PBS NewsHour: Judy Woodruff: ‘Conservative Retired Judge Says Donald Trump ‘Corroded & Corrupted American Democracy’

Conservative retired judge says Trump 'corroded and corrupted American democracy'Source:PBS NewsHour– talking to retired Conservative U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig.

Source:The New Democrat

“An influential group of Republican legal voices called for a Jan. 2024 trial date to be set for Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the presidential election. The group included former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and one of the nation’s leading conservative legal minds. Judy Woodruff spoke with Luttig for her series, America at a Crossroads.”

From the PBS NewsHour

From Wikipedia

If you want to know why the so-called Republican Party, is not even a Republican Party today, let alone a conservative party, just listen to former U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig and listen to any so-called Republican who even struggles to criticize Donald Trump about anything, let alone to so-called Republicans who act like they’re blind, death, and braindead, every time they hear or see Donald Trump to or say anything that’s corrupt and authoritarian.

When I think of Conservative:

“Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

In a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.”

These definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com.

When I think of a Republican, I think of someone who believes:

“Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect, republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the whole people were.”

From Wikipedia

What you hear Michael Luttig doing here, is defending key Republican values, like the rule of law, tradition, checks and balances, personal responsibility, and American democracy.

What you get from Donald Trump and his supporters, as well as Republicans who know better and who don’t technically like or respect the man and even see him as a threat to the American Republic, but who don’t have the political balls (to be frank) to admit it publicly, is that it’s not illegal or corrupt when Donald Trump does it. Or they act blind, death, or braindead, when Donald Trump does it.

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

Phil Mattingly: See How Donald Trump Responded To His Fourth Indictment

See how Trump responded to his fourth indictmentSource:CNN– Donald J. Trump: “I’m still the king of political reality TV, bigly.”

Source:The New Democrat

“Former President Donald Trump said he will hold a “major news conference” at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, during which he will present a report from his team regarding his false claims that the presidential election results in Georgia were rife with fraud.”

From CNN

I guess the way I would respond to Donald J. Trump’s last indictment, is similar to how Republican political strategist and now political media celebrity Ana Navarro responded to his 3rd indictment on Instagram a couple weeks ago.

Ana Navarro had a photo with a picture of the 45th President with the caption: “I’m so indicted, I just can’t hide it.” With the only thing that I would add to that is: “I just want you to know I think I hate it. Except that it helps me in the Republican Party.”

For any of you who read this, who aren’t familiar with the 20th Century or don’t have memories of it, (perhaps both) this is a parody from The Pointer Sisters song “I’m So excited.”

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

NBC Sports: NFL 1985- AFC Divisional Playoff- New England Patriots @ Los Angeles Raiders

1985 Los Angeles Raiders Playoff vs_ New England PatriotsSource:John Morgani– Los Angeles Raiders LB Matt Millen, showing a fan at the game, how much they appreciate the Raiders fans.

Source:The New Democrat

“1985 Los Angeles Raiders Playoff vs. New England Patriots. Raiders (12-4) and Patriots (11-5) meet in the first round of the playoffs.”

From John Morgani

With all due respect to the 1985 New England Patriots, who did have an excellent team both on defense and offense, as far as personal and what they accomplished: if Los Angeles Raiders QB Jim Plunkett was healthy and played this game, (which is part of the broader point of this post) the Raiders not just win this game, but probably dominate the Patriots as well.

With a healthy Jim Plunkett playing this game, instead of career, part-time, starter, Marc Wilson playing instead, the Raiders because of their great defense, would know that they just have to play their game, which is to dominate the Patriots offense. But they wouldn’t have to try to win the game themselves, because they know the Raiders offense would have what they needed to move the ball and score points, which was their vertical passing game with QB Jim Plunkett and their receivers and their power running game with Marcus Allen and their big, strong, offensive line.

The 1984 AFC Wildcard lost to the Seattle Seahawks and this 1985 AFC Divisional lost to the Patriots, I believe sums up the Los Angeles Raiders of the 1980s. The team that should’ve taken over the NFL, or at least the AFC in the 1980s, after the Pittsburgh Steelers fell back to the middle of the pack, basically became a team that after they win their only Super Bowl in Los Angeles in 1983, that a good season for them was winning their division and making it to the AFC Playoffs. Or just making the playoffs for them was a good season for in the mid 1980s.

But under Tom Flores in the 1980s, especially after the Raiders moved from Oakland to Los Angeles at the end of the 1981 season, they led the NFL in talent and great personal pretty much every year. You look at what they had on defense, I would take their personal, especially their secondary, over the Chicago Bears of that era.

Offensively, the Raiders as far as personal, were better than the Miami Dolphins and perhaps even the San Francisco 49ers, Washington Redskins, and Dallas Cowboys, perhaps just as talented as the Cincinnati Bengals of the 1980s. But the old cliche: talent doesn’t win games. Players and coaches do. That probably should’ve been written for the Los Angeles Raiders under Tom Flores and Al Davis.

Posted in AFC Classic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS Sports: NFL 1985- NFC Divisional- Dallas Cowboys @ Los Angeles Rams: Tom Landry’s Last Winning Season & Playoff Game

Dickerson's 248-Yard Playoff Record! _ Rams vs_ Cowboys 1985 Divisional Round _ NFL Full GameSource:NFL– Eric Dickerson runs all over the Cowboys.

Source:The New Democrat

“Eric Dickerson’s 248-Yard Playoff Record! | Rams vs. Cowboys 1985 Divisional Round | NFL Full Game. The NFL Presents: The 1985 NFC Divisional Game. Eric Dickerson sets the postseason single-game rushing record with 248 yards.”

From NFL

This post isn’t so much about this actual game, then it really is about the last years of Tom Landry as head coach of the Dallas Cowboys. The Anaheim Rams (as I called the Los Angeles Rams back then, who played 36 miles south of Los Angeles, in a city of 300,000 people) absolutely dominated the Cowboys. The Cowboys offense accomplished almost nothing, got shut out, and their defense just played well enough to keep it a 20-0 loss, instead of losing 35 or 42-0. This is really about the 85 Cowboys being the last winning team that Tom Landry had.

I think a lot of people, including professional NFL historians, when they’re look at the 1980s Cowboys, say that the 80s was a bad decade for the Cowboys, when the NFL was prospering and really took off and became the number one pro sports league in America. But the Cowboys played in 3 NFC Championships, won 2 NFC East titles, made the NFC Playoffs 5 times, had 6 winning seasons. That’s a very good decade for just about every other NFL franchise. But we’re talking about Tom Landry’s Dallas Cowboys and simply winning, is not the standard that he and the Cowboys were judged by back then.

Tom Landry set the standard for how judge the greatest NFL head coaches. It’s not about winning, but winning championships and not division titles, which almost get taken for granted when you are the level of Tom Landry, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, and the other great coaches in the NFL in the 1970s and 80s. It’s about winning Super Bowls and conference championships.

When you don’t win conference championships and Super Bowl for a few years and you start looking like a normal NFL franchise, people around the league and your own fans start asking questions like: “What’s wrong with the Cowboys?” Because 9-7 or 10-6 and even winning making the playoffs and winning your division, is not good enough, when you reach the level of a Tom Landry and the other great coaches from his era.

It’s not like the Cowboys became the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Kansas City Chiefs or Buffalo Bills, or other franchises that struggled in the 80s, at least not right away. From 1980-83, the Cowboys played in 3 NFC Championships, lost all 3, but no one else made it to 3 straight from 1980-82, won the NFC East in 1981, a win away from winning the NFC East again in 1983.

The 83 Cowboys were 12-4 and were considered 1 of the 3 best teams in the entire NFL for most of that season.

The 84 Cowboys were 9-7 and had they beat the Miami Dolphins during week 16 and almost won that game, they’re back in the NFC Playoffs and would’ve eliminated the New York Giants.

The 85 Cowboys were 10-6 and won the NFC East, swept the Washington Redskins and New York Giants, who were also 10-6 that year.

I think the main difference between Tom Landry’s `1970s Cowboys and the 80s Cowboys, has to do with depth. You look at the Cowboys starters from 83-85 and even 86 and perhaps 87, they match up very well as far as the talent that they had and what those players accomplished during those careers, both on offense and defense. But when QB Danny White goes down, or Landry decides simply not to play him, because he’s anxious to get back to another Super Bowl and thinks Gary Hogeboom is his ticket back to the Super Bowl, or the Cowboys lose another key starter, they go from looking like a Super Bowl contender, to a very ordinary team.

The other problem that the Cowboys of the 80s had, was consistency. They would sweep the Redskins and Giants, but get destroyed by a 7-9 Cincinnati Bengals team, or get hammered at home by the 85 Bears, one of the best teams in the history of the NFL. But when you win as long as Tom Landry did and won as many games and championships as Landry did, 9-7-10-6, is simply no good enough based on how you are judged by the rest of the league and your own fans.

Posted in NFC Classic Games, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Beau Boone: ‘Forgotten Legends: Ken Anderson’

The New Democrat_ Beau Boone_ 'Forgotten Legends_ Ken Anderson'Source:Beau Boone– welcome to Super Bowl 16 between the Cincinnati Bengals & San Francisco 49ers. Two of the most unlikely NFL teams to make it to the Super Bowl, going into the 1981 season.

Source:The New Democrat

“Ken Anderson was one of the greatest quarterbacks of his era, but in today’s world his name is hardly heard. He truly is a forgotten legend.”

From Beau Boone

This is about my case for Cincinnati Bengals QB Ken Anderson to finally be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And I’ll make it very simple for you.

If there is room for Dan Fouts and Bob Griese to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, then there is room for Ken Anderson as well, whose at least, at least as deserving as both Fouts and Griese to be in the Hall of Fame.

Dan Fouts has a career losing record as an NFL QB, He didn’t become the San Diego Chargers full-time starting QB until 1978, his 6th season in the league, I’m not a big stats guy when it comes to sports, but he only three 12 more TD’s than INT’s during his 15 year career. But he’s in the Hall of Fame because he was a very accurate QB and three for a lot of passing yards.

Miami Dolphins QB Bob Griese is in the Hall of Fame because he not just won 2 Super Bowls but won them back-to-back. But if he had 2 Super Bowl losses and didn’t win a single Super Bowl and the rest of his career was still the same, he’s probably not in the Hall of Fame today. He was a system QB, who needed a great offensive line and running game, which he had for most of his career with the Dolphins, in order to be successful at all. He played in a ball-control, power-run offense, where he only had to throw the ball about 15 times a game, for the Dolphins to win.

I’m not arguing that Dan Fouts and Bob Griese are not Hall of Famers or that they should be removed from the Hall of Fame. I’m just arguing that Ken Anderson just as a QB, was at least as good as both of those players.

Ken Anderson was generally, if not always the best player on every team that he played for with the Bengals, at least on offense and his numbers, victories, including playoff victories, playing for a franchise that didn’t win consistently for most of his career. And yet still won a lot of games and put up excellent numbers for the Bengals in the 1970s and 80s, when Dan Fouts was still on the Chargers bench. And Bob Griese was handing the ball off for the Dolphins and watching his defense dominate the other teams.

Posted in AFC Classic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: ‘Ex-Federal Judge & Prominent Conservative: ‘There is No Republican Party’

Ex-federal judge and prominent conservative_ ‘There is no Republican Party’Source:CNN– ex-U.S. Federal Judge Michael Luttig.

“Former US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a conservative, tells CNN’s Poppy Harlow why he believes American democracy is at risk.”

From CNN

I agree with Judge Michael Lutting in this sense: there is no active, political Republican Party. Meaning, there is no political party in America that is simply dedicated in preserving the American federal republic, which is and was the original purpose of the Republican Party and why it was created in the 1850s.

Of course there are people in the Republican Party that are still ideologically Republicans and even Conservative Republicans and represent what’s left of the center-right in the Republican Party. But there is no longer a whole Republican Party that’s dedicated to preserving the American federal republic.

This is what was the Grand Ole Party:

“The Republican Party, also known as the GOP (“Grand Old Party”), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. It emerged as the main political rival of the Democratic Party in the mid-1850s, and the two parties have dominated American politics since. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories.[15] The Republican Party today comprises diverse ideologies and factions,[16][17][18][19] but conservatism is the party’s majority ideology.”

From Wikipedia

In the 1850s and 1860s, it was the Republican Party that was fighting for liberal democracy and equal rights for all Americans, not just Anglo-Saxon men:

“The Republican Party’s ideological and historical predecessor is considered to be Northern members of the conservative Whig Party, with Republican presidents Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison all being Whigs before switching to the party, from which they were elected.[20] The collapse of the Whigs, which had previously been one of the two major parties in the country, strengthened the party’s electoral success. Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery.[21][22] The Republican Party initially consisted of Northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and from 1866, former Black slaves. It had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, but was very successful in the Northern United States where, by 1858, it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every state in New England. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. It did not openly oppose slavery in the Southern states before the start of the American Civil War—stating that it only opposed the spread of slavery into the territories or into the Northern states—but was widely seen as sympathetic to the abolitionist cause.”

From Wikipedia

The Grand Ole Party:

“Seeing a future threat to the practice of slavery with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, many states in the South declared secession and joined the Confederacy. Under the leadership of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, it led the fight to destroy the Confederacy during the American Civil War, preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. The aftermath saw the party largely dominate the national political scene until 1932. The GOP lost its congressional majorities during the Great Depression when the Democrats’ New Deal programs proved popular. Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over a period of economic prosperity after the Second World War. Following the successes of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the party’s core base shifted, with the Southern states became increasingly Republican and the Northeastern states increasingly Democratic.[23][24] After the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party opposed abortion in its party platform.[25] Richard Nixon carried 49 states in 1972 with his silent majority, even as the Watergate scandal dogged his campaign leading to his resignation. After Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, he lost election to a full term and the Republicans would not regain power and realign the political landscape once more until 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, who brought together advocates of free-market economics, social conservatives, and Soviet Union hawks.[26] George W. Bush oversaw the response to the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War.”

From Wikipedia

The Grand Ole Party: “The initials synonymous with the Republican Party—“GOP”—stand for “grand old party.” As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party” and the “gallant old party” to emphasize its role in preserving the Union during the Civil War. The Republican Party of Minnesota, for instance, adopted a platform in 1874 that it said “guarantees that the grand old party that saved the country is still true to the principles that gave it birth.”

In spite of its nickname, though, the “grand old party” was only a mere teenager in the early 1870s since the Republican Party had been formed in 1854 by former Whig Party members to oppose the expansion of slavery into western territories.”

From History

If you are a Republican ideologically, especially a Conservative Republican, but Republican none the less, you believe in this ideologically:

“Though conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect, republicanism held that kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the whole people were. Exactly how the people were to rule was an issue of democracy: republicanism itself did not specify a means.[53] In the United States, the solution was the creation of political parties that reflected the votes of the people and controlled the government (see Republicanism in the United States). In Federalist No. 10, James Madison rejected democracy in favour of republicanism.[54] There were similar debates in many other democratizing nations.”

From Wikipedia

The 2nd largest political party in America, is still called the Republican Party, but it’s not a Republican party ideologically. It’s now lower educated, lower class, less religious (at least in the classical and official sense) party, that believes in strongmen and cult figures, that’s more likely to take the word of dictators, then Americans, including Republicans, that they tend to disagree with ideologically. You could also get into to racial and ethnic composition, as well as culture of what’s called the modern Republican Party today. But I’ll leave that to leftists, who are a lot more partisan than me.

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

Forbes Magazine: ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene, Gerry Connolly Scream About Her Amendment On House Floor’

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Gerry Connolly Scream About Her Amendment On House FloorSource:Forbes Magazine– left to right: U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene (Christian Nationalist, Georgia) & U.S. Representative Gerald Connolly (Democrat, Virginia) on the House floor, together.

Source:The New Democrat

“During NDAA debates on the House floor prior to the Congressional recess, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) put forward a NATO-based amendment which led to debate with Democrats.”

From Forbes Magazine

Just to give you a little background on Marjorie Taylor Greene, before I actually give her credit, for something positive: (and then spend weeks getting professional help for doing that)

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is a self-described Christian Nationalist. What does that mean? She approaches her politics with a fundamentalist-Protestant, nationalistic point of view, that has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or even Republicanism. She has more in common ideologically with Vladimir Putin and the Russian Nationalists, then she could ever possibly have in common with the Barry Goldwater’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and the other great Conservative Republicans in America.

Having said all of that, she makes a good point about NATO and Europe. I think her motives are bad and probably couldn’t give a damn, even if she tried, if America did pull out of NATO and Russia took over not just Ukraine, but the rest of Slavia and Europe at some point.

But the fact is, Europe doesn’t spend enough money on its own defense, America is buried in debt, and Europe is dependent on American taxpayers for its national defense and probably economic security as well. Instead of being the great independent states that Europe should be, with all the great, developed, democratic societies that they have.

I think the solution here is real simple: convince the European Union on the importance of having free, independent, secure and free states, that aren’t reliant on the generosity of taxpayers from other countries, to pay for their own national security. Not to unilaterally gut an important program that vital for the security of Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

Posted in Forbes Magazine, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Frank DiStefano: ‘The Republican War Over a New Direction After FDR’

Taft, Dewey, and Ike _ The Republican War over a New Direction after FDRSource:Frank DiStefano talking about the Republican Party post-FDR.

Source:The New Democrat

“In this episode, we explain the war within the Republican Party after the New Deal between Robert Taft and his conservative faction and Tom Dewey and his establishment faction over the Republican Party’s Direction.

While Franklin Roosevelt remained president, the Republican Party had little luck at the polls. The candidates in those years, Alf Landon in 1936, Wendell Willkie in 1940, and Tom Dewey in 1944, were by modern standards quite moderate. Yet in each election the Republicans would rail against Roosevelt and his New Deal and promise, if they got the chance, to undo everything Roosevelt had done reversing his New Deal revolution. The American people soundly rejected them.

Then in 1945, Roosevelt passed away and soon after the Second World War came to an end. For the first time since the 1930s, the Republican saw an opportunity back into the White House. Roosevelt had been unbeatable for the Republicans, but the new president, the far less popular Truman, was someone they thought that they could beat.

Over the next two elections the Republican Party broke out into an internal war between two factions with very different ideas about how to get back into power. The conservative faction, headed by Ohio Senator Robert Taft, son of former President Howard Taft, wanted to continue fighting against Roosevelt New Deal and promising to undo it. They believed the fight that had begun in the 1930s was not yet lost, and that America need the Republicans to prove a clear contrast with the Democratic Party agenda.

Another faction, which came to be called the establishment, thought this was political suicide. They thought the Republicans had tried this strategy for election after election and gotten crushed. They believed the time had come to accept that America liked the New Deal and there is no undoing what Roosevelt had done. Republican could continuing fighting the advance of the New Deal agenda, could promise to administer the New Deal government better, and could offer alternative ways to achieve the same goals as Democrats. To even again promise to dismantle the institutions, programs, and agendas the Democrats had created however was now impossible.

This wasn’t a philosophical battle over ideas. It was a fight over tactics—how should the Republicans sell their ideas now in his new post New Deal world?

The establishment won this internal fight. In 1948, they nominated Dewey who very nearly won using this new strategy of a positive campaign without a lot of specifics and without attacking the New Deal directly. In 1952, the Dewey’s establishment won the nomination battle with a new leader, hero of the Second World War Dwight Eisenhower. America liked Ike and for the first time in twenty years like the Republicans back into the White House.

The establishment believed they had been proved right and over the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency the establishment’s perspective became the dominant one within the Republican Party. Until a small band of dissidents began to form who thought the establishment had made a mistake. They called themselves the Conservative Movement.”

From Frank DiStefano

What Frank DiStefano seems to be talking about here is that the Republican Party post-FDR, the Eisenhower faction versus the Taft faction, followed by the Rockefeller faction versus the Goldwater faction in the 1960s, wasn’t arguing or competing with each other over political philosophy as far as what the Republican Party should stand for going forward, but what they were really just debating each other over tactics. That every major Republican basically shared the same political and government philosophy, but differed on how best to sell that philosophy to American voters and how to defeat Democrats.

To know that Frank DiStefano is simply wrong here, all you have to do is look at Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency in the 1950s and look at Richard Nixon’s presidency in the 1i970s, at least as it related to economic philosophy, then look at the civil rights movement and agenda and the laws that came from that movement in the 1960s.

Dwight Eisenhower didn’t run for President and govern as President in the 1950s, to reverse the New Deal. He didn’t believe he had that votes to do that in Congress or the authority to repeal it by himself, and he didn’t believe in that either. If he was a Robert Taft Conservative Republican as far as political philosophy, he would’ve ran for President in 1952 to repeal the New Deal and go back to the Calvin Coolidge philosophy of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and fiscal conservatism, of the 1920s.

President Eisenhower simply wanted to hit pause on the New Deal and make those programs as fiscally sound as possible. He was also the first great civil rights President, at least post-Abraham Lincoln, by integrating schools in the South in the 1950s.

The civil rights laws in the 1960s, don’t pass without Republican votes both in the House and Senate. After 1960, Democrats controlled both Congress, with huge majorities both in the House and Senate and The White House for the rest of the 1960s, until Richard Nixon is elected President in 1968 and inaugurated in January, 1969.

If you are pretty familiar with Richard Nixon’s presidency in the 1970s, besides Watergate, his secret, personal, national, security, unit, his resignation in 1974, thanks to Watergate and other criminal activities on his part, as well as his opening to Russia and China in 1972, and ending the Vietnam War, you know that President Nixon was a pretty Progressive President, at least as it related to economic policy and even foreign affairs.

President Nixon introduced what he called The New Federalism. Again, not looking to reverse the New Deal or Great Society of the 1960s, but decentralized those programs and turn them over to the states to them.

President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan of 1969, became Welfare To Work in 1996.

President Nixon’s health care plan in 1974, became the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

The Republican Party, at least until the Christian-Right and now Christian Nationalists took over the party 5-10 years ago, has always been a center-right party. They just have always have had two center-right establishment factions in it.

The Conservative Republicans, or Constitutional Conservatives, Conservative Libertarians even, on the right of the party, and the Progressive Republicans on the left of the party, but people who are definitely to the right of the FDR/LBJ Progressive Democrats, have been for most of the history of the Republican Party, the two competing factions in it. And these two competing factions have been competing with each other, at least since the Progressive Era of 100 years ago.

Posted in Frank DiStefano, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Movie Clips: Goldfinger (1964) Positively Shocking

The New Democrat_ Movie Clips_ Goldfinger (1964) Positively ShockingSource:Movie Clips– perhaps the best way to murder James Bond is to poison your own lips & tongue.

Source:The New Democrat

“CLIP DESCRIPTION:
Bond (Sean Connery) gets a little more than he bargained for when he visits Bonita (Nadja Regin) for a good time.”

From Movie Clips

As someone whose never even met James Bond (perhaps because he’s a man that does not exist) let alone tried to murder the man, just from watching these other Bond films, including Goldfinger, I think coming at the man with an axe, when he’s in his hotel room, making out with his latest girl for the night, is not the best way to go about it. James Bond is a man who takes is gun wherever he goes. Wouldn’t surprise me if he showers with his gun in his holster, even when he’s sharing the shower with his latest girl.

As far as, “positively shocking” if someone can be a human encyclopedia when it comes to cliches, you can be a human encyclopedia when it comes to puns. And both James Bond (played by Sean Connery) and Harry Calahan (played by Clint Eastwood) were exactly that. They both had perfect comedic timing to the point that they could make you laugh, even with a cheesy line, while kicking someone’s ass or killing them.

Posted in Classic Movies, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN: ‘Hear Michael Cohen’s Advice to Indicted Donald Trump Aide’

CNN_ 'Hear Michael Cohen's Advice to Indicted Donald Trump Aide'Source:CNN– former Donald Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen.

Source:The New Democrat

“Former lawyer to Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, has advice for Carlos De Oliveira who is being accused, alongside Trump and Walt Nauta, of obstructing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation with the alleged bid to delete security footage at Trump’s Florida resort.”

From CNN

Again, I’m not a lawyer. And this sounds like a broken record, then that means I’m getting through. But I think it’s obvious why I guess Donald Trump’s new personal fixer and co-defendant Walt Nauta has kept quiet and put his own future and personal freedom at risk, with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The co-defendants in this case know everything that they’ve done and what they are legally responsible for, what they have done and don’t want to cooperate, until everything gets out and they know exactly what’s against them. When all the dominos have fallen and the whole case against them is out and DOJ has everything,

I think that’s when Walt Nauta and company might start cooperating. But if they give it up now and then face new charges later, they would lose whatever leverage that they have to use to save themselves. Of course that strategy comes with a big risk. DOJ could tell them that they don’t need their cooperation by that point to convict either of them or even Donald Trump, since none of these men are professional criminals (at least outside of politics) and don’t know how to cover their own tracks.

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