The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Marilyn Monroe: It's My Life-Living Life to the Fullest


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Marilyn Monroe is not known for saying a lot of intelligent things. Not saying she was dumb or anything because I believe the opposite is true but how she presented herself in a lot of ways gave a lot of people the impression that she was a less than an intelligent person. Who may of had more than just depression issues, but she did have the ability to put things exactly as they should be put. Like when it came to life and her point in this photo is poetic and perfect.

That your life is your life and only yours and of course we all have people who care about us and want the best for us and all of that and that none of us live in a vacuum. But at the end of the day our lives are exactly that and we and only we are responsible for all of the decisions that we make and have to live with all of the consequences of all of the decisions that we make and if we only live our lives to fit and be cool. And not to stand out and never live as individuals and always as members of groups, then we aren't living our lives, but we are living in order to please others and just to fit in.

I wrote a couple of blogs last week talking about that I believe that people have the right to make their own beds in life and then are responsible for living in their own beds that they make for themselves. And I meant a lot of that from a liberal political point of view and I meant every word of that. But this can also be used as a way of looking at life as well that we all have the right to make our own beds. So the beds we make for ourselves better be beds that are comfortable for us and beds that make us happy.

Doing what we want to do even if others do not approve of the beds that we make for ourselves. People shouldn't be afraid to standout in life especially if they are happy and are productive with what. They are doing and are good caring people and so forth. Just because how they live, think or speak may be different from whatever the so-called popular will. At the time thinks different of how we are living our own lives.

Life has followers and leaders, people who follow the leaders and people who lead the followers. And that is generally how life works out with people who set trends. People who follow trends and people who may seem different but aren't necessarily bad people. Or unproductive people, but good successful people who are simply different from how the establishment lives, speaks and thinks. But at the end of the day the followers, leaders, rebels and establishment all have at least one thing in common. That they all are responsible for their own decisions in life and are held accountable for them. 







Friday, August 29, 2014

William Shanley: Video: The Made-For-TV Election Starring Martin Sheen


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Comparing the presidential election of 1980 to the presidential election of 2012 is like comparing today's culture and lifestyles of that of the 1950s. Or NFL football from the 1970s to the NFL of today, two completely different eras. And even though TV and especially TV news is no longer as dominant medium as it was back in the late 1970s and 1980, it is still crucial today and politicians still need to do well on it to be successful. Especially is they hope to be President of the United States.

TV and videos we can see off the internet either off of YouTube or even videos we upload ourselves from our own laptops are the closest thing that we have to seeing someone in person. You can see what someone looks like and how they are feeling and doing simply by how they present themselves on TV. And even though the internet and even social networks are a huge factor in how we get our news, TV is still critical in how we are presented as people.


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

David Von Pein: Video: NBC's Meet The Press: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy From October, 1960


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The early 1960s was one of the hottest periods of the Cold War (no pun intended) and spending the first ten minutes of Meet The Press talking about China and other communist activities in Asia should be no surprise to anyone familiar with this period. Senator Kennedy who is a political hero of mine and perhaps my number one political hero and a big reason why I am a New Democrat. But he sounded on the defensive on the issue of Asia and China's influence in Southeast Asia. And seem to want to move past that issue by saying that "Richard Nixon and I agree on this issue".


Tuesday, August 26, 2014

NBC: Video: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy on the Jack Paar Show in 1960


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Jack Kennedy running for president in 1960 because he thought it was the most important job in the world. And that if he was going to be able to do the most for his country, serving in Congress even both in the House and Senate that he did for a total of fourteen-years in Congress was not going to be good enough. That he needed to be President of the United States and that America needed to be an example in the world when it came to freedom and take the lead in showing the dangerous effects of communism.

There are more reasons why Jack Kennedy ran for president in 1960. He thought the country was starting to fall behind Russia in some key areas like with exploring outer space and perhaps in technology and influence in the world. And that the Eisenhower Administration had felt satisfied with how things were going in the country, which is how Senator Kennedy felt. And that America needed to get moving again and he believed he was the person to get America moving again.

LBJ & JFK

Monday, August 25, 2014

Any Given Sunday: Al Pacino- The Game of Inches



This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Al Pacino from Any Given Sunday playing Miami Sharks head coach Tony Damato, which I believe was the name of his character. Explaining to his football team that life isn't just a game of inches, but football is as well. And that every inch and every play is important and can end up being the difference between losing a game and winning the game. And the most important games are where each play in the game are that much more important. "What if  I only made that tackle, or made that block, or made that catch, saw that defender before I threw the ball and get it picked off".

Life and football perhaps especially is a game of inches and plays. Not one inch, or one play, but you add them all up and they become crucial. And the bigger the game is, or the situation in life, the better you have to play and the fewer plays you are able to take off. Because every mistake and come back and bite you in the ass and leave asking a bunch of what ifs. Which is why you have to play every play like it is not just important, but crucial. The difference between winning and advancing and losing and going home. And that was Tony Damato's message in this scene.



Friday, August 22, 2014

Conan O'Brien: White House Correspondents Dinner Featuring President Bill Clinton- 1995


Source: Conan O'Brien-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

To write a blog about 1995 or even a satire about it I really have to go deep into my memory bank to remember what I think about that year. I was only nineteen at the time for most of that year. President Bill Clinton and Bill Maher touched on Vice President Al Gore's reinventing government program that looked to save money in the Federal budget by making programs work better and consolidation. The OJ Simpson murder trial of course was big and if you watched anything on cable news that year, you would think that was the only story that year.

House Republicans wanted to gut PBS which the President touched on by saying that "PBS could only afford to send Jim Leher and not Robert McNeil because of the budget cuts". They were the co-hosts of the PBS NewsHour in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. The 1996 presidential campaign was already going on with Bob Dole the Leader of the Senate already the GOP frontrunner for president. And the Leader proposing to move Congress's Senate sessions up to New Hampshire and Iowa so Leader Dole wouldn't have to fly back to Washington as much.

I could go into the government shutdown that happened in the fall of 1995, the Oklahoma City bombing that happened in April 1995, but those things happened after this dinner and the people who performed that night performed before those events happened, so I'm not going to go into that. But just the first few months of 1995 with a brand new Republican Congress the first one since 1953 and House Republicans donating their lives to passing their Contract For America, you knew this was going to be a fascinating year.
Conan O'Brien: White House Correspondents Dinner Featuring President Bill Clinton- 1995



Thursday, August 21, 2014

Mike Gardner-NBC News: Democratic Response to President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union: Hosted by Governor Bill Clinton



Source: Mike Gardner & NBC News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

This is where we start to see the Democratic Leadership Council the New Democrats in the Democratic Party starting to take over the Democratic Party after the Democrats had just lost 4-5 presidential elections starting in 1968. The McGovernites the New Left took over the Democratic Party in the late 1960s from the liberal and progressive establishment in the party. And as a result Democrats were seen as tax and spend, government can do everything for everybody, people shouldn't have to work and support themselves, soft of welfare, soft on defense, soft on crime. All the stereotypes that killed the Democratic Party at the presidential level in those four presidential election losses.

What the New Democrats were saying is "that we won't win the White House back and perhaps even come close until the change the image of the party and how we are presented. So we don't look like we want to spend most of the money that people make for them. That we will do what it takes to defend the country from domestic and foreign predators within the Constitution. That we'll use Welfare and other public assistance to help move people out of poverty instead of expecting nothing from them as so many other Americans struggle to just pay their bills through working and not collecting public assistance".

And by 1992 we saw the results with Bill Clinton being elected President of the United States with large majorities in Congress and by 1996 we saw most of the negative stereotypes disappear to the point that Americans trusted Democrats more than Republicans when it came to taxes, the economy, fiscal responsibility, crime, foreign policy and national defense. Because the New Democrats took control of the Democratic Party from the Mcgovernitegs.
Mike Gardner-NBC News: Democratic Response To President Reagan's 1985 State of The Union Address- Hosted By Governor Bill Clinton


Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Caney Ment: HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher- New Rule, Crazy Left



New-Left McGovernites-
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

The Democratic Party has its crazy left, its called Occupy Wall Street and all of the New Left McGovernite groups that support their causes and values including all of the media organizations. Like The Nation, Salon, AlterNet, TruthOut, Media Matters and you could go on indefinitely. And to a certain extent except for the political correctness and self-esteem movement and perhaps the nanny state from this faction on the Left, Bill Maher is part of this faction as well.

The anti-government Tea Party Right wants to eliminate everything that the Federal Government does relating to the economy since the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century. The pro-big government McGovernite New Left wants government to do practically everything for people even tell them what they can eat and drink and what light bulbs they can have. How they can spend their money in general and how we can talk to each other, what media and ideas are acceptable, how we get our own media, what we can call our sports teams.

The Tea Party Right wants to eliminate the parts of the Constitution they don't like. Like how we elect our members of Congress so fewer people who disagree with them and have popular support get elected. The New Left wants to throw out the Constitution all together, or at least for the most part and perhaps the Federal Republic and our federalist system. And replace it with a unitary superstate where Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces know better and know what is best even for tens of millions of Americans they don't even know exist.

The Democrats have their nuts and escaped mental patients as well and they are even visible in Congress. The difference is the Republican Tea Party escaped mental patients are more visible and vocal because they are better funded. Because they aren't anti-wealth, anti-money, anti-business, anti-private enterprise unlike the McGovernites on the New Left and are able to get their message out for the media to see, hear and report it. And the Democratic Party does a better job of keeping their mental patients locked in the closet where they belong so the media can't take them serious as commentators and experts.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The Hill: Opinion: Niall Stanage: Five Figures on the Left Who Could Challenge Hillary Clinton



The Hill: Opinion: Niall Stanage: Five Figures on the Left Who Could Challenge Hillary Clinton

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, but assuming she actually does run for president, which I don't think is a safe assumption, she is going to need a strong challenge from the Left even the Far-Left if she is going to run a strong effective campaign that not only wins her the Democratic nomination for president, but unites the party behind her as well. And not seen purely as an establishment figure, or the best available option that Hubert Humphrey was in 1968 trying to lead a very divided party.

And I say assuming that Hillary Clinton runs for president and it isn't a safe assumption yet because it is not clear whether she actually wants the job other than having something else to put on her resume or complete her resume. Because she hasn't given anyone at least publicly much if any reason why she wants to be president and what she would do as president. Other than her resume and hoping to be the first female President of the United States. Which might be enough for the feminists in the party and the hard-core Hillary supporters, but not enough for her to win the actual nomination.

She is going to need a Center-Left liberal New Democrat that can challenge her from her own wing of the party to push her for those voters and maker her earn them. And that is where Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland comes in. Or former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold could push her for those voters as well. And is someone who appeals to the hardcore Left of the party and even Far-Left. She is going to need to be pushed by the Far-Left of the party as well because she is going to need those voters to be elected president and that is where Senator Bernie Sanders can obviously push her. The only self-described Socialist in Congress.

And Hillary is going to need the FDR/LBJ New Deal/Great Society Progressives behind her as well for the summer and fall of 2016 if she is going to be elected president. And of course that is where Senate Elizabeth Warren comes in, but it is not clear if Senator Warren even wants to be president or even run for president. And perhaps she does not want to divide the party when there's a strong chance of electing the first female President of the United States. Besides Senator Warren seems to like being in Congress right now and perhaps has her own goals there.

Presidential nominations aren't given to people. They have to be earned especially by people who don't like making their politics and records clear and have somewhat of a thin resume where it is hard to define their politics and accomplishments. Hillary Clinton has only been in the public eye as a candidate or public official since late 1999 and has held public office for twelve years during this year. And doesn't have a very long record of private sector experience either. So if she wants to be president, she is going to have to earn that and prove to Democrats she not only wants the job and this is where she stands on all of the key issues. But why she is the best candidate for the job. 



Monday, August 18, 2014

Brookings: Blog: Stuart M. Butler: How to Move Past Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Empowering Individuals to Make Their Own Health Care Decisions

Health Savings Account
Health Savings Account
I like the idea of health savings accounts when it comes to health care and health care reform. Just as long as HSA’s aren’t just for wealthy people, or upper middle class people, but we make them accessible to everyone. Because you eliminate premiums and red tape for employers because they don’t have to pay for that employees health insurance with premiums and hiring workers to manage those benefits. The employee puts money away into their HSA every week that is matched by their employer and the employee them self uses those funds to pay for their health care. And doesn’t have to worry about what their employer covers.
I like the idea of what I at least call competitive health insurance plans. Instead of the employer deciding what plan their employees can have and from which company, the employee would decide that. Because some times people have health care needs for either themselves or a relative that they are responsible for that their employer health care plan doesn’t cover. So with a CHIP the employee would decide which health care plan they would get and from which health insurance provider, but their employer still be able to decide how much of that plan that they would pay for. And we could have a tax credit for employees who need it to make up for whatever their employer decides not to cover.
I would like to eliminate the middleman when it comes to health insurance in America. Not move to single payer and nationalize health insurance in this country. But give the power to the employee to decide how to finance their health care. Either through health insurance, or a health savings account. And perhaps just move health insurance to cover catastrophic health care that would be needed when someone is in a car accident to use as an example and needs long-term health care to cover things like rehabilitation. But use their health savings account to cover their basic health care needs like checkups and medicine.
I’m not saying we should outlaw health insurance or employer-sponsored health insurance. But you put more of the responsibility on individuals with health savings accounts that again would be an affordable option for everyone and leave health insurance for simply catastrophic health care and you no longer have to deal with rising cost of premiums and health care costs and employers having to drop health coverage when times are tough. And you give individuals more responsibility and freedom to manage their own lives. 

Friday, August 15, 2014

Pot TV: Video: Sun News: Full Interview: Marc Emery Talks to Marissa Semkiw SUN NEWS


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Marc Emery arguing that he's supporting Justin Trudeau the Leader of the Liberal Party in Canada because of marijuana and he believes the Federal Liberals in Canada are the best avenue to getting marijuana legalized in Canada. Leader Trudeau to me at least from what I've heard and read about him sounds like a centrist or a mushy middle moderate. So for someone like that to take a strong stance on marijuana legalization as in favor of it would be a big step for someone of that type of political background.


Thursday, August 14, 2014

Jim Heath: Video: ABC News Special Report: American Hostages Day 444


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The final insult from Iran to President Jimmy Carter was Iran not officially releasing the American hostages in Iran until the second or minute that Jimmy Carter was no longer President of the United States. And then the hostages were allowed to leave Iran for Algeria and then to Germany and then of course back to America. The Iranians kept these innocent American hostages who were only guilty of working at the American embassy in Iran longer than they had to just so Jimmy Carter who and his administration did all the work to get the Americans free and deserve all of the credit, but so they weren't officially released under their watch.


Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ABC News: Video: Special Report: Iranian Hostage Crisis From 12/03/1979


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The Shah of Iran was a major reason for why the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis came about in the first place. Because the Shah was a dictator and at times a brutal dictator even though he was moderate in other areas like in economic and foreign policy. But he used his vast powers to keep the opposition that was democratic and theocratic down with his Secret Police and arresting people without charges. And holding them indefinitely without trial. And as a result the Islamists in Iran woke up and fought back and took over the country.

Shah of Iran

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

ABC News: Video: Special Report: Iranian Hostage Crisis, 11/11/1979)


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was the final nail in the coffin of a very horrible year for America and President Jimmy Carter. With all the bad economic news with the high cost of living due to the energy crisis, high interest rates and inflation, high unemployment. And an administration led by President Jimmy Carter not seeming to be able to adequately respond to any of these issues in an effective way and President Carter's approval rating taking a beating as a result.


Monday, August 11, 2014

The Hitchens Archive: Video: Christopher Hitchens & Eric Alterman Discussing Politics in 2008

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to comment on Eric Alterman's first point about Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was never a Conservative, but perhaps a Neoconservative on foreign policy at least after 9/11. And as they both said neoconservatism and conservatism are two very different things. Because Neoconservatives tend to be in favor of reform, where Conservatives are interested in, well conserving, which is the whole point of of the label.

Hitchens and Alterman are both what in at least Europe would be called Social Democrats especially on economic policy and I'm sure on social issues. They both wrote for The Nation and Alterman still has a blog there. They both are big believers in the welfare state and wealth redistribution and not allowing for individuals to become very wealthy at least on their own. I think Alterman was taking a shot at Hitch by calling him a Conservative with his support for President Bush during the War on Terror.

Friday, August 8, 2014

PBS: The American President's- Bill Clinton: The Clinton Administration's Early Struggles


Source: PBS-President William J. Clinton-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The early days of the Clinton Administration were very rough for several reasons. One had to do with the White House staff that for the most part came from political backgrounds instead of government backgrounds. So they were trying to govern for the first time ever together with not a lot of experience at least in the Federal Government to begin with. Outside of Vice President Al Gore, OMB Director Leon Panetta and a few others.

They also had several controversies that they were dealing with. Like Gays in the military, Blackhawk Down in Somalia, a refugee crisis in Haiti and a few others. Like struggling to get their own deficit reduction plan and broader Federal budget proposal through a Democratic Congress that had a large majority in the House and a clear, but not super majority in the Senate. Which made President Clinton look like he couldn't govern at least early on.

But despite all of the troubles that President Clinton had in 1993 and to a certain extent 1994 with the failure to reform health care the Clinton Administration and that Democratic Congress was very productive as far as the legislation they were able to pass. Like free trade with NAFTA and GAT, deficit reduction, gays in the military, the 1994 Crime Bill, Family and Medical Leave and a few other things. So they were very productive even early on even though they weren't very popular.
PBS: The American President's- Bill Clinton: The Clinton Administration's Early Struggles

Thursday, August 7, 2014

PBS: Charlie Rose Show- Christopher Hitchens on Bill Clinton in 1999


Source: Charlie Rose Show-Christopher Hitchens-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

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

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

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

Not saying these are the only reasons that Chris Hitchens does not like Bill Clinton. But I'm also not saying these are not the main reasons either. What I'm saying is that you have to take that in account when you hear charges that Hitch and his allies make about Clinton and other New Democrats. That they call corporatists and sell outs and un-compassionate towards the poor and everything else.
PBS: Charlie Rose Show- Christopher Hitchens on Bill Clinton in 1999

HSN: The List With Colleen Lopez


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

At Colleen Lopez’s best, not saying she’s as attractive as Raquel Welch. But when she where’s here hair a certain way she reminds me of Raquel Welch. As a beautiful, adorable sexy women who also has more than just great looks. The lets say short-haired, but not butch tomboy dykish lesbian look, but where the hair goes down to the women’s shoulders or so, when Colleen wears her hair like that, she’s beautiful and very cute, but in a sweet grownup sexy way. Not like a little baby-faced cutie little girl who several HSN hosts look like right now. In some ways Colleen reminds me of the gorgeous Deidre Hall on Days of Our Lives. But not as pretty or as cute as Deidre, but with similar qualities. Tall, curvy, great body, beautiful and very cute. I just like Deidre more, but Colleen is a very attractive women.
HSN: The List With Colleen Lopez



Wednesday, August 6, 2014

New America: Ed Central: Mary Alice McCarthy: America's Job Training System: Better Than You Think


New America: Ed Central: Mary Alice McCarthy: America's Job Training System: Better Than You Think

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

The Film Archives: C-SPAN's Washington Journal- Steve Scully Interviewing Christopher Hitchens: What Did Bill Clinton Lie About?



Source: The Film Archives-President William J. Clinton-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

I'm not a mind-reader obviously, but Chris Hitchens was an admitted Socialist and was his whole life. Even though late in his career he became more of a Neoconservative on foreign policy and national security. He supported the War in Iraq and admitted that 9/11 changed his take on foreign policy and national security. If Hitchens was a Democrat he was from the McGovernite wing of the Democratic Party, the New Left that came into existence in the party in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The McGovernites that are Occupy Wall Street today are Social Democrats who probably had as much influence over the Democratic Party as the Christian Right has over the Republican Party today. And the McGovernites essentially ran the Democratic Party from 1968 or so until Democrats lost their fifth out of six presidential elections in 1988. Bill Clinton is a New Democrat and comes from the New Democratic wing of the Democratic Party that now runs the party today.

New Democrats believe in using government to empower people. Not support them indefinitely without expecting anything from those tax dollars. New Democrats believe in foreign trade, a strong but limited liberal internationalist foreign policy. Infrastructure, education and job training over government dependence. Smart on crime, not soft on crime which means punishing hardcore criminals and not blaming society for their crimes.

Social Democrats believe in the central state and that the job of government is to take care of people. Not empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Welfare to Work was kind of the last straw for Social Democrats in the Democratic Party after trade, the 1994 Crime Bill and deficit reduction. And not expanding the Federal state as it related to the economy and creating a welfare state for the country. And instead moving away from those traditional Democratic policies.

Again I'm not a mind-reader, but I believe a lot of the criticism that Chris Hitchens has for President Clinton has to do with President Clinton's politics. Instead of the man's personal behavior as President and that Hitchens is still angry over how Clinton transformed the Democratic Party and made it a center-left party again. And no longer a social democratic party that it was pre-Clinton that is common on the Left in Europe.
The Film Archives: C-SPAN's Washington Journal- Steve Scully Interviewing Christopher Hitchens: What Did Bill Clinton Lie About?

Monday, August 4, 2014

Slate: Opinion: Jamelle Bouie: John Fund's Distorted History of the Democratic Party: How the Civil Rights Laws Changed the Democratic Party & GOP


Slate: Opinion: Jamelle Bouie: John Fund's Distorted History of the Democratic Party

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

What right-wingers of today and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and National Review is one of them, don't seem to understand is that even though it is true that Congressional Republicans supported the civil rights laws more than Congressional Democrats in the 1960s, the Democrats who were against those laws in Congress especially in the Senate are Republicans today are and would be Republicans today. They would be part of the Tea Party and Religious-Right wing of the Republican Party today and perhaps part of both factions and those two factions overlap.

Lyndon Johnson and to a certain extent Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon rewrote the political map in America. Back in the 1960s the Democratic Party represented the South and Mid-Atlantic and to a certain extent the West. The Republican Party was New England and the broader Northeast, Midwest and parts of the West as well. The civil rights laws completely changed that around that by the 1990s the South was solid Republican because those anti-civil rights Southern Democrats were now Republicans. Republican Trent Lott from Mississippi who was Leader of the Senate at one point use to be a Democrat.

The Northeast because of civil rights by the 1990s or even before that became the solid Democratic North. There are now maybe ten Northeastern Republicans in Congress. Senators Kelly Ayotte and Susan Collins from New Hampshire and Maine respectfully. And a handful of Representatives mostly from small blue-collar towns like in Upstate New York and Pennsylvania like Representative Mike Kelly. And politically and culturally small towns in the Northeast do not look much different than the Bible Belt in the South.

So when John Fund, Anne Coulter and Larry Elder on the right try to suggest that it is the Democratic Party that is racist and that it is Democrats who are racist. Because they voted against the civil rights laws and supported Jim Crow. You should ask them "which era are you talking about?" Because if they are referring to the 1960s, 50s, and even before that they would be right. But the fact is those Democrats who supported Jim Crow and blocked the civil rights laws in the 1950s and 60s today are Republicans and would be Republicans today. 

Friday, August 1, 2014

AP: Video: Ed Donahue: US Employers Add 209K Jobs, Unemployment 6.2%

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Two-hundred-thousand jobs in a month even if it is not a high as the previous month of two-hundred-eighty-thousand jobs is a very good number. And when you have a slight uptick in unemployment from 6.1% to 6.2% that is a good sign as well because that means more Americans who aren't currently working are looking for work. Which are the people policymakers in Washington should be targeting. Those are the people the Obama Administration are concern with and why they've pushed so many ideas designed to put those people to work. And if they could get any cooperation with the Republican House of Representatives, job growth would be even better right now.