The Week: Opinion: Damon Linker: The Laughable to Get Mitt Romney to Run in 2016: Mitt Who in 2016?

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Ederik Schneider
What

The Week: Opinion: The Laughable to get Mitt Romney to run in 2016

Hubert Humphrey had a great line in 1968 when he and Richard Nixon were the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Vice President Humphrey’s line was about one of Mr. Nixon’s campaign themes for president in 1968 which was The New Nixon. And talking about Nixon’s multiple political comebacks in his career as well as attempted political comebacks.

The 1952 Checkers speech that kept then Senator Nixon on the Republican ticket for Vice President.

The experienced and ready to serve Nixon in 1960 when he ran for President the first time.

The New Nixon 1962 when he ran for Governor of California in after losing the 1960 presidential election to Jack Kennedy.

And what Hubert said about these new Nixon’s was that “a man who has had as many political face jobs and touch-up’s in his career can’t be very new”. I’m paraphrasing here but that is damn close. And you go to Mitt Romney and doesn’t matter which Mitt you choose and I’ll get into more of that later, but Mitt Romney has had a similar political career. One of the differences between Tricky Dick Nixon and Flip Flopper Mitt Romney is that Dick won most of his political elections. Nixon was 8-2 as a political candidate and incumbent which covers all of his Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential elections. Mitt is 1-3 not exactly as winner as a politician.

But let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s political career because that should explain that 1-3 record. He was Liberal Democrat Mitt in 1994 essentially running as a New Democrat in Massachusetts (even though he is a Republican, go figure) for U.S. Senate against the progressive champion Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost that election overwhelmingly an election where he was a strong favorite going in. Then Moderate Mitt shows up in 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And of course that is still the only election Mitt has ever won in now sixty-seven years on this planet. Moderate Mitt managed to stay around as Governor until he ran for President the first time in 2007.

In 2007-08 Religious-Conservative/Neo-Con Hawk (even though he’s a Mormon and comes form a religion that believes in multiple spouses) Mitt shows up to run for President the first time. Mike Huckabee deserves the credit for the best line about Mitt Romney in that campaign. When Governor Huckabee said that “Mitt looks like the man who fired your father”. Mitt Romney has Wall Street country club Northeastern conservative establishment Republican written all over his chess and back. And yet he’s never run as someone who is proud of his success in life. But the candidate who runs as the guy who tries to please everybody, but instead offends everyone at the same time.

In 2009-10 was probably the best part of Mitt Romney’s political career where he was once again out of public office because he couldn’t get a job in it. But that is a time when he did some real studying about current affairs especially foreign policy and learning about the United States Government and issues that the country was facing. The problem was that he didn’t use that knowledge very well to communicate a reason for why he should be elected President in 2012. But instead focused on who does he need to vote for him and how to talk everyone at the same time with different messages for each group.

2012 is the biggest stain not only on Mitt’s career and something the Republican Party is going to have a real hard time living down especially if they lose again in 2016 and fail to win back the Senate in 2014. Because 2012 at least based on history and the economy was an election they should’ve won at least on paper. Going up against a fairly weak incumbent (but not weak enough for Mitt Romney) in President Barack Obama who was somewhere around 45% approval nationally with a struggling economy that had eight-percent unemployment most of the year that was barely growing. With a high budget deficit and national debt.

But again we are talking about Mitt Romney here so what does he do, but of course changes his political appearance once again. Who is Mitt Romney? You ask Mitt and put him on truth serum and he might say “I’m who I need to be to accomplish what I want to accomplish at any given time”. You ask him off of truth serum and you may get five different answers to the same question at the same time. 2012 was Flip Flopper Mitt because I’m still struggling to figure out what his campaign theme was about because he changed it multiple times. At best it was successful businessman with a history of turning struggling organizations around who would turn the American economy around Mitt. Not exactly inspirational.

When the main question about a politician or a politician wannabe in Mitt Romney’s case who has spent only four years of his entire life in public office (not for a lack of trying) because he lost most of the elections he’s run in, but when the main question is after twenty years on public life as far as being well-known and the number one question is “who are you?” Or “who is he”? You know you are in trouble as a political candidate. And that pretty much summarizes the political career of Mitt  Romney. The man who didn’t even have the guts to let voters know who is he and what is he about and why they should vote for him.

Posted in Mitt Romney | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Townhall: Terry Jeffrey: ‘Pat Buchanan’s Chronicles of the 1960s’

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Pat Buchanan's Campaign Chronicle of the 1960s

Source:Townhall– Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas with President Richard Nixon. I don’t know who the other man is.

