Patrick J. Buchanan: Against Barack Obama, But For What?

Posted on November 5, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Pat Buchanan with I believe the question of the day. Against Obama, but for what? Republicans are obviously against President Barack Obama and fire is hot, in case you need any other obvious facts. But what are they for and what do the actually want to pass into law in the next Congress. Now that they will control both the House and Senate and with a solid if not big majority in the House of Representatives. Senate Democrats will have a significant minority in the next Congress. 45-46 Senators, so Harry Reid or whoever is the next Senate Minority Leader will have real influence over what gets passed out of the Senate.

My question for Congressional Republicans especially their leadership in the House and Senate and Speaker John Boehner and Leader Mitch McConnell in particular. What do they actually want to pass into law in the next Congress and get signed by President Obama. And what do they want the President to veto or Senate Democrats to try to block. The next Democratic Leader in the Senate who will be the Minority Leader will have a question as well. What does he want to block in the Senate with his members and perhaps some more moderate Republicans who will up for reelection in the next Congress. And what does he want the President to veto if House and Senate Republicans decide to go on their own.

If the Congressional Republican Leadership actually wants to legislate in the House and Senate and pass things into law, they are going to need to work with President Obama. And find issues that they both want to address and can find agreement. The Keystone Pipeline should be one of them that should pass with a solid bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate. Infrastructure investment, energy policy and trade are three other issues where they have common ground that President Obama will want to address in the next Congress as well.

The ball is in the Republican court because they’ll run both the House and Senate in the next Congress and as a result will set the agenda for that in Congress both on the floors and in committee. What will get done in the next Congress will be up to them and what they actually want to get passed into law. And if they actually want to legislate, meaning pass things into law that the President signs, they’ll need to work with President Obama and Senate Democrats as well most likely if they want to pass things out of Congress that the President will sign.
.

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

The Hill: Report: Mike Lillis: Time For House Democrats to Elect New Leaders?

Posted on November 5, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Nancy Pelosi has been the leader of the House Democrats for the last twelve years. Eight of them after this Congress as Minority Leader and of course four of them as the first female Speaker of the House from 2007-11. She was also the first Minority Leader in Congress, House or Senate and the first party leader in Congress House or Senate as well. She’s been a very effective leader as far as fundraising and keeping her caucus united against things Democrats don’t want. And a very effective vote getter for things that needed to be passed even when compromises with more moderate Democrats and Republicans were made.

She’s had a very good run and time even with eight years as the Minority Leader. But at some point new leadership needs to come in to take the House Democratic Caucus to the next level. For them to get back to where they should be with well north of 200 seats in the House. After this election they may be under a 190 seats in the House and needing a wave in 2016 to win just win back the House with a small majority. She led them back from what was looking like a permanent minority party in the House pre-2006 when they won back the House of Representatives and guided them through the Tea Party revolution of 2010-11 and managed to win back some of those seats in 2012.

But now going into the next Congress House Democrats will be in worst shape then they were even in 2011 when Republicans took over the House and worst shape than they were in 2003 when Leader Pelosi became the Minority Leader under President Bush. The sky has fallen and the House Democratic Caucus has bottomed out and is going to look a lot different in the last two years of the Obama Administration. House Democrats already have good young leaders that could move the caucus through this period and hopefully back to the majority in the near future.

Leader Pelosi and her deputy Assistant Minority Leader Jim Clyburn and Minority Whip all have distinguished careers in the House and as Democratic leaders. But they are all in their mid 70s inheriting a younger more energetic, but much smaller House Democratic Caucus. I think they should all step down and let someone like Chris Van Hollen, Xavier Becerra, Jared Polis and others step up and lead the House Democrats though this next period and hopefully back to the majority in the next two to four years and give the House Democratic Caucus a much different look and feel.
.

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

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

Posted on November 4, 2014 by kireschneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

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

President Obama is smart to invite Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell down to the White House this week to try to see where they may be able to work together in the next Congress. But the fact is Republicans are in charge of Congress and Congressional Democrats and the President will be on the defensive at least in the early going of the next Congress. And Democrats will react to Republicans based on what Republicans want to and try to do. The next Congress will be as effective and popular as Republicans are effective at running it.

