The Washington Post: Christopher Ingraham: The Orwellian Deception of Chuck Grassley’s Leniency Industrial Complex

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Source:The Washington Post

Anyone who calls them self a Conservative and especially a fiscal Conservative, but who supports the American Prison Industrial Complex and our current criminal justice system, I at the very least would question how fiscally conservative are you. I would also question how conservative you are when you have Conservative Republicans in Congress like Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who oppose our Prison Industrial Complex and our criminal justice system as is. At least when it comes to sentencing non-violent offenders in America.

Seriously, what is fiscally conservative about locking non-violent drug offenders who aren’t dealers but users in prison for 3-5 years if not longer? Especially when a lot of these people are educated and productive already, or could be in college, or vocational school, or in a job training program getting the education they need to be successful and productive citizens in life. But no, the so-called Modern Conservative, Neoconservative really, says, “no, what we should do instead is have those offenders locked up in prison sitting in cells most of the time. And when they are out of their cells, they are sweeping floors or making license plates, or something.”

Is the so-called fiscal Conservative or Modern Conservative aware that locking up these productive young people who also happen to be non-violent drug users who are only guilty of possessing or using illegal drugs comes at the cost of taxpayers? That taxpayers get stuck paying for the cost of living of offenders who otherwise could support themselves on the outside? Money that government has to take from individuals through taxation to spend on people in prison who otherwise could be on the outside earning a living and paying taxes. Instead of sitting in prison and collecting taxes.

A true fiscal Conservative would say, “government should only spend what it needs to in order to perform the duties that we need to as a country. And should spend that money as fiscally responsible as possible.” And part of that is not locking people up in prison, which is the most expensive way to house people, that don’t need to be in prison. That could be in drug rehab or halfway houses at their expense by the way. Or in college, a vocational school, or a job training program, preparing for life as a productive adult.

The Smarter Sentencing Act, which is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill in the U.S. Senate, supported by the Senators that I mentioned earlier, is not about being soft on crime. But being smart on crime and treating offenders based on the treat that they represent to society. You go hard on violent offenders and other serious offenders. But you’re more lenient on offenders who don’t represent a serious threat, if any threat to the country.

Posted in Originals, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Al Jazeera: Inside USA- ‘Angela Davis on The Prison Industrial Complex’

Posted on March 15, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Attachment-1-169

Source:Al Jazeera– Professor Angela Davis on Inside USA.

“Put on the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted’ list when she was just 26, Angela Davis became an enduring symbol of 1970’s Black Power. She joins Inside USA to discuss incarceration in the land of the free, capitalism in a time of economic crisis and what it means to be the face of Black Power in a supposedly post-racial US.

At Al Jazeera English, we focus on people and events that affect people’s lives. We bring topics to light that often go under-reported, listening to all sides of the story and giving a ‘voice to the voiceless.’
Reaching more than 270 million households in over 140 countries across the globe, our viewers trust Al Jazeera English to keep them informed, inspired, and entertained.
Our impartial, fact-based reporting wins worldwide praise and respect. It is our unique brand of journalism that the world has come to rely on.
We are reshaping global media and constantly working to strengthen our reputation as one of the world’s most respected news and current affairs channels.”

Source:Al Jazeera

“Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], “The Peninsula”)[3] is a state-owned Arabic-language international radio and TV broadcaster of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a “private foundation for public benefit” under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[citation needed] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being “Qatari propaganda”

From Wikipedia

Just to talk about this interview for a minute or less: (depending on how fast you read) I guess Al Jazeera didn’t think the interviewer was important enough to give out his name. Because I have no idea whose the guy who interviewed Professor Davis on this show.

Also, this was not what you would call a hard-hitting interview. (Baseball season is over) This was an interview where the two people in it share the same views and where their minds are already made up. The interviewer asked leaning questions to get the person being interviewed to back up what they already think and know. Which is their right of course and opinionated journalism certainly exists. Especially on ideologically leaning news networks like Al Jazeera.

Having said all of that, I agree with Angela Davis when it comes to the prison industrial complex. America being this great liberal democracy that we are, locks up too many people in this country. And part of that has to do with the facts that we arrest send people to prison for too many things. When sending them to even county jail for a shorter sentence, or getting them in halfway houses for non-drug addicted non-violent offenders, or drug rehab for drug offenders, would be a much better more cost-effective way of dealing with people with these conditions.

And another reason why we lock up more people than anyone else and a lot of people on the Left especially the Far-Left aren’t going to want to hear this, we have a lot more dangerous criminals per-capita and in total numbers than anyone else.

If you look at some of our super-max and other maximum security prisons, you would be able to see that the inmates who are there, are exactly where they need to be. But that doesn’t excuse how we treat people who aren’t dangerous in this country. And I’m not talking about so-called economic terrorists who steals people’s money by using cons and other scams. But drug offenders meaning users and other low-level non-violent offenders like car thieves. Offenders like that who don’t need to be in prison.

So based on this, we need a criminal justice and prison system in this country. You want to live in anarchy, be my guess, but you won’t do it in America. But we need one that treats hard-core criminals for exactly what they are, as threats to society who need to be in prison and then after they are there they need to be treated in a humane responsible way that protect society and people in prison. But also prepares them for life on the outside, assuming they aren’t serving life without. While we come up with a smarter and more responsible system for how we treat low-level non-violent offenders in America.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Posted in Al Jazeera, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Reason Magazine: Author Jeremy Lott On William F. Buckley’s Faith & Politics

Posted on March 15, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

.

William F. Buckley is someone who I at least call a Classical Conservative, as well as Libertarians and even Liberals such as myself should definitely respect, if not like and I believe like as well. Because he was a very intelligent and honest man who gave his views based on facts and evidence. And someone who went with the evidence and not a pure ideologue in the sense that he kept a position no matter what even when the facts and evidence changed. And that he was also a real Conservative. Not a big government supporter on the Right, but someone who believed in both economic and personal freedom.

Bill Buckley is not the father of American conservatism. But he’s the father of the American conservative movement as far as making it a national movement and something big enough to the point that it could compete with Liberals and Progressives and people further left than that by the 1960s. Richard Nixon becoming President of the United States by 1969 has something to do with Bill Buckley and his National Review and other writings. To go along with Barry Goldwater and the Goldwater Conservatives of the mid and late 1960s.

Bill Buckley I believe is the first of the likable Modern Conservatives. Someone with strong center-right conservative to conservative-libertarian leanings and someone who could and would defend his position to any point. But do it in a way where he didn’t make his positions and rhetoric disrespectful and personal. He would attack and critique his opponents case and views. But not attack them personally and make his positions based on facts and solid evidence. And not simply just throw things out there and demagogue the other side. Which again are reasons why Conservatives, Libertarians, Progressives and Liberals should respect if not like him.

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

Frost/Nixon The Complete Interviews: Foreign Policy

Posted on March 15, 2015 by Rik Schneider

The real genius of the Nixon Presidency was the foreign policy. President Nixon and his National Security Director, could simply see things happening twenty-years in advance. I don’t believe we’ve ever had two people that high up in the U.S. Government that knew so much about foreign policy and national security than Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. But President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, perhaps come close. Nixon/Kissinger, looked at both the world that they wanted and the world the way it was. And based on those two things tried to make the world as safe as possible.

Nixon/Kissinger, saw the Soviet Union, a country back then of around four-hundred-million people and physically the largest country in the world and the People’s Republic of China, already with a billion people back then and physically the fourth largest country in the world, just behind the United States, as trading partners. Even though we were enemies with both of them. But they believed the way you get bad guys to behave well is for their people to see what your country has to offer and how other countries govern themselves. I don’t believe the democratic awakening in the Slavic States in Eastern Europe like Poland happens in the late 1970s and 80s, without Russia being opened up in the early 1970s.

Nixon/Kissinger saw a day without the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. It happened twenty-years later, but they saw the end of the Soviet Union by the early 1970s. And wanted to open a relationship and dialogue between the two government’s and people’s before that day came and if anything to speed up that transition. While everyone else Left and Right was talking about containment of Russia in the early 1970s, President Nixon was interested in actually defeating Russian communism politically and economically. Let the Russian people know how bad their form of government and economic system is. And give them incentive to look at other systems around the world.

Ronald Reagan did not win the Cold War. No one President can win a war like that by themselves. President Reagan presided over the end of the Cold War in the 1980s and put in policies to see that happen. Like continuing with the military buildup, which actually started under President Gerald Ford and continued with President Jimmy Carter. And with the nuclear arms agreements with Russia. And with President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union, putting in economic polices to move Russia passed Marxism economically.

The ending of the Cold War started under the President Nixon. And even Russia did have a military buildup in the late 1970s and were on the move in the Middle East and Central Asia, like in Afghanistan, they weren’t economically strong enough to sustain that. Their economy was already collapsing then because they were spending so much on defense and were going through economic shortages as a result. Not saying that President saw all of this happening, but opening up a country that huge and letting their people see your country, gave the Russian people a chance to see what a wealthy free country looks like. And President Nixon and Henry Kissinger deserve a lot of credit for that.

Posted in Originals, Richard Nixon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CNN Spotlight: Charles Manson (2014)

Posted on March 15, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Attachment-1-1681

Source:CNN– Jeff Gunn is one of the best biographers of Charles Manson.

“CNN revisits the vicious, horrific killings by Charles Manson’s followers, 45 years later. CNN Special Report – Face of Evil: The Charles Manson Murders. Tuesday, August 18, 2015.”

Source:CNN 

“Description: “CNN Spotlight: Charles Manson” 8/9-10/2014.
Why people still pay attention to Charles Manson-
By Ted Rowlands, CNN
Sat. August 9, 2014″

_Charles Manson_ 8_9-10_2014 Why people still pay attention to Charles Manson-

Source:Michaels Backporch– with a look at The Manson Family.

From Michaels Backporch

I’m not making the excuses for Charlie Manson, because he was and probably still is pure evil. But the fact he was born that way, seems odd to me at the very least. That would be like being born a racist or something. And also the idea that he had a loving childhood and everything else, because he had all of these relatives that took care of him, I mean the fact that he was moved around so much during his childhood says a lot right there. He didn’t have that one or two adult relatives who loved him enough to bring him up right. And he eventually ends up in reform and boys schools to take care of him.

Having said all of that, this man is personally responsible for countless murders. And not just the Tate murders on that horrible hot night in August of 1969, but other murders as well that haven’t been completely tied to him. He knew what he was doing when he put him crime family together and what he wanted these young adults to do for him. Which was to get revenge on society for treating Manson the way he was treated as a young person. And if the Manson Family wasn’t stopped when they were, they would’ve kept on killing into the 1970s.

Charlie Manson is not physically responsible for the murders that his crew committed in the sense that he physically murdered all of those people. But he’s responsible for ordering the murders that we’re committed and motivating his crew to commit the murders that he did. Which is called conspiracy to commit murder. The conspirator is just as responsible for the murders as the murderer who physically committed the murders. That is why Manson was sentenced to death in 1971, I believe along with his crew members who committed the murders. And when their sentences were commuted to life, he was given life as well.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Posted in CNN, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CNN: Angela Davis On Buchanan/Braden (1984)

Posted on March 14, 2015 by Derik Schneider

Attachment-1-165

Source:CNN– New-Left Communist activist on CNN’s Buchanan/Braden in 1984.

“Angela Davis on Buchanan/Braden. Strange debate circa 1984.”

Source:Mike Gardner

Good to hear the so-called Liberal or Progressive on this show, (which of course would’ve been Tom Braden. If you were thinking, Pat Buchanan, you must be as high as a kite on something illegal right now.) but good to hear the so-called Liberal or Progressive on this show critique and question communism. You don’t get much of that today from so-called Liberals and Progressives (who are actually closeted Socialists) who really aren’t and much further Left than that to the point they would Democratic Socialists or even Communists themselves today.

To Angela Davis’s credit, she gave up communism in I believe the 1990s and calls herself a Socialist and I believe Democratic Socialist today. Politically she has more in common with Senator Bernie Sanders than President Fidel Castro of the Communist Republic of Cuba. Her ideas are still roughly the same and probably her politics hasn’t changed at all. Except that she no longer embraces communism and would like to see a democratic form of socialism in America. And as Americans tend to get older, we tend to get less radical and moderate more. Even if we start out on the Far-Left like Angela Davis.

As far as outlawing racism, which is what Angela Davis said she was in favor of: I wish they went into that deeper to find out what she means by that. If she’s talking about hate crimes and acts of discrimination by denying people access because of their race, that is already illegal in America. If she’s actually talking about outlawing racist thought and speech and groups even if they don’t commit racist crimes, then that would unconstitutional and a form of fascism: “Toe the party-line and believe and communicate the way we do, or we’ll throw you in jail.” That is un-liberal democratic and shouldn’t be tolerated in America.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

Posted in CNN, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

FORA-TV: Brian Doherty- ‘1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism’

Posted on March 14, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

1960's Counterculture Libertarianism - Brian Doherty

Source:FORA-TV– Reason Magazine editor Brian Doherty, at Cody’s Books in Berkeley, California talking about his book.

“Reason Magazine Senior Editor Brian Doherty discusses the eccentric founders of the Innovator, a counterculture libertarian zine from the 1960’s. Brian Doherty considers “Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

This illuminating, lively history of a political movement on the rise – told through the life stories of its standard bearers – casts new light on the intellectual and political history of post-WWII America. Doherty traces the evolution of libertarianism through the unconventional stories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman, and their personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. In so doing, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history, from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1060s to today’s divisiveness.

In February, the Wall Street Journal noted, “With ‘Radicals for Capitalism’, Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due…Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the ‘pure idea’, its origins in great minds and the feistiness of its many current champions.” – Cody’s Books

Brian Doherty is a senior editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly named one of “The 50 Best Magazines” three out of the past four years by the Chicago Tribune. Established in 1968 and a four-time finalist for National Magazine Awards, Reason has a print circulation of 40,000 and won the 2005 Western Publications Association “MAGGIE” Award for best political magazine.”

From FORA-TV

“1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism:” seems like a strange title to me. And you might say that: “Well, its the title of your piece, so why did you call it that?” That would be partly true, but the title of this piece has to do with the title of Brian Doherty 2007 book about 1960s counter-culture and libertarianism.

But why is that a strange title to me? I’ll tell you anyway, because libertarianism wasn’t even a term back then. They came around in the early 1970s with the creation of the Libertarian Party. Which isn’t much bigger today than it was back in 1972 or so. And I’m not saying there weren’t Libertarians back in the 1960s, because of course there were. Ron Paul comes to mind and even Ayn Rand, but they were called other things.

People who believed in individual liberty back then were called Liberals and Conservatives. But they had different versions of what individual liberty meant to them. And I’m not talking about the Religious-Right or the New Left. But true Liberals and Conservatives not trying to change the definitions of those terms, but who truly believed in liberalism and conservatism.

Conservatives who believes in conserving liberty and conserving the state and not expanding it. And Liberals who believed in expanding liberty for people who don’t have it and protecting liberty for people who don’t have it yet.

And that is where Libertarians come in and that is what gave them their opening. Because Libertarians didn’t want to conserve the state, or expand the state. But they want to expand liberty and they believe the way you that is by shrinking the state and getting government almost completely out of people’s lives. And just leaving government to protect our freedom from predators who would take it away.

And by doing this both economic and personal liberty would be expanded to people who don’t have it yet. Which is much different from the Conservative who wants to conserve freedom and decentralize government, but not shrink it. And the Liberal who wants to use government to expand liberty both personal and economic.

One thing that I believe Libertarians can at least respect if not like about the 1960s counter-culture movement. Not the New Left crowd that was not just anti-war and use of force from government and wanting to tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and economic system. And replace it with a socialist collectivist model.

But the anti-establishment movement that believed people should be free to live their own lives and even live differently from their parents and grandparents. Which is really individual liberty is about, right: the liberty for the individual to live their life the way they see fit, just as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

Posted in Book TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Film Archives: Seymour Hersh: ‘The Truth Behind JFK’

Posted on March 14, 2015 by Erik Schneider

The Dark Side of JFK_ How Kennedy's Reckless Personal Behavior Imperiled His Presidency (1997)

Source:The Film Archives– President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th President of the United States (1961-63)

“Hersh’s 1997 book about John F. Kennedy, The Dark Side of Camelot, made a number of controversial assertions about the former president. About the book:Amazon…

From The Film Archives

“A monumental work of investigative journalism from one of the greatest reporters in American history, revealing the Kennedy White House as never before.

In this widely acclaimed and bestselling book, the award-winning investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh reveals a John F. Kennedy we have never seen before, a man insulated from the normal consequences of behavior long before he entered the White House. His father, Joe, set the pattern: Kennedys could do exactly what they wanted. There was no secret that money and charm could not hide. Kennedys wrote their own moral code.

By the end of Jack Kennedy’s life, his private recklessness had begun to edge into his public life, putting him — and his nation — at risk. Now, for the first time, Seymour Hersh tells the real story of those risks, as he brilliantly re-creates the life and world of a crisis-driven president who maintained a facade of cool toughness while negotiating private compromises unknown to even his closest advisers.”

The Dark Side of Camelot Paperback – September 1, 1998

Source:Amazon– Seymour Hersh’s 1998 book about John F. Kennedy.

From Amazon

This photo is also from a video with left-wing Seymour Hersh’s book about President John F. Kennedy from 1998, but the video that this photo is from is not currently available online.

The Film Archives_ Seymour Hersh- 'The Truth Behind JFK'

Source:Politics & Prose– left-wing author and journalist Seymour Hersh, as Politics & Prose Bookstore in Washington, talking about his 1998 book about President John F. Kennedy.

This photo is from the same book event at Politics & Prose Bookstore in Washington, for left-wing author and journalist Seymour Hersh, talking about his 1998 book about President John F. Kennedy. But the video that this photo is from is not currently available online right now.

JFK

Source:The Film Archives– President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th President of the United States (1961-63) If smoking cigars is fashion statement and something that makes men cool, then JFK is one of the coolest men ever.

My like and respect for Jack Kennedy goes to his intelligence, his politics, his policies, what he wanted to do as President. I’m a Liberal Democrat because of JFK and when I learned about his politics and philosophy, I started basing my own politics around him. As well as his personality, especially his sense of humor.

What I like about JFK might sound like a lot, but that is as far as I go with him as far as liking and respecting the man. He personal life wasn’t just reckless and irresponsible, but it was dangerous. The way he lived his life as President of the United States. Forget about how he treated his wife, which was bad and everything, but that’s their business. My problem with him is how his life effected his presidency.

Jack Kennedy as President of the United States dated mob ladies, girlfriends of Italian-American mob bosses, like Sam Giacana. Knowing full-well that the Italian Mafia is at least partly responsible for him being President of the United States and that his Justice Department led by his brother Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, was running a campaign to take down organized crime in America. Probably also knowing that his mob girlfriends could’ve at any point gone to their mob boyfriends and tell them about their relationships with President Kennedy. And perhaps also knowing that these mob bosses were putting tails on their girlfriends and getting evidence about their relationships with the President of the United States.

At any point during Jack Kennedy’s affairs with his mob girlfriends, the mob could’ve said: “You come down hard on us and we’ll let your secrets out and all of your personal affairs as President.” Which probably would’ve ruined JFK’s political career. And probably would’ve started all sorts of Congressional investigations into his personal life and his association with mob ladies and mobsters. And to see if there were any working relationships and everything else. This would’ve been JFK’s Watergate, if not worst. Because of all the potential blackmail that the Italian Mafia had on President Kennedy.

If there was anything that ever made Jack Kennedy unqualified to be President of the United States, it was his own personal life and personal affairs. Not that he cheated on his wife, but who he cheated on his wife with and the connections that his women had. And how all of that could’ve been used against the Kennedy Administration. Especially as it related to their campaign to take down organized crime in America, especially the Italian Mafia. Work that had to be done for the country to a safer place to live where crime is not such a big part of American life.

Posted in Book TV, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Atlantic: Opinion: Bourlee Lam: America’s Unemployment Insurance Programs Need to Be Re-Imagined

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Unemployment
The Atlantic: Opinion: Bourlee Lam: America’s Unemployment Insurance Programs Need to Be Re-Imagined

I agree with everything that was said in this Atlantic article. Which is saying something, because generally when I read The Atlantic, the writer is a bit left of me to put it mildly. And sometimes reading The Atlantic can be like reading The Nation or Salon. But we need to get proactive in how we deal with unemployment and Unemployment Insurance. And instead of just having that program there for people to who are out-of-work and need help paying their bills, use that program to actually put people back to work. With things like retraining, subsidize unemployment, small business capital and perhaps other steps.

That instead of collecting financial assistance while you’re on unemployment and looking for work at the same time, that if you’ve been unemployed for a long time, whatever that figure is and you’re about to run out of Unemployment Insurance, that instead of cutting you off, you would get an extension. And with that extension would come job training, like at a community college or seminars. Subsidize unemployment where you would take a job that pays a lot less than are used to making, but you would keep your UI to make up the difference up to a certain point. Lets say ninety-days and then your employer would get to decide to keep you on or not but at full-pay.

Something else we could do would be to turn long-term unemployed workers into small business owners. That if other companies won’t hire these workers, the workers would be eligible for small business loans to start their own business. And perhaps link people up who are in a similar situation in similar fields to work together and start their own business’s. Instead of just giving these workers unemployment checks while they look for work, or forcing them to take the first available job that is offered to them. Even if it doesn’t allow for them to pay their bills. And make all of these benefits available to people once they are on UI, so they don’t become long-term unemployed.

Congress should’ve extended Unemployment Insurance a year ago, because of all the workers who’ve been unemployed for so long. And yes they should’ve paid for it as well and could’ve done that several ways without hurting anyone. But the way to extend UI is to do it in way that actually puts those workers back to work. And doesn’t leave them unemployed with more UI checks. And while extending UI, they could’ve made these reforms so we would have not just fewer unemployed workers, but fewer long-term unemployed workers. Which is even worst and worst for the economy to have so many people who haven’t worked in a long time and not ready to retire.

Posted in Economy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Slate: Alec MacGillis: ‘Martin O’Malley Could Challenge Hillary Clinton’

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Martin O’Malley’s Incredible Shrinking Legacy

Source:Slate Magazine– Governor Martin O’Malley (Democrat, Maryland) 2007-15.

“Martin O’Malley is having himself a bit of a moment—not really through any of his own doing, but because the swirl of anxiety about Hillary Clinton’s readiness for a presidential campaign has Democrats looking around for alternatives, and the only person standing there right now is, well, Martin O’Malley. The former Maryland governor and Baltimore mayor just passed up a run for his state’s open Senate seat, making it even clearer that he’s serious about a presidential run; he got national coverage for a wonky speech Wednesday at the Brookings Institution; and he turned up Thursday morning on Morning Joe.

But let’s not affix the rising-insurgent pin to O’Malley’s muscle-gripping black tank top just yet. As I argued two years ago, back when he was first making 2016 rumblings, it’s awfully hard to imagine O’Malley playing the liberal challenger, a role that has been occupied in Democratic presidential primaries by, among others, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean. While O’Malley carried out a staunchly liberal agenda in Maryland—legalizing same-sex marriage, ending the death penalty, and much more—and while he has proven feisty at partisan sparring with Republicans, it is hard to envision him stirring liberal hearts and minds the way previous insurgents did. It’s not just that he’s a notoriously leaden public speaker; it’s that, as progressive as his governing record is, he’s oddly reluctant to champion liberal values in the terms many on the left crave. During the Obamacare debate, he chided Democrats who “immediately run to the values of caring and fairness” instead of focusing on the economic case for health care reform. His idea of visionary language is calling for America to be an “opportunity-expanding entity.” He’s more likely to quote Thomas Friedman than Thomas Frank. He is, by his own account, not a tribune but a technocrat, not an orator but a doer.”

From Slate Magazine

To be completely honest and truthful, the reason why Martin O’Malley had a good week this week, is because Hillary Clinton had a bad one. She’s actually now had two bad weeks over her alleged email scandal that she still doesn’t seem to be able to adequately explain. And I’ve been blogging for two years now that Secretary Clinton has to have not just a strong Democratic challenger in 2016, but a strong center-left Democratic challenger before the general election again whoever the Republican challenger will be. Not just because of her past and all the things that she seems to want to keep from the public including about her own job as Secretary of State, but the fact her only potential message as a presidential candidate, seems to be: “Vote for the first female President of the United States.”

If Hillary Clinton survives the email scandal, which I believe she will since there doesn’t seem to be anything illegal on her part that was done and gets through the next 5-7 months without an additional scandal, then the focus will be on her presidential campaign and how she would run for president. What would her message be besides the first female President of the United States, her resume that includes Secretary of State where she had a fairly successful term and being a U.S. Senator for eight years. And oh by the way, her last name is Clinton and you know who her husband is and that as Democrats we all like if not love Bill, so Democrats should like her too.

I think the presidential campaign that Hillary wants to run other than the things that I already mentioned, is a very safe campaign where she doesn’t take any hard positions on any controversial issues. And she basically just runs on judgement and leadership and this is what the country needs. Without laying out any strong positions and programs about what would come with her presidency under her leadership and judgment. She seems to want to run for the center and independents before she actually enters the Democratic Caucus in Iowa that is in December.

All these factors opens the door for a strong center-left Progressive Democrat like Martin O’Malley who has a strong progressive record as both Mayor of Baltimore and being a big part of that big city’s turnaround. Both economic and with crime and law enforcement. And as Governor of Maryland where Maryland public schools are the best in the country.

If the Democratic choice is between a mushy-middle of the road Moderate, who doesn’t want to take any strong positions on anything controversial, with no real agenda and vision, versus a McGoevrnite who’ll call them self a Progressive, but is really a hard if not Far-Left Social Democrat like Senator Bernie Sanders (the only self-described Socialist in Congress) or Senator Elizabeth Warren, who everyday sounds more like Senator Sanders as far as how she puts down American corporations and wealthy people, (as if being wealthy and successful is a bad thing) then it will be 1972 and Democrats will lose. If the GOP does something smart and nominates Jeb Bush. Because Americans will say: “We don’t know where Hillary stands on anything. And the alternative to her is so Far-Left, that we can’t afford everything that they want government to do for us.”

But that is where an opening for someone like a center-left Progressive like Martin O’Malley can come in. He has a record of results and can say:“We can empower more Americans to be successful on their own with opportunity and freedom agenda. Through things like education and infrastructure, being smart on crime and not just tough. I know these policies work, because this is what we did in Baltimore and Maryland.”

Governor O’Malley looks strong because his record looks strong. And Republicans will be able to say that taxes are fairly high in Maryland. But the Governor will be able to say, so is opportunity and economic development. Because people want to invest and live here, including Baltimore which is going through an economic turnaround with all the new technology companies that are doing business there. And with a new casino as well. Because of Maryland’s infrastructure and workforce.

Then Governor George W. Bush in 2000 when he was running for President, liked to call himself a “reformer with results.” In response to the reform-minded Senator John McCain who gave him a strong challenge in the Republican primaries. Martin O’Malley could call himself a Progressive with results. Leading one of the best and wealthiest states in the union for eight years. And can point to real success’. Like legalizing same-sex-marriage, legalizing gambling, decriminalizing marijuana, outlawing the death penalty, new infrastructure investment, the best public schools in the country, great universities and a high quality of life. All of these things that would go unnoticed had Hillary Clinton figured out how to be a Democratic presidential frontrunner by now.

The drawbacks for Governor O’Malley, have to do with the facts that he didn’t go out on top as Governor of Maryland. His approval rating started tanking, the economy started dragging when the rest of the country overall is starting to boom economically. He left the current Governor of Maryland with a sizable budget deficit. His handpicked successor, his Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown lost in a big upset to a Conservative businessman in Larry Hogan. And a lot of these things can be traced to the fact that Governor O’Malley started campaigning for president too soon, when he still had a lot of work to do as Governor.

But up to that point of the last I guess year of the O’Malley Administration, he has a proven record as a center-left Progressive Democrat who knows how to govern and get good results. And when the country is looking for someone outside of Washington, he could fit that bill for the Democratic Party.

Posted in Originals, Slate Video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment