Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge: ‘Anything Goes with Chris Buckley’

Great Political Humorist

Source:Hoover Institution– The great political humorist Chris Buckley.

Source:The Daily Review

“In this wide-ranging interview, bouncing from the comic to the serious and back again, Christopher Buckley comments on the new media, politics, Republicans, the war, spending, McCain, Obama, and American life. After rating the speechifying of Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, he concludes with reflections on life with William F. Buckley.”

From the Hoover Institution

Chris Buckley, (and I call him Chris because we’ve never met before) is one of my favorite political satirists along with P.J. O’Rourke, Dennis Miller and now Bill Maher. Since he’s ditched the Far-Left when it comes to free speech and other big government social issues and is still one of the best critics of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. I like Buckley, because like George Carlin who makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. He’s not John Fugelsang, who only makes fun of right-wingers when it comes to politics. Buckley makes fun of politicians and Washington in general. I mean it’s a city that doesn’t need any heat and humidity, even though we get a lot of it every year, because of all the hot air that comes out of our 535 member Congress. That has both a House and a Senate.

American politics is very easy to be make fun of. You can literally make a career of doing it and a lot of people like Chris Buckley have. And even if you come to politics with a strong ideological bent and you have a good sense of humor, you’re denying yourself a lot of great material and perhaps employment and financial opportunities if you just concentrate on one side of the aisle. I mean how you only make fun of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump and never take a shot at Dennis Kucinich. Whose the president of the Republic of Dreamland and sees a world that only exist in make-believe. Where there’s no violence, or ignorance, or poor people. Who believes the old hippie saying of Give Peace a Chance should be the our national foreign policy. And that the use of force is never an option even when we’re under attack. “If we don’t hit them back, maybe they’ll get bored and go away.”

Again, something I love about Chris Buckley who I see as a non-partisan political humorist, he’s someone who at least leans right if he’s not a Conservative and yet he looks at politics and politicians for what they are. The George W. Bush Administration, comes into office as what they called compassionate conservatives (as if Conservatives aren’t compassionate) and lives up to that as best as possible. And spends more money than a convention of Irish drunken sailors could spend at their favorite Irish bar. With the two unpaid for wars and the seven-hundred-billion-dollar Medicare expansion, all of this borrowed. And he didn’t like that about President Bush, as well as going to war on bogus evidence (to be real nice) and the mismanagement of that war even after it was found there were no WMD in that country. And those weapons were probably destroyed by the United Nations, or our own people in the late 1990s. Again, how you not make fun of a President like that?

If you live in Washington and are involved in it politically in some way nationally whether you work, or write about it, it is really the last place you should try to take yourself, or people around you especially your allies too seriously. I’m a Liberal Democrat and I could write something negative and funny about Hillary Clinton everyday. As well as her husband, not that I don’t like Hillary and that I still don’t love President Clinton. But lets face it, they’re both great political characters. Hillary, doesn’t know who she it until she sees the latest poll. Bill, still hasn’t gotten the memo that he’s no longer President and that he’s still ineligible to run for President again still tries to run everything. And I could write something negative and funny everyday about the United States Circus, better known as the Republican Party. And I think that is where Chris Buckley goes. He makes fun of people and things that deserve to be made fun of. Regardless of political affiliation.

Posted in The Daily Review, Uncommon Knowledge | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings Institution: John Hudak- How The GOP Lost The Democratic Presidential Debate

“On October 13, the Democratic candidates for president faced off for the first time. In this post, John Hudak shares his reactions to the first Democratic debate.”

Source:Brookings Institution

I believe the debate that we saw last night between the Democrats is exactly what the party should be doing a lot more. Intelligent serious people who all have different ideas and experiences who come together and lay out where they want to take the country and why they should lead. Instead of having 10-15 people up there as if they’re at a WWE Battle Royal or something, who all have things that the Tea Party doesn’t like about them and have issues with Independents as well, who try to make everyone else worse than they do, instead of offering a positive vision for the country. The Democratic Party should have at least 5-6, or more of these things before the end of the year. And show Americans just how much more serious and qualified Democrats are over Republicans.

As far as the winners, Hillary Clinton’s best performance of this campaign season. She did nothing to hurt herself and get her base to worry about her. She was sharp and even funny and came out of her centrist shell which has been dogging her at least since she ran for president the first time and couldn’t admit to what almost everyone else in the country believed which was the Iraq War was a mistake and she shouldn’t have voted for it. She had a great line to the question from Anderson Cooper about is she a Progressive or a Centrist and she answered she’s a Progressive results. Meaning to me anyway that she doesn’t just fight the good fight, but she gets things done and moves the ball forward even if that means working with pragmatic Republicans. There was nothing in this debate to show that she’s not still clearly the favorite.

Bernie Sanders, I don’t think hurt himself here either. Other than losing an opportunity to close the gap between her and Hillary in the national Democratic polls. And he was caught on the defensive on issues like gun control and I don’t believe he sounded like a strong Commander-In-Chief last night. Which is the most important part of the job. If anything he came out finished 5-5 on national security and foreign policy issues. Even losing to Martin O’Malley who has never served in Congress, or in the military, or in the foreign service before. But he didn’t lose any support with his Far-Left Democratic Socialist base. And perhaps even picked up some votes from the Green Party that otherwise would vote for Jill Stein if they bother to vote at all.

Martin O’Malley, good night for him. I wish Anderson Cooper had let the Governor answer the marijuana question. Because as Governor of Maryland he decriminalized marijuana and he could have shared some of the experiences that Maryland has had with marijuana. I don’t think O’Malley did anything to boost his national poll standing, or boost his numbers in Iowa, or New Hampshire, but he showed that he’s ready for the Major Leagues and deserves to be on the same stage as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, at least.

Jim Webb, impressed me at least in the sense that I could easily see him as the next Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Director, for President Hillary Clinton. Because I believe by far has the best grasp and experience when it comes national security and foreign policy issues really on anyone running for president right now, especially with Vice President Joe Biden being in the race yet. And he did make some good points about criminal justice and education for returning veterans and the work he did on those issues. But I don’t see him with much of a base and even reason for running for president in the Democratic Party.

Lincoln Chafee, I think he’s a hell of a Democrat on the issues and is very likable and perhaps should have been a Democrat all along. But he blew the Glass-Steagall question and essentially answered that he voted for something without understanding it and not bothering to read the legislation first. But similar to Jim Webb he didn’t have much of a reason and case for running for president in the first place. We now have a three person presidential race in the Democratic Party. Perhaps 2 and a half. Martin O’Malley showed that he belongs here, the question is can he build on that and gain support and financing. And we’ll see where the Democrats go from here.

Posted in Brookings, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Video Detective: The Seduction Of Joe Tynan (1979) Starring Alan Alda & Meryl Streep

Meryl Streep & Alan Alda

Meryl Streep & Alan Alda

Source:The Daily Review

The Seduction of Joe Tynan is one of the best political movies I’ve ever seen and it reminds me a little bit of the Ted Kennedy-Jimmy Carter 1979-80 Democratic race for president, which I’ll get into later. Alan Alda plays Senator Joe Tynan from New York, who has solid Progressive Democratic credentials. Who is in love with his job and wants to move up and be a national player in the party if not President of the United States.

What separates him from Senator Ted Kennedy is that Senator Tynan, actually wants to be President. Ted Kennedy ran for president in the 1980, because he didn’t like where the country was going with the bad economy and everything else, didn’t think President Carter was progressive enough, but more importantly he felt some obligation to the progressive wing to run for president and put another Kennedy in the White House.

Joe Tynan, loves the president, loves campaigning, loves politics. I would say loves his kids back in New York as well, just not enough to make them a major priority as far as attending their major events. And I would say likes his wife a lot and perhaps loves her and is attracted to her, but doesn’t have much respect for her and sees her as bit of lightweight, at least as far as the people he deals with in Washington. And I believe this comes out pretty clearly in the movie as far as how Tynan talks about his wife whose played by the adorable and funny Barbara Harris.

What makes Tynan a strong potential presidential candidate is that the President a Democrat, has a U.S. Supreme Court nominee up. Who is a bit of a right-winger, at least on civil rights issues and supported forced segregation in the past, who comes from Arkansas. And that puts Senator Tynan in a tough position of having to consider taking on the leader of his party.

Joe Tynan, doesn’t want to take on the President and his Democratic Leadership in the Senate, but he’s not going to support right-wing Supreme Court nominee who supports forced segregation either. Especially since he’s looking at running for president himself. And is approached by civil rights and labor lawyers in the party who want him to vote against Supreme Court nominee. And is approached by Karen Traynor. (played by Meryl Streep)

Who is one of the Democratic activists trying to bring Tynan to their side and oppose Edward Anderson (played by Maurice Copeland) who is the Supreme Court nominee. She gets Tynan real evidence that he’s against civil rights with video of a speech that he gave in the 1960s and that’s how Senator Tynan comes out against Anderson. Which pisses off his close friend Senator Birney (played by Melvyn Douglas) who is a close friend of Anderson and a big supporter of him.

What you have in Joe Tynan is a workaholic who has become a career politician whose always focused on politics and always looking for the next big move in his career and when he’s not doing that and takes any free time, he does it with people other than his wife and family. Starts an affair with Karen Traynor, becomes a national player and hero in the Democratic Party, decides to run for president without even talking to his wife and kids.

Who starts off the movie having basically everything he wants and has everything going for him as a young influential U.S. Senator who can move legislation. But sees an opening to furthering his political career and jumps on that and in the process almost loses everything that he has. I think this is a very good movie about an ambitious workaholic career politician who is never completely happy and satisfied. And is always looking for more, even if it means losing everything that he already has.

Posted in Political Cinema, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The American Conservative: Senator Mike Lee: The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform

U.S. Senator Mike Lee, R, Utah

U.S. Senator Mike Lee, R, Utah

Source:The New Democrat 

I think the conservative case of criminal justice reform is very clear and comes from a couple of angles. One, the conservative principle of the punishment meeting the crime and personal responsibility and so-forth. Someone should explain to me why 3-5 years in prison is a just sentence for being in possession of pot, or even cocaine, when all they’re being charged with is illegal possession of an illegal narcotic. Then the other reason being from a fiscally conservative standpoint. Locking away millions of people in prison is very expensive. Especially when we don’t get much for that investment when you look at how violent our prisons are. The fact that we have so many people returning to prison after they get released. The poor health care, lack of opportunity for self-improvement, all the inmates that have serious mental health issues that don’t get treated and I could go on.

This is not about going soft, or hard on crime. We know the dangerous consequences when serious crimes are not taken seriously and when lighter crimes are treated harshly. You get a country where people don’t feel safe to leave their homes when you go too soft. And an overly expensive and wasteful criminal justice system when you go too hard on crimes where the offender could just have been in rehab, a halfway house, done their time in county jail, given probation, or a combination of all of these factors. This should not be about being tough or, soft, or even liberal, or conservative. Even though as a Liberal I believe we have the right approach here. This should be about being smart on crime and being just with our criminal justice system. The sanctions meeting the crimes and the sanctions coming with opportunity for self-improvement so the offender doesn’t end up back in the criminal justice system.

The reasons why you have Conservatives like Senator Mike Lee, coming together with Progressives like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and why Conservatives like Newt Gingrich are coming together with Progressives and Liberals outside of Congress, is because the Center-Right and Center-Left both see the waste an injustice in the criminal justice system. And in an era with low economic and job growth and high debt and deficits, you have the two sides looking at ways to cut waste in government and get more bang from our taxpayer bucks. The criminal justice system is a great place to start. When you consider that we have two-million people in prison in America with so many non-violent offenders being sent away for long prison sentences. When everyone involved especially the public would have been better off with a lighter approach. And reserve our harsh sentences for our violent offenders.

Posted in Congress, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution Daily: No Taxation Without Representation!

Source:The New Democrat 

It is not often that I blog about no taxation without representation and perhaps I should blog about it more, because it is a clear issue as well as constitutional violation. To require people to pay for services and government that they have no say in when it comes to Congress in whether they should pay for those services, or should those services even exist in the first place. When I think of jurisdictions in America that are actually subjected to taxation without representation, Washington DC, where I live just outside of in Bethesda and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, come to mind real fast.

They both have official representation to Congress with each having a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. But neither even has a member in the Senate. To jurisdictions and yet between the two of them they have two members of Congress. When the fifty states including Alaska and Hawaii, all have at least three members of Congress. They all have at least one representative in the House and two senators in the Senate. And yet they both pay Federal taxes and in Puerto Rico’s case, they don’t get money back from the taxes that they pay in services. For example, Puerto Rico, doesn’t get money from the Affordable Care Act for things like Medicaid. And have to find other ways to cover their uninsured. Even though they pay taxes on it. One example of why they’re bankrupt.

This is very simple. If you’re going to charge people in the form of taxes for government services, then they should get a say in that through voting directly, or having elected representatives vote for them with their constituents getting to decide if those representatives should continue representing them, or not. Washington DC is strange, at least compared with a lot of the country and how they’re physically set up is just one example. Physically, it’s a city and a very urban one at that. Big city in population with six-hundred and fifty-thousand people or, so in area of six-million people. One of the biggest cities and metro areas in the country. But the city itself is small in size even for a big city and yet they are forced to function as a city, county and state. For example, they have to run their own prison system while every other big city has a state that does that for them.

Puerto Rico, about the size of Connecticut in population without four-million people and New Jersey when it comes to land, essentially functions like a state. It has what would be called everywhere else a state government, with an executive, legislature and judiciary, with county and municipal governments as well. Except they don’t get the services that they pay for in taxes and don’t have representatives in Congress in either the House, or Senate, but they still have to pay the Federal Government for the services that the rest of the country receives. These are clear examples of taxation without representation, that Puerto Rico could fix on their own by either voting for independence and becoming their own country, or voting for statehood and becoming the 51st state in the United States. Washington DC, would be better off as part of another state, just because of its size. Like being part of Maryland, but the Federal Government would have to decide that themselves.

Posted in The New Democrat, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HBO Sports: Thrilla In Manila Documentary: The Heavyweight Battle of The Century

Ali-Frazier III

Ali-Frazier III

Source: The Daily Review

I’m not a boxing expert and don’t pretend to be one and I haven’t followed boxing very closely for almost twenty-years now since the heavyweight division went into the toilet as if it was flushed down. But The Thrilla in Manila at least to me is at the very least the best heavyweight division fight of all-time. It represents the best and the worst of boxing. Two big strong men literally beating the hell out of each other. In a way it was like an Old West shootout where the last man standing won. But even Old West shootouts generally had winners. This fight was more like a divorce. Where there wasn’t real winner. Just a survivor who was slightly better off than the man he beat. This fight was only stopped, because Joe Frazier was literally blind at the end of it. Thats how much this fight took out of both men.

The Thrilla in Manila was the last fight in the greatest trilogy again at least in the heavyweight division. Which is the only division in boxing that I follow at all. Smokin Joe won the first fight in 1971 and Muhammad won the second fight in 73 and beat the man who beat Joe for the heavyweight championship in 1974, which of course was George Forman. So yes the third fight was again for the Heavyweight Championship of the World for the second time and Joe wanted it back. But as they said in this film The Thrilla in Manila was about the World Heavyweight Championship of each other. The right to say that they were better than the other. That they were the best heavyweight of their generation and of the 1970s. You could still argue about Larry Holmes, but they both would’ve had a good case had they won this fight.

The Thrilla in Manila looks like to me what it would have been like had Germany fought Japan at the end of World War II. Imagine had they destroyed each other during that war instead of getting their assess handed to them by America and the Western Allies and literally destroyed each other, but didn’t know how to give up. And kept going on until neither one had one fighter and one weapon left. That is what this fight was like. Two big strong men beating the hell out of each other until one literally couldn’t take it anymore and was literally knocked out, or gave up. That is why I say this fight represents boxing at its best and worst. Two guys in the primes giving everything they had against the other, but beating each other up so much that they caused real physical damage to the other.

Posted in Greatest of All Time, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AlterNet: Adam Johnson: ‘Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher Still Baffled Why So Many Far-Leftists Think They’re Bigots’

Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher

Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher

Source:The Daily Review

You couldn’t count how many times you’ll see and rightfully so how many times the AlterNet and Salon in particular, will how some piece about the Christian-Right and how radical they are and show this bigotry, or that bigotry from them. They both everyday have some negative piece about the Christian-Right and this blog posts a lot negative pieces about the Christian-Right as well. That is not why Richard Dawkins (can I call him Dick) and Bill Maher are annoyed, or surprised by the New-Left in America. People that author/blogger Sam Harris calls regressive leftists. It’s when something radical and horrible is done by non-Christians in America especially right-wing Muslims who believe women should be treated like second-class citizens that the New-Left will either ignore, or defend that gets to Dawkins and Maher.

Atheism and liberalism and they’re not the same thing, is not about going after Christianity and only defending speech that critiques the Christian-Right and the broader right-wing in America. Liberalism is not about defending speech against Christians while trying to censor speech against Muslims. It’s about defending speech regardless of who it comes from and what the speaker says. Short of libeling people and inciting violence. Which is why the New-Left aren’t Liberals, but what I at least call New Marxists, because they don’t understand that. And have this real fascist element that says they’re going to defend their right to free speech to the hill, as they try to shut down speech and speakers they disagree with. The Real Liberals in this debate are the defenders of free speech regardless of who is speaking. Which are Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, because they’re defending free speech.

I’ve made this point several times before, but you can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. And you’re not much of an Atheist if you only concentrate on one religion and in this case that religion being Christianity and the Southern Anglo-Saxon right-wing form of it. If you have a problem with Christian Conservatives who say that women’s place is in the home and that gays should be in a mental institution, or someplace, great! I’m with you, but how about Muslim countries that don’t allow women to even drive, or vote, show their faces in public even. Do you not have a problem with that and just view as part of their culture? Is so like Richard Dawkins said, the hell with their culture! Because that is not a culture that is worth defending. Not talking about ignoring the problems with the radical Christian-Right. Just saying that they aren’t the only source of radical religion in the world.

Posted in Real Time, The Daily Review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS News: 60 Minutes Presents: Gotti- The Story of John Gotti’s Crime Family From John Jr.

60 Minutes

Source:The New Democrat 

John Gotti, is not someone who I see as evil. At least not in the pure evil sense like an Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein. Gotti was clearly a bad guy and I think anyone familiar with him knows that. But this not someone who didn’t have positive qualities. This is a man who loved his wife and kids and took care of them the best that they can and provided very well for them. Who raised his kids and his children have actually turned out pretty well. Especially considering their father is one of the top and most successful Italian gangsters of all-time. His daughter Victoria, is a very successful businesswomen and John Jr. has made a life for himself as well. And as far as John Jr. I hope he’s sincere in that he wants nothing to do with the gangster life and wants to live a productive life.

John Gotti Sr. went to prison for the last time in 1992 and was given a life sentence and died in prison about ten years later. He was in solitary confinement and yes there have been gangsters who have run their crime families from prison. Lucky Luciano, is a perfect example of that from the 1940s. When you’re in solitary you don’t have any outside contact from prison except for the occasional visits. So it would have been impossible for Gotti to run his crime family from his situation in prison. So someone on the outside had to do it for him. His son would have been a candidate for that. I think its clear that John Jr. ran that family at least for a time in the 1990s. What he did with it, I don’t think anyone will ever know. And its pretty obvious why he wouldn’t want to admit that he did. Because any crimes committed under his watch he could be held responsible for them.

Posted in CBS News, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Von Pein: Thank You Mr. President (1983)

JFK

Source:The New Democrat 

Watching President John F. Kennedy’s press conferences makes me want President Barack Obama to do more of them. Because they really do have a lot in common when it comes to intelligence, being off the cuff both in humor and how they talk and being able to give long intelligent answers to a whole host of questions off the cuff and being able to do it with humor. President Kennedy made press conferences fun for the reporters there because of his quick wit, but also because he gave them real information that they could work on a whole host of issues. From civil rights, to the economy, to foreign policy, the budget, the Cold War, nuclear power and everything else. Which gave Americans a great idea about how the President thought and what his administration was working on.

This was Jack Kennedy’s first press conference as President of the United States. Early 1961 with Democrats not just coming to power, but now they had all the power as a party. With the White House and both chambers of Congress with large majorities both in the House and Senate. A big part of that had to do with the Democratic Party having a right-wing Dixiecrat base in the South. Democrats who are and would be Republicans today. So the Republican Party was not just in the opposition in 1961, but were an opposition minority party that was reeling and not sure where they would go from there. I think President Kennedy was enjoying all of this and taking little jabs at the GOP with their current political status and that comes off in come of his answers.

Posted in David Von Pein, JFK Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Timothy Taylor: Rethinking Parameters of the US Welfare State

Welfare State

Source:The New Democrat 

I have no problems with the American welfare state being smaller than Europe’s when it comes to a percentage of gross national product, or in pure dollars. Especially when our benefits at least to low-income Americans are actually higher. America is not a social democracy anyway and we don’t expect government to take care of us by in large. As a Liberal Democrat I prefer to the term and the system of the safety net and looking at social insurance exactly as that. Which is social insurance, which is assistance that people collect from, but only when in need. When they’re unemployed, have kids before they are ready to take care of them, are undereducated and need to get additional skills, can’t afford health insurance on their own, are disabled, don’t have a large enough retirement, etc.

For America to have the strongest economy possible with the lowest Welfare roles and people in poverty as possible, then as many people as possible need to be encouraged to do well in America. Finish their education, further their education, do well at work and move up, start a business, do well in business and that is where public assistance and government in general can help. To encourage people to do well and empower people at the bottom to move up. Short-term cash assistance and other Welfare benefits are tools to doing that, but they’re not the final solution. You also have to help people receiving Welfare get on their feet by helping them get a good job. That comes through things like childcare if they’re single with kids, so they can go to school, or back to school and finish their education so they can get themselves a good job.

If you try to move to a Swedish welfare state in America and try to make the Federal Government the sole provider of economic benefits in the country and allow people to collect a middle class income from not working, you’ll see a lot of Americans especially low-skilled workers quit their jobs so they can get more money not working than working. You’ll see unemployment go up as a result and with that so will the debt and deficit with fewer workers trying to pay for the Welfare of more unemployed workers. What we should do instead is first make work pay and that means with a much higher Federal minimum wage, so minimum wage workers are making more than people on Welfare who aren’t working. And the other way to make work pay is with more workers having good skills so they can get themselves good jobs and no longer need public assistance at all to support themselves.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment