Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Jeans Leder Nass: Wetlook Levis


Source: Jeans Leader Nass-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

This is one of those posts I put for for my guilty pleasures. It is that simple, I love the women in this video as far as how she performed in this video and how she looked in her wet Levis denims and boots with her studded belt and well denim suit all around. I'm not going to try to convince that there is some broader role for society, or try to make the case that this post has anything to do with the greater good for society. Or any other, well bullshit like that. This post is purely for the pleasure of it for myself and anyone who gets to check it out as well. The video and hopefully like my candor about the video. A very sexy women in a classic Levis suit with black leather boots, taking a bath in her suit and moving around in the bathtub in this outfit as she's getting soaked in her Levis suit. Not saying that this has some type of artistic quality or value other than letting guys get off and enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts.
Jeans Leder Ness: Wetlook Levis

Friday, August 29, 2014

PBS: Video: American Experience, Richard Nixon: The 1962 Last Press Conference


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Since graduating from college in I believe 1935, Richard Nixon had been a winner his entire professional career up until 1960 when he lost that presidential election to John Kennedy. So he was going through a very difficult stage in his life that lasted from losing that election until probably as late as 1966 when he had a lost of success in 1966 campaigning for Congressional Republicans. Even though by 1963 he went back into the private sector as a New York lawyer and public speaker. But politics is what made him very happy.

Because of all these things and the mounting frustration that had built up of not only being out of public office for the first time since 1946 when he left the Vice Presidency in early 1961 and losing his second major election in 1962 in just two-years, Nixon just sort of went off and took his frustrations out on the press and let them have it. Calling this press conference his last, which of course it wasn't. I just don't think he put a lot of thought into what he was going to say here and went off instead.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Investigating Power: Video: Mike Wallace: A Friendship With Richard Nixon


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What I get from this interview of Mike Wallace is that he liked Richard Nixon because he was impressed by the man's intelligence and knowledge. That they could talk about a wide range of issues and that he would learn things from Nixon that he didn't know before. That Nixon was intelligently interesting and was someone you want to talk to and to get to know. This is not even a five minute video, but if that is what Mike Wallace likes about you, you should take that and be happy. Because Wallace I believe is the best news interviewer of all-time because of his own intelligence about a wide range of issues and his preparation and ability to interview anybody about anything.


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

David Von Pein: Video: NBC's Meet The Press: U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon, October, 1960


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Vice President Richard Nixon trying to make the point that America was still stronger than Communist Russia at this point across the board. This was one of the biggest issues of the 1960 presidential campaign between Vice President Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. Was America moving forward and advancing and at its strongest point possible to take on Russia if it needed to. The Vice President seem to believe that America was, but that we could always to better. Senator Kennedy constantly making the point that America stagnated especially economically with the recession of the late 1950s and early 1960s and that we needed to get moving again.


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Bob Parker: Video: ABC News Nightline October 1980 Presidential Campaign


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

By 1980, but probably much further back than that going back to 1968 or 64 TV and TV news especially was already a huge factor in how Americans got their political news and other current affairs news. Because even by 1980 ABC News, NBC News and CBS News broadcast news was the really the only game in town when it came to TV broadcast news coverage from. There was radio, but most Americans got their radio news in the car and not so much at home except when they are getting ready to go to bed or getting ready for work in the morning.

CNN was the only cable news network on TV and they were just getting started in 1980 and C-SPAN again had just gotten started and them along with CNN probably had about the same amount of viewers as PBS. This was way before the whole menu of cable news networks and so-called news networks like FNC, MSNBC and RT. This was also pre-internet, so of course there were no blogs and as a result the print publishing business was in much better shape with newsmagazines and newspapers. So broadcast TV news was the leader at this point in how Americans got their news.


Monday, August 25, 2014

David Von Pein: Video: Richard Nixon on the Jack Paar Show in 1963


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Richard Nixon actually showing a human side of him. A likable funny side that if he showed more people in public and in private, especially with his taping system, instead of coming off as a mean old, well dick (pun intended) he would've been more popular in public and in the media and would've had an easier time politically. And would've gotten more positive attention for his laundry list of accomplishments and Watergate probably never happens, let alone needed to be covered up, or brought out in the open. Because he would've ended up liking and trusting more people with the same feelings towards him from others.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Dino Forever: Video: The Dean Martin Roasts: Governor Ronald Reagan, Man of the Week, From 1973

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Lets see the life of Ronald Reagan? Well he grows up in small town Illinois roughly two-hours or so south of Chicago and comes from a family with a loving, but struggling mother and an alcoholic father who was somewhat absent. And from that he manages to become a lifeguard of their local  swimming pool, which was as important and a prestigious of a job as being their town Mayor. And from that he manages to get himself a college education and gets a job in Iowa as one of the Chicago Cubs broadcasters. And telling Cub fans and others what wasn't happening on the field.

Ronny moves out to California to become an actor and makes it small as a b actor. Well as big as b actors can be, but runs into trouble with some of his movies flopping as badly as a Bill Maher comedy festival and a Richard Dawkins lecture at a Southern Baptist Convention. Ronny discovers in the late 1950s or so that perhaps he's not quite cut out to be a b actor and sees if there are any openings for c actors and discovers there are no such thing as c actors and moves all the way down through the alphabet and finally arriving a w and discovering there are no w actors and decides that perhaps he needs to find a new career.

Ronny finally gets a job as a General Motors spokesman and hosting the General Motors Theater on NBC. And as he's doing these appearances for Corporate America he finds that he actually believes the, well garbage (even I have my standards as a blogger) that he's telling other people and finds his political voice and becomes a spokesman for Senator Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign which is where he finds his political voice and from that he gets recruited by California businessman to run for Governor of California in 1966.

Ronny wins the California gubernatorial election in 1966 and not only discovers that he's not the dictator of California, but Governor of California and that he has a Legislature to deal with and that it is run by the Democratic Party, both the Assembly and Senate. He also discovers that it is also the 1960s and that the hippie movement is in full view especially in California. And then talks to some of his well trusted political advisers who know almost as much about politics as fish know about cars and planes. And tells them "if I knew these things about being Governor of California going in, I wouldn't of run in 1966".

Governor Reagan's political advisers talk the Governor out of resigning and from trying to impeach himself. By telling him that "the voters of California voted for you and trust you to do the job they elected you to". And also telling him that "governors can't impeach themselves, only the Assembly can". Ronny stays on as Governor, gets reelected in 1970 after he was successful in making sure no one else was allowed to run against him by personally erasing all of the other names from all of the ballots. And Dean Martin and his crew take it from there.

Governor Ronald Reagan

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Firing Line Videos: PBS Firing Line With William F. Buckley: The Future of the GOP With Richard Nixon


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

1966 is where Richard Nixon rebuilt his political career as someone who can not only raise a lot of money, but build up a lot of support not just for himself, but for candidates he endorsed and use that influence to get other Republicans elected and reelected. To the point that so many Republicans in Congress by 1968 owed the former Vice President lots of favors and he had countless political endorsements he could count on when he ran for president against in 1968.

Dick Nixon spent a lot of 1966 campaigning for Republicans especially in Congress and campaigning for Congressional Republican candidates to the point that House Republicans picked up forty-seven seats in 1966. And Senate Republicans picked up four seats and this was when House Republicans only had one-hundred forty seats out of 435 in the House of Representatives in 1965-66 and only had thirty-two seats out of a hundred in the Senate.

1966 is where we get a real good look at the American political landscape changing and where we were no longer a country dominated by Democrats politically. Because Republicans moved into the South and West by winning races there not just in Congress, but at the state level as well with Ronald Reagan being elected Governor of California. And at the same time Republicans were able to hold on and manage their strength in the Northeast and Midwest.

Richard Nixon Campaigning For U.S. House Candidate Garry Brown

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

CBS News: Face The Nation- Richard Nixon October 27th, 1968




Source: This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Politically and ideologically Richard Nixon would be called what we call a Northeastern Republican today at least on social issues and even as it related to the safety net. He wasn't against the safety net, but didn't want it running people's lives for them and believe mentally and able body people who could work should be required to work. Even though he was from California and lived there, or at least had a home there his whole life he was ideologically very similar to a New York or New England Republican on those issues.

People like to call Dick Nixon a Centrist or perhaps even a Progressive or Liberal today. But the fact was he wasn't crazy about big government in our economic or personal lives. (Unless he felt it benefited him politically, IE Watergate and other snooping operations) He was a true Federalist when it came to economic issues and the safety net at least. Believed in a strong national defense and was a Conservative Internationalist on foreign policy. Law and order, I mean he had serious traditional Conservative Republican leanings, but wasn't as far to the Right as the Tea Party or even Ronald Reagan.
CBS News: Richard Nixon- Face The Nation, 1968


Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The Federalist: Opinion: David Harsanyi: "Sorry, Libertarians. You'll Will Never Convert Liberals": Distinguishing Liberals From Libertarians & Statists




The Federalist: Opinion: David Harsanyi: Sorry, Libertarians. You Will Never Convert Liberals


Just to correct David Harsanyi for a moment. The creation of the nanny state is not a "big city liberal idea". The nanny state is anti-liberal and statist at its core. It is the ultimate "we the state know better than you even though we never met you or know you, but we still know better than you how you should live your own life". And both statists on the Left and Right are in favor of the nanny state. Whether it comes to soft drinks, junk food, light bulbs on the Left. Or pornography, certain types of music, movies, homosexuality and speech on the  Right. And gambling, narcotics even marijuana, alcohol and tobacco on both the Left and Right. The Far-Left and Far-Right tend to agree on certain key personal choice issues.

As far as young Americans and this is where both the future of liberalism and libertarianism looks good. Millennial's on the Left like the idea of a public safety net, but there to help people in need. Not to manage their lives for them. So they like the idea of a public social insurance system for people who are unemployed, can't afford enough food, health insurance, housing etc. But don't want a large welfare state to manage their economic affairs, or nanny state to manage their personal affairs for them. You have young Liberals like this in the Democratic Party. And you have young Libertarians who are against the safety net all together in and outside of the Republican Party.

Which is good news for people who believe in both economic and personal freedom on both the Left and Right. That you have a large percentage of Americans in my Generation X who believe in both whether they believe in a safety net or not. And you have such a large percentage of Millennial's who believe in both economic and personal freedom on the Right as well. Which gives both Democrats and Republicans Liberals and Libertarians a real opening to appeal to these voters if they choose to. 



Monday, August 18, 2014

Liberty Pen: Video: PBS's Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Margaret Thatcher, Capitalism and a Free Society


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This is what a so-called smart Conservative sounds like in Margaret Thatcher and again conservative by British standards, which means lest socialist than Social Democrats. Lady Thatcher wasn't arguing against the safety net, actually she believed in it strongly her whole career at least as Prime Minister. What her point was is that a safety net is exactly that. Think about it like an insurance system that you collect from when you are in financial trouble. Like being out of work and having kids to raise and not having the professional skills needed to be able to support your self and your kids well on your own.

What Lady Thatcher was arguing against however was the socialist welfare state. Where government becomes responsible for taking care of everyone and collects most of the revenue from the country to do that. To insure that no one is poor, no one is rich that everyone is the same. And her point about that was that when you incentivize people not to be productive and successful because government is in charge of taking care of everyone, then that is exactly what happens. And you are left with a country where a lot of people are poor with not a lot of people producing and making money.


Friday, August 15, 2014

CBS News: Video: Election Night Coverage 1980: President Jimmy Carter's Concession Speech


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

President Jimmy Carter stepping up to the plate and taking his loss to Ronald Reagan like a man. Definitely one of the earliest concession speeches at least at the presidential level. The sun might of still been out on the West Coast when President Carter gave his speech. I say that half-jokingly, but President Carter was told by his campaign leadership team over the previous weekend before the election when they got their last polling information that they were going to lose. So there was no real surprise here.


Thursday, August 14, 2014

Max Power: Video: President Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon, September 8, 1974


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As unpopular as the pardoning of Richard Nixon was for President Gerald Ford in 1974 and contributed to President Ford losing the election in 1976, it was the right thing for the President to do. Because of all the problems that he inherited as President dealing with the economy with high inflation, high interest rates, the recession of 1974-75, a rising deficit, the ending of the Vietnam War with the Ford Administration having to bring American personal back home from Vietnam safely. President Ford had a lot on his plate already and didn't have time to deal with the Nixon case and prosecution.

38th President of the United States

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Richard Nixon Foundation: Video: Nixon Tapes: A Nutcase Congressmen With House Minority Leader Gerald Ford


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

President Richard Nixon and House Minority Leader Gerald Ford talking about House Majority Leader Hale Boggs in 1971 or 72. Leader Boggs was a bit out there and Boogs would probably be a good nickname for him because he was known on both sides of the isle as doing strange things. That probably came from drinking too much. And Dick Nixon being the great judge character and sanity himself as someone who had a real deficits as they related to both character and sanity could see that Hale Boggs was also a bit out there.


Hoover Institution: Daily Report: George P. Shultz: How to Get America Moving Again

George P. Shultz

Hoover Institution: Daily Report: George P. Shultz: How to Get America Moving Again

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

George Shultz now a fellow at the Hoover Institution and of course former Secretary of State for President Reagan and I believe Secretary of Treasury or Commerce for President Nixon wrote an interesting article on how to get America moving again. I would call it a classically conservative Republican plan that moves away from the Tea Party of today and the libertarian-right of today. I don't agree with most of it. The only part I like was the part about lowering corporate taxes as long as you eliminate taxpayer funded subsidies. To get American business's more competitive with the rest of the world.

Lets take tax reform because Secretary Shultz mentioned it. Eliminate most if not all tax loopholes to lower rates across the board. Sounds like a good idea to me and if it was a choice between that and the regressive flat tax I would take the Shultz plan. But how about instead of taxing what people produce in America with their income, we tax what people take out of the country. I prefer a Progressive Consumption Tax that would tax people's basic necessities like food, water, housing, health care to use as examples at fairly low tax rates. And tax luxury items like second homes, expensive meals, ball games, luxury cars to use as examples at higher rates. Encourage people to make money and be productive and smart with their money.

As far as health care, I like the idea of health savings accounts even for low-income Americans that come with government assistance for them. I also like the idea of letting people on Medicaid opt out of Medicaid and choose a private health insurance plan, or open an health savings account. Because again it encourages people to take responsibility over their own lives, instead of government taking responsibility for them. Which makes things more cost-effective for everyone involved and encourages people to be smart consumers with their own lives.

Now how about some things that Secretary Shultz didn't mention. We need to literally rebuild this country and our national infrastructure system which would literally benefit every American especially low-income Americans who live in underdeveloped societies. And would open the way for companies to move into those communities and invest in them. But also would give access to companies to actually be able to get their products to those communities because the roads and other infrastructure would be there for that to happen. And as a result we would see new stores and business's opening up in these communities including local business's.

How about reforming public education in America with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for anyone interested in combating poverty in this country.

Instead of financing schools based on where they are located, finance based on what they need to be successful.  The Federal Government can help with extra funding for low-income communities for public schools.

Instead of sending kids to school based on where they live, let their parents send them to best public school that is best for them. That is called Public School Choice.

Instead of paying teachers based on how long they've been teaching, pay them based on how well their kids are learning. That is called Merit Pay. Encourage highly qualified highly trained people to not only go into public education, but make it worth to them financially and encourage them to especially educate in low-income communities in low-performing schools.

As far as low-income, low-skilled adults. Not just encourage them to finish their education so they can get themselves a good job, but make it an requirement for them to receive any form of public assistance. So public assistance literally becomes a way for people to move up in life. Not live in poverty with a few extra bucks. And the Feds can help out with financial assistance for education and for childcare so people with kids have someone to watch them while their parents are in school.

As far as energy policy. We need a National Energy Independence Policy that gets us off of foreign oil and gas and onto to American oil, gas and other of our own natural resources. You do that by encouraging American companies to develop, research and produce those resources in this country. That is called an All Above Energy Strategy where we produce all of America's energy sources in this country. Oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, water everything that we produce and produce it here. And be able to export them instead of importing other countries energy.

I love the ideas of cutting high taxes and pointless regulations and red tape. But that alone doesn't return America to prosperity as much as the Tea Party may claim it does. I also love the idea of deficit and debt reduction, but that is not possible without a strong economy. The economy needs to be first and rebuild that and then everything else opens up and becomes possible. And we are doing these things we also shouldn't be doing anything to add to the deficit and debt and that even includes emergency spending. Which means government needs to pay as we go from now on at least until we are back to economic and fiscal health.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Buchanan Brigade: Opinion: Patrick J. Buchanan: President Richard Nixon Before Watergate


Buchanan Brigade: Opinion: Patrick J. Buchanan: President Richard Nixon Before Watergate 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Pat Buchanan who is definitely a true loyalist to Richard Nixon, but who does make some good points about President Nixon pre-Watergate and what the man and his administration had accomplished. But that just makes Watergate and the Nixon White House's involvement including the President himself that more tragic and just backs that up even more. You have the great side of Richard Nixon as far as the visionary thinker and his intelligence that allowed for him to accomplish everything he did as President. But then you have the destructive side of the man that somewhat at least overshadows what he accomplished as President of the United States.

Monday, August 11, 2014

CBS News: Evening News- A Look Back at President Richard Nixon's Resignation



This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I would feel sorry for Richard Nixon and his last few days and even weeks as President had he not of brought these things down by his own actions. With the plummers unit and the illegal break ins, his role in covering up Watergate, the taping system and without all of that President Nixon doesn't resign. Of course there were people on the Left who hated the man, but if it wasn't for President Nixon's own personal actions as President, he never gets impeached.


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

37th President of the United States

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

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

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

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

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

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

Friday, August 8, 2014

The Daily Caller: Opinion: Eric Owens: "Most Leftist Politically Correct Colleges For Dirty Hippies": Bed-Wetting Leftists


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

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Townhall: Opinion: Cal Thomas: The Nixon Resignation at 40


Townhall: Opinion: Cal Thomas: The Nixon Resignation at 40

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Washington Examiner: Editorial Page: Why Are Leftists Turning Against Freedom of Speech

Un Liberal Democratic 

Washington Examiner: Editorial: Why Are Leftists Turning Against Freedom of Speech

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

National Review: Opinion: John Fund: "Setting the Record Straight on John Fund": Give Me a Break!

John Fund

National Review: Opinion: John Fund: Setting the Record Straight on Civil Rights

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

What John Fund doesn't seem to understand or perhaps is ignoring, which is possible because he is a bright guy is that the Southern Democrats who blocked the civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s are Republicans today and would be Republicans today. They would probably be part of the Tea Party coalition or the Christian Right or both factions since they overlap. You can't be a Democrat today outside of maybe Mississippi and be against civil rights. You would simply not get elected even if you won the Democratic primary.

Of course Congressional Republicans in the 1960s voted in favor of civil rights more than Congressional Democrats. And if it wasn't for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen who was the Republican Leader those laws never overcome the Southern Democratic led filibuster let alone become law. Democrats aren't denying the party's history against civil rights. What I'm saying is that is history and the party today is completely different from what it was during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Back in the 1960s the Republican Party was still a conservative limited government low-tax party that believed in decentralizing government. But they also believed in civil rights which means equal rights for all Americans. And that part of the party is gone for the most part with a few exceptions in the Northeast and perhaps the Midwest. They inherited the Southern Democrats who are today called the Christian Right and the Traditional Values Coalition. Who believe Americans especially Caucasians have a right to deny access to people of different races when it comes to their own property.

Monday, August 4, 2014

AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America


AEI: Opinion: U.S. Representative Paul Ryan: Expanding Opportunity in America

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  

I've seem some of the reactions from so called progressive publications like Salon and the AlterNet about Representative Paul Ryan's anti-poverty programs reform plan. Representative Ryan is of course the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee so he has solid knowledge of these issues because of the information he has to this subject because of his positions in the House. The reactions from Salon and others were typical of far-left publications when any poverty reform plan comes around that isn't about more cash assistance. But instead about empowering people to take responsibility over their own lives. Calling the Ryan plan cold and mean-spirited.

Libertarian publications like Lew Rockwell and the Economic Policy Journal called this plan big government and nanny statist. Which again are typical reactions from libertarian publications that see any reforms that aren't about eliminating public programs as big government. I don't agree with the reactions from either the far-left or libertarian-right because Representative Ryan's ideas are fairly mainstream. What he wants to do is reform the job training programs so more low-income adults can have access to college and finish their education. So they can get themselves a good job and no longer need public assistance.

The other idea that Representative Ryan had was expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit so low-income workers have more incentive to work and not quit and go on public assistance all together. The block grant proposal which would essentially turn the public assistance programs over to the states and locals to run is a bit controversial and comes with risks. But can be very effective as long as they come with conditions. That the money for the programs are used for exactly that and not used to build roads or tax cuts, but go to the people that the programs are for.

The one lump some approach which would be to essentially turn all of the public assistance into a credit to cover all of the people who are on the programs bills. I have a big problem with and can't support. Because instead of having public housing, Medicaid, Food Assistance, Welfare and whatever else you would give people a credit that covers the assistance of each of these programs. It would essentially be on public assistance check to cover all of these bills for people who are eligible for these programs. Which invites people to make bad choices with the money and use that money to pay for things that the credit isn't intended for.

All in all I believe Representative Ryan takes a good approach and a positive step to seriously dealing with poverty in America. That is more about empowering people in poverty to get out of poverty instead of just leaving people in poverty with a few extra bucks funded by taxpayers. But it is not something I would support completely, but would incorporate in a broader public assistance reform plan to move people out of poverty and off of public assistance and living in freedoms supporting themselves.