The National Interest: Opinion: Aram Bakshian: Richard Nixon: Hated For Being Right: The Consequences of the Richard Nixon Presidency

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Rik Schneider
37th President of the United States

The National Interest: Opinion: Aram Bakshian: Richard Nixon: Hated For Being Right

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As brilliant and as great as a visionary as President Richard Nixon was in foreign policy, but in domestic policy as well the way he wanted to reform the relationship between the Federal Government and states to use as an example, his presidency failed because of how it ended. And it ended because of his actions going back as early as 1971 or even 1970 in creating a criminal operation inside of the White House. What his White House called an intelligence unit, but their job was to find intelligence against the Democratic opposition and even using illegal and unconstitutional means to find that intelligence.

Watergate probably never happens if the plummers unit that President Nixon and his Chief of Staff Bob  Haldeman created in 1971 is never put together. Without the plummers unit and their actions with the illegal break ins of Brookings and other places there would’ve never been enough reason for the House of Representatives to impeach President Nixon even with the taping system. And without the taping system the evidence to impeach President Nixon never materializes either. Because the tapes have the President on record as covering up the Watergate investigation by trying to get the FBI to drop the case.

Also had Richard Nixon not of won reelection in 1972 for selfish reasons and spent so much resources and energy on his own reelection and instead directed some of those resources and efforts to Congressional Republicans and seeing if he could get 20-30 Republicans elected to the House and 3-5 more Republicans elected to the Senate, again impeachment perhaps doesn’t happen except for maybe the taping system. Because President Nixon might of had the votes at least in the Senate to avoid conviction on all charges. And instead the President gets elected with 55% of the vote instead of 59% and perhaps wins back one chamber of Congress to have the political support he needed.

There are many mistakes that Dick Nixon made as President that led to his failures. And lot of them were made for selfish reasons like trying to get the most information possible on the other side even by using illegal means. And they were just simply stupid mistakes. And had he shown the same intelligence he did as far as governing the country as President as he showed running his own White House and political operation, he never gets impeached and probably goes down as a great President instead.

Posted in Richard Nixon Presidency | Leave a comment

The Hitchens Archive: Video: Christopher Hitchens & Eric Alterman Discussing Politics in 2008

Posted on August 11, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

Just to comment on Eric Alterman’s first point about Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was never a Conservative, but perhaps a Neoconservative on foreign policy at least after 9/11. And as they both said neoconservatism and conservatism are two very different things. Because Neoconservatives tend to be in favor of reform, where Conservatives are interested in, well conserving, which is the whole point of the label.

Hitchens and Alterman are both what in at least Europe would be called Social Democrats especially on economic policy and I’m sure on social issues. They both wrote for The Nation and Alterman still has a blog there. They both are big believers in the welfare state and wealth redistribution and not allowing for individuals to become very wealthy at least on their own. I think Alterman was taking a shot at Hitch by calling him a Conservative with his support for President Bush during the War on Terror.

 

Posted in Christopher Hitchens | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PBS: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Iraq, Richard Nixon’s Legacy

Posted on August 8, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

What choice does President Obama have, but defend Americans who are still in Iraq? That is what the airstrikes are about defending our personal that is still in there. Now you can make a good argument about President Obama not acting early enough. But the fact is the country and for very good reasons wants us out of Iraq. And if we say we are going to be there indefinitely, Iraq will take that seriously and not do what they need to do in order to govern their own country.

As far as Richard Nixon’s legacy as President. Watergate and the other criminal activities that went on in the Nixon White House are still the biggest part of President Nixon legacy. But you have to look at his whole administration and presidency and the positive things that he accomplished as well. Especially in foreign policy like ending the Vietnam War, opening up China and Russia. But also what he tried to do when it came to energy policy, Welfare reform, health care reform. And what he did when it came to environmental policy.
Posted in Shields & Brooks, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fiscal Times: David Daven: Here’s How to Ensure Big Banks Don’t Need Another Bailout

Posted on August 8, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Looking back at with six-years of hindsight I’m not sure if I would’ve voted for TARP or the Troubled Asset Relief Program  if I was a member of Congress back in 2008. For one even I didn’t vote for it, it would’ve passed anyway. So it wouldn’t been like the banking system was going to collapse because without this taxpayer, but debt funded relief package wasn’t going to go to the failing banks. But also there were better options on the table like breaking up these failing banks. Bankruptcy and perhaps most importantly not putting TARP on the national debt card, but having it paid for from the start.

