I saw this movie when it came out last weekend and not to pat myself on the back or anything, but this movie lays out what I and others have already written about the life of Marilyn Monroe. That she wasn’t a blonde bimbo who only had these goddess features and personality going for her. That there was real substance and talent and even intelligence there. But that she was immature, irresponsible and I would add overly adorable. That even by the time she died at the age of thirty-six, still only looked and acted half her age.
Kelli Garner, who not only played Marilyn and was the official star of the movie, but she was the star of this movie in actuality as well. She had Marilyn down cold and looked and played the part so well, that only Marilyn could’ve played herself better. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, does a very good Joe DiMaggio and they do a very good job of showing the hot and cold on and off relationship and short-lived marriage between Marilyn and Joe D. And they do a very good job showing how Marilyn was raised. Never knowing her father and her father never being part of her life. Her mother, never being mentally capable of taking care of Marilyn. And spends her life in and out of institutions.
Marilyn, certainly had an interesting childhood. But she had family and people around her who cared about her and were always there for her. So I don’t think other than her biological mother not really being there for her for a lot of her childhood and her father being out of the picture the whole time, that you can blame how Marilyn was raised for how she turned out. As far as an immature young women, who mentally was a teenage girl, not in knowledge, or intelligence, but in maturity and responsibility. Because she did have an adopted mother who loved her and raised her pretty well.
If you like bio pics and are interested in Hollywood, especially from the past that you might not be as familiar with as you are with modern Hollywood and the entertainers from the past and you’re interested in and even a fan of Marilyn Monroe, as I am, this is a very good movie and worth seeing. Worth the three-hours without the commercials to spend watching this movie. Kelli Garner, has Marilyn down and they cover most if not Marilyn’s whole career and do a very good job of that. This is a very good movie.
Source:Crooks & Liars– with a look at so-called modern Conservatives.
“I grew up and did my early work in politics in Nebraska, and my wife is a farmer’s daughter from rural Missouri. I spent about ten years organizing and door-knocking for campaigns in rural Iowa. So I know a lot about the kind of Bob Dole conservatism that used to be the dominant political culture of those places. Since I became a progressive Democrat, I didn’t agree with those conservatives on many things, but I mostly liked and respected them. Wary of the unintended consequences of change, suspicious of big government, fiscally conservative, traditionalist in many ways, they were generally decent folks with much to admire in them, and very worthy political opponents.”
You can read the rest of Mike Lux’s piece at Crooks & Liars.
“The Modern Republican Party. Real.Time.with.Bill.Maher.2012.03.02.”
It must be snowing in San Diego right now, because I actually agree with Mike Lux on something. But he’s right about at least a couple of things about the modern Republican Party. ( As I would put it )
Can you imagine what Barry Goldwater would’ve said had he heard Vice President Dick Cheney back in 2003, saying that deficits don’t matter? The Republican Party, still has that strong conservative libertarian wing, that I and Mike Lux I guess both respect. I for sure anyway, that is now led by Senator Rand Paul and a few others in and out of Congress.
But in Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater’s day, the Christian-Nationalists and Religious-Right, were still a growing force. But the Goldwater-Reagan Republicans and their supporters still ran the party. We’ll see what 2016 looks like and how big a movement the Conservative Libertarians led by Senator Paul are. But since 1988 or so, a Republican couldn’t win the presidential nomination without having the Christian-Conservatives behind him. They also couldn’t win the presidential election without these two groups as well.
Back in the day, the so-called Religious-Right, (which is another way of saying Far-Right religious cult) the Pat Robertson’s and Rick Santorum’s of the world, were seen as extremists, as dangerous to the Republican Party. Now, the Santorum’s and Mike Huckabee’s of the world are seen as major presidential contenders. But, that could change in 2016 depending on how big a movement the Paul Conservative Libertarians have become. And has the GOP returned to some form of sanity and really gotten back to their conservative libertarian routes. The Patriot Act debate in Congress the last few weeks, suggests that the GOP might be ready to get back to where they were. And move away from their big government Republicanism.
Back in the day, the GOP was the anti-big government party. Not the:
“We don’t like your big government when it comes to economic policy. So we’re going to replace your big government with our big government. And stick it in the homes of every American. And show them by force what it means to be a real American.”
Back in the day, deficits and debt not only did matter, but they mattered regardless if the President was a Democrat, or Republican and who was in control of Congress. Back in the day, Republicans weren’t in favor of invading countries, simply because they didn’t like the dictator who was in charge of the country. The GOP, up until the last few years, have taken the opposite positions on all of these issues.
I don’t agree with Conservative Libertarians on everything, obviously. Otherwise I would be a Conservative Libertarian, instead of a Liberal myself. But I can work and talk to Conservative Libertarians, because we tend to have similar principles:
That we both believe individual freedom, both personal and economic. That we need an effective, but limited government doing for the people what we can’t do for ourselves.
And then the debates and discussions become about what exactly government should be doing. How they should regulate and what services they should perform. Instead of should people have the freedom to do this or that for themselves.
American politics would be a lot more fun and interesting today for me as a Liberal Democrat, if the Republican Party didn’t have their big government religious, theocratic, faction. And their anti-government Libertarian faction, that has almost no role for government. Which is more extreme than the Conservative Libertarians, who aren’t anti-government so much as they’re anti-big government, which is different.
Whatever you think of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they’re not anti-government, or even in favor of big government into people’s personal lives, for the most part. Certainly for Senator Paul, on most if not all issues. And maybe we’ll see the GOP in 2016, move away from both their anti-government and big government trends and become a responsible political party again.
Source:Salon– the presidential and vice presidential nominees for the Green Party in 2016? Actually, the Green Party wouldn’t support and all Caucasian ticket. I just thought I would throw it out there. LOL
“Sen. Bernie Sanders, the lifelong crusader for economic justice now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has serious civil rights movement cred: he attended the historic 1963 March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a quarter million people changed the country’s course when it came to race. It would be wrong and unfair to accuse him of indifference to issues of racial equality.
But in the wake of his picture-postcard campaign launch, from the shores of Vermont’s lovely Lake Champlain, Sanders has faced questions about whether his approach to race has kept up with the times. Writing in Vox, Dara Lind suggested that Sanders’ passion for economic justice issues has left him less attentive to the rising movement for racial justice, which holds that racial disadvantage won’t be eradicated only by efforts at economic equality. Covering the Sanders launch appreciatively on MSNBC, Chris Hayes likewise noted the lack of attention to issues of police violence and mass incarceration in the Vermont senator’s stirring kick-off speech.”
Joan Walsh mentioned in her piece, that Bernie Sanders attended Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 I Have a Dream speech. Sanders, was a college student at this point. And she also suggests that Senator Sanders not making race and so-called racial and class issues not a part of his presidential campaign is some how a mistake.
But, what is Dr. King’s Dream? A society where his children wouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He wanted a race-blind and color-blind society. Dr. King, is a hero of Senator Sanders and their politics, especially on economic policy are very similar. Dr. King, would be called a Democratic Socialist today as well. And perhaps would even embrace the label like Senator Sanders.
This is going to sound strange, given that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and all, but he’s the voice of reason, or Moderate on the New-Left in America. Senator Sanders, presidential campaign won’t be about racial and class issues. But building a society where all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, however else they were born, can succeed in America.
You don’t get to a racial and color-blind society if you’re always race conscience and judging people by race and color. And automatically assuming they look at the world in a way, because of their complexion and how they were raised. You get to a color-blind America by not judging people by their race and not always focusing on it. But instead judge people, as well, people, as individuals. Which I know is a radical notion for the Far-Left in America.
Bernie Sanders, similar to Barack Obama in 2008, who was criticized for the same thing by the Far-Left in America, is running for President of the United States. Not to be the President of this leftist group, or these group of Americans, or this section of America, or that one. And you only accomplish that by bringing, especially Democrats in the primaries behind you and to your campaign. Not by playing class warfare and having this group on your side, while you kiss off other Americans. Barack Obama, doesn’t win Indiana and North Carolina, or Virginia in 2008, by running as the African-American President. And telling Americans: “Its our time! Time we elect an African-American president and I’m that candidate!”
As much as the Far-Left in America says they love Martin King, they simply don’t understand him, or agree with his dream. They’re not looking for a colorblind and race blind America. But to continue that, but do it differently and instead of having African-Americans be judged by their race from redneck and preppy Caucasians, have minorities and so-called Progressive Caucasians, judge Caucasians they disagree with by their race. And blame all of America’s troubles on so-called White bigots and White bigotry.
But again Bernie Sanders is running for President of the United States. And wants to create America where all Americans can succeed and do well. And not fail or succeed, because of how and where they were born.
Do I think President George W. Bush lied to get America to go to war with Iraq? No, but I’m not a mind-reader either. And besides, unlike the Far-Left, I don’t see George W. as a liar, or war criminal. But a good decent man who was way over his head. To go from being Governor of Texas, which is a weak job to begin with, where the State Legislature only meets every other year, to President of the United States, with no other public service position on your résumé and a fairly thin private sector record, is a gigantic leap. Sure, I rather have George W. as President, than Sarah Palin, but that is not really saying anything.
What I believe President Bush and his National Security Council did, was by the summer of 2002, they decided that they were going to go to war with Iraq. And take Saddam Hussein out of power if not kill him. And then try to make the case to the country and especially a divided Congress, with a Republican House and Democratic Senate, during an election year, that Saddam is still dangerous. And that he has weapons and they either need to be eliminated, or he needs to be eliminated. With all the so-called evidence of Saddam’s weapons programs and his ambition to have nuclear weapons. And as it turns out the Bush Administration had paper-thin evidence to go with.
What the Bush Administration did, was they decided to go to war. And then make the case for going to war afterwords. The original reason for going to war was to eliminate Iraq’s WMD and nuclear program. Well as it turns out, Saddam’s WMD were gone and he didn’t have a nuclear program. Probably because the United Nations weapons inspectors took out those weapons and programs in the late 1990s. So after we learned that there was no longer WMD in Iraq, the Bush Administration kept changing the justification for going to war in Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, a potential link and supplier to other terrorists. Well, they were only right about one thing. Saddam, was an evil man and brutal dictator.
There people who are liars and people who are bad and even evil. And then there people who are simply just wrong about whatever policies they are pushing and trying to accomplish. George W. was simply wrong and didn’t have the information and knowledge needed to make the decisions that he did to make those decisions. Someone with better judgement, experience and knowledge and even a better national security team around him, doesn’t take America to war in Iraq. Especially without any real reason to do it other than Saddam is a an evil guy and brutal dictator. Which can be said about a lot of other countries in the world. Where America hasn’t threatened to even attack.
“Picturesque: a large, celebratory crowd listens to inspiring oratory near the shore of Lake Champlain. The speaker is Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, announcing his candidacy for president of the United States. It’s a fiery, detailed, leftwing speech—about what you’d expect from this 73-year-old self-described democratic socialist and grandpa.”
In an era where the Democratic Party and New-Left have been about class and identity politics and protecting this group, or that group, or members of groups from any possible critique in the name of political correctness, you have a self-described Democratic Socialist, unlike most of his supporters, even though he is about as far to the left as anyone can be in America short of being a Marxist, stand up as the voice of moderation. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, who is the voice of reason and moderation. Even though ideologically he is about as Far-Left as most of his supporters.
With Bernie Sanders, you don’t get so-called, “White people, are bigots and bad by in large. And the only ones that are good come from, or were educated in the Northeast, or West Coast” and share their worldview. You don’t get that “American capitalism is a bad thing and it is what is ruining America and making the rest of the world poor.” You don’t get that, “America, is the real terrorist state and terrorists. And we are the real bad guys in the world.” Or that, “individual choice and competition are bad things.” Or that, “middle class Americans are under taxed.” Or that, “private ownership of the media is a bad thing.” And I could go on, but you do hear this, garbage, over at MSNBC and publications as far to the left as their talk lineup.
Matt Continetti, made a good point in his piece about Senator Sanders. Talking about the message that Senator Sanders gave when he announced for president. That government should work for everybody and not just the wealthy. That health care should be a right and not a privilege, that we need a huge investment in infrastructure. That college should available and affordable to all Americans. His message for the most part was positive and reaches a lot of Americans. But then go to MSNBC’s Chris Hays, who might qualify as a Far-Left radical in Sweden, who said that Sanders missed a big opportunity. By not talking quality for transgender people, racial minorities, women and everything else that the Far-Left in America spends most of their focus on now.
On one side you had a U.S. Senator announcing for president who has been in Congress for twenty-four years, representing Vermont in both the House and now Senate. Who knows how Congress works about as anyone who is currently in Congress. Whose chaired a committee and is now the Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee. Whose passed a lot of legislation on his own and has his hands on a lot of the legislation that has passed Congress in the last six years that has been signed by President Obama. Because he knows how the system works. He knows how to govern and work with other people. Which is what moderation is about.
And on the other side, you have someone and his followers and colleagues over at MSNBC and a whole host of Far-Left publications, who have very little if any experience in government, especially Congress, who’ve spent very little time outside of Washington, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, traditional Far-Left areas of the country. Critiquing Senator Sanders for not being the class warrior and race baiter and spending his speech speaking up for groups that they feel deserve special treatment from government.
Bernie Sanders, is a radical by most political standards in America. He’s not dangerous, or a bad person by any definition. The opposites are true, but he’s radical because of what size and role he would give the U.S. Government. And yet, he’s moderate and even centrist compared with his supporters on the Far-Left and the Tea Party on the Right.
I agree with Eric Schnurer that the private sector should be involved in fighting poverty in America. Things like grants and subsidies to train low-income low-skilled adults who either work for them, or are currently not working. Things like community job training centers, that would be privately run and owned and business training seminars, that would also be privately run and owned. But we need to get liberally pro-active in how we assist people in poverty in America. Whether they are currently working, or not.
Instead of just giving people in poverty whether they are working or not public assistance, to help them get by while they are still in poverty and then declaring victory, because these low-income low-skilled adults have these funds to help them pay their bills, we shouldn’t declare victory until they no longer need the public assistance all together. And are working with a good job and able to pay their own bills and paying into the programs that they once collected from.
The 1996 Welfare to Work Law has been a success and that is the approach we should take from, but go even further with it. That if you’re working and on public assistance, that finishing you’re education becomes a requirement to receive the public assistance that you’re getting. So you’re working and going to school and getting assistance in order to go to school. Financial assistance for your education and whatever childcare the person may need as well.
That if you’re on Welfare and not working and are low-skilled, but you at least have your high school diploma, or GED, you’re going to work even at a low-income job as soon as possible. And finishing your education as well with the financial assistance and childcare you would need to do those things. And leave Welfare, will you would still be eligible for the other public assistance benefit as a low-income worker. So we’re training and empowering people on Welfare to be able to get themselves off of Welfare and move to the middle class instead.
We need to move pass social insurance and the concept of the safety net and instead be looking at an empowerment or opportunity society, for people who need it for whatever reasons. So people on Welfare and on public assistance in general in America won’t have this to look forward to as their way of life. Because they’ll be able to get themselves the skills that they need to leave Welfare and public assistance all together. And live in economic freedom with the skills and resources to take care of themselves.
I’m really tired of this old debate between capitalism and socialism, as if they are two competing ideologies. That they are complete opposites of each other, when they’re not. The opposite of a capitalist, would be a Marxist, or a statist. Someone who is completely against private property and private rights, other than maybe when it comes to personal property and one’s homes and transportation. But that the central state is in control and owns and runs the rest of the economy. And there are very few countries left with economic systems like that. North Korea, a country that can’t even feed itself, is one of the very few countries left with a state-owned command and control economic system.
Socialism and capitalism, are not complete opposites of each other. You can be both. Senator Bernie Sanders, everybody’s favorite Democratic Socialist now, is a Socialist. But he’s also in favor of capitalism and believes in property rights. But what makes him different from, gee I don’t know a Conservative, or a Liberal even, is how much of a role he would give the Federal Government. Senator Sanders, would still leave most of the American economy in private hands. But have government take over what Socialists like to call the basic necessities of life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, retirement and perhaps a few others. With the private sector still producing all the transportation, technology, housing, food, agriculture, entertainment, to use as examples.
Chris Hedges, is a Democratic Socialist, but he’s also a capitalist. He’s an editor at the private democratic socialist publication TruthDig. He doesn’t work for the government, or work for some state-owned enterprise and I don’t think he ever has. He’s worked in private sector journalism in one form or the other his whole career. And is also an author and has made a very good living and built a very good career for himself in the American private enterprise capitalist system. Same thing with private filmmaker Michael Moore, who also likes to put down American capitalism. But Moore has used the same system that he says he doesn’t like to become a millionaire from the films he’s made.
It’s not a matter of whether you have a capitalist private enterprise economic system, or not. At least for most of the world and all the developed world now. But role for government do you have in that private enterprise system. Especially the central state and how big of a central state do you have and what exactly do you have it doing. What services does it provide for the people and at what cost to the people. Which is called taxation and also how big of a regulatory state do you have to oversee the private sector in the economy. But it is no longer a debate between the capitalist and the Socialist, because the Socialist will also most likely be a capitalist as well. But socialistic in nature. The real debate is what type of capitalist private enterprise system that you have.
You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.
“The Third Way is a position that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by synthesizing conservative economic and social welfare policies. It was exemplified by a group of political leaders in the 1990s that included President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, and leaders of Brazil, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Israel.
“The Third Way is a centrist political position that attempts to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of centre-right economic policies with centre-left social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was born from a re-evaluation of political policies within various centre to centre-left progressive movements in the 1980s in response to doubt regarding the economic viability of the state and the perceived overuse of economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularised by Keynesianism, but which at that time contrasted with the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right starting in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s.[3]
The Third Way has been promoted by social liberal[4] and social-democratic parties.[5] In the United States, a leading proponent of the Third Way was Bill Clinton, who served as the country’s president from 1993 to 2001.[6] In the United Kingdom, Third Way social-democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly.”[7] Blair referred to it as a “social-ism” involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.[8]
Third Way social-democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the state socialist conception of socialism and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxist claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism as a mode of production.[9] In 2009, Blair publicly declared support for a “new capitalism”.[10]
The Third Way supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[11] It emphasises commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity which is combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, the decentralisation of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement and promotion of public–private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, preservation of social capital, and protection of the environment.[12]
Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and the United States. The Third Way has been criticised by other social democrats, as well as anarchists, communists, and in particular democratic socialists as a betrayal of left-wing values,[13][14][15] with some analysts characterising the Third Way as an effectively neoliberal movement.[16] It has also been criticised by certain conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians who advocate for laissez-faire capitalism.”
Alvin Rabushka, is essentially right about what the Third Way is. That it’s a new approach born in the mid 1980s or so. But you could go back to Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s and Jack Kennedy in the early 1960s. That it’s a different approach and a center, between anti-government conservative libertarianism on the Right, that Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan put on the national scene in the 1960s and 70s and New-Left democratic socialism on the left, that became dominate in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 1970s, that seek to create a superstate, a European welfare state in America. And make the central government responsible for looking after and taking care of the personal and economic welfare of the people.
The Third Way, is essentially a bridge between Barry Goldwater on the conservative libertarian-right and Bernie Sanders on the Socialist Far-Left. That says government has a role in seeing that everyone can succeed and do well and live in freedom. Just not try to do everything for them and run their economic and personal affairs for them.
Classical Liberals (meaning the real Liberals) believe that it’s the job of government, not to try to run people’s lives for them and take away personal responsibility, accountability, and freedom of choice away from them. But instead empower people, especially people who are struggling, to get the tools that they need to be successful and independent on their own. Classical Liberals also don’t believe that government should just get out-of-way, and essentially let corporations and wealthy individuals run the country. But instead use government to empower people to take control of their own lives. As well as protect individuals from predators.
People on the left (or far-left) would say this looks like neoliberalism or it looks centrist. People who are closeted Socialists especially say that. But the Third Way is between conservative libertarianism on the Right and democratic socialism on the left, but it’s not centrist. Liberals believe in liberal democracy, not centrism and splitting the difference. Liberalism (or classical liberalism, if you prefer) is it’s own political philosophy, not a combination of two other philosophies.
If you think about it, the Third Way has been the dominant political philosophy in the Democratic Party, really since the mid 1980s after they lost another presidential election in a landslide to President Ronald Reagan. Governor Michael Dukakis, even though he lost to George H.W. Bush in a landslide in 1988, is also a New Democrat, not a Social Democrat.
The Democratic Party has always had a left-wing in it and probably will always have that, unless the Democratic Socialists move to the Green Party. But at best, they’ve been more than a 3rd of the Democratic Party.
It’s almost impossible to win a statewide election or win the presidential nomination, as a Democrat, as a left-wing Democratic Socialist. You have to be a Classical Liberal (meaning real Liberal) or a Progressive (meaning not Socialist) to win a statewide election, at least outside of Vermont and Massachusetts, to win the Democratic nomination. And unless that changes, I don’t see classical liberalism (meaning the real liberalism) ever leaving the Democratic Party.
Peter Wehner, who normally writes for the neoconservative Commentary Magazine, who I read on a regular basis, including Wehner, because they do write interesting, provocative pieces and even intelligent and accurate pieces, is simply dead wrong here. Is Barack Obama to the left of Bill Clinton? Probably, but they essentially believe in the same things and govern fairly similarly as far as the policies that they push. Remember, the last minimum wage increase before Republican President George W. Bush, happened under President Bill Clinton. And President Clinton, is supposed to be this Centrist Democrat. Not Barack Obama.
Do they use different rhetoric and does President Obama talk more about income inequality and the need to do things so more Americans can climb up the economic ladder. Probably, but Bill Clinton as Governor in Clinton when he ran for president in 1992, talked about the same issues. Also, income inequality, was a bigger issue in 2009 and throughout the Obama Administration, than it was during the Clinton Administration. Who had eight years of economic and job growth. Never had a recession at any point in his presidency. The Clinton economy, was simply stronger than the Obama economy. President Obama, inherited the Great Recession, for crying out loud. So he had a much bigger hole to fill than anyone at least since Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The Democratic Party, perhaps has moved left, if you look at where the party is now on the War on Drugs, criminal justice reform, perhaps civil liberties in general, same-sex marriage and perhaps a few others. The Democratic Party, does have a Democratic Socialist wing in it. The Far-Left flank of the party, but the question has been have they’ve been growing, or are they just more vocal now. Thanks to the internet, social networking, blogging, smart phones and everything else. I would argue that they’ve always been in the Democratic Party and that their numbers are about what they’ve been since the 1970s. The McGovernite wing in the party has been there at least since 1968. But you could go back to when Henry Wallace ran for president in the 1940s.
The leadership of the Democratic Party in and out of Congress looks fairly similar to where the party was in the 1990s. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is from San Francisco. And yes they are further left than the country as a whole. But she also leads the Democratic Caucus in the House. That includes Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, but also New Democrat Liberals and FDR Progressives and whats left the Blue Dog Coalition in the House. And she is one of the most effective leaders not just in Congress, but in the country as a whole at representing her party and caucus and communicating with all of her factions.
I mean if you look at where the country is on economic opportunity, the War on Drugs, civil liberties, criminal justice reform, same-sex marriage, personal freedom issues in general, climate change and I could go on, the Democratic Party represents the country as a whole very well on these issues. It is not so much that the Democratic Party has moved left in the last twenty years, but that the country has. As we’ve become younger and more liberal and libertarian on these issues. Which is something that the Republican Party that has moved right since Ronald Reagan, has to figure and adjust to. If they want to remain competitive in the future.
Ron Chusid and I disagree here. Shouldn’t be any surprised for anyone familiar with both blogs. But Martin O’Malley is the first Liberal Democrat to declare a run for president in 2016.
Hillary Clinton, is what she believes she feels she needs to be successful politically. Whether it was voting for the Patriot Act and 2003 Iraq War. So she wouldn’t have to worry about looking soft on terrorism. To 2008, when she essentially ran on change and moving away from President Bush. To now, where no one knows what her campaign theme and vision is going to be. But she better find one if she hopes on becoming President, or even winning the Democratic nomination.
To the Democratic Socialist of Democratic Socialists, in Senator Bernie Sanders. Who is not just a Democratic Socialist, but is proud of that and doesn’t run from it. Unlike Salon, the new The New Republic and many other leftist publications, that aren’t center-left and perhaps even Ron Chusid himself. As well as a lot of Senator Sanders colleague in Congress. Don’t call Bernie Sanders a Liberal, because he’ll correct you.
But Martin O’Malley, is truly a Liberal, in the real sense. The Jack Kennedy sense, where you’re not pro-government even when it is inefficient, but you’re in favor of good responsible limited government. That is used in a progressive way to help people improve their own lives. Not take care of them from cradle to grave like a Democratic Socialist. That you don’t want a big government to take care of everybody. And try to manage their economic and personal affairs for them. But you want to use government so everyone can have the freedom to take care of themselves.
Martin O’Malley, is a New Democrat. The real Liberals in the Democratic Party. The middle-ground between anti-government Conservative Libertarians on the Right. To pro-big government can do everything for everybody Democratic Socialists on the Far-Left. And that makes him a Moderate compared with those two factions. But liberalism looks fairly centrist. Especially compared with conservative libertarianism, or neoconservatism, on the Right. And socialism, on the Far-Left in America.
Martin O’Malley, will be the Liberal Democrat, or New Democrat with results. Someone who’ll be able to run on a strong liberal new democratic record. Of making government work for the people. Not using government to try to take care of everyone. But to make it effective at improving the lives of everyone. And he’ll be able to say that the lives of people Baltimore improved under his watch as Mayor of Baltimore. That economic development, business’s and jobs came back to Baltimore. As crime and poverty went down. Baltimore, looked very similar to Detroit, or Cleveland fifteen years ago. And now it is on the rebound. And that started under Mayor Martin O’Malley.
As Governor of Maryland, Governor O’Malley can say, Maryland has the best public schools in the country. Public education, being a key Democratic value. Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Centrist, it doesn’t matter. Governor O’Malley, can say that he raised the minimum wage in Maryland to 10.10 an hour. Again, key Democratic value regardless of political faction. Governor O’Malley, can say that same-sex marriage is legal in Maryland. Again, key Democratic value, regardless of political faction. Governor O’Malley, can say that he decriminalized marijuana in Maryland.
Marijuana decriminalization and legalization, not a key Democratic value, but certainly a Liberal Democratic value, that has somewhat divided the party. With Liberals being in favor of it, but would actually go further with full legalization with regulation and taxation. With paternalistic Progressives not in favor of doing either. And the marijuana issue, along with criminal justice reform, is something that the Governor will be able to use to bring young Liberals to his side. The Governor will also be able to say that he limited government and cut big government in two other ways.
The Governor can say he made government work more effective, by using performance based results and holding his administration accountable for their service. Another key liberal new democratic value. But he also legalized and expanded gaming and casinos in Maryland. To keep and expand jobs in Maryland, along with the tax revenue that comes with those jobs and economic activity. And, another issue that sort of divided the Democratic Party, but we’ve moved left on this issue as a party, but Governor O’Malley can say that he outlawed the death penalty in Maryland.
While Martin O’Malley’s opponents in the Democratic Party can say they’ve fought the good fight on a lot of issues that Democrats care about, the Governor will be able to say he actually won those battles and produced progressive results on them. He improved the lives of the people he served by winning those battles. On the issues that I just laid out. It’s just the difference between an executive and a member of Congress.
Martin O’Malley was a Mayor of a big city and a major state. Where he had to produce results to serve his people well and get reelected. Senator Sanders, has been in Congress since 1991. Congress, can essentially debate issues indefinitely and even get away with it, especially if their constituents like what they have to say. Most of Hillary Clinton’s public service career has been in Congress as well. Eight years as a U.S. Senator from New York.
I would love to see Martin O’Malley as the next President of the United States. Or even just Democratic nominee for president. Even though I wouldn’t bet my last potato chip or French fry on it. But that’s probably not going to happen. But I’m guessing what a lot of supporters of Bernie Sanders and perhaps someone like Progressive Senator Sherrod Brown, if he decides to run for president, are hoping is, that their candidate will at the very least push Hillary out of her mushy middle shell that she’s in. And force her to take strong stances on the War on Drugs, criminal justice reform, living wage, economic opportunity and development. And even use new democratic liberal principles to achieve those goals. And represent a strong contrast against the Republican nominee in 2016.
But what Martin O’Malley has going for him, is that he really could be the Bill Clinton of his generation. Depending on how you define Baby Boomers. But O’Malley could be that guy that could strongly appeal to young voters, especially Liberals who are looking for that strong liberal voice for the future. To build that America where everyone can succeed. Again, based on the issues and accomplishments that I’ve already laid out. And use those things to start a strong online political operation. Perhaps similar to that of Howard Dean, in late 2003 and 2004. Barack Obama, in late 2007 and 2008. I mean, who was Bill Clinton in late 1991 and who fought he had a blizzards chance in hell of becoming the next President then. And who fought Barack Obama would be the next President in 2007. And if Hillary stays in her political centrist shell, something like that could happen again.
Football Stadium Digest covers major stories and events in the planning, construction and operations of NCAA and professional NFL football stadiums across the United States and Canada.
Derik Schneider
Ederik Schneider
Erik Schneider
FredSchneiderUS
kireschneider
The Daily Review
Rik Schneider
TheActionBlogUSA
The New Democrat
The New Democrat 
You must be logged in to post a comment.