Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Friday, November 14, 2014

Mark Russell PBS: Mark Russell Takes a Look at Election 76: We Got a President As Good As The American People

Source:Mark Russell PBS- with a political satiric look at campaign 76.

"From "Mark Russell Looks at Campaign '76"--clips from Russell's Dec 1975 special. It begins with a song about politicians sung to the tune of "A Modern Major General" from "The Pirates of Penzance." This special aired in 1988, and Russell does an introduction, providing some context that will help familiarize you with the political atmosphere of those bygone days. (Hint: Reagan doesn't win the nomination this year.) I love the delivery of the joke about Terry Stanford (who?!)."


The two most important aspects of the 1976 presidential election had to be the Republican primaries between former Governor Ronald Reagan and sitting Republican President Gerald Ford. 

President Ford beat Governor Reagan handily in the Republican primaries early on in the winter and spring, sort of like a Super Bowl between the AFC and NFC during the mid and late 1980s, and early 90s. (For the 1 or 2 football fans that read this) And then Reagan makes a Richard Nixon like comeback in the summer of 76 and was able to take the primary season to the Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri. 

And then the general election battle in the late summer and fall between former Governor Jimmy Carter and President Gerry Ford, where you have Jimmy Carter running as someone who was no better or worst than the people who vote for him and the people he would serve. (Not exactly a natural inspirer, Jimmy Carter) 

Carter ran against a sitting President in Gerry Ford, who was running as someone who wasn't as crooked as Richard Nixon, who wasn't as conservative Ronald Reagan, and who wasn't as boring and ordinary as Jimmy Carter. Getting American voters to think: "If this is the best that America can do for President, we're in a helluva lot of trouble." 

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

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

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

PBS: Mark Russell Special (1987)



Source:PBS- Political satirist Mark Russell-
“It’s three days since the 1987 stock market crash, and Mark is singing the bear market blues away. He also jokes about the recent turbulence in the airline industry & takes us through a NRA fashion show to commemorate Florida’s new gun control law. There’s even a song for Arizona’s Evan Meechum, who tried to prevent passage of the Martin Luther King holiday in their state.” 

From PBS

1987 a year that I was eleven years old for the most of it, there you have it my age, now see if you can add 24 years to that and come up with the right answer on your own. I finished fifth grade in 1987 and started 6th grade. But enough about me, this blog is not my autobiography, not enough time and I would like you to read the whole blog before you fall asleep.

1987 was a fascinating year politically and I actually remember some of those stories as a eleven year old. Democrats took over the Senate, I don’t remember hearing about that, but I knew we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress that year. Which was a very common arrangement in the 1970s and 80s, like an unhappy marriage: they stayed together for the sake of the kids, who happen to be the American voters who keep them in office.

I remember hearing about Iran Contra and even having some idea about what that was. I remember hearing the names Col. Oliver North, Admiral John Poindexter, Bud Macfarline who was President Reagan’s Director of National Security. I remember even seeing parts of the Iran Contra hearings that were held I believe both in the House and Senate on TV. I remember hearing that Vice President George Bush was going to run for President.

I remember hearing names like Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Paul Simon all Democratic members of Congress who were going to run for President. I remember hearing the name Bob Dole and knew he was the Senate Minority Leader. And what that job was and knew he was going to run for President as well. I obviously wasn’t a political junky yet, but my parents were and got to hear these stories.

1987 wasn’t a fascinating year because of these things that were happening and the people who were involved. But what was going in these people and their lives. You have two major Democratic presidential candidates, both strong progressive voices in the party, having to drop out because of personal scandals. Gary Hart a former two-term Senator who did not run for reelection in 1986 because he wanted to run for President full-time in 1988.

Gary Hart came close to winning the Democratic nomination in 1984 and was probably going to be the frontrunner in 1988. But then dares the media to follow him around because as he said he had nothing to hide. Well, if he had nothing to hide, he must of had an open marriage, because he was caught having an affair with Donna Rice who was a federal employee at one point. Their love affair could probably make a good porno movie on Cinemax, or well MSNBC.

You have Joe Biden a three-term Senator and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who presided over the Bob Bork’ Supreme Court nomination, that’s a story by itself, have to quit his campaign because of a plagiarism scandal. No wonder Joe Biden talks so much, he has so much material to use from other people. Way to go, Joe! I could get to the rest of 1987, but I already here some snoring so I’ll spare you for now. Perhaps in a future post.

In 1987 you had great political stories inside and outside of Washington relating to the Federal Government. The Administration with Congress and of course presidential politics outside of Washington with Dick Gephardt doing well enough with his 1988 presidential campaign, that he gets elected Leader of the House for the next Congress, the 101st Congress.

And this is four years before 1992 with Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and the rest of the gang. Where you have a President go from a 90% approval rating to losing reelection in 1992 with just 37% of the Popular Vote. How time flies when your approval rating is dropping like an asteroid being dropped from a bridge. But that is American politics for you with our ups and downs, we love you until we don’t. 

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

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

Mark Russell PBS: Looks at Campaign 1980: Can a Hollywood B-Actor Play President?

Source:Mark Russell PBS- political satirist Mark Russell talking about campaign 1980.

"Political comedian & musical satirist Mark Russell looks back at the 1980 presidential campaign. Remember when George H.W. Bush was against Reagan before he was for him? Do you remember when Ted Kennedy fought President Carter for the Democratic nomination? If you're too young to remember, forget about the history books and wikipedia; take a hilariously historical look back with your host, Mark Russell." 


I agree with Mark Russell that the two most important parts of the 1980 campaign season, was the primary fight in the Democratic Party between a sitting U.S. President in Jimmy Carter and a sitting U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy. For multiple reasons, but I think the two most important and interesting reasons are the facts that a Democrat would challenge another Democrat in The White House, knowing that he could lose and hurt his own party and perhaps even his own future. 

The 1980 campaign was also interesting because the Democratic campaign was a contest between someone who didn't know why they were running for President in the first place, who at least privately didn't even want to be President, (which might explain why he didn't know why he was running for President) against someone who didn't know why they should be reelected President again, because he couldn't sell his own program, agenda, and successes that he had in his 1st term as President, in Jimmy Carter.

But then go to the general election campaign where you had a former Governor of California in Ronald Reagan whose basic campaign was to make America work again, get tough on Russia, and oh by the way, I'm not Jimmy Carter. But other than the Reagan economic plan of across the board tax cuts, I don't think American voters got much of an idea of what a Reagan presidency would look like. 

Ronald Reagan running against a President Jimmy Carter, whose basic campaign theme seemed to be, he's not Ronald Reagan. He's not going to slash Medicare and Social Security or force poor people out of their public housing and kick them off of Welfare.

I think the 1980 political campaign season can be summed up this way: the last two years (1979, 80) were really bad. The problems the country we're facing were really bad. Americans want a change and new direction. They're not sure Ronald Reagan is the man to make America work again, but he's a decent, likable, funny guy and he's not Jimmy Carter. So they're going to take a chance on an ex-b-movie actor, who bombed as a b-movie actor, who thinks he can now play President of the United States, over a peanut brain, I mean peanut farmer (understandable mistake) and we'll see how the country is doing 2 years later when Congress is up for reelection. 

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

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

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Strode Reality: Andrew Sullivan: 'The Politics of Homosexuality: Intro On Prohibition'

Source:Strode Reality- columnist and author Andrew Sullivan giving a lecture about homosexuality, in 2010.
"Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality," Princeton University, 2/18/10.

Part 1 of 7:

1. Intro & Prohibitionism part 1
2. Prohibitionism part 2
3. Prohibitionism part 3
4. Liberationism
5. Conservatism
6. Liberalism
7. Conclusion

See also: Audience question

The arguments put forth in this speech can be studied in more complete detail in Andrew's book Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, which can be purchased here... 

Unlike Andrew Sullivan, I'm not religious at all and therefor don't pretend to either be religious or an expert on The Bible. But I am a current affairs blogger whose very familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the American, federal, liberal, democratic, republican, form of government. And because of that, I know that America is a federal republic, not a theocracy. 

The Bible or any other religious book, can say that homosexuality is immoral and therefor it's not murder or assault, when gays are physically assaulted, terrorized, even raped, and murdered, simply because they're gay. But the United States of America is not a theocracy (Christian or otherwise) and therefor we are not governed by The Bible or any other religious book. We're governed by the United States Constitution.

And because of the U.S. Constitution, I also know because of both the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which protects Americans right to privacy and guarantees every American's right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, I know that prohibition of homosexuality, even in the privacy of consenting adults, is unconstitutional, at it should be. 

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

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

Monday, November 10, 2014

Robin Smith: Hugh Hefner- 'Playboy, Activist & Rebel'

Source:Robin Smith- CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Mike Wallace.
"An intimate look at the out­spoken, flam­boyant founder of the Playboy empire. With humour and insight, the film captures Hefner's fierce battles with the gov­ern­ment, the reli­gious right and militant fem­in­ists. Rare footage and com­pel­ling inter­views with a remark­able who's who of 20th century American pop culture, present a bril­liant and enter­taining snapshot of the life of an extraordinary man and the con­tro­ver­sies that sur­rounded him."

From Robin Smith

I laugh every time I hear people call Hugh Hefner a radical or an extremist or immoral doing the work for the Devil. Whatever it might be because Hugh Hefner represents what an overwhelming majority of Americans say they are in favor of. And what the Far-Right and Far-Left in America are against which is individual freedom. The right of Americans to be able to live their own lives and not be dictated to by government or collectivists. Who believe they know better than Americans how Americans should live their own lives.

What makes Hef different from most Americans who believe in individual-freedom is that Hef is honest and public about his feelings as they relate to sex and how men feel about women and vice-versa and the role of both in society and so-forth. Where many other Americans who believe in the same things as Hef economic freedom balanced with personal freedom including sexual freedom, tolerance and against statism. And the political correctness police, but are not as public with their beliefs.

Hugh Hefner is not some type of Socialist radical looking to bring down corporate America and make the whole country dependent on the state for their well-being. But he’s also not some type of theocrat looking to ban all social activities that he doesn’t approve of. He represents where the mainstream of America is instead. And is very successful in corporate America himself fighting for. And promoting what he’s always been both which is individual freedom. As well economic freedom balanced with personal freedom.

Hefner united the Far-Left and Far-Right against him and in some cases for the same reasons with how his magazine talks about and promotes sex in America. Sharing his thoughts as well as his writers thoughts. But also how many other Americans feel, but who tend not to be as public about those feelings.

Hugh Hefner is not saying you must live like him and this is the American way of life. What he’s saying is this is how he lives and is the life for him. And that every other American has the right to make these decisions for themselves. 

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

Saturday, November 8, 2014

George Carlin: Expressions & Sayings

Source:HBO- George Carlin's 1996 HBO Special. 
Source:The New Democrat 

You know how cliche's become cliche's? Because someone comes up with a really simple and hip way of putting something in perspective in a way that even morons can understand. Like "well that is all she wrote". Which could be used for several different situations, but generally used in sporting events when it is clear that the game is over as far as who is going to actually win the game. Someone comes up with a real, gee I don't know (talk about cliche's) nifty way of putting something in its place that everyone can understand.

America has become a cliche country. You see that everyday in our country, culture politics, sports , someone comes up with a clever and new way of doing something or way of talking. Five minutes later it is no longer new because everyone else who wants to be cool, (oh I'm sorry, awesome) ends up doing the same thing or talking the exact same way. The modern America sitcom is a cliche taken from whatever the latest hit sitcom is and now everyone is writing and acting like that.

We are a country of Faddist's. The American religion is Faddism. We do what we believe we need to do to fit in, in life and be like everyone else. So we are cool or awesome too. You want to know why Americans are stereotyped as dumb? I'll tell you anyway, because we don't think for ourselves. We let the latest hipster or hipsters do that for us. Whatever the profession and whatever the lifestyle is. Cloning is not supposed to be biologically possible yet, but you wouldn't know it with so many people looking and talking and acting like everyone else. Faddism is in and individualism is out.
Source:George Carlin

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

PBS: NewsHour- Lisa Dejardins: 'What Will Happen in the Next Senate'

Source:PBS NewsHour- political editor and reporter Lisa Dejardins.

Source:The New Democrat 

"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, Wild Kratts, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, The Kidsongs Television Show, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nature Cat, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Peg + Cat, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.[7]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Datacast, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[8]

PBS has more than 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government." 

From Wikipedia 

"NewsHour Political Editor and Reporter Lisa Desjardins says that if Republicans gain control of the Senate, we can look to see both the Keystone Pipeline and medical device tax factor strongly into their strategy. Alabama, Desjardins adds, will also benefit from senior Republicans potentially gaining high-profile seats in Senate leadership." 

From the PBS NewsHour 

What will happen in the next Congress, a united Republican Congress as far as Republicans controlling both the House of Representatives and Senate, will be based on what Speaker John Boehner and Leader Mitch McConnell actually want to get done and get passed out of Congress and signed into law. And what they want to try to pass by themselves with mostly if not all Republican votes in both the House and Senate and try to force Senate Democrats who will be brand new to the minority, to try to block, or force President Obama to veto partisan legislation.

President Obama is smart to invite Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell down to the White House this week to try to see where they may be able to work together in the next Congress. But the fact is Republicans are in charge of Congress and Congressional Democrats and the President will be on the defensive at least in the early going of the next Congress. 

Democrats will react to Republicans based on what Republicans want to and try to do. The next Congress will be as effective and popular as Republicans are effective at running it.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

CNN: Video: State of the Union: This Election Isn't Over


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The victory for Democrats in 2014 might be at the state level in the governor's and state legislature races. Where they are not only in position to win back governorships, but win them in big states. Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and perhaps Ohio which might be out of reach. But they are polling well in Wisconsin as well. And in Massachusetts and Colorado where they may lose, they currently hold the state legislature's in both states. And in Massachusetts case, they won't lose both the governorship and legislature.

As I blogged last night, the U.S. Senate is still not out of the question, because of Georgia and Kansas where Senate Democrats are favored to pick up, at least according to the polls. Strong Democratic leaning candidates in Michelle Nunn who is a Democrat in Georgia and liberal leaning Independent Greg Orman in Kansas. But for that to mean anything, they have to hold onto North Carolina and New Hampshire where they are currently leading. And perhaps pull out Louisiana where Mary Landrieu is in a dead heat with Republican Representative Bill Cassidy.

On Tuesday night, House Republicans will not only hold their majority, but perhaps add ten seats and even have a bigger majority that they had in 2011-12 after they won back the House. But the question is who will control the Senate in the next Congress with a Republican House that has a solid majority. And perhaps no one will really control the Senate as far as getting anything done with a 50-50 or 51-49 majority. And the 114th Congress is essentially divided as well like the current Congress.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

The McLaughlin Group: U.S. Senate Elections On Election Night

Source: The McLaughlin Group- John McLaughlin.
Source:The New Democrat

Just to sort of follow-up on what I was talking about yesterday and the U.S. Senate elections. Senate Republicans should win back the Senate on Tuesday, probably six or seven seats. Or maybe they only win five, but somehow Larry Pressler who is an Independent in North Dakota, wins that Senate election and decides to caucus with Republicans. Giving Senate Republicans a 50-48 and 2 majority. Or similar scenario but Independent Senator Angus King decides to caucus with the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

But as The McLaughlin Group pointed out which is why I'm leaving some hope for Senate Democrats, there are still a couple of critical factors that could save the Senate for Democrats. Michelle Nunn wins the Senate seat in Georgia, Gregg Orman wins in Kansas. Mary Landrieu doesn't win Louisiana, but Representative Bill Cassidy doesn't win a majority, forcing the election into a December runoff. Kay Hagan holds the steady lead she's had for over a year over Tom Tillis in North Carolina and the same thing with Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire over Scott Brown.

Under the reasonable scenarios I just put out, Senate Democrats could lose every other seat that is in play for Republican pickups and still retain the Senate with a 50-50 plus Vice President Joe Biden majority. Keep in mind, only Mary Landrieu is either down barley or tied with her opponent. And she is a great campaigner and has a great campaign machine and Democrats have a great get out the vote operation. And Senator Landrieu has already won a runoff back in 2002 in a big Republican year where Democrats lost the Senate that gave Republicans a united Congress.

Under any other election year and scenario with an unpopular President in Barack Obama that I voted twice for and don't regret those votes or would change for anything, we should not only be talking about Republicans winning the Senate, but are they going to win 8 or 10 seats. Not 5-7 and giving Democrats life in the Senate. Along with House Republicans picking up twenty or more seats and padding their majority. That is not happening because of the unpopularity of the Republican Party with their candidates and that they have weak incumbents as well.
Source:The McLaughlin Group

Friday, October 31, 2014

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on the MidTerm Mood


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

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.


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

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



Source: Lib Dem Voice-
Source: This piece was originally posted at 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.
UK Parliament: Open Lecture- Reform in The House of Lords

Monday, October 27, 2014

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

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority In Flux?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

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. 


Sunday, October 26, 2014

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. 

Saturday, October 25, 2014

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.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

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"


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.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

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.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

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.

Monday, October 13, 2014

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.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs. Jerry Quarry 2, 1972

Source: Sweet Fights-Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry-
Source:FRS Daily Times Plus

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.
Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry 2- 1972

Saturday, October 11, 2014

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.  


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

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