Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Friday, November 30, 2012

The American Prospect: The Editors: A Strategic Plan for Liberals: The Way Forward For Classical Liberals

A Strategic Plan for Liberals

If your idea of Liberalism is the FDR New Deal, a Democratic Socialist model from the 1930s and you put a lot. Of faith into the state meaning the Federal Government to solve the nation's problems and even solve the nation's problems from the people themselves. With all of these Federal social programs to take care of the people and this is just how it relates to the economy and fiscal policy. Then you are not going to like this post very much or at least not agree with much in it, because thats not my idea of Liberalism. As a Liberal, it never has been, my idea of Liberalism is Liberalism itself the real thing, not Progressivism or. Democratic Socialism which isn't the same thing, Progressivism and Democratic Socialism, like trying to tell the difference between a couple of lemons just. By looking at them, if you want to call it classical Liberalism, find just keep in mind I'm not talking about Libertarianism either.

The future of American Liberalism is very good, as long as we are talking about Liberalism, Liberalism is the. Perfect alternative to Conservatism or Libertarianism and we are the big brother or big sister of Progressivism. Because we both are on the left and compete with each other for power in the Democratic party, which is the Liberal Democratic party in America. We are the major Leftist party in America and really have had that role at least since the 1930s but we are not a Social Democratic party. But a party that has Social Democrats in it, with Liberals in charge but with Social Democrats representing an alternative. Especially for more Progressive sections of the country that would probably prefer to be in the Green party. Or Democratic Socialist party ideologically but remain Democratic to have a voice in a major leftist party.

What makes the DP Liberal is that we are about the people and we are about protecting individual freedom but. For everyone rather then centralizing power in Big Government or in Big Business, how do we make sure. That everyone in the country has individual freedom, not just the wealthy or Big Business but for everyone. How do we make economic Liberalism and social Liberalism work for everyone and empower people who don't have these freedoms. Work for them rather then how do we empower the state to take care of them and run their lives, these are the values that we are about. And thats really it and I could get into foreign policy but our foreign policy and national security are about the. Same thing, how do we protect American freedom for Americans and empower others around the World. To get their freedom as well.

Remember Social Democrats had their run in the 1930s, 40s, 50s even with a Conservative Republican like Dwight Eisenhower. Not try to roll back the safety net and then the 1960s as well and that changed especially in the 1970s, when Progressivism. With the high taxes and Big Government that comes with it, started losing popularity and then of course Ron Reagan being elected President. With a Republican Senate in 1980, Conservatives finally not only figured out how to combat Progressivism but how to win. Elections and get into power as well, Democrats finally getting tired of losing to Conservative Republicans. Got the message that Progressivism and Big Government economics were no longer a winning formula and fought back. Not by moving to the middle but moving away from Progressivism and getting back to Liberalism of Jack Kennedy and nominated Bill Clinton for President.

I feel very good about the future of the Democratic party and for Liberal Democrats and believe we are in position. Today to be a long term governing party, especially as the Republican party has become so Statist on social issues. And why do I say this, is because as we are becoming younger as a country, we are becoming more Liberal-Libertarian as a country. Young people are becoming business owners and managers and are very Liberal at least on social issues and they don't like. Big Government in their wallets either and if you look at where Democrats are today at least the leadership, neither do we. You don't see Democratic Leaders looking to expand the new or great society or the Federal Government. At all, which is what Progressives don't like about us, which puts in excellent position to lead the country. In the future.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Salon: Jeff Madrick: The Next New Deal: "The Simpson-Bowles Consensus Makes no Sense": Why Progressives and Neoconservatives Don't Like Simpson-Bowles

The Simpson-Bowles consensus makes no sense

There's this old saying at least in Washington, that if two sides don't like you, one coming from the right and. The other coming from the left and you are in the middle, you are probably right where you should be, you are probably on the right course. That if the advantage of Centrism is to combine what works from both sides and throw out the garbage coming from both sides. And you combine what works from both sides into a package that works, rather then just splitting the difference on everything. That you are on the right course, thats what you get with the Simpson-Bowles Report on deficit reduction, they. Reached an agreement that combined a lot of things that they wouldn't normally do, as well as things that they. Tend to agree on, Al Simpson is not a Centrist and certainly no one's Liberal for anyone who understands Liberalism. He's a classical Conservative Republican, Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan are two of his idols, he has a very long. Conservative-Libertarian streak in his politics. Thats common out in the West, get Big Government out of the wallets and bedrooms.

You might be able to make the case that Erskine Bowles is a Centrist, especially when it comes to these economic issues. I would argue that he's a Centrist when it comes to Social Democrats or Progressives but most of the country would be Centrist. Compared with that faction, there 's a long Liberal tradition in the Democratic party of believing in economic freedom and fiscal responsibility. That goes back at least as far as Jack Kennedy, its not Centrist its classical Liberalism, Progressives don't like Erskine. Because he's more of a classical Liberal then a Progressive which he is, Progressives don't like Simpson-Bowles. Because it has entitlement reform, something they've never been in favor of unless its about expanding entitlements. Neoconservatives don't like Simpson-Bowles because it cuts corporate welfare, closes bases in developed countries. That can defend themselves and raises taxes on the wealthy, Simpson-Bowles is on the right course.

I agree the 21% cap as far as what the Federal Government can spend as it relates to GDP and it wouldn't be. Able to spend more then that is arbitrary but guess what as late as just four years ago, thats the percentage of US GDP. That the Feds were spending and then of course we had the Great Recession and the Feds increased that to make up the difference. From all of the money that was lost in the private sector, we are not only out of the Great Recession but if we avoid the fiscal cliff. According to economists like Mark Zandi, we are on course for a big recovery and high economic and job growth. And with our current debt and deficit picture, cutting back to 21% is not an extreme idea, considering historically. Post World War II thats where we have been and we were just there just four years ago.

I'm not a Centrist and I don't like everything in Simpson-Bowles, especially as it relates to Medicare and I would. Scrap the income tax all together and move to a Progressive Consumption Tax but we can get back to 21% without hurting anyone. Who can't afford to be hurt and you do this by requiring that wealthy people on entitlements to pay more into it and even collect less. Or are at least taxed on it, have people who can afford to work longer, do so, close oversee bases in developed countries. That can afford to defend themselves and close wasteful tax loopholes that we can no longer afford including. Corporate welfare and as well as reforming the safety net so its designed to be so effective that it becomes obsolete and block granting. It to the states for them to run, thats what I would do but Simpson-Bowles already has a lot of these provisions in it.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

AlterNet: Via Mother Jones: Erika Eichelberger: Parts of The Safety Net That Are On The Table For Deficit Reduction: How to Reform and Save The Safety Net

12 Vital Social Programs That Might Be Vulnerable in a "Grand Bargain" Over the Debt | Alternet

Here's an example of where I wish people like Bill Clinton, this is going to sound crazy but Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Gary Johnson. Were part of these deficit reduction discussions to avoid the so called fiscal cliff and this might sound crazy coming from a Democrat. But here me out, there's a way to save the safety net indefinitely from being eliminated or reduced to the point where its meaningless. While at the same time making these programs affordable to the point where we would no longer have to worry. About the financing of them to the point of how would we finance them and having people like the men I just. Mentioned would make this possible, the closest we have in these discussions now, would be Representative Paul Ryan. Who I rarely agree with on anything but he's very solid when it comes to these government reform areas, don't like his Medicare plan. But his broader concept of government decentralization is sound, as well as Senator Tom Coburn another government reformer.

As a Liberal I'm a believer that I want public assistance to be so effective that it become obsolete, because of. All of the people it would help to the point that they are now self sufficient, no longer collecting public assistance checks. But instead collecting paychecks from employers they work for that pays them to the extent that they can pay their own bills. Thats what public assistance is about to me, not taking from the haves to give to government to take care of the have nots indefinitely. But empowering the people who don't have enough to be able to take care of themselves, just one of many differences I. Have as a Liberal with Progressive or Social Democrats who tend to believe that the purpose of public assistance and government. Is to take from the haves to give to government to take care of economically disadvantage indefinitely, not so much about empowering. These people to be able to take care of themselves.

Thats what public assistance should be about making it so effective that it become obsolete and no longer needed. Where we get to the point that people who are on public assistance, almost feel lonely on it, because most of the people around them. Are able to take care of themselves, because so many people who were once on it collecting any part of it, public housing even. Were empowered to get themselves a good job to be able to take care of themselves, things like job training and going back to school. We've already accomplished this with Welfare to Work from 1996, with a Liberal Democratic President and a. Conservative Republican Congress and we are probably headed in this direction with. Unemployment Insurance as well, something that President Obama is already in favor of doing and something he would. Get help from Congressional Republicans, both House and Senate to work with him on.

With the men I just mentioned and I would throw other Democrats like Erskine Bowles and Senator Joe Lieberman. Who I don't like on foreign policy and civil liberties but is strong in this area, to reach an agreement with the Republicans I've already mentioned. To come up with a plan that would fully fund all of these safety net programs, so they all have their own revenue sources. Then reform them in a way where they become so effective that they become obsolete and then block grant them to the states to run. And Progressive Democrats would no longer have to worry about these programs being eliminated, unless. They become obsolete because of how effective they now are.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

AlterNet: Bruce Bartlett: On the GOP's Close Mindedness When it Comes to Tax Hikes To Finance Deficit Reduction

Former Conservative: Right-Wing 'Stupidity and Closed-Mindedness' Will Doom the GOP | Alternet

The AlterNet has a different spin about Bruce Bartlett who did work for two of the most prominent Conservative/Libertarians. That ever served in the Federal Government, President Ron Reagan and Representative Ron Paul, basically suggesting that Mr. Bartlett is a former Conservative. Which couldn't be further from the truth as least as it relates to economic and fiscal policy, what Bruce Bartlett is and. Perhaps what the AlterNet and other Social Democrats don't understand about Conservatism, at least as how they critique Conservatism. Mr. Bartlett is the real thing when it comes to Conservatism, nobody whose a real Conservative likes to raise taxes on anyone. But there are times when you have to do things you normally wouldn't do, especially when you are in a crisis or about to face a crisis. Like the so called fiscal cliff with all of the automatic across the board budget and spending cuts that would occur if the situation is not dealt. With, thats what fiscal Conservatives like Senator Tom Coburn and economist Bruce Bartlett understand.

Crisis's tend to make people do things they normally wouldn't do, thats the nature of a crisis the situation is so. Bad that we have to take steps we normally wouldn't do to avoid the crisis or prevent a crisis from happening all together. When then Vice President Bush made the read my lips speech about no knew taxes in 1988, he probably didn't have the information. That he had by 1990 as it related to the national debt and deficit and knew that he not only had to make serious cuts in the Federal budget. But needed new revenue to fix the debt and deficit, otherwise he and Congress would've had to make severe budget cuts. That could've weaken our national security or entitlements that millions of Americans now rely on, thats what. Bruce Bartlett has figured out, not that he's now in love with tax hikes and Democratic Socialism but that tax hikes. On the wealthy are better then the other alternatives.

Fiscal Conservatism is about government paying its bills and not borrowing to pay for everything and only. Borrowing when there aren't any other alternatives and to limit the size of government, as well as cutting it. To pay down debt and deficit but to also conserve individual freedom, Bruce Bartlett hasn't reached some new vision. That Tax and Spend Economics is now the way to go but that tax hikes to help finance deficit reduction is a necessary evil put the United States on a healthy fiscal course.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Al Jazeera: Egyptians Polarized Over President Morsi's Decree



Steve Clemons posed the question of the day in a column in the Huffington Post. Is Mohamad Morsi an Abraham Lincoln or a Hosni Mobarak. A small d Democrat or a dictator.

Eleanor Fan: Video: ABC's 20/20 Interview of Grace Kelly in 1982, The Princess of Monaco


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

Princess of Baby Face of Monaco was my first reaction to this video. Because that is the first that I saw and you add that incredible smile that Grace always had and that just adds to that. She doesn’t look like she aged much since her Hollywood star years of the 1950s. And if there’s one women who you would think looks like a European princess, it just might be Grace Kelly. The thing being that Europe is such a diverse place ethnically and Grace looks more like an Anglo princess, being of Irish descent, than a Mediterranean princess. Sophia Loren would be the Mediterranean princes, at least in my opinion. But Grace always did have the look and class of royalty from her time growing up Philadelphia, even though you would never guess Philadelphia by the way she talked, all the way up to being Princess of Monaco.



Sunday, November 25, 2012

Grit-TV: Jane McAlevey- Building the Labor Movement in President Obama's Second Term

Source: Grit-TV- Jane McAlevey-
Source: Grit-TV: Laura McAlevey- Building The Labor Movement in President Obama's 2nd Term

Professor Noam Chomsky who is an admitted Libertarian-Socialist, once said that America doesn't have a Labor Party, that we have two parties that are essentially business parties. Actually, he used stronger language than that when interviewed by Bill Moyers like twenty years ago.

Noam Chomsky- "America doesn't even have two parties, that we have one party, with two different factions, one of them called Democrats the other called Republicans". I as a Liberal Democrat actually I obviously disagree with that, we have two business friendly parties. As far as the leadership in both parties, but we also have a labor friendly party. A major party that believes in the right to organize, thats pro-union in the Democratic Party. But what we don't have is a major party thats not only pro-union and labor, but thats also anti-business, anti-big business, anti-corporate. Not necessarily anti-capitalist, just not in favor of large corporations.

We don't have a major social democratic or democratic socialist party, even. (However you want to phrase it) That every other major democracy has in the rest of the developed world at least. What America does have in the Democratic Party, a party thats made up of Social Democrats. But who for the most part except for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is more interested in governing and advancing the ball. Which includes compromise and doing things she normally wouldn't do, rather than never compromising and always standing up for the movement. And keep fighting partisan battles that never seem to end.

Which is what Social Democrats would prefer the Democratic Leadership to do rather than dealing with Republicans. Same thing with the GOP as it relates to the Tea Party. So what Social Democrats have as far as major party, is a party that may share a lot if not most of its goals.

Like affordable health insurance for everyone but doesn't share the same policies as far as how to achieve those goals. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 being a perfect example of that, where Social Democrats wanted single payer Medicare For All. The Democratic Leadership instead expanded the private health insurance system for people who currently can't afford it. Going forward Social Democrats need to understand this and figure this out and know that the Democratic Leadership doesn't always have it's back when it comes to passing policies and legislation to achieve the goals that both factions may share. And figure out what's the best path for them moving forward. Keep settling for a party that at best gives them half of what they want or developing a party that will fight for everything that they want instead.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Al Jazeera: Walmart Workers Demand Better Wages



These protests by Social Democrats across the country against Corporate America, to get Americans to boycott. These stores, hasn't had much of an effect on the 2012 holiday shopping season so far.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Al Jazeera: Syria Rebels Try to Control Major Cities



Thats one way for the Syrian Rebels to knock the Assad Regime out of power. To successfully occupy Syrian territory.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Thom Hartmann Show: "It's time to jump off the 'Fiscal Cliff!"



I've just caught Progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann in a flip flop, because in the past he's. Said that we shouldn't just let all of the Bush tax cuts expire even for the middle class but that we should also. Repeal the Reagan tax cuts from the 1980s and I'm guessing the Clinton tax cuts from the 1990s as well, even though I haven't directly heard him say that. And go back to the Eisenhower tax rates on the 1950s, which would mean the Obama tax cuts from the last four. Years totaling in the neighborhood of 200B$ from the guy, whose suppose to be a Socialist, a Socialist. Cutting taxes, thats sorta like a pacifist attacking and innocent senior citizen or something. Doesn't sound believable right and of course repealing the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the five Presidents. Who've cut taxes in the last fifty years, 3-5 of them have been Democrats, keep that in mind folks as far as which party you believe will keep your taxes down. Both parties cut taxes, they just do it differently.

But back to Thom Hartmann who in the past has said we should go back to the Eisenhower tax rates of the 1950s. Ranging from 25-90%, those are also the days before the Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC, which takes low income workers off the payrolls. As far as having to pay Federal income taxes, people who Progressives are suppose to be in favor of looking out for. So if we were to go back to all of the 1950s tax rates, even low income workers would get hit with a tax hike. This is why its generally not a good idea to have Progressive/Social Democrats running our tax policy. Because we would all as a country get hit by it but now even Thom Hartmann has moderated saying we should. Go over the fiscal cliff, come back in January and pass a middle class tax cut and keep the tax cuts. For high earners expired so they are going back to the 1990s, always interesting with Thom Hartmann which is why I listen to him.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Salon: AP's Norma Love: Former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman dies at 82: The GOP Losing Another Northeastern Republican

Former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman dies at 82

The term Northeast Republican gets thrown out a lot, from the far right a Northeast Republican would be a Moderate-Liberal Republican. Someone who looks like a Democrat but from time to time votes and governs like a Republican on economic issues. But for a Northeast Republican I'm guessing a Northeast Republican is a Republican who can get elected in the Northeast. Elected statewide even, like the George Pataki's Governor of New York for three terms, Bill Weld who was Governor of Massachusetts. A Democratic heaven, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both serving in the US Senate right now together. Senator Snowe actually leaving Congress at the end of this year, which I'll get into later but basically she is a. Northeast Republican, there's that term again, former Senator Judd Gregg who served as a Representative, Governor and then Senator from New Hampshire was a Northeastern Republican. Even freaking Mitt Romney was a Northeast Republican before he decided he wanted to be President was a. Northeast Republican politically and perhaps still geographically, depending on where he calls his current home.

Now I'll tell you my definition of a Northeast Republican, a Republican whose economically and fiscally conservative. Who believes in a strong defense and whose also a Conservative Internationalist on foreign policy but whose moderate-tolerant. On social issues, Liberal even or Conservative in the classical sense, Libertarian even but does not go along with the religious right or Neoconservatives on social issues. Is not caught up in some 1950s mindset of what America is and anyone who doesn't fall in line with that is. Either a Liberal or Socialist or just flat out Un American, former Senator Warren Rudman from the live free or die State of New Hampshire. Can't get much more Liberal or Libertarian and anti Big Government then that, was a Northeast Republican and represented the best aspects of Conservatism. And represents exactly what's wrong with today's GOP who predicted back in 1996 that the GOP would no. Longer be a major political party if they stayed on their current course ideologically.

Warren Rudman was a great Senator who was one of the best people to ever serve in Congress, in his twelve years. In the Senate and represented both exactly why the Republican Party use to be the Grand Ole Party and why they aren't today. Because there's just not enough Northeastern Republicans left in the Republican party.

American Prospect: Mike Konczal: The Great Society's Next Frontier: The Role of Social Insurance

The Great Society's Next Frontier

This is why I like to read Progressive blogs and other publications, to not only see what they are thinking but. To have these discussions and debates and as a Liberal and there's a big difference and I'll get to that later, social insurance is a perfect example of that. I manage to even debate these issues with Social Democrats from time to time, without being called a corporatist. Or a sellout to American Capitalism, Conservative even which is the funniest charge I've heard so far and I can go down the line but if you. Are familiar with Progressive rhetoric you should know the rest but this is a perfect area of where we disagree

Liberals and Social Democrats even disagree on what grand package of programs that social insurances should be labeled under. Social Democrats call it welfare state, I and other Liberals call it safety net, sounds similar but there's a difference. A welfare state implies free money if there's such a thing, for people to either  be taken care of by government or welfare. For people who for whatever reason or reasons can't pay their own bills but if you are familiar with social insurance. You know its not free because of how its financed, take Unemployment Insurance which comes out of our paychecks and we. Collect from it when we are guess what unemployed, so UI is obviously not welfare but money for people. Who need it when they are unemployed and then once you are working again, you go back to paying into UI. To keep that program running for the people who need it in the future.

A safety net is different because its there to catch us when we literally fall in the economy, lose our job, not making. Enough money to eat adequately or pay our own rent, keep the heat on etc, its there to help sustain us when we are down. But this is what a safety net also does or is suppose to do and a lot of times does and I would go further to make this part of the safety net. Work better, its there to not only help us when we are down but help us get back up, Welfare to Work or TANF from 1996, perfect . Example of that, meaning while people are down and collecting public assistance its there job to get themselves. Back up, while you are on Unemployment Insurance, its your job to be either looking for work or in job training to find other work. Same thing with TANF and government helps you finance that.

The next phase of the safety net in America as I call it, again depends on who you ask but if you are asking. Leftists such as myself, Liberal or Progressive your answer would get around to how to improve it, Progressives would say. It should look more like Sweden and that we move towards a Democratic Socialist model, where not only healthcare and health insurance. Would be provided by the Federal Government like in Sweden but where Unemployment Insurance would be like a middle class income. Where childcare would be provided for by government, education including higher education would be. Provided by government and I could go down the line but I'll spare you for now. That would be the Social Democratic model, Liberal Democrats such as myself have a much different approach.

As a Liberal I go with the Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton model, that is "not ask what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country", and with WJC Bill Clinton for you non Clintonian's, that is welfare should no longer be. Free but only there for the people who truly need it and that all physically and mentally able people should be expected to work, even if they have kids. And that government can play a role in empowering people who are mentally and physically able to work but. Lack the education to do so, with those skills so they can be self sufficient, rather then having a Swedish style. Welfare state thats there to provide services for people who can get those services themselves.

Monday, November 19, 2012

ForaTV: Asa Hutchinson: "Legalizing Drugs Would Create Widespread Social Problems"



This is exactly why drug warriors the supporters of the War on Drugs in America are losing ground and. Why people who want a more thoughtful, realistic approach other then narcotics are bad and must remain illegal! Because whenever there's talk about reforming or ending the War on Drugs, I'm for personally ending it which I'll get into later. The drug warriors automatically take it to the extreme, you legalize this and all of these social problems will happen as a result. People showing up to work high, getting into car accidents because they are high and so fourth. Apparently unaware that a lot of Americans actually have judgement and are familiar with things like. Alcohol and tobacco and even marijuana for people who smoke it illegally and know what's an appropriate. Amount of those drugs is acceptable to take without hurting our awareness to make key decisions the right way.

Thats just one example of why the drug warriors are losing and then you get into the stupidity and hypocrisy. Of their arguments, narcotics are dangerous and bad so we must lockup people and send them to places that. Are worst for their health then narcotics, for their own good, its like telling your kid you shouldn't ride your bike without a helmet and if you do. I'll break your leg so you can't ride again, thats the stupidity of the drug warrior argument and then there's. Hypocrisy, these narcotics are illegal, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, meth but tobacco and alcohol and some prescription drugs. That have also caused pain and damage to society are legal, people have actually died from prescription drug overdoses. The LA Times had a piece about that last week and the argument there is we can't criminalize everything which is not an argument. The real argument is that legal drugs have lobbyists.

I'm not calling for legalizing all narcotics, I would legalize marijuana and then go from there, at. Least let the states figure these things out for themselves and then at least look into decriminalizing other narcotics. And get addicts into drug rehab at their expense not jail or prison but we should at least be able to agree. As a country that the War on Drugs is at least not working and that we need a much different and better approach.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

AlterNet: Norman Solomon: The Way For Progressive Democrats To Build Their Movement Beyond The Democratic Party

If You Want to Build a Grassroots Base, Don't Look to Powerful Democrats in Washington for Cues | Alternet

Myself as a Liberal Democrat I like where we are politically, the party as a whole and I like where our leadership. Is even, even though I wish our leadership especially President Obama could play the biggest role on this like the War on Drugs, Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Was more Liberal on these social issues, but we as a party has a better as well as good message that communicates with the American. People that they agree with on things like the economy, how we get to deficit reduction, the economic freedom. For all and not just the wealthy but for everybody, we are much more inclusive as a party of people of all races, cultures, religions and lifestyles. As we've seen in the swing states that the President won and with the changing demographics in Texas, that state is about to become a lot more. Democratic and minority perhaps even within four years, so are message overall just works better then the Republican party right now.

But as I've blogged before the Democratic party is officially one party but we are actually multiple parties in one. Huge party that now represents more then 40% of the population, the largest and longest serving political party and I would argue. The most successful party in the free World, I'm sure Republicans hate hearing this but this is true but the problem. With having such a huge party with multiple factions, is that when one faction is leading, another is sorta watching and perhaps. Not in agreement with everything the leadership is pushing, because they are different politically and ideologically. Democratic party for the most part is made up of Liberal Democrats and Social Democrats, sorta how you see in Canada. Where the Conservative party there, are more like Liberal Democrats here then Republicans and the people who. Are suppose to be the Liberals are really like Social Democrats that you see in Europe.

Being a party this big gives us a lot of power and potential, because it puts us in position with the right candidates. And incumbents to run the table politically where we can win the Presidency and control both chambers of Congress. The problem with it, is that it can make us divided, Will Rogers once said he's not a member of a political party. Because he's a Democrat, which means he was really a member of several parties, not just one and Republicans have similar issues. So when the Democratic leadership puts a policy down and makes a decision, Progressives are almost always there to say that this doesn't. Go far enough, its not Progressive enough, another words government not doing and spending enough. And almost sound like a different political party.

Which gets to my last point for Progressive Democrats to ever really accomplish what they want, they need. A political party to do that, that puts in the leadership to accomplish what they want where the Federal Government. Has a welfare state that looks like Europe and spending and taxing and doing or trying to do, as much for the people that they want. They don't have that right now, what they have instead is a faction of a party but if you put all of the Social Democrats into one party in America. You could have a Progressive party big enough to accomplish the things that Progressives want.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Al Jazeera: The Arab League 'Belongs to a Different Era'



The Arab League should figure out what type of organization they are, are they going to defend Arabs. And speak out for them and do whatever they can for them when they are attacked by Jews but not when Arabs are being attacked by their own governments. Like what we saw in Iraq 10-15 years ago or are they going to defend Arabs and do whatever they can for them, whenever they are. Attacked and by whoever is attacking them. And then they would have more credibility and be a force to reckon with, instead of just a mouthpiece for Authoritarian regimes.

Oscars: Video: 1955 Oscars, Grace Kelly Receiving an Oscar For Country Girl


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal

Never seen The Country Girl, or have even ever heard of The Country Girl. I’ve seen country girls and of course have heard of country girls. And I love them generally, because they tend to be very healthy women physically, who take care of themselves and love how they look and present themselves. But as far as commenting on that movie, it would be like a blind man trying to land a 747 in someone’s driveway. Why bother risking that, with all the potential fallout that could come as a result. But I’m familiar with Grace Kelly, the Amazing Grace and It can easily see why she won an Oscar for a movie I’ve never heard of. She’s The Amazing Grace after all, who could making talking about the weather sound fascinating. Because that is how great of a voice she had and how great of an actress she was.

.

Friday, November 16, 2012

The Daily Beast: BeastTV: Meghan McCain: "What Republicans are Doing Wrong and Why Karl Rove Sucks"



Even though Megan McCain is still baby face adorable and could pass for 15-16 years old, she makes a good grown up point. Here that the demographic that Republicans continue to shoot ever single election, since 1964 or 66. Older rural Caucasian Protestant men and their wives is no longer going to be enough for Republicans to get elected nationally and if. You looked at the Senate elections last week, no longer just enough for Republicans to get elected statewide for Senate. Just look at some of the Senate Democrats seats and the states they represent, one in North Dakota and in South Dakota. One in Missouri, two in Montana, one in Louisiana, one in Arkansas, one in North Carolina, one in Alaska. Two in West Virginia, these are all Republican states that Mitt Romney won overwhelmingly that President Obama. Didn't put much effort into winning and yet Democrats can get elected to the Senate from there.

Republicans are either going to have to bring in new voters or they are going to go out of business. At least as a major political party and then Conservative adults and perhaps even Libertarians if this doesn't happen. Before they are no longer a major party, will put together a party that represents a real Conservative party in the United States. Not some far right party that can only appeal to, well if you said far right, you would be correct.

The American Prospect: Ian Millhiser: The Judicial Bush Doctrine: How to Reform the Senate Filibuster

The Judicial Bush Doctrine

Its not as if President Obama doesn't want to fill the vacancies and that he isn't sending appointees up every time. A new vacancy comes up, because he is sending up new appointments but Senate Republicans thanks to the leadership. Of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell whose probably the most powerful Senate Minority Leader we've ever seen, perhaps even the most powerful Minority Leader. In Congressional history House or Senate and Chuck Grassley the current Ranking Member the. Chief Republican on the Judiciary and before that Jeff Sessions, keep blocking with the cloture rule qualified. Democrats to fill these seats and yes Senate Democrats under Tom Daschle and then Harry Reid did the same. Thing when they were in the minority under President Bush but President Bush still had a better batting average. Then President Obama as far as getting Federal Judges approved and President Bush had four years with a. Democratic Senate to deal with, the problem with this issue is the obstructionism of the Senate Minority and. We gotta stop both parties from doing this in the future.

So what should Senate Democrats do about this and they need to be very careful about this because most likely. Within the next ten years unless the GOP goes over the cliff as far as attracting new voters, Senate Democrats. Could find themselves back in the minority and with a Republican President, so they need to reform this rule. That works for both sides and more importantly the country and this could be done by eliminating the filibuster. On judicial appointments all together and requiring that judicial appointment and all executive appointments period. Have to get sixty votes in order to be confirmed but that they would have to get a vote and then bad appointments. Would be defeated even with less then fifty votes and Senators would have to explain why they voted against qualified appointments. Which would make it harder for them to vote no.

Another way would be to allow the leadership from either the majority or minority to holdup the vote of appointments. For a week to demand more time to debate or see relevant records that the appointee hasn't  shown yet and once the appointee does that. They would get their up and down vote but to simply throw out the filibuster on judicial appointments without having an alternative to it. Senate Democrats need to think seriously about it, because it could be used against them in the future.

Salon: Robert Reich: "Stop Income Inequality!": How To Get To Economic Growth & Fiscal Responsibility

Stop income inequality!

I'm not an economist and don't pretend to know more about economics then Progressive economist Robert Reich. But when your national debt equals the national economy, which is where we are now and with our debt growing faster then our economy. Because we are currently growing at 2% but we have annual deficits over 1T$ every year, we simply can sustain that. And its only going to be a question of whether we decide to get our debt and deficit under control or those decisions are done for us. And with economic growth being as weak as it is and interest rates and inflation being as low as they are. Now is the time to do that but in a fiscally responsible way that doesn't hurt anyone, that reforms and protects and saves our entitlements. For the people who needs them, that gets people who can afford to pay more in taxes to do so and cuts and reforms our Federal Government in a way. That makes it more efficient, effective and cheaper, thats what a balance approach to deficit reduction looks like without. Putting any details on the table.

As far as income inequality which since the Great Recession has occurred has only gotten wider, where we see. People who were living in the middle class just four years ago are now collecting public assistance to pay their bills. Or are working and making less then they were four years ago while the wealthy are still doing very well, if not better then they were four years ago. This is an issue that should be addressed as well but not instead of addressing deficit reduction but doing them both at the same time. With an economic and fiscal policy that puts us on course to pay down the debt and deficit and at least at some point in a. Timely way that puts us in position to balance the budget and creates an economy thats growing for everyone. Where the middle class are getting wealthier and moving up, people are moving out of poverty and into the middle class. And where even the wealthy are doing well, because now more Americans have money to spend but where they are also paying their fair share of taxes.

You do this by educating people who are currently unemployed and haven't ever gotten enough education in. Life to be self sufficient or who do have a formal education but perhaps lost a job thats not coming back, rebuilding our country. And putting people back to work that way, who already have the skills but just need work to do and reforming our tax code. So business's want to do business here now and in the future and you do all of this in a fiscally responsible way. That doesn't add to our debt and if anything helps pay it down because of the new economic growth that it generates.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

The Tom Hartmann Show: "Tax Cuts Are Not a Gift!": The Purpose of Taxes in a Civilize Society



To talk about tax cuts its helpful to at least know what they are and know what taxes are in the first place. The way I look at it and this is accurate, taxes are fees and costs for living in a civilize society, that can protect and defend itself. Where business's and people can move their products from the factory, farms or wherever to the market in order to sell them. Just to use as an example and if you are not for taxes, then its your duty to come up with a way to pay for the. Things that individuals can't do for themselves or not be able to do for themselves as well, how do. We pay for a military that can protect the country, how do we protect ourselves from criminals when they do us harm. How do we pay for roads, prisons and other things we need as a country and if you can't come up with an alternative to pay for these things. Or don't believe in any form or government that collects revenue to pay for its services, I suggest you live in a. Place that doesn't have these things and is only govern by anarchy and see how well you do there.

The other question in this whole debate is whose money is it thats being created in society and does. Government have the right to collect taxes to pay for its services, well under the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Federal Government at least has the right to collect taxes to pay for its services and taxes should be looked at like this. Like services you would pay for in the private sector and someone asking why should I have to pay for that meal or. Car or whatever the product is, since its my money well if you make that argument before you ate that. Meal or before you try to get the car or whatever your looking for, they are going to tell you something to the effect. We are not a charity and we expect to be compensated for our services , so the counter argument to the person who doesn't feel they should have to pay. Would be it is your money but to get our services you have to pay us for them, if you want to keep your money. Then we won't provide you with the service.

I don't like taxes and I'm not in favor of the income tax, as you might of seen in my blog yesterday. But we do need to collect taxes at least in some form, however its done in a fiscally responsible way. That doesn't hurt our economy but gives government the resources it needs to provide us with the services that we need. And no more and if we do these things with a tax system like that, then we can keep our tax burden down as low as possible.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Thom Hartmann Show: Tom Pauken: Time For a VAT Tax in the US?



You want real tax reform and the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes and not escape paying taxes through loopholes. And so fourth or moving money they made in America out of the country, then we need a what's called a VAT short for Value Added Tax. Or as I prefer to call it a Progressive Consumption Tax, because the way I would structure it would be. To have different rates depending on costs and much people need certain purchases to survive and live well. The wealthy or anyone else, including foreign corporations and executives would no longer be able to. Escape paying taxes, this is something we should do for the health of our long term debt and deficit picture but also to make our. Economy more competitive in the future so American companies are paying the same amount of taxes percentage wise. As their foreign competitors who do business in America, its not something we should do with the fiscal cliff in the short future but. Something we should do long term as part of comprehensive tax reform.

I'm not looking to increase taxes on the middle class or anyone else now or in the future so I wouldn't. Pass a Progressive Consumption Tax to go along with the Income Tax but I would do is scrap the Income Tax. With a lot of its loopholes, especially as they relate to corporate welfare and then replace the Income Tax with a PCT. And have different rates on it based on how much people are spending and the products they are buying.

AlterNet: Bill Fletcher JR & Karl Davidson: "How the Left Can Become a True Political Force To Be Reckoned With"

How the Left Can Become a True Political Force to Be Reckoned With | Alternet

How the Left can become a true political force to be reckoned with, well as a Liberal Democrat who voted and. Watched the elections last week and whose part of that coalition who voted for President Obama, people born. In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, 1970s for me and thats how far I'll go with that, we are already a political force in American politics. And after taking a vacation or being out of power in the early 2000s, we've been a political force in American politics since 2006. When Democrats won back Congress for the first time since 1992 and I saw all of those Leftist voters, people who believe in. Same sex marriage and the right privacy and free speech and who are in favor of legalizing marijuana and. Even gambling, we are already a force and have been for a long time, the entire Left really and as I try to tell some of my. Followers the Left is about as diverse as the Right, its not just one ideological block and we don't agree on everything. And at times make the Democratic party look like multiple parties and personalities, that just share one home but we all came together last week for President Obama. Senate Democrats and some House Democrats, the ones who were reelected and the handful that were elected.

Like I said the Left is a broad coalition of Leftists, from Center Left, where I am on economically and fiscal issues. I would say Hard Left where people care are clearly Liberal on economic, social and foreign policy and then there is. I apologize if this offends anyone but the Far Left, people who are more Socialist in their economic and foreign policy outlook and perhaps even on some social issues. And would limit how far they would go when it comes to free speech and would like to see hate speech. Outlawed to use as an example and then there are people who would describe themselves as Socialist Liberals or Socialist Libertarians. Liberal on social issues, more Socialist on economic and foreign policy, so Leftists makeup a large and diverse voting block in America.

Liberal Leftists such as myself where I would be on the political spectrum and Liberal across the board. Are already a force in the Democratic party and in American politics, President Obama a perfect example. For that as much as he might of disappointed and pissed off the Progressive Social Democrats in the party and how weak the economy is right now. Managed to get through the election without a primary challenge from the Social Democrats, the closest he got to that is Jill Stein from the. Socialist Green party, who didn't even manage to get 1% of the vote and why is that, because Liberal Democrats. Run the DP and manage and control most if not all of the money in the DP but also on the Left as well. Thats just a fact that Social Democrats need to understand.

So Leftists as far as Liberal Democrats are already a force in American politics and have been for a long time. We now out raise Conservatives and other Rightists in the country because we can get people behind our message of tolerance, inclusion an individual freedom. Without scaring the hell out of people making them think we are going to tax and regulate them out of business. And for Social Democrats to be a stronger force in America, they are going to need a message that doesn't scare people.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Al Jazeera: UN to Vote on US Embargo of Cuba



The Communist Republic of Cuba is obviously not a perfect country with a perfect government, far from it. If they were they wouldn't be a Communist Republic and would be more Democratic but since Fidel Castro is out of power they have made steps in the right direction. They are moving towards privatizing their economy and giving Cubans economic freedom, under what's called State Capitalism. Which is essentially a mixture of Capitalism and State Ownership with a large Welfare State and they have moved. To give Cubans some religious freedom as well and bringing the Catholic church back in Cuban life, President Raul Castro has figured out that Communism doesn't work. At least not as well as advertised and there's a limit to what the Communist government can do for. Its people and that Cubans need the freedom to run their own lives for Cuba to ever be able to take off. And succeed as a country.

Cuba is not a threat to America militarily, economically or when it comes to terrorism or anything else. And the Communist government is moving to become less of a threat to its own people, which is something. That America needs to realize and that the only people they are hurting are the Cuban people and American business's that want to do business in this country. I'm not for repealing the trade embargo unconditionally, the Castro Regime would have to show that trading. With Cuba would go to benefit the country, not to subsidize the government but we should do this.

MidweekPolitics: "President Obama Has a Huge Mandate"



Whatever mandate President Obama may or may have not of won last week, has to do with raising taxes. On the wealthy to pay for deficit reduction, which is why you already see Congressional Republicans in the House and Senate. Saying new revenue has to be on the table to pay for deficit reduction, the other mandate has to do with working with the Republican House. To deal with the issues of the country, the same mandate that House and Senate Republicans that were reelected won. As well and thats where it pretty much ends, Americans want an effective government not gridlock or. Dysfunctional government and they don't trust either party enough to give them all of the power, so they want. Democrats and Republicans to work together, President Obama understands this and hopefully he also understands that in this new environment. He should be able to get some things that he wants, like new revenue and hopefully new infrastructure investment.

What President Obama hopefully also understands is that he doesn't have to give Republicans everything. They want in return either, savings in Social Security and Medicare but not try to completely privatize them either. Or new tax cuts for the wealthy, that will only go to the wealthy for the most part, that both parties get some big things that they want. But since President Obama was reelected, he doesn't have to give them everything that they want. He's going to have to work with House Republicans, just for the simple fact that half of the country voted. For someone else for President last Tuesday.

Monday, November 12, 2012

The Thom Hartmann Show: Thom on FDR and The Fiscal Cliff: Where America is Ideologically



Is the United States a Liberal nation, I would argue yes not just because I'm a Liberal Democrat myself. But look at our constitution with all of those Liberal Democratic rights and freedoms that it guarantees. Including limiting the Federal Government so it doesn't take our rights away from us and doesn't try to do for us what we can't do for ourselves. And giving states a lot of authority to govern the country. That doesn't mean that government can't help the needy but what it does mean is that Americans have the right and responsibility. To look out for ourselves as best as we can and for the people who do need help from the government. They can get that help but we are not suppose to be living off of government, when we can and should. Be supporting ourselves, I argue that America is probably more Liberal then we are Conservative or we are about even.

But we are Liberal and Conservative in the traditional sense of what Liberalism and Conservatism was thought of and how it. Actually is, not how its stereotyped today, under Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater,we are not a Social Democracy. Or as I would prefer to call it Socialist Democracy like you see in Canada and Europe where government. Is not there to help people in need but literally take care of us with our own money, we are much more Liberal. And Conservative then we are Socialist, up until the 1930s America was a lot like a Libertarian or. Even Conservative Democracy, where government was really only there to defend us and protect us from. People who would do us harm and FDR comes around and introduces the country to Democratic Socialism in the official sense. And builds that Progressive wing of the party, that LBJ build on in the 1960s but we've never gotten to that next level.

We've never gotten to the point where our government would look like Canada or Europe because the. People have never wanted us to go that far, a feeling that Ron Reagan and other Conservatives. Ran on in the 1970s and came to power because of in the 1980s and is something Bill Clinton and other so called New Democrats. The real Liberal Democrats in the party understood and ran on defending and promoting individual freedom. For all and especially empowering freedom for the people who didn't have it, not trying to create a Welfare State. But protect the current Safety Net that we already had, I believe this is something that Barack Obama. Understands and why he's not a Socialist that Right Wingers claim he is or that Progressives. Wish he were and why they are do disappointed with him so far.

President Obama wants government to work and empower people who need it. But not looking to transform America into Canada or Europe where we are spending roughly 50% of our GDP. On government and most of that being on a Welfare State.

Salon: Natasha Lennard: 220 Marijuana Cases Already Dismissed in Legalized Washington State

220 marijuana cases already dismissed in legalized Washington

This is what progress looks like against the failed War on Drugs

The Daily Beast: John Avlon, Meghan McCain & Mike Moynahan: Real Housewives of the CIA

The Daily Beast: John Avlon, Meghan McCain & Mike Moynahan: Real Housewives of the CIA

Sounds like a real reality TV show in the works, perhaps Megan McCain will produce it. You heard that here first. As far as David Petraeus and his sex scandal, I guess this is the clincher that American politics and government is never boring and why we have a political junky industry. And for Progressives I guess who believe that America should be more like France, well we are when it comes to our public officials and how they live their personal lives. Political junky, is no longer just a hobby for unemployed politicians who can't seem to win another public office and keep losing. And spend all of their free time, which is really all of their time, especially if they have a Congressional pension, watching C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC and FNC. But a way for writers and pundits to make their living. To tell Americans how much they don't know about American politics and government.

As far as Benghazi, if it wasn't for that story, what would House Republicans do? At least some of them like Speaker John Boehner, are smart enough to know they can't repeal ObamaCare in this Congress with a Democratic Senate and Democratic President, that the law is named after. Most of them probably never have any attention of leaving Congress, at least the House of Representatives. So they don't want to work with Senate Democrats to pass anything constructive that President Obama might actually sign. And risk being primaried and having to go home and work for a living. Like washing cars, or hosting radio talk shows, teaching gym in high school, or whatever they were doing in 2009 before they decided to run for the House. So all they have left in their one page playbook that a five-year could read is a bogus (to be too nice) Benghazi investigation.


Sunday, November 11, 2012

The David Pakman Show: Is the Republican Party As We Know It Gone Forever?



The Republican party as we see it today will be gone within ten years, they'll either go out of business. End up being either a minor party where the Democratic party has complete power for a long time or another major party will come in. And replace todays Republican party but today's GOP is gone within the next ten years, they'll become different and be able to appeal to more voters. And move the Neoconservatives out of power or to the back seat in the GOP or the GOP will go out of business. As a major party in American politics, because todays demographics only benefits Democrats when it comes to major political parties.

TheRealNews: "Drums Beating to Privatize Social Security": How to Reform Social Security



I'm not for full privatization of Social Security, I want to guarantee all money thats paid into it. To be paid out to the people who paid into it once they retire, meaning I wouldn't allow workers. To take money out of current payroll taxes to invest in their own Individual Retirement Account or IRA. But what I am in favor of is what's called Social Security Plus, something that Congressional Democrats proposed about ten years ago. Which would leave current payroll taxes the way they are as it relates to Social Security Plus but allow workers to voluntarily increase. Their own payroll taxes by lets say an additional three percentage points to lets say 9%, where they. Could take 1/3 of that which would be matched by their employer, if they work for themselves , then they could increase. Their own payroll taxes by 6% and people could use this money to create their own IRA out of Social Security Plus. To invest as they see fit through another job or other investments, Stock Market and so fourth. Tax free but they wouldn't be allowed to spend any of that money until they are eligible to retire.

We have two problems as I see it as it relates to Social Security, a long term funding issue with Social Security. And a problem with our pension system where Social Security is still being depended on to keep retirees out of poverty. Where what we could be doing instead is empowering people to set up their own pensions and be able to retire more comfortably. So we don't have so many people on Social Security in the future who can't live without it.

Salon: Paul Waldman: Is The Right Wing Media Killing conservatives?

Is the conservative media killing conservatives?

The Right Wing media is making Conservatism look like something that its not, as if Conservatism was crazy. Doesn't believe in social freedom, because its statist on a lot of these social issues as well as intolerant of people. Who weren't very prominent in America sixty years ago, when Conservatism is really about conserving individual freedom, not subtracting it or limiting it, defending the US Constitution. Rather then trying to amend it and welcoming of new Americans, rather then treating them as Un American or as. Invaders from other countries that don't like us, what passes as Conservatism today, looks almost like the movement. That Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan built in the 1960s and 70s.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Al Jazeera: United Syrian Opposition Group Formed



Great news for anyone who wants the Assad Regime to be defeated in Syria, this will bring in more support. For the Syrian Rebels, because now Europe and America will know who they are dealing with and what they want.

The Daily Beast: Howard Kurtz and Bill Hemmer- The Next Four Years at Fox News

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: The Daily Beast: Howard Kurtz and Bill Hemmer- The Next Four Years at Fox News

The next four years at Fox News will hopefully start with a revaluation of how the report the news. Because how they’re doing it now, is not helping and informing the people who they speak for. Which are right-wing Tea Party Republicans and the Far-Right in America. Even if because Republicans actually believe a lot of the, lets call it spin that comes from FNC and take it seriously and many times it’s just half-truths if that, which leaves a lot of Republicans, especially the professionals who either are politicians themselves or work for politicians, with at best half of the news. As we saw with the polling of the Romney-Obama election.

Where in the last few days only FNC thought that Mitt Romney was going to win, or even had a good shot at winning. Where the rest of the mainstream media saw a clear bounce or bump in the favor of President Obama. Especially in states like Florida and Virginia, over the weekend with Ohio never moving towards Governor Romney either. It’s fine and I’m even for a news organization having their commentary that clearly leans in one direction or the other, I’m not getting on FNC for that, but what they need to do if they want to get taken seriously and be considered a credible source for news outside of the Republican Party, is separate news from commentary. Like The Wall Street Journal.

It’s fine a way to separate the news from the commentary. Take Sheppard Smith’s lead on this who actually has a real newscast, the FOX Report. Just report the news no matter who it hurts, or helps and then have your commentators explain what they think it means. As well as bringing in more inform commentators. Not relying so much on the Dick Morris’s and Karl Rove’s of the world. Who are really just there to speak for their side of the aisle, but bring in people who actually know what they are talking about. When you bring them in to talk about the issues. Which CNN does with Republicans consultant Alex Castollanos.

Friday, November 9, 2012

RT: The Big Picture: Will EU Nations Turn Over Tax-and-Spending Sovereignty to Germany?



Europe is currently learning the weakness's of Socialism whether its Democratic or anything else, that. When you rely on Big Government to do so much for its people for them and you run into an economic downturn, whether its continental or global. And you aren't producing the economic growth and tax revenue to fiance your Welfare State, you start to run out of money. Especially the people you tax so heavily and run into a situation where you either have to reform or cut or both. Germany seams to be the only Euro State thats figured this out and has already adapted.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Al Jazeera: France Relaxes Stance on Immigration



You mean America has more Liberal immigration laws then Socialist France, I'm shocked and awed. You know I was wondering why America was more ethnically and racially diverse.

RTAmerica: The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann: "Harry Fix the Filibuster Now!"



First I just want to correct the record of something that Thom Hartmann said, when he said that there's. Nowhere in the US Constitution that says that Senate can filibuster, implying that the Senate filibuster is Unconstitutional. I have a hard time believing that someone as knowledgeable about the these issues actually believes that but assuming for the purpose of this blog. That Thom Hartmann actually believes that, the fact is the US Constitution grants Congress the right to. Write their own rules, that includes the House and Senate, Republicans back when they controlled the Senate. The last time from 2005-07 were arguing that the Senate filibuster was Unconstitutional, when Senate Democrats used it to block President Bush's. Judicial appointments, again they were wrong to there are actually times that Democrats and Republicans are wrong about the. Same issue, surprise surprise perhaps you need a drink to get over the shock from that but that actually happens. Congress simply has the ability and power twith far reaching rules that other institutions simply don't have, one reason why. Representatives and Senators stay there so long.

Another thing about this Progressive opposition to the Senate filibuster, my memory actually goes back. 8-10 years When Republicans controlled both Chambers of Congress and the Presidency and Senate Republicans. Were moving to limit or cut off the filibuster back in 2005, after Republicans won a big but close victory in 2004. President Bush being reelected and House and Senate Republicans both adding seats to their majorities but with. Senate Democrats still having forty five seats to essentially block anything from Senate Republicans that they saw as. Completely unacceptable and Democrats were arguing that of course we can't limit or end the filibuster. Because its a check against abusive power when one party controls the Presidency and Congress, guess what Democrats were right then. And Republicans are right today when they make that same argument, another shocking fact that Democrats and Republicans at times are. Also right about the same issue as well and you wonder why we have a divided Congress today.

Do we need to reform the Senate filibuster, is this something that Leader Harry Reid should be pushing. For in the next Congress, of course we should but before we try to do that, we need to know that advantages and disadvantages of the filibuster. Advantage that it stops abuses of power when one party control the White House and Congress, disadvantage it can actually stop. Good legislation from passing again when we have united Government, President and Congress from the same party. So what we need to do is to keep what's good about the filibuster but limit how its used or even get rid of it but replace it with something better. By making the Leader and Minority Leader more powerful, the Minority Leader being able to offer substitutes. To everything that the Leader brings up but the Minority Leader could only block final passage.

If we just limited the filibuster if we were to keep to final passage, meaning only the final products of bills. Could be blocked but amendments that are relevant and pass through the Rules Committee that are offered to bills would no longer be able to be filibustered. Including substitutes to bills, I believe we would see less filibustering because the majority would no. Longer be able to say take it or leave it, we are going to pass the exact bill or do nothing, because. The minority would at least be able to influence what passes and what doesn't pass, at least be able to offer their own ideas to legislation.

Salon: Alex Seitz-Wald: GOP Civil War: Herman Cain Calls For Third Party

GOP civil war: Herman Cain calls for third party

This would actually be a very good move for either a new Republican Party that emerges as the real Conservative party. In America thats actually built around limited government and not trying to tell Americans how to live their lives and force us to live like its still the 1950s, where non Europeans are. Considered Un American or maybe the same GOP would remain just with different people, a more inclusive GOP. Thats built around economic and fiscal Conservatism but is moderate to tolerant on social issues or even Conservative in the classical sense on social issues and sounds more Libertarian. Where the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson people would be welcomed in the GOP, rather then run out. And Neoconservatives leave the GOP to form some far right party, because the GOP is no longer that far right. Party or maybe the Neoconservatives stay but are no longer running the party because they are outnumbered. And seen as nothing more then a fringe like some Progressives in the Democratic Party.

A third party thats either a Conservative party or a far right party would be good for America and American Conservatism. Because it would allow for a real Conservative party to emerge and give Americans a real choice between Liberals and Conservatives, rather then Liberals or Moderate- Liberals. And Neoconservatives which isn't much of a choice for anyone, considering how small of a voting block Neoconservatives. Are in America judging by the election results Tuesday night, where far right Republicans lost all over the country.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Salon: Opinion- Jamelle Bouie: 'Four More Years to Enact a New Great Society'

Source: Salon-
Source: Salon: Opinion- 'Jamelle Bouie: Four More Years to Enact a New Great Society'

I hate to break it to so-called Progressive Democrats, but I have a friend on Facebook who is an admitted Democratic Socialist, more liberal-libertarian on social issues, but a proud Socialist on economic policy. A true proud Socialist who I like and respect personally because of his honesty and ability to backup what he believes in. Even though we rarely agree when it comes to the economy and what government's role should be in it.

My friend who voted Socialist yesterday at least for President, voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party technically, but she's a Democratic Socialist ideologically. With her Green Deal and all of that wanting to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone to finance new public infrastructure across the country. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. My friend knows that Barack Obama is not a Democratic Socialist, thats why he voted for the Green Party. I'm guessing expecting that the President would win anyway.

If so-called Progressive Democrats believe that Barack Obama is going to try to build some new Great Society, an idea that goes back to the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson and we are going to create some new and expanded welfare state to accomplish this, or what Dr. Stein calls the New Green Deal, they are living in Dreamland and perhaps sharing an apartment there with Ann Coulter.

Thats not the type of Democrat that Barack Obama is and he's never been that type of Democrat. What he wants to do is build an economy that works for everyone, but doesn't expect the Federal Government to be able to do this itself. And wants to empower more Americans to be able to live their own lives and live what's been called the American Dream. When you think of Barack Obama you think of Bill Clinton politically. Progressive Democrat who I wish was more liberal on social issues who understands the limits of government.

If so-called Progressives want a Socialist President, then they should back a Socialist who can win the Presidency. Instead of expecting Progressives or Liberal Democrats to do that for them. And then they also need to find a way for someone like that to get elected President of the United States.
RT: The Aloyna Show- Jamele Bouie: Will The African-American Community Unleash on Barack Obama?

CBPP: Richard Kogan: $2 Trillion in Deficit Savings Would Achieve Key Goal: Stabilizing the Debt Over the Next Decade

$2 Trillion in Deficit Savings Would Achieve Key Goal: Stabilizing the Debt Over the Next Decade — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This true but the question is how do we get there and with President Obama being reelected we won't get there by gutting the Safety Net.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The Daily Beast: Howard Kurtz: Are Political Pundits About To Be Embarrassed?



If Mitt Romney wins the Presidential Election Tuesday night and beats back all the momentum according to the. Polls that are headed towards President Obama, this will be the political story of 2012.

Monday, November 5, 2012

WJZ-TV News: Md. Voters To Decide Same-Sex Marriage In Close Race

Md. Voters To Decide Same-Sex Marriage In Close Race « CBS Baltimore

More Freedom of Choice coming to Free State of Maryland if both Questions 6 and 7 pass tomorrow, casinos and Same Sex Marriage.

Salon: Steve Kornacki: The Obama Landslide Scenario

The Obama landslide scenario

Its possible if the President wins all of the States that he's currently leading in and somehow pulls out North Carolina. And Virginia and Florida which right now are both deadlocked fall for the President as well. But what's more likely is that the President holds all of the States that he's currently leading in and Mitt Romney. Holds North Carolina and perhaps they split Virginia and Florida or Mitt wins both of them but with the President winning the Electoral College narrowly. I hope you are not dizzy after reading all of that.

ABC News: ABC Evening News- Senator Ted Kennedy's Potential Run For President in 1972

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal: ABC News: ABC Evening News- Senator Ted Kennedy's Potential Run For President in 1972

Senator Ted Kennedy was still way too controversial to run for president in 1972. He wasn’t ready to run for president and was happy in the Senate being a Senator and being one of the largest voices in Congress, at least in the Democratic Party. Gaining seniority and influence in what happens in the Senate and Congress as a whole. Where he had a lot of friends in both the Senate and House. I sort of see him as his generation’s Paul Ryan. As someone who could have done more things outside of Congress, but was happy in Congress. Paul Ryan, now Speaker of the House. Ted Kennedy, long time Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee. Plus he had personal issues he was still dealing with in his family, including his wife.

There was never much reason for Ted Kennedy to really ever run for president. He never actually wanted the job, again because of how successful and happy he was in Congress being such a powerful Senator who had so much to do with so much important legislation that came out of Congress. His 1979-80 presidential run showed that being president was not something he wanted. When he couldn’t even answered the point-blank question from NBC News’s Roger Mudd, ‘why do you want to be president?’ He wouldn’t have won in 72 even if he did run and win the nomination, because of how divided the Democratic Party was between their mainstream Progressives and their New-Left that George McGovern represented. Ted Kennedy, made the right decision not running in 72 and he shouldn’t have run in 1979-80 either.