“Shortly before Richard Nixon was going to formally announce that he would be running again for president in 1968, Pat Buchanan and Rose Mary Woods, two of his closest aides, presented him with an idea.

“Given the multiple crises confronting the nation — race conflict, soaring crime, inflation, the war in Vietnam, the mounting Soviet missile threat — and the difficulty of dealing with them all at once,” Buchanan writes in his new book “The Greatest Comeback,” “we suggested that Nixon in a single declaration destroy the image of him as a consummate politician and tell the nation ‘that the next president should be a one-term president.'”

Nixon dismissed the idea of term-limiting himself. He did not want, as Buchanan relates it, to be “a lame duck from his inaugural.”

“In retrospect, Nixon was right,” says Buchanan. “Yet when one looks at what he accomplished in his first term and what became of his second, he would today be listed, like Polk, who sought and served but a single term, among the near-great presidents.”

From Townhall

When it comes to Richard Nixon’s political career at least pre-White House, I’m mostly interested in his career from 1961 after he just left the Vice Presidency after losing the 1960 presidential election to Senator Jack Kennedy, up until January of 1969 when he’s sworn as the 37th President of the United States. Because during this period Dick Nixon is completely out of public office either as a politician or as a public official in any office for the first time since January, 1947 when he gets sworn in as an elected U.S. Representative in the House of Representatives.

This was a very rough, but very productive time for Dick Nixon post-1962 California governor’s race debacle where he lost to California Governor Pat Brown in a major landslide. So Nixon was at a point where he didn’t know what to do with the rest of life. He got addicted to politics and public office his six years in Congress (both in the House and Senate) and was a very hardworking and productive Vice President for President Dwight Eisenhower. And which Jack Kennedy still President going into 1963 it looked like JFK would get elected with huge Democratic majorities in Congress once again in 1964.

So what was Dick Nixon to do as a man who loved political and public affairs and serving in government. What he did seeing that it would be at least a while before he would have another real shot at the presidency 1968 at the earliest. And that might have depended on who the Democratic nominee might be that year, he decided to make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer in New York defending and representing companies across the country and become a party man inside of the Republican Party in his spare time.

And when Mr. Nixon wasn’t doing those things he was studying current affairs inside of the United States and challenges that the country was facing and would be facing especially when it came to foreign policy and sort of did what would be called a world tour and meeting foreign leaders all over the world. So when he decided to run for public office again especially for president that he would be completely ready for it.

There was a PBS 1990 film from their American Experience series that chronicles these changes in Dick Nixon’s life. And it shows exactly how he came back and all the Congressional Republicans he helped out and backed in the 1966 mid-terms when House and Senate Republicans made big comebacks and the same thing in 1968 when they picked up a lot of seats again with Dick Nixon winning back the White House for the Republicans.

Posted in New Right, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brookings: Video: Stephen Grand & Shadi Hamid: The Tension Between Democracy and Liberalism

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Liberalism and democracy are two different things. Liberals believe in both, but just because you are a Democrat doesn’t mean you are a Liberal as we see in the Democratic Party. Or if you are a small d democrat, meaning you are someone who believes in democracy, but you are not a member of the Democratic Party like let’s say center-right Republicans. So you can be both someone who believes in liberalism and democracy, but you can believe in another lets say democratic oriented ideology that believes in at least certain amount of individual freedom and believe in democracy as well.

Now there is also liberal democracy which is what the two men in this video were talking about to a certain extent. Liberal democracy would be a national system or governmental system where we have democracy based on lets say liberal values. Where everyone is treated the same and fairly under law. Where we all have a certain amount of individual rights and liberty under a Constitution that can’t be taken away even if there’s some democratic or majoritarian will to do so. Which is how the American founding fathers set up America. A liberal democracy based on liberal values and constitutionalism.

Liberal Democrats

 

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

Politico: Dylan Byers: No Mas Sarah Palin

Posted on July 8, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

Take Sarah Palin completely out of the American political scene and you would see riots from hundreds of thousands of political comedians and satirists. Because she pays their bills and is always supplying people information to write about her to show the rest of the world how dumb Americans can truly be. She wants to talk about all sorts of abuses by President Obama and why now he needs to be impeached. Yet she couldn’t name any on her own and would need an earpiece in her ear giving things to say about the President during an interview.

Crisis on the Mexican-American border? She’s an expert on that because she can see Mexico from her backyard? Oh wait my bad she’s an expert on foreign policy because she can see Russia from her backyard. Yeah I know that line is six years old now and just one example why John McCain isn’t President now. But again she is the gift that keeps on giving for comedians and satirists and why the older ones never seem to retire.

Besides this is about immigration policy not foreign policy and what makes Sarah Palin and expert on immigration policy three-thousand miles or so from the American-Mexican border. I know she knows about Russians immigrating to Alaska from Siberia, Russia. Or Canadians immigrating illegally to Alaska from British Columbia, Canada. Because she can see them from her backyard because she can see both Russia and Canada from there.

The fastest ticket to a united Democratic Congress next year both the Senate and House is for House Republicans to go off on an impeachment rant following Sarah Palin’s lead. The next fastest ticket to a united Democratic Congress next year is for House Republicans to focus on what they call ‘illegal Mexicans’ on the Southern border invading America. Because either one of them would get Democrats and Independents behind President Obama similar to impeachment 1998 with President Clinton. So as a Democrat I hope they do this, but as an American I hope they would just shut up, or grow up whatever comes first.

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

The New York Times: Germany and the Minimum Wage

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat

The New York Times: Editorial Board: Germany and the Minimum Wage

More evidence that Germany is not as socialist as it get’s stereotyped. The German Bundestag which is the lower chamber of the German Federal Parliament which is like the U.S. House in our Congress passed a sensible minimum wage law last week. 8.50 Euros which would be $11.60 in American dollars assuming the upper chamber of parliament in Germany the Bundesrat which would be like the U.S. Senate in the U.S. Congress passes this law as well. This is not a twenty-five dollar and hour minimum wage that American so-called Progressives want. But $11.60 which is less than half.

$7.25 and hour is way too low for a minimum wage in America especially with our high cost of living. And then you add that it is also unfairly too low when you consider that grocery store cashiers and fast food cashiers and cooks are vital employees to their employees. Without these workers these companies would be out of business. So paying them a wage that doesn’t allow them to come close to being able to pay their bills and having to rely on taxpayers to financially survive is not fair to the workers, but also not the taxpayers who have to pick up their employers tab.

My first offer when it comes to raising the minimum wage in America would be ten-dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break for small employers. And then index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost if living. But I could go to twelve-dollars and hour without much convincing needed with the same thirty-percent tax break. Or even fifteen-dollars an hour with a 30-40 percent tax break. Which would be benefit taxpayers because their taxes wouldn’t be needed as much to fund public assistance. It would also help our debt and deficit situation because again fewer Americans would need public assistance. And it wouldn’t hurt small employers because they would get that money back in a tax cut.

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

USA Today: Jonathan Turley: Fighting Pot With Water

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

All the evidence that you need to know that Barack Obama is not a Liberal (even though I wish he was) is to look at his administration’s approach when it comes to the failed War on Drugs, marijuana, privacy and civil liberties. It’s always security first with this President and his security team. Security always before freedom with them. I’m not saying President Obama is not a Liberal, but certainly not a Liberal in the classical sense. And at best a Progressive in the paternalistic prohibitionist sense when it comes to these personal and security issues. But with clear liberal or progressive leanings when it comes to economic policy.

And the Obama Administration’s water policy with their federal water agency when it comes to shutting down marijuana farmers and their water by refusing water to these farmers and saying they can’t have water for their marijuana growth is a perfect example of that. They’ve concluded that taking a big government anti-federalist position when it comes to marijuana and saying that even though two states have now legalized it that they’ve decided they aren’t going to shut down their marijuana in the old fashion way. By continuing to arrest marijuana users, dealers and growers. Because now they would be on their own and without the help from state police. And politically it wouldn’t look good with their own liberal base.

So what the Obama Administration does instead of breaking through the front door to prevent marijuana use of all kinds, they sneak through the backdoor and cutoff marijuana farmers supply of water so they can no longer grow their product that is now legal in their own state Colorado or Washington. And that is where the anti-liberal, anti-federalist, pro-big government leanings of the Obama Administration comes in. To prohibit things they see as dangerous even if they are now legal in some states.

What the Obama Administration could do to help themselves with their liberal base and with Independents and with Congressional Democrats who are facing tough elections in November is to back off on marijuana where it is now legal at least at the state level. Back off technically and in actuality and to say “we are going to see how these experiments go and see them through. Because we know prohibition is not working because people use marijuana anyway regardless if it’s legal or not and generally smart enough not to get caught”. That would help them with Congressional Democrats who are in tough races because it help bring Democrats to the polls and give them a reason to vote Democratic in November.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Examiner: Mark Tapscott: Is Banning Fringe Views How Leftists Want to Deal With Conservatives?

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

It is really Conservatives and the far-right that get’s stereotyped and accused of being fascists. And that is true to the extent that there is plenty of right-wing fascism in the world and even in America. We see that with the Tea Party especially in 2011-12 and even today that seem to have this view that you either live their traditional way of life and share their traditional view of what America is, (which is stuck in the 1950s) or you are not a real American.

But fascism is unfortunately bipartisan and not something that the Left can bash the Right over with no real fascist charges on our side. This blog has covered a few posts alone this year about leftist fascists. One dealing with leftists on campus trying to ban rightists from speaking at their schools. Another one even more extreme than that having to do with Fred Jerome’s article in Salon back in January or February having to do with nationalizing FOX News because of the success that FNC especially has had as a right-wing voice. And even nationalizing news all together in America. So so-called Progressives could tell the truth.

But my point especially directly to the right-wing America whether they are Conservatives or not is that these leftists fascists aren’t Liberals as they tend to be called. But people who are on the far-left in America where fascism not only exists, but Socialists, or even Communists or Anarchists on the far-left who see fascism as a necessary tool to create their vision of a fair and equal America, or however they would put that. And for them to accomplish their goals they feel the need to destroy right-wingers even by forcing them to shut up through government force.

The fact is you can’t be a Liberal and a fascist. It is one or the other because there is nothing liberal about fascism. Liberals not only believe in the First Amendment and Free Speech, but we created these things for crying out loud. And wouldn’t do anything especially through government to shut up the opposition. Other than by winning the debates, but with both sides having equal opportunity to make their case. And there are some on the Right especially in the Tea Party that are so damn partisan and hate anyone who disagrees with them that they simply can’t believe and handle that.

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

Politico Magazine: Joseph Stiglitz: The Myth of America’s Golden Age

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I’m getting tired of hearing people who are further left of me people who are Social Democrats let’s say who are constantly putting down America. And saying “Europe is so much better and we should simply just become like them. Tax everybody a lot more so no one has too much or too little money and let the Federal Government take care of everybody for them”. Look we know what works in America economically and what Americans need to do for themselves to make it in America. And why we are struggling right now has a lot to do with the fact that we’ve moved away from what works in America.

If you get yourself a good education and stay in school until you finish school you now have the skills and tools you need to make it in America. You won’t need government to take care of you for the most part if you have good skills. Because with those good skills you can get yourself a good job. And based on how productive you are at the job you’ll do very well in this country. And make the income you need to make it in America.

Where government comes in is not to run people’s lives for them. But to see that everyone has the opportunity to make it in America. That educational and economic opportunities are for all Americans and that we all have at the very least a good shot at making it in America. And for the Americans who failed to take advantage of those opportunities and are not making it in America like dropping out of school, or having kids too soon, government should come in to empower them to get themselves the tools that they need to make to in America and be successful parents.

Pre-recession of the early 2000s and forget about the Great Recession but the recession of 2001-02 is really where our economic slump started, but pre-2001 we weren’t talking about and debating whether we should expand the welfare state in America and tax people more to eliminate the income and wealth gaps. Because the economy was booming, unemployment was somewhere around four-percent with record low poverty levels. And really from 1983 to 2000 the American economy was doing very well with low unemployment and high wages. Why because a lot of Americans were getting and had the skills that they needed to make it in America.

The problem with the American economy is not that the Federal Government is too small. Or business’s are too successful, or the rich are too rich. The problems with the American economy is not enough of us are very successful. And need public assistance and private charity to survive in this country with a rise in cost of living. Because they either do not have the skills to make it in America, or seen their job go to another country but are well-educated. These are the people who government should target with education and economic opportunity and see that these communities get these opportunities so these Americans can make it in America as well.

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

The Centrist Review: Solomon Kleinsmith- The Centrist/Moderate False Equivalence Deception

Posted on July 7, 2014 by kireschneider

Source: The Centrist Review

Source:The New Democrat

The problem that I believe that Centrists have and my question would be what is a Centrist, but the problem that I believe they have is exactly that. What is a Centrist? I believe that is a question that American voters tend to ask as well. And you can give you all you want about forty-percent of the country that are political Independents. Fine, but that doesn’t mean they are all Centrists. It just means they don’t like the Republican Party, or Democratic Party and perhaps the two-party system .

Americans as much as we get stereotyped as being divided politically tend to believe in similar things. We tend to believe in free and unregulated free speech at least in most cases. We tend to believe in the Right to Privacy and personal freedom as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people. We believe in the Right to Self-Defense as long as it is regulated. We tend to believe in the Freedom of Assembly and being able to associate with whom we please. We believe in property rights and the ability to make a good honest living and live independently. We tend to support the Freedom of Religion. And I could go further.

These aren’t centrist values at least in the sense they came from some centrist philosophy. These are bedrock classical conservative or classical liberal values that the United States was founded on. And I could add another one which would be Americans tend to believe in equal rights for all Americans. These are the liberal and conservative values that made America great. They didn’t come from Centrists, but Liberals and Conservatives who wrote the Constitution.

Where would a Centrist be on these key core issues? And if they believe in these things the way they are would they still qualify as Centrists? Since these are liberal and conservative values that come from the center-left and center-right in America. Not the dead-center or the mushy-middle. Or would they reform these key individual rights and make them less liberal or conservative and more moderate. Perhaps the Right to Privacy, but only on the first floor of your home and only inside of your home.

I wonder how the civil rights movement would’ve gone in the 1960s had there not of been a Progressive President in Lyndon Johnson who had served twenty-four years in Congress and eight in the leadership. And instead we had a Centrist Independent instead with no clear record when it came to civil rights because that person was perhaps stuck in the middle. Or if we had a Centrist President during the Civil War, or World War II. Maybe we respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but not respond to the Nazis in Europe murdering all of those Jews. Or perhaps just supply our allies with equipment and hope for the best. Or in the Civil War’s case Africans can be free in America, but just not in the South.

These might be slight exaggerations and poking too much fun at centrism (or not enough) and I’m not saying that centrism doesn’t have it’s place. I believe divided government is where it is useful to take the best from the Democrats and Republicans. Throw out the garbage from both sides and take what is good from both sides and put it in a final package that can work. But my point is there are times when right is right and wrong is wrong. Meaning those things are clear and that you need to take a stand whether it is the liberal or conservative thing to do. Which was my point about those examples I laid out in the previous paragraph. And you need to take those stances for the good of the country. Which is where centrism doesn’t seem very useful or evident.

Charles Wheelan: The Centrist Manifesto- The Strategy

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

The Washington Post: EJ Dionne: ‘It’s Time For Progressives to Reclaim the Constitution’

Posted on July 7, 2014 by Derik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I guess it depends on what you mean by a Progressive and I would certainly include EJ Dionne as an actual Progressive. But today’s so-called Progressives seem to believe and are constantly arguing that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and outlived it’s usefulness. And it should be scrapped for something else and we should perhaps even scrap our federal form of government and become a social democracy with a unitary government that is common in Europe.

Today’s so-called Progressives aren’t Progressives really and not center-left Democrats. But are really further left and people who would be called Social Democrats or Socialists in Europe. If anything they would scrap the Constitution all together and go to a complete majoritarian rule society where the majority always rules. But if you want to talk about real Progressives, or EJ Dionne, or Lyndon Johnson who I believe is a better example of a real Progressive better than Franklin Roosevelt, then we can talk about what a progressive Constitution looks like.

I blog a lot about the differences between Liberals and Socialists and even to a certain extent the Liberals and Progressives. But here is one area where Liberals and Progressives both agree on. We both at least generally support the United States Constitution and our federalist form of government. That limits government especially the Federal Government. We both believe in most if not all the amendments to the Constitution. And we both believe the Constitution needs to be interpreted in a way that makes sense with modern American life and keeps up with the times.

To me as someone who wouldn’t technically qualify as a Progressive at least today, but I’m definitely a Liberal which again is different, I guess the idea of a progressive Constitution is something that protects the rights of all Americans equally. It doesn’t say some people have more rights other than the Constitution than others especially organizations over individuals. And that the Welfare Clause covers society and gives government the ability to look after society as a whole including individuals.

Progressives are more federal and nationally oriented than Liberals. But that doesn’t mean that they are unconstitutional, meaning they are against the Constitution. It just means they believe the Federal Government has  a major role to address all the concerns of the country. And not just leave it up to states, locals and private sector. And under the Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause you can make a case they are within the Constitution. As long as they are simply not trying to nationalize every organization and government program that has something to do with society’s welfare.

And under this if you are a real Progressive it is not so much that you want the Federal Government to do everything and try to manage the affairs of Americans lives. But that you believe the Federal Government has a role and responsibility to address the needs and concerns of Americans lives in more of a supportive role. And has a role, but not the only role when it comes to concerns that country . And to me at least this would be the view of a progressive not social democratic or socialist view of what the U.S. Constitution is and should be.

Posted in The New Democrat, The Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment