American Thinker: Opinion: Selyn Duke: “Libertarian Folly”: The Difference Between Personal Choice & Infringing on Others

American Thinker: Opinion: Selyn Duke: Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

At some point the Republican Party at least the leadership and establishment are going to have to figure out if they believe in individual freedom which is the freedom for individuals to live individually, (make sense don’t it) the freedom of self-determination and be able to make your own decisions in life, or do they just like talking about individual freedom to try to convince Independents that is what they believe. As they are working to get government more involved in our personal affairs and have less freedom.

Because Americans more and more everyday are deciding that they truly want individual freedom both economic and personal and not have government interfering into our lives and instead limit government to doing what we need it to do for us. Which gets to things like protecting the innocent from predators who would hurt the innocent. Financing infrastructure and making sure that everyone has a shot at getting themselves a good education and a few other things. But what limited government is truly about.

And if Republicans decide to sound like politicians and say what they want people to hear, but govern the way they want to and those things are different than they will continue to lose voters in this country. Especially young Americans and minorities as big government becomes even less unpopular in this country from either an economic or personal perspective. And the Republican Party will be left to only their rural Anglo-Saxon Protestant male base as everyone else are either Democrats or Independents living where most of the country lives in urban and suburban America.

That is my larger point. To Selyn Duke’s article in the American Thinker today as far as what he wrote. He made the classic mistake that people on the fringe either Right or Left do. Which is taking political beliefs to the extreme to make them look like something that they aren’t. He compared people who believe in legalizing same-sex-marriage as people “who must believe in pedophilia as well”. As if there is any real or solid movement in America that believes pedophilia is a good thing to begin with and should be legalize. Or that “if you believe in personal choice you believe the KKK has a right to commit terrorists acts.” It’s the KKK’s choice to do those things right?

Personal choice is not the right to hurt innocent people as much as Neoconservatives and the Christian Right claims that it is. Personal choice is exactly that, personal the ability to make their own decisions regarding their own lives. Not the right to infringe on others freedom. Whether it is theft, robbery, assault, murder, rape go down the line. Personal choice is a big part of individual freedom and Republicans are going to have to figure out if they really believe in individual freedom or not. And if they decide they don’t, they put their party in serious jeopardy with a lot of the country.

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

Cal Thomas: The Nixon Resignation at 40

Source:The New Democrat 

It is clear that President Richard Nixon had to go and even Republicans then and now will tell you that. Perhaps even a majority of them and the only question was how that was going to happen. Somewhat voluntarily with the President resigning, or Congress forcing him out with impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. But I don’t think anyone unless they actually hate the man, I mean seriously hate the man and not just saying that should get any joy from it.

The Nixon resignation ended one of the saddest and worst chapters in American history where you literally had a President and his team committing criminal acts while in office. The Chief Executive of the United States ordering criminal acts. With the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States the Attorney General John Mitchell covering up the acts. So that is the horrible part of this chapter, but how about the sad part.

I’m a loyal Liberal Democrat and I don’t see Richard Nixon as evil. Without Watergate and the other criminal activities like the break ins and I understand that is a lot to leave out, sort of like saying had the 2007 New England Patriots who went 18-1 had a good defense and a strong running game they would’ve not only won the Super Bowl that year, but perhaps gone down as the best team of all-time with a 19-0 record. I understand all of that, but leaving aside President Nixon’s weakness’s and it would’ve depend on how the last thirty months of his presidency would’ve gone down, he would’ve gone down as a great President.

If you look at the facts that President Nixon was twenty-years ahead of everyone in the country when it came to foreign policy with Russia and China. Or that he ended our longest war the Vietnam War. Or that he was more than twenty-years ahead of his time on Welfare reform calling for Welfare to Work as early as 1969 to go along with education and job training. Or that he was already pushing for energy independence and even ahead of Jimmy Carter on that. The 2010 Affordable Care Act, a lot of the ideas in that plan come from the Nixon Administration. Expanding health insurance through the private sector and regulating private health insurers.

President Nixon wanted to reform not end the safety net in America with his New Federalism Policy. That wouldn’t turned the programs over to the states and localities to run them with the resources to run them. And actually use these programs to move people out of poverty, instead of leaving them in poverty with a few more bucks. Nixon leaves his mark on Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Even if none of these former president’s and the current president wants to be associated with them. And not just as it relates to executive power, but when it came to public policy as well. Because they saw that those policies actually work.

The Nixon Presidency unfortunately is a “what could’ve been presidency had only certain things didn’t happen”. But it is still an important and critical presidency and a lot of that being for positive reasons. Because of what they accomplished for the country in foreign and domestic policy, but also because of what they were working on that they didn’t finish because of course of Watergate and the resignation. Which of course is President Nixon’s fault and is a  presidency that not only deserves to be remembered, but respected as well.

Posted in Richard Nixon Presidency | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Charlie Rose Show: Christopher Hitchens On Bill Clinton

Source:The New Democrat

This just in- Christopher Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. Now we return you to your Insomniac Nightly Movie The Attack of the Killer Popcorn. Ha, ha.

This is no secret and as Chris Hitchens said early on in this interview that he strongly dislikes Bill Clinton. He is also an admitted Democratic Socialist back before Senator Bernie Sanders made that term somewhat cool in America. And represents the far-left of the Democratic Party whether he is officially a member of that party or not. And is way to the left of American Liberals and Americans in general. As Hitchens said himself in this interview.

Bill Clinton represents the center-left of the Democratic Party and for a long time led that wing of the party that brought the party back to power at the national level in the early 1990s. The New Democrat liberal wing of the party, the wing of the party that I come from as well. The wing of the party that made the party mainstream again on fiscal and economic policy as well. Along with crime, social insurance, national security, trade and you can go down the line. Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party if not hate New Democrats come damn close to that for taking the leadership of the party away from them.

Not saying these are the only reasons that Chris Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. But I’m also not saying these are not the main reasons either. What I’m saying is that you have to take that in account when you hear charges that Hitch and his allies make about Clinton and other New Democrats. That they call corporatists and sell outs and un-compassionate towards the poor and everything else.

Posted in Christopher Hitchens, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HSN: The List With Colleen Lopez

WordPress_com

Source:HSN– The List With Colleen Lopez.

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

“Colleen takes the guesswork out of shopping for fashion and jewelry. Watch HSN every Thursday at 9pm ET & 6pm PT to see what you’ll add to your list!

Prices shown on the previously recorded video may not represent the current price. View hsn.com to view the current selling price.”

From HSN 

This photo is from Colleen Lopez’s Facebook page (I’m sure you can find it yourself) and she had her photo taken with one of the women who frequently appears on her HSN show to sell their products.

Colleen LopezAt

Source:HSN– HSN’s Colleen Lopez and a friend.

Colleen Lopez’s best, not saying she’s as attractive as Raquel Welch. But when she where’s her hair a certain way, she reminds me of Raquel Welch. As a beautiful, adorable, sexy woman, who also has more than just great looks.

The lets say short-haired, but not butch tomboy dykish lesbian look, but where the hair goes down to the woman’s shoulders or so, when Colleen wears her hair like that, she’s beautiful and very cute, but in a sweet, grownup, sexy, way. Not like a little, baby-faced. cutie, little girl way, who several HSN hosts look like right now.

In some ways Colleen reminds me of the gorgeous Deidre Hall on Days of Our Lives. But not as pretty or as cute as Deidre, but with similar qualities. Tall, curvy, great body, beautiful, good sense of humor and personality, and very cute. I just like Deidre more, but Colleen is a very attractive woman.

Posted in Action, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Jeremy Diamond & Eric Weisbrod: Congress Defined As: Useless, Worthless, A Joke

Congress defined_ 'Useless,' 'worthless,' a 'joke'Source:CNN– with a look at the U.S. Congress.

“It can be tough to agree on a single word to describe something that affects every single American.

But when it comes to Congress, the task suddenly doesn’t seem so insurmountable.

CNN asked Twitter and Facebook users to describe Congress in one word, and the most popular responses gave a clear verdict.

Congress is “useless,” “worthless,” and a “joke,” according to the most popular responses from over 5,000 respondents on social media.

Still trying to get a pulse on the most common feelings toward Congress? The other words on the top 10 list are “corrupt,” “incompetent,” “lazy,” “inept,” “idiots,” “selfish” and “dysfunctional.”

Tweet #CongressInOneWord

The one-word descriptions give a clear, colorful picture of the pervasive frustration over a disjointed Congress that can’t seem to break the partisan gridlock.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College poll released Monday showed that only 3% of registered voters view Congress as “productive.” Only 15% of Americans approve the job that Congress is doing, according to Gallup polling.

And while dissatisfaction with Congress has faced all-time lows in recent years, a Washington Post-ABC News Poll revealed Tuesday that the disapproval is reaching members in their own districts – where individual representatives have been traditionally safe from the overall discontent.

According to that poll, 51% said they disapprove of how their own representative is “handling his or her job” – the first time that figure has cracked 50%, the Washington Post reported.

On Facebook, some of the commenters couldn’t restrict their feelings to a one-word rebuke.

David Smiley Jr. said, “There isn’t a word nasty enough to describe congress!”

And Loyd Hornsby said he needed just one additional word to characterize the legislature:
“I’ll describe Congress with two words,” he said. “Term Limits!!”

From CNN

I’m not an expert on this, but when your profession or institution is ranked somewhere down where lawyers, used car salesman and con man are ranked when it comes to your popularity, commonsense tells you that it is time to reevaluate the job that you are doing and perhaps your profession.

Congress right now and that includes both the House and Senate (for all you leftists out there) has an approval rating somewhere around ten-percent. And since I’m in a generous mood I gave them the ten. Like to meet that ten-percent and see if any of them are not living in mental institutions or perhaps addicted to some type of drug.

The United States Congress makes the United Nations look effective. That is real hard to do because the United Nations many times looks like nothing more than a debating society if that and not even a real good one, where not much more than pre-rehearsed talking points are exchanged. With not a lot of individual creating thinking going on. Especially from people who are supposed to be diplomats and lawyers. Well, that is Congress and both chambers. Instead of trying to pass legislation and working with each other to get something that the President can actually sign that would address the problem passed, they blame the other side for why nothing has been done.

Congress is so pathetic (again, being generous) that they can’t even pass the bills that they are required to by law and under the Constitution. The Federal budget is supposed to be passed by April. The Democratic Senate claims that they don’t have to pass a budget. And they say something to the effect “you can’t make us anyway!”. One of their twelve-year old speechwriters probably gave them that Pulitzer caliber writing on that one. Congress is supposed to pass, what, thirteen appropriations bills by, what, September. They haven’t passed one yet and at least the Republican House has passed a few.

Congress doesn’t pass budgets and appropriations bills anymore because if they did, then Representatives and Senators might have time to actually read the bills. And then decide they can’t vote for that because it is garbage legislation (again, being generous) or it may hurt them in the next election. So what they do is lump a four-trillions dollar budget (big part of the problem right there) that includes all the appropriations bills in what and what only Congress calls an omnibus bill. Which is a clever way is saying a large sack of garbage that nobody wants to put their hands through and see what is in it. Because they don’t want to know.

Still wondering why Congress is so unpopular? If you are, perhaps you’ve just came home from a ten-year vacation in an Afghan cave with no access to any outside information. Or have been in a coma for the last 10-15 years. You would’ve had too, to be that clueless about the U.S. Congress, assuming you are an American.

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

Michelle Goldberg: Should Buying Sex Be Illegal?Michelle Goldberg:

Should Buying Sex Be Illegal_ _ The NationSource:The Nation– with an article about prostitution in Sweden.

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

Source:The Nation: “Editor’s Note: Reporting for this article was funded by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

“Felicia Anna” is the nom de Internet of a 27-year-old Romanian prostitute who has worked in one of Amsterdam’s famed window brothels for the last four years. This spring, she launched a blog, Behind the Red Light District, and when I was in Amsterdam reporting on prostitution laws, a Dutch advocate for sex workers’ rights suggested I read it. Anna’s writing, the advocate said, would help me better understand the reality of legalized prostitution—a reality far removed from the lurid tales told by European anti-prostitution campaigners who seek to criminalize the purchase of sex.”

But this was not, Anna insists, an exploitative situation. The couple was kind to her, functioning more as a helpful employment agency than as underworld thugs. The work turned out to be remunerative, and the independence it provided was empowering. “I have a good live [sic], have enough money to do whatever I want to do, and have all the freedom in the world to do what I want, whenever I want to,” she wrote on her blog.