Now a couple of options that I would’ve liked to of seen President Bush and Congress back in 2008 take and had these options not of made it into the banking relief package perhaps they become part of Wall Street financial reform in 2010 that was passed by Congress that became the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill of 2010, named after Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank.

First of all breaking up big banks so they don’t get so big and become so important in the economy that if they fail that could hurt the economy. So once a bank gets to a certain point, the Feds perhaps the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation steps in and says “you are too big now and you have to sell off some of your assets to get down to a healthier size at market value”.

Second forcing banks of all size or at least up to a certain size to pay for bankruptcy insurance. So when they do go under they have a choice. Either collect from their bankruptcy insurance that they paid into, or file for bankruptcy. But no longer would they be eligible for a taxpayer bailout.

Hindsight of course is 20/20, but there were already other and better options on the table in 2008 when TARP was passed on an emergency basis and seen as something that had to be done right then as is. And in 2010 when Congress and now President Obama being in charge, but instead came up with the best compromise they felt they could so they could get something done.

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

The New York Times: Paul Krugman: ‘Inequality is a Drag’

Posted on August 8, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Inequality is a Drag (2014) - Google Search

Source:New York Times– left-wing columnist Paul Krugman.

Source:The New Democrat

“For more than three decades, almost everyone who matters in American politics has agreed that higher taxes on the rich and increased aid to the poor have hurt economic growth. …
But there’s now growing evidence for a new view — namely, that the whole premise of this debate is wrong,… coming from places like the International Monetary Fund, that high inequality is a drag on growth, and that redistribution can be good for the economy. …
But how is that possible? Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but … extreme inequality deprives many people of the opportunity to fulfill their potential.

Think about it. Do talented children in low-income American families have the same chance … to get the right education, to pursue the right career path … as those born higher up the ladder? Of course not. … Extreme inequality means a waste of human resources.
And government programs that reduce inequality can make the nation as a whole richer, by reducing that waste.”

From The New York Times 

“CAP’s Senior Economist Heather Boushey, explains how middle out economics helps bolster the United States economy.”

Middle Out Economics 101 - Google Search

Source:Center For American Progress– people who were at one of President Barack H. Obama’s (Democrat, Illinois) reelection campaign rallies in 2012.

From the Center For American Progress

If you are familiar with my blogging you know that I’m not a redistributionist in the sense that I believe the way to close the wealth and income gaps in America is to take from the rich to give to government to take care of the poor.

What I want to is to expand economic opportunity to the poor and low-end middle class so they can be successful as well. And not need public assistance at all and not become dependent on public assistance as part of their income. So that is just one issue where I disagree with Paul Krugman on.

I believe in economic growth that everyone feels and benefits from with a middle-out approach. Not trickle down which obviously doesn’t work, or wealth redistribution. But empowering people in need to get the tools that they need to live in freedom and not have to be government dependent.

You can expand economic freedom to the people who don’t currently have it by empowering people at the bottom and near bottom through education and job training so they can get themselves the skills that they need to get a good job.

We saw the benefits of the middle-out approach during the Clinton Administration where we had low unemployment during most of the 1990s. High economic growth from 1994 for the rest of the decade. And with Welfare to Work educating and training low-skilled adults on Welfare so they could get the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and get off of public assistance all together.

You expand the pot so more people can take out of it and you’ll encourage more people to be successful. You redistribute from the current pot and you encourage fewer people to be successful on their own.

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

The Atlantic: Michael Zuckerman: Utah Lawyers Making Legal Services Affordable

Posted on August 8, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

If America is going to go by the value of Equal Justice Under Law, then Equal Access Under Law needs to be part of that as well. Otherwise Equal Justice Under Law means nothing and it is really instead Affordable Justice Under Law. Meaning you get the justice that you can afford. So if you are wealthy and are charged with rape and there’s substantial evidence that you are guilty, you might get away with it because you can afford a great lawyer and legal team that can get evidence thrown out that perhaps was collected improperly.

But if you are a bus driver or a construction worker perhaps a teacher under the same charges and perhaps you are not poor, but with modest means who doesn’t have a hundred-thousand-dollars or more to spend on a great legal defense with the same evidence against you, you are probably getting convicted because you are stuck with the public defender who is underpaid and overworked who’s working five cases at the same time including yours. And would like to get your case out-of-the-way as soon as possible. Not because they don’t care about you, but because they have very limited resources with an unlimited amount of work.

I’m not looking to create a completely equal justice system. That doesn’t exist anywhere in the world unless you live in a country where the government controls and finances through taxes the legal services for everyone. And as long as we have an economic system where people are allowed to and able to make as much money as they can we are going to have some Americans who simply get better legal services because they can afford them, but we can create a legal system where everyone has access to justice regardless of their income level. Where everyone will get the legal services they need to be able to make their case. Especially if they are innocent, or have been harmed.

One way to do it would be to encourage and even require all private lawyers to do at least a certain amount of pro bono work for low-income defendants and clients who have a complaint to make against someone or an organization and want to see justice for it. We could do that by passing a law requiring lawyers to do this and through the tax system allow for them to write off the costs of their pro bono work.

Another way would be to set up a legal services finance or insurance system that we would all pay into and them collect that money when we need it for legal services. Similar to health insurance or property insurance.

Another way would be to fully fund public defender offices and the Legal Services Corporation. So they have the resources and staff to perform the legal services that private law firms can afford and are capable of providing.

All of these reforms would require a good deal of money, but is something that we can afford to do. And if not and this is not the case, but if it were true that we can’t afford to do this, then Equal Justice Under Law is worth no more than a plastic cup and we should change that to Affordable Justice Under Law instead.

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

The Daily Caller: Eric Owens: Most Leftist Politically Correct Colleges For Dirty Hippies

Posted on August 8, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I have a lot of respect for the first hippie movement and generation from the 1960s and early 1970s. The Baby Boomers because they were truly about freedom and personal choice and going against the conservative establishment as far as what it meant to be an American and instead charted their own course in life. And were a big part of the anti-war movement in the 1960s and even the civil rights movement of the 1960s as well. To go along with the environmental movement. And if you look at the Baby Boom Generation they’ve become a very productive generation for America and have done very well.

The modern hippie movement people who I call bed-wetting leftists (not Liberals) are a bit different. They are called bed-wetting because they love to complain, make the perfect the enemy of the good. Seem to be more happy when there’s something negative or bad going on. Like negative news and stories more than good news and positive stories. They are the sons and daughters of the New Left socialist-anarchist movement from the 1960s and 70s who were a militant faction of the hippie movement, but who weren’t about peace and love. But overthrowing what they saw as an immoral establishment regime in America.

Back in the 1960s the New Left were Students For a Democratic Society, factions of the Communist Party USA and other groups. Today their sons and daughters are Occupy Wall Street who represent a modern socialist-anarchist movement. Who are definitely socialist when it comes to economic and foreign policy, but even when it comes to some key social issues as it relates to free speech. They believe Freedom of Speech shouldn’t protect people’s right to offend. In other words that free speech doesn’t protect hate speech the whole political correctness as well as self-esteem movement in the country.

So when you see students at these colleges and take California Berkley to use as an example trying to block people who they disagree with whether it is Anne Coulter or someone else someone who I don’t have much if any respect for myself, keep in mind that is not Liberals doing these things. But leftist fascists who believe they are God or something (even though they tend to be Atheist) that knows exactly what everyone else should and needs to hear. Instead of Americans being able to make those decisions for themselves. The modern hippie may look like a hippie from the 1960s as far as lifestyle and personal style. But ideologically they are way to the left of those people and are the modern New Left in America.

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

PBS: The American President’s-Bill Clinton: The Early Struggles

Posted on August 8, 2014 by Erik Schneider

 

Attachment-1-245

Source: PBS-President William J. Clinton

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

The early days of the Clinton Administration were very rough for several reasons. One had to do with the White House staff that for the most part came from political backgrounds instead of government backgrounds. So they were trying to govern for the first time ever together with not a lot of experience at least in the Federal Government to begin with. Outside of Vice President Al Gore, OMB Director Leon Panetta and a few others.

They also had several controversies that they were dealing with. Like Gays in the military, Blackhawk Down in Somalia, a refugee crisis in Haiti and a few others. Like struggling to get their own deficit reduction plan and broader Federal budget proposal through a Democratic Congress that had a large majority in the House and a clear, but not super majority in the Senate. Which made President Clinton look like he couldn’t govern at least early on.

But despite all the troubles that President Clinton had in 1993 and to a certain extent 1994 with the failure to reform health care the Clinton Administration and that Democratic Congress was very productive as far as the legislation they were able to pass. Like free trade with NAFTA and GAT, deficit reduction, gays in the military, the 1994 Crime Bill, Family and Medical Leave and a few other things. So they were very productive even early on even though they weren’t very popular.

PBS: The American President’s-Bill Clinton: Early Struggles
Posted in WJC Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller: ‘For 2016, Take Martin O’Malley Seriously’

Posted on August 7, 2014 by kireschneider

For 2016, Take Martin O’Malley Seriously

Source:The Daily Beast– Governor Martin O’Malley (Democrat, Maryland)

Source:The New Democrat

“As Martin O’Malley dips his ankles into the deep end of national politics – most recently with his full-throated plea earlier this month against the deportation of immigrant children — I recalled the first time I saw him on a national stage. I had a pretty good view: I was standing right next to him.”

From The Daily Beast

“Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley talks to Candy about his plans for 2016.”

The Daily Beast_ Jonathan Miller_ 'For 2016_ Take Martin O'Malley Seriously'

Source:CNN– Governor Martin O’Malley (Democrat, Maryland)

From CNN

It is way too early right now to be talking about 2016 for president especially since we are still three months away from the 2014 mid-term elections that will decide who controls Congress next year, or will Congress be divided again and who will control the majority of state governorships and state legislatures.

I wouldn’t be much of a political junky if I didn’t look ahead to elections down the road. And this is one thing that makes politics so interesting is that politicians and potential politicians do the same thing which gives us good stuff to write about.

I’m a native Marylander or Free Stater (for those of you not familiar with Maryland) as well as a Democrat who voted twice for Martin O’Malley for Governor of Maryland. And I’m as proud of those two votes as any votes that I’ve ever cast.

Governor O’Malley is a hell of a great Governor who governs one of it not the wealthiest states in the union as far as quality of life, per-capita, income and wealth. So of course he has a lot going for him as well as location being in the Mid-Atlantic. But it still takes a good leader to make those things work, or the state can lose ground to other great states in the region like New Jersey or Virginia.

We have the best public schools in the nation and those rankings came during his administration. Maryland doesn’t invest heavily in education, but we invest well and get solid results. During the Great Recession we always had an unemployment rate below the national average and never had serious debt or deficit issues unlike most of the rest of the country. If you want to look at the economy and freedom issues. Again with the great schools not just K-12 but we have a great state college system with Maryland University and others. We have great roads and other infrastructure as well.

The taxes both personal and on business are a little high compared with our competitors in the area. And I would like to see them come down especially since we now have legalized gambling and will probably legalize marijuana in the near future as well. But for the taxes we pay in this state and again a bit high the results that we get in return are pretty good.

Maryland is gaining business’s and tourists everyday. Maryland is a state where you have good skiing in the winter, good beaches in the summer on the Atlantic. Where you can gamble, smoke and posses marijuana without going to jail for it. Where gays can get married and where you are never more than two hours away from doing anything.

I believe the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries will not just be about a mushy-middle Centrist who’s afraid to take any solid positions on anything controversial in Hillary Clinton. Or a New-Left Socialist who will take the strongest positions possible perhaps even just to get to the Left of Hillary.

I also believe there is room for at least one more person who can run and say: “I share the same Democratic and liberal values as you do. And I have a record of producing solid results. I’m not from Washington (even though I live next door to it) and I know how to govern.” Who will still be fairly young in 2016 who can appeal to other Gen-Xers and Millennial’s and that person could be Martin O’Malley.

Posted in The Daily Beast, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Campaign For America’s Future: Opinion: Robert Borosage: Should Populists Declare Victory?: Some of the Differences Between McGovernite Democrats and New Democrats

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Derik Schneider
U.S. Senator George McGovern & The McGovernites

Campaign For America’s Future: Opinion: Robert Borosage: Should Populists Declare Victory?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to start this post off I need to give a brief history lesson and then you’ll see why I’m doing this at the end of the post. But Democrats who are called McGovernites for backing Senator George McGovern for President in 1972 who were the Occupy Wall Street pre-social media in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and even 1990s when they were finally out of power in the Democratic Leadership, ran the Democratic Party at least as far as the amount of influence that they had over it in the 1970s and 80s.

What is a McGovernite? The same thing that an Occupier would be today. Ideologically a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist depending on which term you use. Senator Bernie Sanders someone as far to the left as him or the Progressive Caucus in the U.S. House. A welfare stater redistributionist economically who believes in a large centralized welfare state economically that is financed through high taxes. “That if you really limit economic freedom and have government decide the amount of money the people need, then you won’t have rich people or poor people because everybody will be equal. Equality of outcomes in other words.

McGovernites believe that people shouldn’t have to work to take care of themselves economically if they choose not to. They believe in a soft isolationist foreign and national security policy and tend to be pacifist at least when it comes to government use of force. And believe in a soft law enforcement policy as well that society and one’s environment should be taken into factor and even blamed instead of individuals when they commit crimes. And today a McGovernite believes that private media power can’t be trusted and that government should step in to make sure that people get the news and information that they need. And that Freedom of Speech doesn’t give people the right to offend.

McGovernites would be very mainstream in Europe and perhaps even center-left. But in America they look like the Green Party or Democratic Socialist Party and no offense, perhaps even the Communist Party. That they don’t look like center-left Democrats. But they are a fairly sizable faction in the Democratic Party. Not as large as the Christian Right in the Republican Party, but large enough to be heard and even to a certain extent taken seriously by the Democratic Leadership which does tend to be center-left. And when they are organized and united can be a real force in American politics.

Pre-1990-91 and perhaps even 1988 when the Democratic Party nominated Governor Mike Dukakis for President who was a New Democrat the McGovernites ran the Democratic Party in a lot of ways. When it came to the party platform and how Democrats were seen on the issues. That started changing with Governor Dukakis who wasn’t the radical that Vice President George Bush wanted Americans to think he was. And by the time then Governor Bill Clinton runs for President in 1991-92 the New Democrats took over the party especially the leadership.

What is a New Democrat? I’m a New Democrat and this blog is New Democrat as the name says. But we are center-left Liberal Democrats which is what center-left is which is not socialist. We believe in freedom and opportunity as well as responsibility over dependence. A strong but limited national security and foreign policy based on defending our own interests working with our allies which is what Soft Power is about. Fiscal responsibility and limited government. That government can’t do everything for everybody which is why opportunity and freedom are so critical. And what government does do it has to do well and those things need to be paid for and affordable.

As you may of guessed New Democrats are Liberals so we are very liberal on social and personal issues. And believe in a great deal of personal choice. Which may make us look like Libertarians, but people who are socially liberal are Liberals as socially liberal may indicate. And now we are in charge of the party because that is where the country is. Not anti-government, but believing that government can’t do everything for everybody. Which is why people need to be educated so they have the freedom to make their own decisions.

These are the two competing factions in the Democratic Party right now and will decide where the country and party goes. And the McGovernites are back energized in the Democratic Party, but are now energized and united somewhat behind Senator Bernie Sanders the only self-described Socialist in Congress, but not the only Socialist in Congress which is different. And Senator Elizabeth Warren  a self-described Progressive who similar to Senator George McGovern is not as radical as her supporters would like to claim. And the New Democrats will need a solid showing in 2014 and put up a great presidential candidate in 2016 who makes their positions clear and articulates them well who can get elected. Or the McGovernites may takeover the Democratic Party again.

Posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment