a few other things, but Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

CSPAN: Andrew Sullivan vs Dennis Prager- Same-Sex Marriage (1996)

Source:CSPAN- the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Source:The New Democrat   

"The House Judiciary Subcommittee heard testimony concerning the Defense of Marriage Act from activists, state legislators and others." 

From CSPAN

Source:CSPAN- Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, arguing against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, at the House Judiciary Committee in 1996.

If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn't have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you're also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it's straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other. 

If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you're a religious fundamentalist, you probably don't believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married. 

I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone's else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they're not hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. 

The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them. 

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- 'Healthcare Socialism 1, Healthcare Capitalism 0'

Source:The Dish- Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, with a look at American health care.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Commonwealth Fund quietly eviscerates America’s medical system with some basic facts. Two of the more remarkable ones:

In 2013, more than one-third (37%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 4 percent to 6 percent in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Roughly 40 percent of both insured and uninsured U.S. respondents spent $1,000 or more out-of-pocket during the year on medical care, not counting premiums. High deductibles and cost-sharing, along with no limits on out-of-pocket costs, may explain why even insured people in the U.S. struggled to afford needed health care, the researchers said." 

From The Dish

This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers (to use as examples) but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance (to use as examples) well, you don’t see at least in America a lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry. 

Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food, right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. 

You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again, only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.

Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. 

Germany the largest country in Europe (unless you include Russia) and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world. This is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.

Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.

I’m tired of hearing these bogus (Happy Holidays) arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. 

Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.

CBC Sports: CFL 1976- Grey Cup-Regina Roughriders vs. Ottawa Red Blacks: Highlights

Source:CBC Sports- the Rough Riders and Red Blacks from 1976.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1976 Grey Cup highlights Ottawa Rough Riders vs. Saskatchewan Roughriders" 

From CBC Sports

Battle of the Roughriders! You would have to be familiar with the CFL to get that joke, but one reason why the CFL doesn’t get as much respect in America as perhaps it should it because they did at least at one point have multiple clubs with the same nickname. But this was a very good Grey Cup game, 23-20 the Red Blacks as the Ottawa CFL club is called now beat the Roughriders. Ottawa was able to move the ball well and score points against perhaps the best defense in the CFL in 1976 the Roughriders that only gave up about fifteen points a game. And had the best pass defense in the CFL. They also scored 428 points so they had a very good balanced team. The Red Blacks were able to move the ball with their balanced offense and shut out the Roughriders in the fourth quarter.

The Film Archives: U.S. Representative Bob Dornan: 'Gets His Words in a One-Minute Speech Stricken Down in 1995'

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Representative Bob Dornan (Republican, California) they didn't call Bob Dornan B-One Bob for nothing: he was a right-wing bomb thrower.

"Robert Kenneth "Bob" Dornan (born April 3, 1933) is a Republican and former member of the United States House of Representatives from California and a vocal advocate of pro-life and social conservative causes.

A boisterous former actor and television talk show host, Dornan had a flair for the dramatic that drew him supporters and detractors well beyond his congressional districts. Though never a major power in Washington, he became one of the most well-known members of the House of Representatives and has been described as "one of the leading firebrands among American politicians."

In 1995, he received a minor reprimand from the House for stating in a floor speech that President Bill Clinton had "given aid and comfort to the enemy" during the Vietnam War. In 1996, Dornan ran for President of the United States, using his campaign primarily as a vehicle to continue to criticize Clinton. In a GOP debate in Iowa on January 13, Dornan called Clinton a "criminal" and a "pathological liar." When asked why voters should choose Dornan over his Republican rivals to challenge Clinton in the general election, he argued that he had more children and grandchildren than the others, with only Richard Lugar coming anywhere near him on that score... 

From The Film Archives

Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called ‘B One Bob’ for nothing" he had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought. 

Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber, or Kamikaze Bomber,  because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did. 

B-One Bob also had an overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997. 

Bob Dornan’s approach is very well-suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress, even in the House of Representatives, where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States.

PBS NewsHour: Hari Sreenivasan- Nathan Gonzalez: 'Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?'

Source:PBS NewsHour- Nathan Gonzalez from the Rothenberg Political Report.

Source:The Daily Times 

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

From Wikipedia 

"For the past 10 years, Gallup has asked: Do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job representing the American people or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed? This week, respondents saying the two major parties did an adequate job hit an all-time low, and the percentage of people saying a third party is needed hit an all-time high. Nathan Gonzales, Deputy Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report joins Hari Sreenivasan from Washington." 

From the PBS NewsHour

I’ve probably said this before on this blog, but I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and expect to be a Democrat my entire life. Unless the Far-Left were to takeover the Democratic Party, which is not likely. More likely would be a socialist third-party emerging that could actually challenge Democrats. 

But the two-party-system simply does not work and even though I do blame the Republicans especially their Far-Right and their anti-government Libertarian-Right more on this, one strong political party in America which is the Democratic Party right now if you look at the power, that they have, but also where they are on the issues compared with Americans as a whole, where they are blowing Republicans away right now, is not enough for a large liberal democracy.

One strong political party even if that political party is my party the Democratic Party is simply not enough. The two-party system right now is not just broken, but it is broken and bankrupt and failing. American voters not just themselves with their gerrymandering and their primary systems that in many cases especially the Republican Party, tend to select the most fringe candidates and people who are least interested in governing. And more interested in building their movement and becoming popular. As we see right now in the House Tea Party Caucus.

The current Republican Party is designed to fail and will go out of business as even a potential governing party, probably within ten years. And if that does happen and a real Center-Right party does not emerge to replace the Republican Party, we will become of a one-party-state in a country that is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Not healthy, because that is how centralized dictatorships get created. And why we need short-term at least a new Center-Right party to replace what use to be a Center-Right party in the Republican Party.

Northeastern and Midwest Republicans and Blue Dog and Southern Democrats need to think about creating a new Center-Right party and getting together with Center-Right Independents who are not Republicans, because of either the Religious-Right or the partisanship and the Tea Party calling them rhinos and all of that, to save our political system. Long-term I would like to see a multiple-party system going from Socialists, or Communists on the Far-Left, to Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right. Let everybody be heard and have their voice and let the voters decide who should be in power.

Progressives on the Center-Left and Classical-Liberals Conservatives on the Center-Right, for most likely always be governing America, at least at the Federal level. But short-term we need a strong Center-Right party in America to compete against the Center-Left Democratic Party for the good of our political system. So the Republican Party as it is currently set up doesn’t become a failed party. Without a strong party to replace it.

PBS: Video: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: 'Shields and Brooks on Shutdown’s Tectonic Effect For Republicans'

Source:PBS NewsHour- New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Source:The Daily Times 

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

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's top political news, including how Republicans and Democrats have fared in the "catastrophic" polls coming out of the shutdown, and whether or not a solution to the stalemate is in sight." 

From the PBS NewsHour

The effect of the government shutdown on the House Republican Conference where most of the blame should be targeted, with the House Republican Leadership not being able to take on the Tea Party Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus setting out to destroy the Affordable Care Act at all costs and then a few Senate Republicans like Ted Cruz obviously, but go to Mike Lee and Rand Paul. So most of the blame for the government shutdown goes to Congressional Republicans.

And the consequences are Speaker Boehner looks like a bigger weakling than he already is. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who was already in danger of being reelected next year, facing both a strong Republican primary challenge from of course a Tea Party Republican in Mark Bevin, but whoever wins that race will face a well-funded with the backing of the entire Democratic Party, Democrat in Allison Grimes. And remember, Kentucky is not Mississippi. Democrats win at all levels in Kentucky. The governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and the state House is controlled by Democrats. Facing a very unpopular Republican in Mitch McConnell.

And the U.S. House of Representatives because the Tea Party Republicans who won Democratic seats in 2010, now have to go home and explain why they supported the government shutdown. And Northeastern Republicans, whether they are in the Tea Party or not. Who represent swing districts, will either have to take on the Tea Party. And risk a primary challenge from the Tea Party, or be in favor of the government shutdown. And risk losing their seat to a Democrat. And the Democratic Party will not let House Republicans forget about the government shutdown or be able to dodge it.