The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

New Republic: Opinion: John B. Judis: Democrats Hope Battleground Texas Can Turn the State Blue: How Democrats Could Win in Texas

New Republic: Opinion: John B. Judis: Democrats Hope Battleground Texas Can Turn Texas Blue

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Do I think Wendy Davis will be elected Governor of Texas next Tuesday or anytime soon? Of course not because I haven't seen any polls that show that race between her and Greg Abbot is even within five points, perhaps not even ten points. Even though she did do well in the two debates against Greg Abbot and you could argue she won both debates. And she did pick up some big city paper endorsements in Texas as well. But when you are a big underdog going in, you simply can't afford to make the big campaign mistakes that she has, including some bad commercials.

2014 won't be the year for Texas Democrats, but 2018, 2020 we may see that state move in a different direction. And the racial and ethnic trends in that state will be a big factor. With the growing Latino population in that state and the shrinking Caucasian population as well. But that only matters if people vote and right now Republican voters in Texas are primarily Caucasian, but they are very reliable voters. Latinos aren't right now and only vote big in presidential elections.

So a growing Latino population in Texas won't be enough to make that state competitive in Texas for Democrats. If they have this idea that they'll just wait until Texas looks like California, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, or look like Seattle, or Chicago, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington politically, culturally, racially and ethnically, Texas will remain red indefinitely. Because one thing that Texans of all backgrounds prides themselves on is that they are like those big blue cities and blue states.

For Texas Democrats to succeed, they have to succeed in Texas and win Texas voters. Instead of campaigning there like they are campaigning in Los Angeles, or San Francisco or New England. They have to win voters in Texas and when the other party outnumbers you, you have to win over voters who tend to vote Republican. But perhaps aren't as far to the right or as partisan as others Republicans and the leadership and looking for an alternative to the Republican Party in Texas.

Going into the 2014 Texas governors race, I thought Wendy Davis at least on paper before all of the campaign mistakes was that type of Democrat. That if she didn't win the election, she would at least make it a race and perhaps start moving the state in a Democratic direction. That hasn't happened because she hasn't run a very good campaign. But on paper she looks very Texan politically, but in a Democratic sense.

Liberal on social issues, pro-gun, pro-choice and not just as it relates to abortion, but other social issues as well, including as it relates to homosexuality. Fiscally responsible, big believer in education and opportunity so more Texans can succeed and not be dependent on public assistance. She looks like a New Democrat in the political and ideological sense, instead of someone from the Progressive Caucus or Green Party trying to convince Texans that they are wrong politically and need to be more progressive or even socialist on a whole wide range of issues.

That is how Texas Democrats can win in Texas in the future, but run effective campaigns without the big errors of the Wendy Davis campaign. Don't treat Texas like California or New England politically, but run in Texas as if you are in Texas speaking to Texan voters who aren't nearly as far to the Left as the big blue states. With a mainstream center-left message built around education and opportunity for all, with big government off everyone's back, where everyone can succeed. That would be a winning message for Texas Democrats in the future and Latinos could help them win with that. 

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Striker 1909: Video: Jeff Bridges With the Final Speech From The Contender


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  

Great speech from The Contender by Jeff Bridges who played the President in this movie. Not a very realistic scene as far as how they put the U.S. House chamber together for this joint session of Congress when the House and Senate come together to hear the President speak. With the Speaker of the House and the President or Pro Tempore sitting in big chairs just above the President as the President is speaking.

But still a good speech from the President saying that he won't let a very partisan faction from the opposition in the House of Representatives derail his Vice Presidential nominee, Senator Lane Evans who just happens to be one of their Congressional colleagues, be defeated because of what may or may not happened in Senator Evans private life before coming to Congress. That the President wasn't going to put up with this obstruction and he was going to fight for his nominee.

This was a very important scene and movie for this if only reason. Because it was about the Right to Privacy and that even public officials and even members of Congress and even members of Congress who appointed to the second highest office in the country, the Vice Presidency and it raised  two very important questions. Do public officials and even members of Congress and even members of Congress who are appointed to high office have a Right to Privacy. And should our public officials be judged based on how they live their private lives or not.


Saturday, October 25, 2014

Zhukaiww: Video: The Contender 2000 Trailer: A Movie About the Right of Privacy For Public Officials


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

The Contender movie from 2000 came about almost three years after the Monica Lewinski scandal broke and two years after President Clinton was impeached in the House on a party-line vote. President Clinton was actually mentioned in this movie, and about two years after the Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate I believe The Contender at least to some degree was influenced by the Lewinski scandal and the point that President Clinton was making.

President Clinton's point being that his private life is just that and that even public officials elected officials president's even have a Right to Privacy even as it relates to their sex life. And that if adultery is involved which it is in both cases that its between the adulterer, their family and the person the affair was with. Not 265-300M Americans as was the case back then and especially an opposition party thats looking to embarrass the President or Vice President.

Or even bring the top leaders down, which was the case with the Lewinski scandal as well as in this movie. And it has Jeff Bridges who's personally one of my favorite actors, especially for his great sense of humor. But he can also act, playing a President who's wrapping up his presidency and looking to build his legacy. His Vice President just died in office and he has to fill that vacancy and basically has a choice between a popular Democratic Governor of Virginia GOV. Jack Hathaway played by a great character actor Bill Peterson. Famous for his role in CBS CSI. And a junior Senator from Ohio played by a very good actress Joan Allen. And these are the top two contenders for the Vice Presidency.

The President has to nominate a new Vice President and appoint them to both chambers of Congress because the House has an Advise and Consent role in nominating a new Vice President. And then you throw in the cast in the movie Jeff Bridges as the President, Sam Elliot as WH Chief of Staff, Saul Rubinek as WH Press Secretary, Joan Allen as Sen. Lane Evans nominee for Vice President. Gary Oldman as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Bill Peterson as GOV. Jack Hathaway who wants to run for president and become vice president to help him with that.

Christian Slater who plays a freshmen Representative from Delaware who doesn't like Sen. Evans because she used to be a Republican. And wants GOV. Hathaway to be Vice President. And actually works with the Chairman who presides over the Vice Presidential confirmation hearings for the House. To make sure that Sen. Evans does not get confirmed because the House Republicans of course see Sen. Evans as too liberal. So you have all these little side stories and motivations and everyone involved has stake in the game so to speak.

Joan Allen plays the first female nominee for Vice President in American history who has a wild history from college. And seen as someone who slept around and even had an affair with one of her friend's husband played by Robin Thomas. Who she later marries and starts a family with. Sen. Evans is also the daughter of the former Governor of Ohio who's a Republican, but supports his daughter's nomination for Vice President. And the House Republicans and their special interest allies try to make the most of Sen. Evans private life to bring her down. So she doesn't become Vice President of the United States one step away from the Presidency, great movie.


Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The New Republic: Opinion: Nathan Lean: Bill Maher-Ben Affleck Islam Debate: "There is No Muslim World": Differentiating Between Jihadism and Islam

The New Republic: Opinion: Nathan Lean: Bill Maher-Ben Affleck Islam Debate: There's No Muslim World

Where I believe Nathan Lean and I agree is that there's a difference between jihadism and Islam. Islam is a religion and most Muslims tend to be peaceful. I think that is obvious because if Muslim was a religion of violence, the jihadist movement would be a hell of a lot bigger today than it is. It is jihadism where the terrorism is coming from when we are talking about North Africa and the Middle East. Jihadism similar to the Religious-Right in America, is a warped interpretation of what Islam is and supposed to be about. And that their beliefs are so strong, that they'll use violence to promote them.

I compare jihadism with the Religious-Right and when I'm talking about the Religious-Right, the militant Religious-Right. People who I don't even really consider to be real Christians in the sense because of how violent they are. And willing to blow up abortion clinics even if innocent people are murdered to prevent abortions from happening. And what they would call to save the lives of innocent babies. Well Jihadist's even though technically they are Muslims, are not acting in their faith when they blow up airports and shoot innocent people in crowded public spaces.

One thing that Islam and Christianity have in common, is that they have some serious radicals that give their religion a really bad name. And do horrible things and kill innocent people in the name of their religion, even though what they are doing goes against what their religion is about and what it preaches. I think that is where Bill Maher and Sam Harris and I would disagree. Bill Maher at least, perhaps not Sam Harris. Even though I've been with both of them when criticizing the lets say political correct Left about them unwilling to criticize Jihadist's. But more then happy to attack the Religious-Right.

Monday, October 20, 2014

CBS News: Sunday Morning: Take Our Poll: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame: The Case For Inducting Pete Rose in the MLB Hall of Fame

CBS News: Take Our Poll: Should Pete Rose be in the Hall of Fame

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The only reason why Pete Rose is not in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame and he would've gone in I believe 1992 which I believe would've been is first year of eligibility, but the only reason he's not there has to do with his gambling on Major League Baseball games. Which he gambled on even as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and even betted on Reds games. Pete being out of the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with his playing career and nothing to do with his playing career is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame.

I could understand banning Pete from ever being a MLB manager, coach or executive for life. Because betting on your own team's games is a pretty bad offense. Especially if you are betting that they lose and have a say in the outcome of their games. But to keep him out of the Hall of Fame in general, when he's arguably the best all around player of his era and generation and we are talking about a career that covers twenty-four seasons from 1963-86, makes no sense from a Hall of Fame perspective.

Keeping Pete out of the Hall of Fame also does more damage to Reds fans and the Cincinnati Reds organization that Pete. Because of all the respect and luster that comes from not just seeing one of your own players in the Hall of Fame, but having that person in the Hall of Fame. "That player was not just a great player, but he played for us and we won a lot of games with him and he's in the Hall of Fame as one of us". Things that the Reds organization and the Reds fans can't say right now because they are denied of seeing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.

We are not talking about whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a manager or even as a human being. He would never make it to the Hall of Fame based on that criteria. We are talking about Pete Rose the player and based on his playing career and because of the facts that he's the best player who's been retired for at least five years from playing, not in the Hall of Fame. And of course what he did as a player would've put him in the Hall of Fame over twenty-years ago. Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Just don't allow him to manage or be an executive. 




Sunday, October 19, 2014

Jaimelyn Gray: Video: Andrew Shepard's Speech From The American President: President Andrew Shepard Defending Liberalism


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to be serious for a minute and perhaps only a minute. I was with President Shepard the whole time during this speech, except for the part about the guns. When he said that he was going to get the guns, not just assault weapons, but handguns in general. The Federal Government can't constitutionally outlaw handguns by statue. The U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear. So to do that, you would either have to amend the Second Amendment or repeal the Second Amendment.

But the rest of the speech about defending free speech and not just speech you agree with and not just people you like and respect, but that the opposition and other groups of Americans have just as much of a right to speech as anyone else in America, was a classical constitutional liberal argument. That all Americans have the right to speech and that there are few exceptions to that. When it comes to libel, inciting violence, or yelling fire in public spaces and causing panics.

This whole scene came about because of the fact that President Andrew Shepard played by Michael Douglas is a widower and single father of a young teenage girl. And meets a Democratic lobbyist who lobbies for environmentalists and pursues her even as President. And they start an affair and fall in love. And that Senate Minority Bob Rumson played by Richard Dreyfuss, who is running for President as a Republican, makes a big deal about this. And tries to make the case that the President who even though he is a widower by the way, having an affair in the White House is an example of the moral decay of America.

All this is going on as President Shepard is trying to finish the rest of his first-term agenda before running for reelection. Which is a crime bill and an energy bill and the affair that he is having with his girlfriend, Sidney Ellen Wade played by Annette Bening, even though neither one is married at the time, costs the President popularity and support in the House of Representatives. And he has to settle for a compromise energy bill, which is how he loses his girlfriend. The speech in the movie was about the President fighting back and saying that "the compromise is not good enough and that we need to go further to address crime and energy". As well the President defending liberal values.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Movie Clips: Video: The American President, 1995: A Movie About Romance and Hardball Politics


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

If you're someone whose a political junky such as myself and you love watching political movies and political documentaries, than The American President is a very good movie. Because its about a President who at the beginning of the movie is pretty popular and is going into to his reelection campaign having not finished his whole agenda that he ran on, trying to finish that agenda with a crime bill and an energy bill. 

And they go into how he and the White House work with Congress to get the votes to pass that agenda and how they set up the staff to do that. And how they work with special interest groups to get the support for their energy bill. If you're someone who like romantic comedy's that aren't predictable and cheesy and are clever. Than The American President is a good movie, because its about a President who's a widower and the single parent of a daughter who's somewhat lonely. 

President Andrew Shepard meets an environmental lobbyist by accident, walks in on a meeting she's having with his Chief of Staff. And he asks her to be his date at the next state dinner and even the process he goes through to make that happen is interesting because he calls her up at home. And she thinks the President is one of her friends impersonating the President. And makes fun of him, but the President doesn't give up and calls her back to convince her he's the President. The American President has hardball politics, romance and political scandal in about 105 minutes. A little something for everybody.

President Andrew Shepard, with a name like that he must be from New England, but he's the former Governor of Wisconsin played by Michael Douglas. And this is one of his best roles because you see his ability to act and I'm not a big fan of most of his movies, but I believe he's a great actor and you see his funny side in the movie and he can be very funny as well. He's no Danny DeVito, but he can more than hold his own in comedy. Again plays the President who's somewhat popular going in heading into an election year with still a big agenda to pass, and meets this environmental lobbyist played by Annette Benning who doesn't like President Shepard's Energy bill and they talk about it.

And the President and the lobbyist (sounds like the title of a movie) make a deal that if she can land half of the votes in the House for the bill she wants, he'll get the other half. And at the end of the meeting he asks her on a date. She doesn't take him seriously, threatens the President that he has to come through, or the President will lose the support of her group. The President gets his date and they hit it off and start an affair that causes the President trouble politically as well as with his agenda. 

Again The American President is a movie that has hardball politics, romance, and political scandal. With the romance and with Senate Minority Leader Bob Rumson who's also running for President making everything he can out of this affair even calling Sydney Ellen Wade a whore on national TV. And running as the Religious Right candidate for President, the Champion of Traditional Values. Running against a Liberal Democrat and a card caring member of the ACLU. And the scene towards the end of the movie, the press conference makes the whole thing worth watching where he sums up the whole movie in about five minutes. 


Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Kristen Cherye: America's Hardest Prisons- National Geographic Documentary

Source: Kristen Cherye-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

This is what happens when you house the worst of the worst together. You have all of these violent criminal inmates who see their time in prison as nothing, but survival. And making their lives as comfortable as possible. And I do not have a problem housing these people together to isolate them from inmates in other prisons who simply want to do their time and go home. Or make their life sentence or long-term prison sentence as comfortable as possible.  As long as these prisons are doing whatever they can to improve the behavior of these inmates. And showing them what life can be like if they behave in prison and give them opportunities and incentives to improve their behavior so they can prepare themselves for life on the outside. Or have a productive life in prison if they are doing life sentences. But if prison is nothing more than a zoo or warehouse for the worst amongst us and it just becomes about survival for the staff there, you are going to continue to see violent outbursts.
Kristen Cherye: America's Hardest Prisons- National Geographic Documentary

Monday, October 13, 2014

Serial Killers Crime Biography: Video: Angelo Buono & Kenneth Bianchi: The Hillside Stranglers


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState 1975 on Blogger, August, 2012

The Hillside Stranglers are two of the saddest people that this country has ever produced, because they were basically a couple of losers. Who didn't know right from wrong or didn't care and somewhat nuts in the sense, that they would be willing to do just about anything to get their pleasure. One of them was a Serial Murderer and the other was a Serial Rapist. 

The Buono-Bianchi victims would get raped and then murdered or the other way around, so these two losers could get their pleasure. With no sense of a conscience or should they even doing this, what are the consequences that could come from this. Or they simply didn't understand the concepts of these things, which made them even more dangerous. Because they could pretty much do anything, because they weren't worried about the results. 

Buono and Bianchi wouldn't care who would get hurt from it, even themselves and what would happen to them because of their actions. The only benefit from their stupidity, was they weren't very good at being criminals, in the sense that yes they could pull off their crimes, but were horrible at covering them up. So when they would murder and rape a women, and they would get tied to these crimes fairly early on.

Angelo Bono was a fairly intelligent man who could've been fairly successful in life and could've lived on his own. And been self-sufficient and he wouldn't of had to be a criminal to make it in life. But Kenneth Bianchi his cousin, was basically a born loser who barely learned how to read and write and was an outcast since childhood. And is one of these people if someone could've gotten to him early on in life and realized that this guy had some serious issues who needed help. 

Maybe Kenneth Bianchi's life turns out differently with an early intervention. And had his cousin Angelo not of hooked up with him, not had brought him into his home in Los Angeles, this murderous team probably never comes together, but of course we'll never know this and Ken Bianchi represents a typical prison Inmate. A criminal who enters prison as an ignorant man who couldn't make it in the free world, without the skills to survive as a non-criminal.

What gets me is how long the Hillside Stranglers were able to stay in business, for basically two years, from late 1977 to 1979. Because of who this team was, with one of them essentially being a moron. Which tells me that Angelo Bono being the intelligent member of this team, was probably the leader of it and perhaps the only one that had any control of Ken Bianchi before they were arrested.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Truth Injector: Video: HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher: Center-Left Democrats vs. Occupy Wall Street


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

Bill Maher has this idea that since there's a Democrat in the White House, that President Obama should govern like Dennis Kucinich. What he doesn't seem to understand, is that President Obama and Representative Kucinich come from two different factions of the party. Barack Obama comes from the adult realist faction of the party. Progressives and Liberals that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, with what's available to do so.

Dennis Kucinich comes from the dreamer utopian faction of the party, Socialist Hippies from the 1960s, and early 70s and today that haven't grown up. And see the World that they want to create apparently not realizing what's possible, but believe everything that they want is possible. And its possible now to turn America into Europe to create their Socialist Utopia. And you got these two competing factions, the adults with the power in the party that see the world for what it is and try to make it the best that they can, against the Hippies that want to see the world that they want now.

And if you support any policy thats different from what the Hippies want, you're some type of corporate sellout to the Republican Party or something. President Obama is like a father with his only real life family, as well as his kids in the Democratic Party. That help him run the party, plus with millions of adopted children that complain about not being able to have cake for dinner. And throw temper tantrums when they can't have cake for dinner or have to eat salad with their meat. And tell their parents they hate them when they can't stay up all night on a school night.

The Socialist Hippies (the Democratic children) in the party that doesn't have a great grasp on reality, that want everything now and doesn't understand what Hubert Humphrey called the "Art of the Possible". So the state of the Democratic Party right now a political party that I'm proud to be a member of is basically two parties and I believe within ten years could become officially two political parties. Which I believe would be good for both American liberalism and progressivism, as well as socialism giving each political movement their own voice.

You have the Liberal Democrats led by the President and the Congressional Democratic Leadership and the DNC. And then you have the Hippie Socialists again from the 1960s and early 70s. And want to bring that movement about today and create their own Socialist Utopia a perfect world. Where there's no wealthy or poor people, no violence, no war, give peace a chance. Everybody is equal, sounds like a decent Hollywood film or Hollywood fantasy. No bigotry, but the only problem that they have, is that they don't have a damn clue how to bring those things about. They tell the Leadership "this is what we want now go out there and accomplish that". Without having any idea of how to bring that about.

Hippy Democrats are like a head coach who wants to have the best team in the league. But doesn't know what type of system he wants on offense and defense, or what type of players he wants. Or how to write a game plan or run a practice, that these things are just details, right. Sounds more like a great fan than a successful head coach. And then leave it up to the Liberal Democrats the adults in the room to get the job done.

And when the Hippies accomplish some of those goals that the whole party supports, what's the thanks for the Democratic Leadership, they get called sellouts by their kids the Hippies. Who weren't even invited to the party because they probably would've thrown food or gotten into a fight. Its like giving your kid a corvette as their graduation present. But then getting called as asshole because you didn't give your son a Porche. Thats why the Liberal Democrats run the Democratic Party because they are the adults in the room.
Sits at the kiddy table in the Democratic Party



Politico Magazine: Opinion: Will Marshall: How to Save the Democratic Party From Itself


Politico Magazine: Opinion: Will Marshall: How to Save the Democratic Party From Itself

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Will Marshall seems to be arguing that since the Republican Party now operates the anti-government Tea Party Right, to go along with the Christian-Right when it comes to social issues, that the Democratic Party should operate the middle. That it would be dangerous for the Democratic Party to operate the pro-big government Left, because most of the country is not there on the Left or with the Tea Party on the Right. I agree with Marshall that most of the country is not that far Left or Right.

Americans tend to be between the 40s, to use a football field analogy. They don't tend to be on the 20's the two wings of the American political spectrum. But there's a difference between center-left and dead-center where you don't have any real political core. And everything is about negotiation and give and take because you don't have any real political core. Any real ideas and values that you truly believe in other than the basics of the Constitution.

The fifty yard line would be the dead-center. It's called dead-center for a reason because not any Americans are so moderate without any real political core. They tend to be somewhere between liberal and conservative. With the wings occupying the fringes of both parties. the center-left would be one of the forty yard lines. Liberals and Progressives, mainstream pragmatic leftists who have their own policies and views, but can and will work with pragmatists on the Right when they don't have all of the power and have to work with the other side in order to govern.

The Democratic Party doesn't and shouldn't be the dead-center moderate party with no clear convictions and nothing they'll fight for and stand for party. And tell voters, "vote for me because I'll do what I believe is best and work with the other side to govern". No, it doesn't work like that in American politics. Americans like to know who they are voting for and what that person is about and where they are on the issues before they decide to hire that person or not. And that is not just the wings, but mainstream Liberals and Conservatives who are between the 40s politically.

The Democratic Party doesn't need to be the dead-center party, nor should it. But be what it has traditionally been at least the last fifty years or so. Which is the center-left party in America that is about growth, opportunity for all that comes with both freedom and responsibility. The party that champions personal freedom and civil liberties. And economic opportunity and freedom for all, so how you do in life is not about who you were born to and how wealthy your parents are. But how you did in school and with the quality opportunities you were given there. And how productive and successful you are as an adult.

The Democratic Party should be the Liberal Party. Not a a social democratic or socialist party or the Green Party. But a center-left liberal party that is about both personal and economic freedom, but personal and economic freedom for everyone and not just people born to wealth. Not a pro-big government, or an anti-government party, but a party that is about the individual and using government to help people who need it get the tools that they need to live in freedom. And then allowing for everyone to live in freedom and manage their own personal and economic affairs. Not using government to try to run their lives for them from an economic or personal perspective. 



Saturday, October 11, 2014

Howard Cosell Fan-ESPN: Outside the Lines- Robert Lypsite Interviews Howard Cosell in 1991


Source: Howard Cosell Fan-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Howard Cosell was more than a great sportscaster, and he was at least to a certain extent, which I'll get into later. But he was a great entertainer and a very intelligent and funny man as well. And those things tend to go together. He had a great ability to see things immediately for what they were and quickly give an intelligent insight about them in a way that everyone could understand and even do it in a humorous way as well.

Howard was sort of the fan's voice when it came to sportscasting. Not a pure play by play man or a true expert analyst, someone who would not only watch the game, but give you an expert analysis of what happened and what it means and what to look for. But what he would give you is a voice for the fans and what fans are seeing and what they may be thinking about it. But could put it in ways that most people couldn't and put in a way where people would think. "Wow, that is what I was thinking, I just wish I could've said it like that".

Those old ABC's Monday Night Football games from the 1970s. You had Frank Gifford as the play by play man and I think he did a great job of that. But again he was also a former NFL player who was a Hall of Fame player who wasn't just a play by play man, but someone who knew exactly what it meant and what he was seeing because he use to play the game professionally. And Don Meredith as the expert analyst who of course use to be the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys in the 1960s.


But they also had Howard Cosell, who gave the viewers and fans an expert fans perspective of what was going on in the game. What fans may of been thinking and a lot of times were thinking, but couldn't phrase those things in a way that only he could. Because they didn't have Howard's intelligence and sense of humor. Howard Cosell is the genuine article of sportscasting. There wasn't a Howard Cosell before Howard Cosell and there hasn't been someone like him since.
Howard Cosell Fan-ESPN: Outside The Lines- Robert Lyosite's Interview of Howard Cosell


Thursday, October 9, 2014

Leathered Life: Laura in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans




This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

There are two models over at Leathered Life that I love, let me amend that. Two models over at Leathered Life that I physically love. It would be tough to love someone you don't personally know, despite all of the people who have tried to do so. I don't know Laura or Lena personally, but I love them physically because they are both yes very cute and pretty if not beautiful. But they both have great bodies and both wear and look great in leather jeans and wear them on a regular basis.

Checking out Laura in her Miss Sixty leather jeans, is like checking out Rachael Ray in her skin-tight denim jeans. And watching her move around in her kitchen in those jeans and hoping she turns around to get something out of the cabinet. Or steps back to open a cabinet with the camera man focusing on her mid-section and waste in her jeans. Leather jeans like denim jeans especially tight leather and denim jeans are made for well-built women with curves and meat on their bones. Not rail-thin or obese women which is why the strong women look good in them. Laura, perfect example of that.
Leathered Life: Many Girls in Leather Jeans




Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Leathered Life: Sandra B Wearing a Leather Coat, Leather Jeans & Boots



This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Short, but sweet video of Sandra one of the leather models at the website Leathered Life. Which I'm not sure is even still in business or not. I haven't seen many videos or anything from them lately. But they were pretty hot in early 2009 when I got on YouTube and I checked out a lot of their videos when I got on YouTube. And a few of them are already on this blog and this will be another one. Lena is probably the only model that I really like there.

Sandra seems pretty sweet with a nice body, but Lena has everything including beauty and baby-face adorable looks. And a body that seems to be built for skinny jeans. Both denim and leather jeans with great curves. The women in the video looks good with the leather jeans and boots and certainly worth checking out. Which is why I'm posting this and her outfit is certainly sexy. But I've rather of seen a leather jacket like a biker jacket to go with the jeans and boots. Instead of a long coat.


Friday, October 3, 2014

Real Time: Video: Bill Maher and Panel Talking About the U.S. Constitution


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

Unless you're a real Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian or perhaps even Independent, chances are you generally like the U.S. Constitution. If you're a so-called Progressive today Neoconservative or Christian-Theocrat, chances are you don't like the U.S. Constitution. Because it constricts you from doing what you want the Federal Government to do and make it bigger. 

Today's Progressives would like to see the Federal Government get so big to the point, that it would provide a lot of the services that the private sector and state and local governments currently provide. The 10th Amendment and Property Rights, makes that a lot more difficult for them to do that. As FDR found out during the New Deal back in the 1930s.  

So today's Progressives who are really European Social Democrats, they would like to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to give the Federal Government more power. Including taking out some Constitutional Amendments, like the 2nd Amendment the Right to Self-Defense. And perhaps even amend the First Amendment when it comes to the media. They would like to see a public media, not a "corporate Media" as they would call it. And even be able to regulate hate speech in America. 

As the Bush Administration found out, the U.S .Constitution got in their way when it came to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. Neoconservatives would also like to amend the First Amendment so that it would only cover Freedom of Religion for Christians and political speech. Well that it is political speech, as long as the people are saying things they agree with. And would like to eliminate the Right of Privacy, the Fourth Amendment and perhaps a few others.

The Christian Right people I call Theocrats or better yet a religious cult, people who see marijuana as immoral, but have religious and political views that seem so out of space like they are on Fantasy Island and seem high on something illegal. Basically view people that don't live their lives as they do, they are immoral and should be in jail or something and would love to amend the First Amendment to outlaw adult entertainment. 

So the the Christian Right can censor certain forms of entertainment they don't like. Ban non-Christian religions and turn America into a Christian theocracy. Where life especially for women would become very restrictive with dress codes and that sort of thing. No more Right to Privacy, because now adultery and pre-marital sex, kids out of wedlock would be illegal. Pornography obviously illegal, alcohol and perhaps certain forms of dancing would be illegal. 

It would be like living in Iran but a Theocracy like this, would make Iran look like a liberal democracy. That only 1960s Hippies could dream up in one of their pipe dreams. So converted Progressives and ex-Libertarians like Bill Maher, should think twice about calling for a new U.S. Constitution, because he probably wouldn't like the results of it.  If Progressives want America to become like Scandinavia or Canada, then they need a new U.S. Constitution to achieve that. 

Today's Progressives would need a new Constitution to establish all the democratic socialism. And to give the Federal Government all of the power over us that they want to establish. If Neoconservatives want to make America like Russia, then they should move there or get into power and establish Martial Law, which is what happened in Egypt fifty years ago.

 If Theocrats want to make America like Iran, well they should move to Iran, because they aren't getting to the White House in America. No Presidential Candidate in America runs as a Theocrat and gets elected President. But for Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, we just need to defend, promote and speak up for the U.S. Constitution. To bring even more individual liberty than we already have.


Leathered Life: Video: Topmodel Larissa in Miss Sixty Leather Jeans


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Beautiful sexy women in a leather jacket, boots and yes Miss Sixty leather jeans. And showing herself off in this outfit. I'm an Agnostic because I obviously don't know if there is a God or multiple Gods or not, otherwise I wouldn't be an Agnostic. But if there is a God, thank God for women like this and I hope he just continues to produce women like this. So guys such as myself can continue to check them out and blog about them and get the word out about them.

Videos like this would what the Christian Right and so-called Moral Majority would say are "immoral and should be banned and taken down by government". Radical feminists would say "these videos are an example of women being abused and forced into pleasing the man and another example of male sexist power", or something. The rest of us would say whether we like the video or not, here's a professional model doing her job and the more people that see her, the better she does and the more power to her. That is where I am not only as a man, but as a Liberal who believes in free choice and expression.


Thursday, October 2, 2014

Hoover Institution: Video: Uncommon Knowledge: Peter Robinson Interviews Charles Kesler: The Grand Liberal Project

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, May, 2013

What conservative historian Charles Kesler is talking about is American Progressivism. A political philosophy that’s government centric. And in the United States Federal Government centric, but there Are Progressive governors and other Progressives in state government that believe in a certain level of federalism. But the idea of American progressivism is a very collectivist political philosophy that’s about using government to make society better. 


That we need these government policies and government programs to make people’s lives better for them. Even if we need high taxes to finance all of these programs. "That if government has a lot of the people’s resources, then that money will be spent better. And those decisions will be made better if big government is doing these things better for us, than people spending their own money on their behalf and making their own decisions".
But the philosophy that I just described is not Liberalism. And is America’s version of Democratic Socialism. Where you mix in capitalism and the private sector with a large welfare state. To assure that resources are spread out equally that’s common in Europe. And in Europe this philosophy would actually be described as socialism. But in America with socialist and socialism having such negative stereotypes and so forth attached to them, Socialists in America tend to be called Progressives. 
But this is not liberalism because liberalism is about the individual. And progressive in the sense that government has a role to see that as many people as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom. But it’s not the job of government to take care of people. And it’s not the job of government to give us our freedom. But to see that the opportunities are there for people to get their freedom for themselves like through education and job training. A safety net for people who are out of work that empowers them to work their way back to being able to take care of themselves and so-forth.
When right-wing historians like Charles Kesler and others examine and write about liberalism or progressivism or socialism or communism, they tend to put all these philosophies into one pot. As if they are all the same thing and depending on how partisan or ignorant they are about liberalism and tend to look at liberalism as America’s version of communism or Islamism. That Liberals want to outlaw all individual freedom basically and make everyone dependent on the state and so-forth.
Liberalism is not about the state, but about the individual. That Liberals believe in individual freedom. But both economic and personal freedom, not like some right-wingers today when they are talking about individual freedom, they are mainly talking about economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. But that "personal freedom is dangerous because it empowers people to make bad decisions that are bad for society as a whole who has to pay for them".
Another thing about Liberalism and Liberals is that Liberals not only believe in individual freedom again both personal and economic freedom, but that individual freedom should be for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. Or even income level, that all Americans should have the opportunity to live in individual freedom in America. 

And that government has a role to see that these opportunities are there for everyone, but what people do with these opportunities is up to us. And not having a welfare state there to take care of everyone. And have everyone dependent on the state for our economic well-being. Liberals truly believe in individual freedom, but again for everyone, whereas today's so-called Progressives believe in the welfare state. To be there to take care of everyone mixed in with private-enterprise. 



Wednesday, October 1, 2014

History Comes to Life: Video: Wendell Willkie: A Classical Liberal Democrat

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress, April, 2013

When you hear the term classical liberal, it’s generally used to talk about Libertarians today. Even though Libertarians are right-wing, center-right depending on what type of Libertarian they are. And Liberals are left-wing, the center-left on the American political spectrum. And then there are people who are called modern liberals and these people are supposed to be the Liberals of today. Even though in Canada or Europe they would be described as Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists or Progressives. 

Because that's  what so-called Modern Liberals are. It’s Social Democrats who have built their philosophy around the state. And what the state can do for the people and tend to be skeptical about what the people can do for themselves. And want a big state to be there to take care of everyone so no one get’s left behind. But these people in America tend to be called Modern Liberals, or even Liberals when they actually have more of a socialist mindset than a liberal mindset. Liberalism or classical liberalism is not about the state and is not against the state. 
Liberalism is in favor of the individual and empowering people to be able to do everything that they can for themselves and is against big government. Big government being government that tries to do too much for the individual. Or trying to run their life and even protecting people from themselves. Which is why Liberals tend to be against prohibition whether it comes from the Right or Left. Prohibition is a statist idea, a progressive idea that "the people aren’t smart enough to make some decisions for themselves and we need government to do that for them even if that means locking people up". 
Even criminally punishing people when they make unhealthy decisions with their own lives. Liberals and I’m one of them believe that the individual should be able to live their own life as they see fit. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Because we know ourselves and our own lives better than government. And have to do deal with the consequences of our own decisions. Liberals believe in both economic and personal freedom that one is not worth much without the other. 
Today we now have Progressives who are paternalists who not only believe in the welfare state, but prohibition as well. As we see with these bans on soft drinks to use as examples. To go along with tobacco and other products. These people aren’t Liberals even in a modern sense and perhaps not even Progressives. But paternalists who believe they know better how individuals should live their own lives and they have a right to believe that, but they aren’t Liberals. 
Wendell Willkie was a true Liberal Democrat before the New Deal and left to become a Republican. Because he believed that President Roosevelt was moving the Democratic Party and the country in a more socialist direction. But Willkie wasn’t against government, but believed that government should be there to serve us not run our lives. Do for us what we can’t do for ourselves, that government get’s it’s power from us, not that it decides what we can do with our own lives.
When I think of Liberals, I think of Wendell Willkie, John Kennedy and today people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Dick Durbin. People who believe in both economic and personal freedom and that these things should be for everyone. That we are all entitled to have a shot at living a successful life and living in freedom. And that’s where government comes in, but not creating a government to take care of everyone and show us how to live. Which is what separates liberalism from today's progressivism and libertarianism. One philosophy being all about government and the other philosophy being almost completely against government.