Anna is scathing about the so-called “Swedish model” (also referred to as the “Nordic model”), an approach pioneered in Sweden that bans the buying but not the selling of sex. For the last few years, the Swedish model has been ascendant in Europe. Norway and Iceland adopted it in 2009, and Ireland and France are both considering it, though its future in the latter country is increasingly uncertain after a defeat in a French Senate committee in July. Earlier this year, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution calling for Swedish-style laws throughout the continent. Dutch advocates for sex workers’ rights fear that such laws could eventually come to their famously liberal country. The variant of feminism that backs the Swedish model, says Anna, is a “growing cancer for prostitutes.”

I e-mailed Anna, and she agreed to meet early on a recent Friday evening at a cafe in central Amsterdam, where she arrived with her Dutch boyfriend in tow. Anna is slight and pretty, with dark hair pulled into a tight ponytail. Her eyes, slanting up above high cheekbones, are ringed with thick black liner, and her eyebrows are painted in a dramatic arch. Given the voice of her blog, I expect her to be tough and sarcastic, but she’s nothing of the sort. She smiles a lot when she speaks, in English that is more broken than on her blog.

How, I ask her, did she become so interested in the politics of prostitution? “Because of my boyfriend,” Anna replies. “I think if I don’t have him, I would still be one of the girls who really doesn’t know what is happening.”

Her boyfriend, who speaks excellent English, has longish brown hair and a hint of a mustache and goatee; he’s wearing a gold-colored chain around his neck and another around his wrist. He works in IT, he says, but never seems to make much money. He met Anna two years ago as a client; before they got together, he lived outside the city because he couldn’t afford an apartment in Amsterdam. Her earnings—about 300 to 400 euros per shift, which can run anywhere from four to ten hours—are more than five times as much as his.

As we talk, it becomes clear that the voice of the blog is at least as much his as hers. In conversation, he compares the Swedish model to Prohibition in the United States, a point also made on Behind the Red Light District. And while the online Felicia Anna says she’s been endangered by a client only once, the Felicia Anna sitting across from me says she’s had to call the police two or three times. Nor does she feel that she can call for help every time a client gets aggressive and starts demanding his money back: “You can’t call always the police, because sometimes then you have to call almost the whole night.” Her boyfriend chimes in to compare it to working late at night at a bar. “You can also get drunk guys late at night,” he says. “You can also have problems with them.”

When I mention that Behind the Red Light District sounds like him, Anna tells me: “He help me a lot with it, because I work in the nighttime and I have to sleep, too. And I have my own stuff that I have to do—cleaning the house, shopping, sometimes cooking. I can’t do everything by myself.”

Basically, her boyfriend adds, “she dictates what I have to write, and I kind of fill in, smooth out the story line…

Just one quick point on the Swedish prostitution law: if women were being arrested for selling their sex, but men weren’t for buying the the women’s sex, radical feminists and the Far-Left would be freaking out over that and saying how sexist it was. And they would be right. (For a change)

What Sweden has done is to say it’s legal for women to sell their sex. But it’s illegal for men to buy their sex. Which is also sexist. If you want to have credibility, at least with people who aren’t already on your side, when it comes to sexism and bigotry in general, you have to play it straight. (No pun intended)

Here’s an example where radical-feminists (to use Michelle Goldberg’s label) as well as Christian Conservatives as well as nanny statists on the Left and Right disagree with me as a Liberal. I’m in favor of legalizing prostitution and let me make that clear. I’m not in favor of prostitution, but I’m in favor of allowing for people to make these decisions for themselves. I have decided that prostitution is not for me as a job or as a customer. Millions of other Americans in and outside of Nevada have decided that prostitution is for them as a worker or customer and have never spent a day in jail for it. And that is really my point. Who should decide, the individual or government?

There are plenty of things that I would never do because of potential dangerous risks that come from them. And most of them are legal:

like owning and using firearms

smoking tobacco

drinking alcohol

bungee jumping

gambling

homosexual sex

hardcore porn. And hardcore porn not so much because of any danger factor, but I don’t have much of a taste for it. Perhaps you need to be more lonely or lonely period to appreciate solid hardcore porn. But being that as it may there are plenty of dangerous activities that are actually legal in this country.

These vices (if you want to call them that) are legal because we’ve decided that there there’s a limit to what government can do to protect a country of three-hundred fifteen-million people. And that we need to limit those resources except for a few exceptions to doing the things that we need government to do. Like protecting us from predators foreign and domestic. (To use as an example)

I’m not saying prostitution is a good thing, but like a lot of these other activities it would be safer if it is legal than illegal. Because government can regulate it to protect people from predators and the workers, employers and customers can pay taxes on it.

What happens when you legalize prostitution? Now government can step in to regulate it to make it as safe as possible. Because legal or illegal prostitution is not the oldest profession in  the world for nothing. And it is only going to get older  so you might as well legalize it. So only adults are involved and customers and workers are tested on a regular basis to prevent the spread of disease. And so taxes are paid on it which and people don’t have to pay other people’s taxes that they are not paying because they are involved in a illegal profession.

Posted in Freedom of Choice, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

TruthOut: A.W. Gaffney: ‘The Problem With The Private Option’

Source:The New Democrat 

You can get on right-wing governors for not expanding Medicaid in their state all you want. But the fact is if Medicaid wasn’t an unfunded mandate to begin with which is a Federal program that is forced upon the states through law, but not paid for. Then we aren’t seeing this right now and the Medicaid section of the Affordable Care Act probably doesn’t get thrown out. Because Medicaid would be fully paid for meaning the Feds could say “you need to expand this program. You have the funds to pay for your current Medicaid costs and here are additional funds to pay for the expansion”.

But since Medicaid is an unfunded mandate because the Feds don’t cover the costs of Medicaid that they are required to by law states are having a hard time meeting their current Medicaid costs. Let alone having the money there to pay for an expansion. So the Supreme Court says that “the Medicaid expansion is constitutional, but since it is an unfunded mandate and the Feds don’t have a very good record at meeting their financial promises, that the states don’t have to expand their Medicaid program. And if they decide to do so the Feds have to cover their share of the costs.

The private option in Medicaid is a good idea. Medicaid really should be a state program to begin with and let all fifty states set up their own low-income health insurance system. Instead of the Feds trying to run one system for fifty states in a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. The private option is good because it would allow low-income Americans to have more say in their own lives and give them more responsibility and make them less dependent on the state for their survival. It would also cut Medicaid costs because less people and less poor people would be on Medicaid.

I realize anti-federalist Progressives who have this idea that big brother big government the central state should be planning the lives of everyone at least people who do not make enough money to manage their own affairs. And tend to see people especially Americans as stupid who can’t make these decisions for themselves. But they are wrong because once Americans have the education and knowledge they are more qualified to make their own decisions then some government office who does not even know who they are.

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

Washington Examiner: Why Leftists Are Turning Against Freedom of Speech

Source:The New Democrat 

First of all it is not “Liberals who are turning against Freedom of Speech”, just to correct the Washington Examiner editorial page. And you give me all you want about ‘Modern Liberals’ or contemporary Liberals. But Freedom of Speech is a liberal value from the start and still is. Liberals wrote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Liberalism hasn’t changed, but some of the people who call themselves Liberals have changed as far as how they think politically and ideologically.

Freedom of Speech is not the right to say anything pleasant or to say things that a lot of people approve of. But the right for free people to speak and express themselves freely as long as they aren’t libeling, threatening, or inciting violence in public. Which is something that real Liberals understand, but like the Right the Left has its fringe as well with their own fascist wing. That says “this is what it means to be an American and a compassionate progressive person” and if you against what we believe, we are going to try to shut you up even through government force.

The far-left in America are interested in public welfare and progress even over freedom. They care about people’s well-being to the point that they believe freedom should be so limited so that everyone can live well. And that just doesn’t cover economic policy, but social policy as well. Liberals used to be stereotyped as people who believed in big government when it came to economic policy. But limited if not small government when it came to social and personal issues that came with a lot of personal freedom. But now we are stereotyped as people who believe in big government period and that social welfare and equality over everything including freedom.

The far-left believes that one freedom that Americans should have is not to have to hear things that offends them. Which is what the whole political correctness movement is about. Which is not about Freedom of Speech, but quality speech that they agree with and censoring speech that offends them. It is classic fascism and there is nothing liberal or I would argue even anything American about it. And people who believe in this certainly are not Liberals, but leftist fascists.

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

New America Foundation: Alice Mary McCarthy: America’s Job Training System: Better Than You Think

Source:The New Democrat 

There are plenty parts of the Federal budget that I would like to cut back on and reform. Like in defense, agriculture subsidies, corporate welfare, red tape, but one area where I would like to see America spend a hell of a lot more money on as well as reforming the system would be in the areas of infrastructure, job training and education so we are more competitive with Europe, Brazil, China and Japan in these areas. Not to spend a lot more money on a bad system, or just to spend a lot more money. But to reform the system and invest whatever it takes in it to make it as effective as possible.

We could literally have a public education system in America not run by the Federal Government and still run by the states and locals primarily where every student is able to go to a good school. Where none of our teachers are underpaid and where none of our schools are underfunded including in very poor urban and areas. Where educators are paid based on how well their students are learning, not by how long they’ve been teaching. Where parents would have the choice to send their student to any public school in the district including a charter school. And where schools are funded based on need, not by where they are located.

We could do this by still having the states and locals be the first financial resource to funding schools. But where the Feds step in to provide the financial resources for schools that are in low-income districts so they have the resources that they need to be successful as well. This would require a huge investment probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars and would sort of look like a Marshall Plan but it would be domestic. And it would need to be paid for by not borrowing the money, but is something that we can afford to do.

As far as job training for low-skilled low-income adults. Whether they are working or not if they are collecting any form of public assistance I would make job training a requirement for them in order to receive public assistance. Public assistance would become an investment in human capital and investment in the economy. And no longer public charity, but money spent on improving the economic lives of people in need so they have the skills and freedom to be able to support themselves. Instead of staying on public assistance indefinitely with very little if any hope at becoming successful in life.

I would make job training and education universal not just K-12 or through college, but lifelong. And set up job training centers all over the country including in ever low-income urban and rural area in the country including for United States territories and commonwealths. And make it public-private partnership and bring in the non-profits in the private sector and reward them with grants to set up job training centers and offices for low-income low-skilled adults. Where these people would be their clients and their job would be to find them the right school and educational program for that client so the client can get the education they need to get themselves a good job.

Poverty is not something that we have to accept and put up with. You have to know why people are in poverty and them empower them based on that knowledge to work their way out of poverty. And the person them self has to take advantage of those opportunities that they need to get themselves the skills that they need to get out of poverty. And not just live in poverty with a few extra bucks from taxpayers and private donations.

Posted in New America Foundation, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crooks & Liars: Report: Allison Lundergan-Grimes Delivers Epic Smackdown Right to Mitch McConnell’s Face

Source:The New Democrat 

This is a prefect example of why as a Democrat I’m not worried about Democrats losing the Senate this year. Because the most unpopular member of Congress that is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for reelection in a state where Democrats are not only still competitive, but in power controlling the governor’s mansion and the State Senate. Allison Lundergan-Grimes who will be Mitch McConnell’s opponent in November also just happens to be Secretary of State for Kentucky and a popular Secretary of Kentucky. Who is thirty-five, an outsider with a lot of energy to combat Leader No. The Do Nothing Senator, just a couple of nicknames that Mitch has picked up, Leader Obstruction would be another one.

Kentucky is a red-state at the presidential level, but in Congress it is a purple state. They have at least one U.S. Representative and will have a competitive U.S. Senate election this year. Kentucky is more like Ohio or perhaps Michigan or Indiana politically. Not Mississippi or South Carolina which means Democrats don’t have to sound like they are with the Christian Right on social issues and the Tea Party on economic issues to get elected. Which means Lundergan-Grimes can run as a center-left New Democrat and still win the election there because of how blue-collar that state is.

Mitch McConnell on the other hand has been more of a national Republican really since he became the Assistant Majority Leader back in 2003 when Republicans won back the Senate. And then became Senate Minority Leader in 2007 when Republicans lost Congress House and Senate. And he is tied to the national Republican Party and the base of the party that is so unpopular right now. And tied to a very unpopular Congress as Senate Minority Leader. And is just right for the picking to be defeated and sent back to Kentucky for retirement or becoming a Washington lobbyist.

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