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

Salon: Heather Digby Parton: Chris Matthews and Ed Rendell, Working Class Heroes, In Their Dreams

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

Salon: Opinion: Heather Digby Parton: Chris Matthews and Ed Rendell, Working Class Heroes, In Their Dreams

When MSNBC which is really not much more than a media operation for Occupy Wall Street, the Progressive Caucus and the Green Party in America, is not progressive enough for you, you know you are on the far-left. Chris Matthews is now the most popular talk show host on MSNBC. Granted that is like say someone is the tallest person at a midget convention with the lack of ratings that MSNBC gets. But people who are as far to the Left as the groups I just mentioned, are not represented very highly in America.

Chris Matthews and Ed Rendell are classic FDR/JFK Progressive Democrats. They go back in forth between FDR and Jack Kennedy on the issues, but they are both mainstream Progressive Democrats. Which is what classical Progressives are, which is mainstream and not thinking that government needs to be big enough to essentially manage people’s lives for them. But big enough to provide the services that we all need to do well like infrastructure and education and help people in need. And create an environment where everyone can do well and not just people born to wealth.

But if you work for Salon, progressive government is not big enough for you. Because that type of government still leaves people free to manage most of their affairs economic and personal. And of course Americans are stupid right, at least according to today’s Progressives “and you need a government big enough to take care of everyone for their own good”. Which is way to the Left of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Who both are by far the most progressive president’s we’ve ever had at least when it comes to economic policy.
.

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

Reason Magazine: Anthony L. Fisher: Patrick Kennedy Fears that Prohibition Might Lead to People Making Lots of Money

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

This is going to sound strange, but former U.S. Representative now War on Drugs propagandist Patrick Kennedy a Progressive Democrat and the son Teddy Kennedy is one of the best spokespeople for marijuana legalization and against the War on Drugs. Even though he’s strongly against marijuana legalization and apparently in favor of the War on Drugs at least as it relates to marijuana legalization. And why do I say that? Because Representative Kennedy makes the perfect argument for why the War on Drugs is so unpopular and why more people are in favor of marijuana legalization than against it.

This latest line about Pat Kennedy saying that “if we legalize marijuana, a lot of people could make a lot of money”. As if there’s something wrong with making a lot of money. Well if you one of today’s Progressives, you have a problem with people making a lot of money, because it means they’ll need government less and have more freedom over their own lives. But lets assume what Kennedy is really talking about which is marijuana business’s making money off of addicts. A point he has made in the past, I would ask the distinguished gentleman is he familiar with both alcohol and tobacco.

And then you go to the whole argument that Neoconservatives on the Right and prohibitionists Progressives on the Left who say that “since alcohol and tobacco are already legal and they have bad side-effects, why legalize another dangerous drug?” The obvious answer being that if they are all dangerous and have similar side-effects, including death in both alcohol and in tobacco cases, why have any of them be legal if you are truly worried about the dangers of these drugs.

And to Pat Kennedy’s credit I truly believe that he’s against marijuana legalization because he believes it is a dangerous and harmful drug. Keep in mind he’s a recovering alcoholic who if his name was Joe Jones from Pittsburgh and works as a construction worker and is the son of a construction worker, he would be in prison right now for his legal and illegal drug related crimes. So that is one big problem he has, but his main problem is that he doesn’t have an argument against marijuana legalization. But an argument against marijuana, alcohol and tobacco legalization, but has chosen just to focus on pot.
Source:The New Democrat

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

Phyllis Schlafly: Women Don’t Want What Feminists Are Selling

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Rik Schneider

I pointed this out in a post last week, but Phyllis Schlafly represents the Traditional Values Coalition in America. The American era pre-New Deal and perhaps even before American women were given the right to vote. So everything past that and especially with movement’s and era’s that give more power to other Americans including women, but non-Protestant, Anglo-Americans, seems very new to this coalition of Americans.

The Traditional Values Coalition essentially believes that even though America had already started changing for the worst when it came to economic policy in the 1930s, according to them with the creation of the American safety net, that the 1960s Cultural Revolution that included women, but gays and young people was one of the last straws. And just another sign that America is going to hell for them. So of course they don’t like feminists whether they are radical or mainstream and don’t like anything that moves America past their 1950s look on life.

The Phyllis Schlafly’s of the world believe the American family and not just the best American family, but American families are best when Joe works and works hard and is productive for his family at work. While Mary stays at home and raises their kids. And of course Joe and Mary don’t live with each other or have sex with each other until of course they are married. That might be a 1950s American lifestyle, but stating the obvious that was 55-60 years ago.

I’m not an expert on feminism and don’t consider myself to be a feminist. For one thing I’m a man and straight at that, (ha ha) but what I hear from today’s so-called feminists is that they aren’t so much about equality between men and women. But that women are better than men and if anything should have more power than men in America. That alone would disqualify me from the so-called feminist movement in America.

But for feminism or women’s liberation to be real in America, it has to be about power and choice for the women. For them to decide if they should work or stay home and raise her kids as the father of her children goes to work. Or does she work, but like her husband or partner is able to balance both work and family successfully so they are both successful at work and raising their kids. Not trying to force women to stay home and raise the kids, or go to work to financially support their families.

Source:The New Democrat
.

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

Real Time With Bill Maher: ‘Atheism Is Not a Religion’

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The Daily Press

I don’t have a problem with people being Atheists, we have Freedom of Religion in the United States. Which means Americans have the constitutional right to believe or not believe in religion. But we don’t have the right to force our views on other people or force them into law. We have a Fist Amendment in this country, which is Freedom of Speech, but we don’t have a constitutional right to force others to go along with what we believe.

Which is something the Religious Right has never understood in this country. But is something that the Atheist Left doesn’t get either. It’s not good enough for them apparently that they have the constitutional right to not believe in God, but they feel the need to look down on and put down people who do believe who do. And that if anything that religion shouldn’t even exist in the United States, a country that is probably the most religious country in the West.

Mexico and Italy might come close on that. But we are very religious as a country, compared with Canada and Europe. And I guess Atheists feel outnumbered in America. Atheists tend to be progressive (socialist actually) politically, people who are supposed to be tolerant and open-minded. And yet they tend to have very little to no tolerance for people who believe in God, a bit of a contradiction.

As much as Atheists claim to have no faith, they seem to have a lot of faith in that God doesn’t exist. And there a lot of today’s Progressives in this country who claim to not believe in God, but also claim to be very spiritual. This is common in Hollywood and I don’t doubt that they are. But I believe there’s another reason with that. That being religious in this country especially among young people, where the decline in religion is very high, fewer Americans going to church or a House of Warship, but not being spiritual may come down as too elitist for a lot of people.

But not being religious at all, makes you seem like an elitist, someone who can’t communicate with the average folk so to speak. That you think you are better than everyone else because you feel you don’t need God or something. But if you are spiritual, you can sort of split the difference. “I don’t believe in God, but I believe in a higher power or something above myself”.

What we need in this country from the Religious Right and the Atheist Left, is instead of them trying to destroy each other, that they both realize that they both have a constitutional right to exist. That we do have a First Amendment in America that protects both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. And they would both do much better and be able to attract more followers in the future, because they would seem tolerant and reasonable.

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

Crooks & Liars: Heather Digby: Sunday’s Theme Of The Week: Both Sides!

Posted on November 3, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

You want to know why a lot of Americans and if I had to guess hate politics and politicians and why our voter turnout is so low at least compared with the rest of the developed world, it is because yes both sides and I’m a Democrat, but both sides spend so much time and what I percentage of that I don’t know, no one does, but they spend so much time blaming the other side and raising money to defeat the other side. And very little time perhaps especially with a divided Congress and divided government, which I believe won’t change much after tomorrow, governing and presenting a positive message for the country.

That is what you saw if you bothered to watch the Sunday morning news programs yesterday. Commentators representing how the country feels about American politicians and politics. Which changes nothing because the partisans on both sides who have enough power to at least keep gridlock going will take that as “look the mainstream media blaming both sides equally again. Just means we need to hit the other side harder so we don’t look as bad”. The whole negative argument of “you may hate us, but you’ll hate the other side more if they come to power”.

Look I’m both a Liberal and a Democrat and proud of both labels. I’m not saying either side is equally at fault otherwise I wouldn’t be a Democrat and probably a Liberal Independent instead. Just saying that neither side is innocent here and that both party’s negatives are so high right now, that they feel they can’t win on just being positive or being very positive, that they have to make the other side look worst. So they don’t lose more political power especially coming after a big loss.
.

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

Salon: Interview: Luke Brinker Talks to Rula Jebreal: Rula Jebreal Sounds Off on Bill Maher Islam Spat

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

Salon: Interview: Luke Brinker Talks to Rula Jebreal: Rula Jebreal Sounds Off on Bill Maher Islam Spat

First of all just about this so-called interview. It sounded more like a conversation to me and a slanted one at that. With the Luke Brinker taking the typical Salon leftist political correctness slant. Suggesting that by asking “does Bill Maher’s criticism of Islam give rise to new islamaphobia”. Another example would be “does Bill Maher’s criticism make him sound like a Neoconservative”. You can click the link in this post to see the actual conversation yourself.

First of all if you saw the show yourself the Real Time episode that Rula Jebreal was on with Bill Maher, it was essentially three against one. Bill Maher, Senator Angus King an Independent by the way, hardly anyone’s radical and General Wesley Clark a center-left Democrat. Especially Maher and Senator King were defending free speech and Maher’s right to speak freely especially express the truth. With Rula Jebreal trying to put the focus on Maher and herself and debate Islam. With her comparing Maher to an anti-Semite of all things.

Any criticism against Islam even when it comes from Liberals and other leftists and you get labeled as a racist or some other type of bigot by the political correctness Left. Even when Muslims such as Reza Aslam are quick to point out that Bill Maher is not a racist and besides Islam is not even a race to begin with. And that is what I at least saw on that show. Rula Jebreal making the politically correct argument against those who would criticize Islam. And Bill Maher as well as Liberals sticking up for free speech. Freedom of Speech vs. political correctness in America.
.

Posted in Real Time, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Thinker: Robert Curry: Liberals Aren’t Liberal

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

american thinker_ daniel payne - Google SearchSource:The New Democrat 

If you look at the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, you’ll see if that the First Amendment is Freedom of Speech. Now what is more liberal than the right to speak freely and add to that the constitutional right to speak freely. That is what liberalism is really based on. Freedom of speech and assembly, the right for the individual to live freely. Liberal and liberty go so well together which is why they sound similar because liberal is based off of liberty. Liberty for the individual, not liberty for government to manage the individual’s lives.

If you look at this whole debate about Bill Maher and his opinions on religion and Islam in general and keep in mind Bill Maher is a real Atheist, you’ll know who the real Liberals are and the people who just call themselves Liberals and who the media calls Liberals. Because the Liberals in this debate and I’m one of them are defending free speech and Bill Maher’s right to free speak freely. And not be censored because political correctness fascists and perhaps some Muslims as well are offended about what Maher has to say about a non-Christian or Jewish religion.

The free speech aspect is just one example of the Liberal vs. the non-Liberal on the Left in America. The Liberals wants everyone the entire country to have freedom over their own lives. Not just people born to money or from the South or from rural America or who are Christian or who are Anglo. But everyone including the groups I just mentioned that tend to be Republican. The non-Liberal the statist on the Left wants government to have the power to manage our lives for us. Because he or she believes we are too stupid to make our decisions for ourselves.

When it comes to the Left whether it is the center-left or the rest of the Left, it is about role of government. And the same thing on the Right, but on the Left the further you go, the more government especially Federal Government you want both economically and even to a certain extent socially. And if you are on the far-left, you want a hell of a lot of government to manage people’s lives for them. But if you are on the center-left where I am, it is not small government you advocate for. But a limited government that is not so big that it discourages individual freedom, responsibility and initiative. Just big enough to do for us what we need it to including helping people in need help themselves.
.

Posted in American Thinker, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment