NFL Films: NFL Films Presents- Billy Sims: ‘The Forgotten Legend’

Billy Sims_ The Forgotten Legend _ NFL Films Presents

Source:NFL Films– The original Detroit Lions #20, Billy Sims.

“Check out Billy Sims’ amazing journey! Subscribe to NFL Films:Google.”

From NFL Films

From 1980-84, Billy Sims was one of the best running backs in the NFL, at least as far as running with the football. And then he breaks his leg in 1984 and his NFL career is over and so is the decade for the Detroit Lions who would go onto 7 straight losing seasons from 1984-90, 6 straight (1985-90) after losing Sims in 1984.

Just to talk about the Lions and the 1980s: what was called the NFC Central back then (the NFC North today) the Bears pretty much dominated the NFC Central from that decade: 5 straight NFC Central championships from 1984-88, they won Super Bowl in 1985 with one of the best NFL teams ever.

And I believe the big part of that is because the Green Bay Packers were stuck in mediocrity in the 1980s with four 8-8 seasons, including 3 straight from 1983-85 and the Minnesota Vikings also stuck in mediocrity for most of that decade, the Bears from 84-88 under Mike Ditka pretty much had 8 divisional games every year that they at the very least would be expected to win and probably should’ve won.

Unlike the NFC West where you consistently had 3 playoff contenders in that division for most of that decade with the San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Rams, the New Orleans Saints, and even the Atlanta Falcons in the early 80s.

Or the NFC East where you consistently had 4-5 playoff contenders in that division for the most of that decade , with the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, and even the Cardinals when they were still in St. Louis. In the NFC Central once the Bears emerged in 1984 under Mike Ditka, the Monsters of the Midway were back and they gobbled up that division like Godzilla gobbled up Tokyo.

With a healthy Billy Sims for most of the 1980s and then you have Eric Hipple at QB who was about as talented as any QB in the NFC back then, head coach Monte Clark is probably not fired after the 1984 season and I believe 1980s Detroit Lions are right there with the Chicago Bears in the NFC Central.

Not saying the Lions would’ve been as good as the Bears, but they would’ve been consistently competing with the Bears in the NFC Central during that decade. Because Eric Hipple was a good QB when he was healthy, Leonard Thompson and Jeff Chadwick were good receivers, but after Sims they didn’t have a running game and when Hipple wasn’t playing they didn’t have a QB.

 

Posted in NFC Classic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dick Cavett Show: ‘Hugh Hefner Clashes With Feminists’

Hugh Hefner Clashes With Feminists _ The Dick Cavett Show

Source:The Dick Cavett Show– Hugh Hefner vs Susan Brownmiller in 1970.

“Hugh Hefner gets involved in a sexist debate with the Feminists of The Women’s Liberation movement as they discuss the oppression of Playboy Models.

Date aired – 3/26/1970 – Hugh Hefner, Susan Brownmiller and Sally Kempton.”

From The Dick Cavett Show

“When Susan Brownmiller and Sally Kempton appeared as representatives of the women’s liberation movement alongside Hugh Hefner on The Dick Cavett Show in 1970, Cavett joked, “We really set you up tonight, didn’t we?”

Though Hefner’s Playboy was thriving, Cavett’s line really applied more to him. As seen in this exclusive clip from the upcoming episode of CNN’s The Seventies, airing on Thursday at 9:00 p.m., Hefner seemed to have no idea what was coming.

From the minute he referred to the activists as “girls,” he was put in his place. The women took full advantage of their public forum to express thoughts and feelings that had been bottled up for so long, and the nation took notice. When TIME’s Person of the Year honor for 1975 was given to 12 separate Women of the Year, Brownmiller was one of them.

The magazine dubbed her the “second-sex scholar” and explained why she deserved the recognition…

Hugh Hefner Clashes With Feminists _ The Dick Cavett Show - Google Search

Source:TIME Magazine– Hugh Hefner vs radical feminists in 1970.

You can read the rest at TIME Magazine

This is a really important debate discussion this being about women’s liberation and freedom of choice. If you truly believe in freedom of choice and consider yourself pro-choice whether you’re talking about women or men, then you believe women and men should be able to make their own choices in life whether it’s to work for Playboy Magazine as a writer, or as a performer, or work anywhere else in this country.

The definition of feminism is: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” If you believe that, then you believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not rewarded or punished in life simply because they’re a man or woman.

The reason why radical feminists get label radical feminists, is because they take the mainstream definition of feminism a step further and argue that men and women aren’t equal, but that women are superior and should be treated better under law and in society simply because they’re women and that men have so much power in this country and over them over the years.

The other reason why radical feminists are called radical feminists and not just feminists, is because as much as they claim to be pro-choice, they’re really not: being pro-choice on abortion, women’s health care, and sexuality doesn’t make you pro-choice. It makes you pro-choice on those issues. What radical feminists really are is pro-choice just as long as people, especially women are making choices that they approve of.

No one forces women or anyone else to work at and pose at Playboy Magazine. Those women worked there because they other wanted to or needed the money or a combination of both, and Playboy wanted them working there. They weren’t kidnapped or being held hostage as some radical feminists might have you believe, but the made them conscience, voluntary decision to work there themself, as Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner said himself on this show.

So what you really had in this Dick Cavett episode is a debate between a man who always believed in freedom of choice and the rights of the individual for both men and women (Hugh Hefner) against radical feminists who believe they know what’s best for women and apparently don’t trust women to make their own choices whether it’s to work at Playboy or for any other private company in America.

 

 

Posted in Dick Cavett | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Go-Bengals Dot Com: ‘Bengals 1988 Yearbook’

Bengals 1988 Yearbook

Source:Go-Bengals Dot Com– The Bengals vs the Houston Oilers in 1988.

Bengals 1988 Yearbook, Go-Bengals.com.” 

From Go-Bengals Dot Com

The 1988 Cincinnati Bengals represent to me what the 1980s Bengals should’ve been all along and how good they could’ve been not just in 1988, but that entire decade, at least under Sam Wyche. And 1988 was the season that Wyche and the Bengals finally put it together under Wyche and came within really just one play, is Lewis Billups catches that Joe Montana pass and intercepts it, from winning Super Bowl 23.

I at least believe the Bengals of the mid and late 1980s were the most talented team at least in what was called the AFC Central back then. (The AFC North now) Boomer Esiason, was a better and more talented QB than Bernie Kosar, (Cleveland Browns) the Bengals had more talent than the Browns on offense, a better running game than the Browns, better receivers than the Browns, except for the TE where Ozzie Newsome was probably the best receiving TE, at least in the AFC during that era. But the Browns had Marty Shottenheimer as head coach and they always played tough defense under Shottenheimer.

Not saying that Sam Wyche was the reason for the Bengals inconsistency when he was there and why all by himself they underachieved: their defense wasn’t good enough for the most part giving up too many yards in the air and didn’t have a strong run defense either. But the when the Bengals did get decent or good defense, they were as good as anyone in the AFC in that decade, which is what they got in 1988 for the most part, as well as in 1981 when they made their first Super Bowl appearance.

The 1988 Bengals represent what Sam Wyche’s Bengals should’ve been, because he finally put it together as a head coach and his team put it together because they stopped making those critical mistakes at the worst time in the game that they made during most of the 1987 season, as well as 84 and 85. They were better prepared to win because they were better prepared under Sam Wyche and his coaching staff and learned how to win.

 

Posted in AFC Classic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Daily Signal: Kay C. James- ‘Why Conservatives Should Be Leading the Civil Rights Movement’

Why Conservatives Should Be Leading the Civil Rights Movement _ Problematic Women (1)

Source:The Heritage Foundation– Kay C. James: President of The Heritage Foundation in Washington.

“Conservatives should be leading the civil rights movement,” says Kay C. James, president of The Heritage Foundation.

James joins the “Problematic Women” podcast to explain that the answers to many of the issues plaguing the African American community, such as poverty, lack of access to good health care, and poor education systems, are issues conservatives have the viable solutions for.

Listen to the full podcast and read the transcript here:The Daily Signal.”

From The Daily Signal

I guess the way for me to talk about this is to separate Conservatives (the real Conservatives) from not just the Nationalists, but the hardcore, Neo-Confederate ethmo and racist Nationalists in this country who not just believe their country is under attack by people who are from another race, ethnicity, or religion, but see those people as invaders and traitors and have no issues with using violence against people who don’t look like them and don’t share their religious and cultural values.

The Ku Klux Klan and other Alt-Right groups in America, aren’t Conservatives and aren’t part of the conservative movement. Most of the Alt-Right in America is anti-conservative as far as what they stand for and don’t even believe in the U.S. Constitution, at least in the sense that Constitution applies to all Americans, not just the first Europeans in America and believe that America should just be for the first Europeans in America. Especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestant males whose families came from Britain.

If you’re a Conservative, you’re supposed to be not just colorblind (in the sense that you don’t judge people by their color) but racial blind as well. (In the sense that you don’t judge people by their race) The reason why African-American columnists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, or Senator Tim Scott are Conservatives (or Conservative-Libertarians) is because they’re color and racial blind and don’t judge people by their color or race. Along with believing in the other conservative values that comes from our Constitution and our individual rights.

So if you’re a Conservative Republican today (a real Conservative Republican, not a Nationalist or Donald Trump ass-kisser) then you shouldn’t be playing second to anyone, especially Democrats when it comes to civil rights in America, because you believe in the values of quality opportunity, equal justice, equal rights, every American is equal under law and entitled to the same constitutional rights and responsibilities.

 

Posted in Classical Conservatism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: Thomas Sowell- ‘How To Cure Marxism’

Thomas Sowell - How to Cure Marxism

Source:Liberty Pen– The original Marxist, Karl Marx. 

“From Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, Thomas Sowell tells how he was enticed by Marxism as a youth and how the real world cured that notion. Liberty Pen.”

From Liberty Pen

On a less serious note: if you want to cure Marxism (as Liberty Pen put it) take people’s new technology, coffee houses, social media, and celebrity culture away, and young Americans would start begging for their capitalism and private enterprise to come back.

There would be protests in the street with Bring Cap Back movement’s with people chanting: “We hate big government and socialism: we want our capitalism and individual freedom back!” Assuming the Marxist government actually allowed private, public, peaceful protests, and didn’t run down and shoot people in the streets simply for expressing themselves.

But on a more serious note: there are social and political movements and then there are fads. The American civil rights movement was a real political movement that brought along a lot of positive change (progressivism, if you will) and the same thing with the antiwar movement from the 1960s and 70s, the 2000s as well with the Iraq War. The pro-immigration reform movement is a real political movement.

But then there social fads designed as political movements that young hipsters (especially) get behind because they think that’s what the cool people are doing, or they see their favorite celebrities getting behind it, or a combination of those things.

Socialism might look good on paper, similar to the run and shoot offense (if you’re familiar with football, especially before 2000) because Socialists say they’re not going to allow people to get too rich, because they don’t want anyone to be poor. And under that system everyone is supposed to have exactly what they need to live well in life.

Socialism might look like a progressive economic system on paper, until you actually have to live under it and see how it stifles creativity and individualism, because it eliminates competition and you see how regressive it actually is with all the poverty and shortages that come from a system like that.

Posted in Liberty Pen | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New York Magazine: Jonathan Chait- ‘The Still-Vital Case for Liberalism in a Radical Age’

The Still-Vital Case for Liberalism in a Radical Age

Source:New York Magazine– Interesting choice for a photo about liberalism.

“It is easy to see why a specialist in public opinion whose professional mission is to help elect Democrats while moving the party leftward would take an interest in this research. But in certain quarters of the left — though not among Democratic elected officials — criticizing violent protest tactics is considered improper on the grounds that it distracts from deeper underlying injustice, and shifts the blame from police and other malefactors onto their victims…

Read the rest of Jonathan Chait’s piece at New York Magazine  

“What is Liberalism? Explain Liberalism, Define Liberalism, Meaning of Liberalism. Source Link:Wikipedia.”

What is Liberalism_ Explain Liberalism, Define Liberalism, Meaning of Liberalism

Source:Audio Versity– What liberalism actually is.

From Audio Versity

“Liberalism in a Radical Age:” is an interesting title and piece, as well as an opportunity for me as a Liberal to separate liberalism from radicalism, whether it’s leftist or rightist radicalism, because Liberals especially tend to get lumped into to every radical movement that’s on the Left, especially illiberal movements.

Whether you’re talking about political correctness movements designed to censor right-wingers that leftists disagree with and claim to be offended by, nanny state movements that are designed to use government to protect people from themselves, or socialist (or social democratic, if you prefer) movements that are designed to use government to spend people’s money for them, believing that the world is too complicated a place for individuals to spend and make money on their own behalf and that individuals are just smart enough to manage their own lives for themselves, because they believe that only government is smart enough to do that for the people.

So-called Liberals want government to be bigger, even government’s tend to struggle to do the things that they’re supposed to do like the protecting the streets, protecting their citizens civil liberties, effectively responding to natural disasters, etc.

So what I want to do is to explain what liberalism isn’t, what it is, and then how Liberals should be respond to an America that is so divided at so many different levels.

The stereotypical vision of Liberals in America to put it simply are antiestablishment hipsters, who are like the coolest and perhaps youngest adults in society, who are looking to create some political revolution and change the world. People who don’t shave, (if they’re men) don’t get hair cuts, where military fatigues, (even though they claim to be antimilitary) stare at their smartphones all day, drinking their coffee house coffee, and always on social media, in on the biggest social trends, fashion, and language.

The so-called Liberal claims to hate the capitalist system that’s produced all of their favorite gadgets, social networks, and social trends. Liberals are supposed to be people who think eating meat is animal cruelty, even though they wear leather jackets and boots, pants, even. That Liberals are basically just, walking, human contradictions who always claim the opposite of what they personally do and how they personally live themselves. I get the sense that their sense of liberalism and what it means to be a Liberal to them, is nothing more than a fashion statement that comes with now consequences and personal responsibility for their fashion statement.

So that’s what Liberals aren’t and what liberalism isn’t. So what is liberalism and what does it mean to be a Liberal?

“Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism…

From Wikipedia

Liberalism is an ideology based off of individual rights, liberty, and equality. Liberals don’t say: “Why not communism?” Because Liberals know that communism is about an illiberal political philosophy that you can possibly dream up and don’t want their individual rights and protections taken from them and become subjects of the state.

So since Liberals believe in individual rights and liberty, of course they hate what happened to George Floyd a few weeks ago, because we not only believe in equality, but we hate racism and don’t want to see incidents like that happen again.

Remember what I wrote earlier about government struggling to do the basics right: the Minneapolis Police Department not just failed George Floyd and his family, but one of their officers killed Mr. Floyd, a racist cop who was hired by that police department, who will never work as a cop again and could be looking at murder two charges in his own home town.

There are several things that the George Floyd incident and police brutality more broadly doesn’t call for: it doesn’t call for more, bigger government and it doesn’t call for anarchism. You want to know what radical liberalism actually looks like, well it sure as hell isn’t communism or socialism, it’s anarchism. Defund the police in this country or go further and eliminate public police departments and agencies and that’s exactly what we”ll get.

We don’t need bigger government in America, we need smarter and good government that does the basics right first. Like protecting the streets and protecting it’s citizens from bigoted cops that sees certain Americans as subhuman simply because of their race, ethnicity, or complexion.

 

Posted in Classical Liberalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NFL Films: Don Meredith: ‘The Original Dallas Cowboy’

Don Meredith_ The Original Dallas Cowboy _ NFL Films Presents

Source:NFL Films– Dallas Cowboy QB and Monday Night Football analyst Don Meredith.

“Don Meredith: The Original Dallas Cowboy | NFL Films Presents. Subscribe to NFL Films:NFL Films.”

From NFL Films

Don Meredith is the original Dallas Cowboy and original Dallas Cowboy, who was probably headed to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, had he not retired after the 1969 season.

But Meredith was mentally done with the NFL and perhaps done with Cowboys head coach Tom Landry. (Who built the Dallas Cowboys) Tom Landry as great as a head coach and personal man that he was (one of the top 5 ever) he was difficult to play for, because he always expected the very best out of very player who ever played for him, who didn’t give any of his players much praise even when they played well and was always looking to make his players better and would concentrate on his players mistakes, even when they were playing well.

And that can drive a lot of players to early retirement the idea that you can never relax and are always striving to be your best. Which is why I’m guessing as someone who has never served in the military, which is why some military personal retire early. As well as all of the injuries that Meredith suffered through playing for those bad Cowboy teams in the early 1960s.

Don Meredith is the original great Dallas Cowboy quarterback (ever before Roger Staubach) and one of the best QB’s of the 1960s, as well as one of the toughest, who I believe would be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, had he played another 3-5 years and had led the Cowboys to the Super Bowl, if not the championship.

Posted in NFC Classic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Yorker: Douglas Watt- ‘The Glittering, Corrosive Humor of Lenny Bruce’

The Glittering, Corrosive Humor of Lenny Bruce

Source:The New Yorker– Comedian and free speech champion Lenny Bruce.

“Early in 1966, the entertainer Lenny Bruce, who died in the midsummer of that year at the age of forty from a self-administered overdose of morphine, gave his next-to-last public performance, at the Berkeley Community Theatre, a large auditorium near the University of California’s Berkeley campus. It drew two thousand people, and Bruce, as had become his custom in those last, lean years, which were marked by repeated brushes with the law, had the entire thing taped, so that the obscenities with which he customarily larded his act could not be used against him, out of context, by police witnesses testifying in court…

Read the rest of this piece at The New Yorker

“Lenny Bruce on Stage Just Before He Died.”

Lenny Bruce on Stage Just Before He Died

Source:Lenny Bruce– Last act.

From Lenny Bruce

I know I’ve written this before in previous pieces the last 5 years about comedian Lenny Bruce, but it’s very important, so I’m going to risk boring you and perhaps even put you in a coma and repeat this.

There is a left-wing illiberal version of political version of political correctness that attempts to censor speech that they believe is offensive or critical of minorities. That this blog has covered countless times just in the last 6 years that of course we oppose as champions for free speech regardless of who may not like the speech or speakers that are being heard, even if this blog doesn’t like the speech or speakers that are being heard.

But then there is a right-wing, anti-conservative (at least in a constitutional sense) version of political correctness that attempts to censor speakers and speech that offends these rightists political or cultural values.

Comedian Lenny Bruce like comedian George Carlin from 10 years or so after Bruce, was a victim of right-wing political correctness to the point that he was put in jail for using adult language and talking about social and adult issues in the 1950s and 60s that apparently free adults weren’t supposed to talk about, at least in public, even though they were’ talking about it in private and even using adult language in private (even in Ozzie and Harriet’s and Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America) because they were interested in those adult issues, didn’t mind being heard swearing, just so long as no one they didn’t trust could hear them swear, and they had a First Amendment right to talk about those issues and even use adult language.

I’m not saying right-wing political correctness is better or worst than left-wing political correctness or vice-versa, but Lenny Bruce was put in jail for his comedy routine and using his First Amendment right to perform his comedy act. And George Carlin fought his case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to be able to continue his comedy act.

Right-wingers don’t get put into jail when they use offensive language or language that just offends leftist candy-asses, simply because that would be unconstitutional as well, but also because these leftist, so-called political correctness warriors have never had that kind of power in America, for the most part.

In the 1950s and 1960s there was no official political movement known as the Christian-Right in America (perhaps better known as Christian-Nationalists today, thanks to Donald Trump) but they’ve always been there claiming to be the real champions of America and the real Americans. We saw the beginnings of this movement during the early days of television thanks to Senator Joe McCarthy and his McCarthyist movement in America that attempted to stamp out Communists in America, simply because they were Communists.

The Christian-Conservative movement has always been in America and Lenny Bruce is one of their most famous and best victims. He was a great comedian, with a very sharp and keen wit, who should’ve had another 20 years to perform, had he been able to live in a normal life in years.

 

Posted in Lenny Bruce | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

NFL Films: Ken Anderson- ‘Top 10 Players Not in The Hall of Fame’

#10 Ken Anderson _ NFL Films _ Top 10 Players Not in the Hall of Fame

Source:NFL Films– Ken Anderson leading the Cincinnati Bengals, against the San Francisco 49ers, during Super Bowl 16.

“Cincinnati Bengals QB, Ken Anderson, comes in at number 10 on the countdown of the Top 10 Players Not in the Hall of Fame.”

From NFL Films

“The facts remain the same after decades of waiting. Though he and the Cincinnati Bengals never won a Super Bowl, Anderson was one of the most proficient passers of his generation and efficiently produced at the quarterback position at a level that had never been seen before. That’s the description of a transcendent player, and transcendent players usually end up in the Hall of Fame.

Sooner or later, Anderson’s name will be called…right?”

Cincy Jungle_ Ken Anderson

Source:Cincy Jungle– Ken Anderson during Super 16 against the San Francisco 49ers.

From the Cincinnati Jungle

Just to clear the record from the video: someone during the video said that Ken Anderson didn’t win a Super Bowl, which is why he’s not in the Hall of Fame.

If winning Super Bowls was the standard for whether NFL QB’s make the Hall of Fame or not, there would be a lot of great NFL QB’s who are not in the Hall of Fame today. San Diego Chargers QB Dan Fouts, who is definitely one of the best NFL QB’s of all-time, never even played in a Super Bowl, only played in two conference championships during his 15 year career and he’s in the Hall of Fame today

You could argue that Ken Anderson was a better QB than Bob Griese who was a system QB who needed a strong running game and OL to be successful, which is exactly what he had with the Miami Dolphins, who missed most of the Dolphins undefeated season in 1972 and Griese is in the Hall of Fame today (as he should be) because Griese was one of the best QB’s in the NFL in the 1970s and is a two-time Super Bowl champion, who was the QB of two of the best NFL teams ever in 72 and 73.

This is not a debate about whether Ken Anderson should be in the Hall of Fame and current HOF members shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame, but whether Anderson who was one of the best NFL QB for two decades (1970s and 80s) unlike Dan Fouts, should be in the Hall of Fame or not. Fouts, one of the best QB’s from the 1980s, but he had been in the league since 1973 and his NFL career really didn’t get started at all until Don Coryell arrived in 1978, then his career took off with Air Coryell (pun intended) and he’s in the Hall of Fame today, as he should be.

If the Pro Football of Fame standard is that players need to be one of the best at their position not just from their era, but all-time, then Ken Anderson should’ve been in the Hall of Fame 10-20 years ago, because he was exactly that. Because he was in the same class as Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Bob Griese, Ken Stabler, Dan Fouts, Joe Montana, even. He doesn’t have wins and championships of everyone on that list except for Fouts, but he has stats and talent of everyone on that list and good enough to be in that class.

Posted in AFC Classic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Film Archives: Q&A With Brian Lamb- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn: ‘A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America’

A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America

Source:The Film Archives– U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, talking to CSPAN’s Brian Lamb.

“Thomas Allen Coburn (March 14, 1948 – March 28, 2020) was an American politician and physician. A Republican, he was a United States Representative and later a United States Senator from Oklahoma.

Coburn was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1994 as part of the Republican Revolution. He upheld his campaign pledge to serve no more than three consecutive terms and did not run for re-election in 2000. In 2004, he returned to political life with a successful run for the United States Senate. Coburn was re-elected to a second term in 2010 and kept his pledge not to seek a third term in 2016.[1] In January 2014, Coburn announced he would resign before the expiration of his final term.[2] He submitted a letter of resignation to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, effective at the end of the 113th Congress.[3]

Coburn was a fiscal and social conservative, known for his opposition to deficit spending and pork barrel projects,[4][5][6] and for his opposition to abortion. Described as “the godfather of the modern conservative, austerity movement”,[7] he supported term limits, gun rights and the death penalty[8] and opposed same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research.[9][10] Democrats have referred to him as “Dr. No” for his use of technicalities to block federal spending bills.[11][12]

After leaving Congress, Coburn worked with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research on its efforts to reform the Food and Drug Administration,[13] becoming a senior fellow of the institute in December 2016.[14] Coburn also served as a senior advisor to Citizens for Self-Governance, where he was active in calling for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution.[15][16][17]”

From The Film Archives

This might sound strange, but I’m old enough to remember when fiscal Conservatives were not seen as aliens or outsiders in the Republican Party. When the Tom Coburn’s, Ron Paul’s in Congress were the leading Republicans in Congress when it came to fiscal and economic policy.

I’m also old enough to remember when Representative Paul’s son Senator Rand Paul, actually cared about the deficit and national debt. But that’s before he saw his own political situation in Kentucky and decided to get in bed with President Donald Trump and the Nationalist-Right in the Republican Party. But that’s a different story for a different piece.

Partisan Republicans and right-wingers might try to play what-about and talk about all of those so-called big spending Democrats and say they don’t care about the deficit and debt. And say they’re the real big spenders and fiscal irresponsibility people in Washington.

A couple problems with that: Democrats other than maybe Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and their followers never claimed to be fiscally responsible and believers in deficit and debt reduction and in favor of balanced budgets.

The other issue is that America has only had 5 balanced Federal budgets in the last 55 years and they all came under Democratic President’s: Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. The LBJ balanced budget came with a Democratic Congress.

And if you want to call President Barack Obama a big spender all you want, but he inherited a budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars in 2009 from President George W. Bush and the deficit was cut in half by the time he left office in 2017.

Up until really Ronald Reagan became President and even to a certain extent into the Reagan presidency with Congressional Republicans, fiscal conservatism and responsibility was a major part of the Republican economic and fiscal policy. Along with free trade, economic development, economic opportunity, lower taxes and regulations.

It’s really not until George W. Bush (not to pick on him) became President that Republicans screwed off fiscal conservatism and responsibility and now just praise lower taxes and regulations and now have their own big spending programs and policies, except they don’t believe their programs need to be paid for and claim they either pay for themselves or claim some made up national emergency and that they don’t need to pay for their programs.

Fiscal conservatism and responsibility made a brief comeback in the Republican Party during the Obama Administration, but come on: that’s because there was now a Progressive Democratic President with a huge national debt and deficit that President Obama inherited. If Barack Obama was a Republican with the same economy and fiscal situation, they wouldn’t care about the deficit and debt (just like with President Donald Trump) especially if the Tom Coburn’s of the world are no longer in Congress.

I don’t like Tom Coburn’s social polices as a Liberal. Senator Coburn was a Christian-Conservative his whole time in Congress, both in the House and Senate, but  have a lot of respect for his honesty and candor and knowledge about how the U.S. Government spends money and how Congress appropriates it, and their lack of interest in the national debt and deficit. (Two issues that I care about) And represents the Republican Party (pre-Donald Trump) when they really were the GOP, (Grand Ole Party) a party that believed in fiscal and economic conservatism and economic and quality opportunity for all.

Posted in Book TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment