Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Leander Perez (1968)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Judge Leander Perez (Democrat, Louisiana) on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat

"Episode 095, Recorded on April 15, 1968

Guest: Leander Perez."

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

I never heard of Leander Perez from Louisiana before I saw this video. But apparently he was both Governor of Louisiana and a judge in Louisiana and this interview was done in 1968. And they were talking segregation and the civil rights laws. And the Governor telling Bill Buckley that he’s not a racist even though he says Negros (which is what African-Americans back then were called) are morally inferior to Caucasian-Americans. And Perez saying that he’s being honest and that is the truth, “why hide it”? With Buckley replying “so you are an honest bigot”.

This video is called The Wallace Movement, but very little if any mention at least in this short video of Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Who was a Dixiecrat, a right-wing (at least on social cultural issues) Nationalist who was basically still fighting the Civil War and wanting to lead Confederates in that war. Not ready to perhaps even see African-Americans as people, let alone as Americans deserving of the same rights and protections, as well as responsibilities as European-Americans. Bill Buckley was a Conservative. And one of the conservative values is treating individuals as exactly that. And not treating people as members of groups. Worst or better simply because of their race.

The so-called Wallace Movement of the South of the 1960s and 1970s, was different. And more of a racially based nationalistic movement of Southern Caucasians, predominantly Protestant and perhaps even Anglo-Saxon. Who felt having African-Americans in their community was some type of an invasion. When the fact was and still is that Africans are just as American as Europeans and as such deserving of the same rights as European-Americans and every other race in America. The Wallace Movement simply saw African-Americans as inferior. And not deserving of the same rights and protections.

The Fiscal Times: John Grgurich: U.S. Economy Grows Better Under Democratic Presidents: Is That Good Luck or Good Policy?

Source:The New Democrat

I know this is going to sound like a copout and trying not to take a hard stand and everything else, but the answer to why the American economy does better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents to put it simply, is both. Democratic presidents tend to have better economic policies which I'll get to later than Republicans. And when a Democrat is President a lot of times they become President just right before the economy is about to take off. Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton are perfect examples of that. Harry Truman would be another one and Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter are unfortunately the exceptions to that.

As far as policies Democratic presidents both liberal and progressive tend to want an economy that works for everyone. Sure Republican presidents I'm sure believe in the same thing. But Democrats put in the policies that make that economy come about. Which is why they focus so much on education, infrastructure, job training for low-income workers and unemployed workers whether they are educated or not, encouraging companies to invest in low-income areas.

Republicans tend to believe in what George H.W. Bush called when he ran for president in 1980 'Voodoo Economics', that some others call Trickle Down Economics. "You cut regulations and taxes for employers and individuals and the economic activity that will come from those business's and individuals that now have that extra money will now be invested in other business's and that economic activity will benefit everyone as a whole". That is the theory anyway, but the results have been at best mixed for thirty-five years or so ever since the policy was introduced in Congress by then Representative Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth.

As far as the lets say good luck, yes Democratic presidents have inherited economies that were just about to take off. Bill Clinton comes to mind in 1993 with the Cold War just ending and with the start of the Information Technology Revolution just getting under way around 1990-91 with all of the cell phones and laptop computers now online and of course the internet just getting under way. The Clinton White House had their own web site under way from the start and had email as well.

So yes Democratic presidents happen to of become President when the economy is just about to boom. But they've also have pushed policies that empowers all workers to be able to take advantage of economic booms. Economic booms do nothing for people without the skills to take advantage of them. Which is why education is always so critical for any economy to do well. And Democrats tend to push those polices more than Republicans.

PBS NewsHour: Judy Woodruff: 'Why Are We Still Fascinated by Richard Nixon?'

Source:PBS NewsHour- President Richard M. Nixon: 37th President of the United States.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Interest in the character and legacy of President Richard Nixon has endured 40 years since his resignation. Judy Woodruff joins Beverly Gage of Yale University, Timothy Naftali of New York University, Patrick Buchanan, author of "The Greatest Comeback" and Luke Nichter, author of "The Nixon Tapes," to discuss Nixon’s many facets and how his presidency changed American government." 

From PBS NewsHour

Is there a more fascinating politician than Richard Nixon, that is why we are still fascinated about this man. Because there is so much to him from both good and bad. And forty years later we are still trying to learn more about the man.

Every book that is written about him, or every movie that comes out about the man, or any new research and information that comes out about the man is seen by a lot of people and discussed everywhere. And not just in America, but around the world. Because of how consequential he was when it came to both American foreign and domestic policy and of course of the criminal operation inside of the White House and Watergate that along with the Nixon tapes brought down President Richard Nixon.

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller- For 2016: Take Martin O'Malley Seriously: A Liberal Democrat With Results

Source: The Daily Beast- Governor Martin O'Malley.

Source:The New Democrat

It is way too early right now to be talking about 2016 for president especially since we are still three months away from the 2014 mid-term elections that will decide who controls Congress next year, or will Congress be divided again and who will control the majority of state governorships and state legislatures. But I wouldn't be much of a political junky if I didn't look ahead to elections down the road. And this is one thing that makes politics so interesting is that politicians and potential politicians do the same thing which gives of good stuff to write about.

I'm a native Marylander or Free Stater for those of you not familiar with Maryland, as well as a Democrat who voted twice for Martin O'Malley for Governor of Maryland. And I'm as proud of those two votes as any votes that I've ever cast. For several reasons, but here's a few. He's a hell of a great Governor who governs one of it not the wealthiest states in the union as far as quality of life, per-capita income and wealth. So of course he has a lot going for him as well as location being in the Mid-Atlantic. But it still takes a good leader to make those things work, or the state can lose ground to other great states in the region like New Jersey or Virginia.

We have the best public schools in the nation and those rankings came during his administration. Maryland doesn't invest heavily in education, but we invest well and get solid results. During the Great Recession we always had an unemployment rate below the national average and never had serious debt or deficit issues unlike most of the rest of the country. If you want to look at the economy and freedom issues. Again with the great schools not just K-12 but we have a great state college system with Maryland University and others. We have great roads and other infrastructure as well.

The taxes both personal and on business are a little high compared with our competitors in the area. And I would like to see them come down especially since we now have legalized gambling and will probably legalize marijuana in the near future as well. But for the taxes we pay in this state and again a bit high the results that we get in return are pretty good. We are gaining business's and tourists everyday. Maryland is a state where you have good skiing in the winter, good beaches in the summer on the Atlantic. Where you can gamble, smoke and posses marijuana without going to jail for it. Where gays can get married and where you are never more than two hours away from doing anything.

I believe the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries will not just be about a mushy-middle Centrist who's afraid to take any solid positions on anything controversial in Hillary Clinton. Or a New Deal Progressive who will take the strongest positions possible perhaps even just to get to the Left of Hillary. I believe there is room for at least one more person who can run and say "I share the same Democratic and liberal values as you do. And I have a record of producing solid results. I'm not from Washington (even though I live next door to it) and I know how to govern". Who will still be fairly young in 2016 who can appeal to other gen-xers and Millennial's and that person could be Martin O'Malley.
Source:CNN

CNN: Political Ticker: Jeremy Diamond & Eric Weisbrod: 'Congress Defined As: Clueless, Useless, A Joke'

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not an expert on this, but when your profession or institution is ranked somewhere down where lawyers, used car salesman and conman are ranked when it comes to your popularity, commonsense tells you that it is time to reevaluate the job that you are doing and perhaps your profession. Congress right now and that includes both the House and Senate (for all you Progressives out there) has an approval rating somewhere around ten-percent. And since I'm in a generous mood I gave them the ten. Like to meet that ten-percent and see if any of them are not living in mental institutions or perhaps addicted to some type of drug.

The United States Congress makes the United Nations look effective. That is real hard to do because the United Nations a lot of times looks like nothing more than a debating society if that and not even a real good one. Where not much more than pre-rehearsed talking points are exchanged. With not a lot of individual creating thinking going on. Especially from people who are supposed to be diplomats and lawyers. Well that is Congress and both chambers. Instead of trying to pass legislation and working with each other to get something that the President can actually sign that would address the problem passed. They blame the other side for why nothing has been done.

Congress is so pathetic (again being generous) that they can't even pass the bills that they are required to by law and under the Constitution. The Federal budget is supposed to be passed by April. The Democratic Senate claims that they don't have to pass a budget. And they say something to the effect "you can't make us anyway!". One of their twelve-year old speechwriters probably gave them that Pulitizer caliber writing on that one. Congress is supposed to pass what thirteen appropriations bills by what September. They haven't passed one yet and at least the Republican House has passed a few.

Congress doesn't pass budgets and appropriations bills anymore because if they did that then Representatives and Senators might have time to actually read the bills. And then decide they can't vote for that because it is garbage legislation (again being generous) or it may hurt them in the next election. So what they do is lump a four-trillions dollar budget (big part of the problem right there) that includes all of the appropriations bills in what and what only Congress calls an omnibus bill. Which is a clever way is saying a large sack of garbage that nobody wants to put their hands through and see what is in it. Because they don't want to know.

Still wondering why Congress is so unpopular? If you are, perhaps you've just come home from a ten-year vacation in an Afghan cave with no access to any outside information. Or have been in a coma for the last 10-15 years. You would've had to, to be that clueless about the U.S. Congress assuming you are an American.

Andrew Sullivan: Neither Living Nor Dead

Source:The New Democrat

Before I give you my take on the U.S. Constitution, I'm going to give you takes from others further Left of me and from people who are to my Right and further Right.

Today's so-called Progressives who are really Social Democrats to be real and blunt about it see the U.S. Constitution in European democratic terms and want to and see America as their type of social democracy. Where government is more centralized with more power and more resources for the good of the people. And where most if not all all things done though government are through majoritarian means with majority rule. They probably see our constitutional amendment process as undemocratic because of what it takes to repeal or amend an amendment. As well as forcing all Americans regardless of generation and the times as having to live under the same Constitution and Rule of Law.

Conservatives and Libertarians see the Constitutional in its original form. (Or that is what they say) And anything that is not specifically laid out for government to do based on the words of Constitution, they see as unconstitutional when government tries to perform those functions. Neoconservatives or the Traditional Values Coalition lets say when it comes to personal choice and freedom say that anything that is not granted specifically with the exact words laid out in it for the people, those rights don't exist for the people. And that government can deny those actions for them. The same-sex-marriage debate is a perfect example of it.

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this which is where a Liberal would be between a Social Democrat on the Left and a Libertarian on the Right. All of the amendments and constitutional rights that we have as individuals with the constitutional amendments and Bill of Rights apply to all of us at any time. But when it comes to things for either the people or what can government can do I'm not what is called a strict-constructionist which is sort of a bogus term to begin with. And even people who call themselves that find ways to expand government power to meet their own political goals.

Just because same-sex-marriage doesn't exist in the Constitution, or marijuana, or gambling and perhaps even property rights and the Right to Privacy doesn't mean we don't have the right to practice those things as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with those practices. The Fourth Amendment clearly limits what government especially law enforcement can to when it comes to regulating individuals own lives. And the Fifth Amendment clearly limits what government can do to one's property. And can't simply decide to take it over or take it away simply because it wants to. The Equal Protection Clause clearly protect all classes of Americans equally and doesn't grant government the right to discriminate because it doesn't like one class of people.

I'm a Liberal Constitutionalist because I believe in the Constitution and more broadly liberal democracy. The rights that we have just from the words themselves will always be there unless they are repealed or amended through a super majority process. As it should be because we are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Not a social democracy and those things are different. And just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say an individual or government can do something, doesn't mean they can't. You have to look at the Constitution and see where those rights exist or not.

PBS NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Finding a GOP Anti-Cruz, Middle East

Source:The New Democrat

Right now House Republicans can't get past their Tea Party base on anything. And that is led and known by the House Republican Leadership who don't have the balls (to put it bluntly) to take them on, on anything. Immigration is just one example so what it happens when it comes to something where they have to look like they are doing anything when it comes to public support, they do what the Tea Party wants them to do even if it is automatically dead on arrival in the Senate and has very little if any support outside of their Tea Party Neoconservative base.

As far as Israel and their conflict with Hamas. Israel is getting beat up by the leftist press in Europe and the far-left in America. But nowhere else including Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt because those big states both know the dangers of terrorism. Which means the ball has always been and is still in the court of Israel when it comes to resolving the situation there. And they essentially have a free hand to destroy Hamas especially if they get the opportunity.