The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion'

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment

Source:The New Democrat

"There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.

It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”

At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion."

Read the rest of Karen Tumulty's piece at The Washington Post

Source:ABC News: Joe Biden- 'Flips On Hyde Amendment'- Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment 

 "2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn't President Donald Trump and that he was different."

If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.

And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.

Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump's morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.

Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you're saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn't get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.

The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I'm pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they're doing, including abortion because I don't believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman's pregnancy. It's not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.

We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I'm not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I'm just saying that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.

People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren't poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they're completely right about that, but that's not the issue. This shouldn't be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don't have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don't have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that's not unfair, that's just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That's just how America has always worked and how it should always be.

The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: ‘Joe Biden’s Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden’

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden:”being Vice President, is just not good enough?”

Source:The New Democrat

“Former vice president Joe Biden has finally entered the 2020 presidential campaign. Columnist Karen Tumulty argues that he must prove that he isn’t a politician of a different era.”

Source:The Washington Post

I mostly agree with what Karen Tumulty said about Joe Biden here, but I guess I would put it differently and add a few things.

If Joe Biden really wants to be President of the United States ( and I believe it’s a safe assumption that he does ) he should’ve ran for President in 2000. Looking back at least, a strong primary run against then Vice President Al Gore would’ve been good for Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party as well. Gore, only had one opponent at all in 2000 that being former Senator Bill Bradley, who didn’t even win a primary against Gore. Then Governor George W. Bush, had a very strong primary challenger in Senator John McCain, which I believe only made the Bush Campaign better because it served as a strong playoff for Bush which of course was the 2020 general election against Gore. Gore didn’t have that, because Democrats by 1999 had already decided that they wanted Vice President Gore and didn’t make any room for anyone else to run against him.

Then Senator Biden, should’ve run for President in 2004: as we know now before the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee, Senator Kerry wasn’t even the frontrunner before he won the nomination. He had to fight like hell just to try to raise some money and stay alive in late 2003 and wasn’t raising any money until he won the Iowa caucus. Senator Biden, would’ve been a strong contender that year because there were no frontrunners in that election on the Democratic side, but you had a Democratic Party that wanted to win and was prepared to get behind the nominee to defeat President Bush.

Then Vice President Biden, could’ve run for President for 2016: Hillary Clinton, was a strong frontrunner going in, but if you remember anything from 2007-08 she was not just the strong frontrunner going in to not just win the Democratic nomination then, but to beat Senator John McCain or whoever the Republican Party would nominate for the general election that year. But by the time super Tuesday was over in February 2008, her campaign was all but over, because then Senator Barack Obama won practically every major state on that election night.

It could’ve occurred to Vice President Biden and someone on his team that maybe Hillary isn’t as strong a frontrunner that she may seem to be and probably needs a strong challenger, which is exactly what she got, except it came from the Far-Left in the party from Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Not from the Vice President of the United States who has 100% name id not just in the party, but in the country. And was a loyal and great Vice President to a popular President in Barack Obama who the Democratic Party absolutely loves.

It’s that old cliche that you only get one chance to make a first impression, which of course is not only true but in politics you have to seize on the moments that you get and then take advantage of them. Which is what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, what Jimmy Carter did in 1980, what Bill Clinton did in 1992, what Barack Obama did in 2008. You can’t just assume that they’ll come back simply because you don’t you’re ready or you simply don’t want to run.

Would Barack Obama really had been the great Democratic contender that he was in 2008 had he waited until 2016 let’s say when he had already been in the Senate for 12 years before he decided to run for President, because he wanted more foreign policy experience? We’ll never know that of course, but probably not because 12 years later he would’ve already had a fairly long Congressional record and probably a lot of controversial votes and caught in Congressional speak and sound like a politician going a speech on the floor of the Senate, instead of this young vibrant man who spoke off the cuff and from his heart using beautiful language which is how he won the Democratic nomination in 08 and then the presidency, because he was so fresh, new, and likable, came off as a human being and not just as someone who was running for office.

And with Joe Biden, forget about being in the Senate for 12 years and instead triple that where he was one of the most powerful, influential, and respected not just Senator’s who has ever served, but members of Congress that has ever served in either the House or Senate and don’t fantasize for a moment that the other Democratic contenders don’t know exactly how long Biden’s Congressional record is and is going through every possible controversial vote ( at least in today’s Democratic Party ) that he has ever made and will try to pull anything out that they can get their hands on that could hurt the former Senator and Vice President.

It’s not Vice President Biden’s experience that I have issues with: experience is generally a good thing in life especially if you learn from it and then apply correctly and make good judgments, it’s the fact that and to paraphrase Joe Biden himself: this is your father’s Democratic Party anymore. Even 10 years ago Joe Biden would’ve been seen as a strong Center-Left Progressive Democrat who fights for the middle class and for civil rights, who wants an America where everyone can succeed, who will also defend and protect the country from foreign and domestic predators. This is what progressivism at least use to be and what it was about and what I believe it still is and what it means to be a Progressive.

The problem that Biden has is that the party is so far to the left now to the point that people who would be viewed as Progressives just 10-20 years ago like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are now seen as Centrists or even as Conservative Democrats, because you have this large and growing faction of Socialists in the party that view anyone to the Right of them as either Centrists or Conservatives, even if they’re Democrats with solid Center-Left credentials. Like a Joe Biden or Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton even who is one of the strongest and most famous Feminists anywhere in the world, but in today’s Democratic Party she looks Conservative. Or even Nancy Pelosi who is the Speaker of the House with a long Progressive record in Congress.

But then there’s the issue of Senator Biden’s Congressional record, so let’s talk about this so-called apology tour that he night have to go on to win the Democratic nomination:

It’s not that voting for the 2003 Iraq War will be a problem at least in the sense that it was the wrong decision and wrong war and we should’ve never been involved in and we knew that by the summer of 2003 when we learned that Saddam Hussein not only didn’t have nuclear weapons program, but he didn’t even had weapons of mass destruction. And then the chaos in the country after the Hussein Regime was toppled without even putting up a fight. Biden, should have to explain that and admit he made a bad call there.

It’s the other votes that he had in Congress that 25-30 years later still look like very solid votes at least as far as how the policies turned out, whether the Far-Left of the party likes them or not:

like 1994 Crime Bill where we saw record low crimes rates in America during the 1990s, including in big cities with large minority populations like Chicago, New York, and Washington.

Or how about the 1996 Welfare to Work Law where we saw record lows for poverty in America, because you had all of these people in poverty who were going back to school and getting the skills that they need to become economically self-sufficient and were finally able to get good jobs for themselves. Senator Biden’s support for deficit reduction and free trade, you could add to his possible apology tour and explain why he no longer supports these successful policies.

I could be wrong here ( and of course that wouldn’t be the first time ) and perhaps the Democratic Party even the Far-Left is so tired of losing and seeing Donald J. Trump ( the king of real reality TV ) as President and want to take his American Nationalism Show off the air for good and will support any popular national Democrat including Joe Biden in order to defeat President Trump. We saw that in 1992 when the entire Democratic Party united behind then Governor Bill Clinton and in 1976 under then Governor Jimmy Carter. But those are just two elections and as Will Rogers once said he’s not a member of any organized party: he’s a Democrat.

The Democratic Party tends to put ideological purity with the current Far-Left base of the party over electability, at least as the presidential level. And we’ll see which course they take in 2020 and how they treat Joe Biden. Will they get behind Joe, or stay home, go third-party with someone like Jill Stein and back a Socialist instead.

The Washington Post: 'William Barr: Must Release Full Mueller Report'

Source:The Washington Post- “President Trump says he’s innocent. If so, he should want the Mueller report public.” – Special Counsel Robert Mueller: release the damn report!

Source:The New Democrat

"The country deserves to see the results of the Mueller investigation into election interference. The Post editorial board says we need to know if the President was involved in a crime."

From The Washington Post

Source:The Washington Post-  “Now we know what Trump will say when we learn what he’s hiding. President Trump.” – President Donald Trump: “no really, I’m not a crook” LOL

As someone who isn't a lawyer I must say that Donald Trump out of all the people who've ever been investigated before at least by the Federal Government, he looks the most guilty. And that's assuming he's innocent of everything he's been investigation of. Which granted is not a safe assumption. I mean if I just pulled one of the greatest if not the greatest if not greatest upsets in American presidential election history and my presidential campaign was under investigation even though I personally knew I wasn't involved in any personal crimes relating to it my campaign, I would welcome an investigation both personally, but as a patriot as well. Especially when we know that a hostile power like Vladimir Putin and his Russian Federation interfered into the election. And I would want it for several reasons:

One, to personally clear me and to not have this over my head when I'm running for reelection.

Two, to figure out what the hell actually happened so it can be addressed and it doesn't happen again.

Three, to figure out how to prevent this from happening in the future.

Source:The Advocate- "“President Trump says he’s most hounded leader ever, says ‘even my enemies’ know he’s innocent” – President Donald Trump: “I’m not a crook! LOL

Four, to set a precent here that future President's would hopefully follow that when foreign countries especially hostile ones try to interfere into our elections and they know that they're personally innocent, but perhaps perhaps who are close to them aren't completely innocent and need to be investigated for that. But again to figure out exactly what happened, so we can stop it and prevent it from happening in the future. I wouldn't wait for my Deputy Attorney General to appoint the Special Counsel, I would consult my Vice President and Chief of Staff, as well as the Attorney General and order the investigation myself.

But what does Donald Trump do: instead of acting like a victim of mistaken identity or false accusation, he pulls a Richard Nixon Watergate play and tries to cover up it up and personally obstruct the investigation. Not with any official actions and we know that now, but through public means by how he talks about it and tries to convince the people who are under real investigation and in serious trouble that he has their back and is still on their side, that they're getting a raw deal and plays with pardons like baseball players play with baseballs ( sorry, but it's that time of year ) and tosses them around in the air for the helluva it.

Americans have the right to know about and see Robert Mueller's report for a couple of reasons:

One, we paid for the damn thing and have a right to know if our President is a crook or not ( to paraphrase President Richard Nixon ) and is our President has been bought off by either the Russian Federation or the Saudi Kingdom.

Two, we have a right to know if a hostile power not only has damaging information on our President or not, but how exactly did they interfere in our elections or not. To what success and they may have and why did they did that. How come President Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to be President of the United States.

If President Donald Trump, is completely innocent here and Russia really does have nothing on in and this kissass routine that he has for Vladimir Putin is nothing more than innocent, inexperienced, amateur bad judgment on his part and he really does believe that the way you get Vladimir Putin's Russia to act like a civilized player on the world stage is by being soft on them rhetorically and go out-of-your-way to  either excuse what Russia does or put America on the same level as Russia and say: "we do bad thing too" then releasing Mueller Report makes perfect sense on Donald Trump's part, because it can only help him because he's innocent and would be doing American people ( that's all the people, not just Donald Trump's base ) a real public service. But that's probably not what's going to happen here.

The Washington Post: Brian Lamb: 'Washington is Full of Waste and C-SPAN Lets Us Wallow In It'

Source:The Washington Post- If you're a taxpayer your message should be: "thank God for Brian Lamb and C-SPAN!"

Source:The New Democrat

"The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) broadcast from the House of Representatives for the first time in March 1979, uncovering a process shrouded in secrecy. C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb says how Americans use that transparency is still a work in progress. Read more:"

From The Washington Post

Source:News Daily- Some of our elected politicians 

When I think of C-SPAN, I think of the expression the cold hard truth, because that's what it gives us which is an inside, painfully truthful look about what our tax dollars are paying for and how our elected government works. People might argue ( especially career politicians ) that people would be better off not knowing about how our government works, because it just shows us how depressing and inefficient it works and all of that.

But the easy counter to that is that if you buy a car, you want to know exactly what you're getting with the money that you're spending on the car. The great handling, smooth ride, the power, but you also want to know about whatever drawbacks that you might get from that car. Low gas mileage, the durability of the car, etc. You don't want to know why your new car is in the shop once a month or a couple times of month, not six months down the road ( no pun intended ) but upfront before you buy the car.

Well, government is the same way. The U.S. Government which is the largest organization in the world both in money and in personal with a budget of over 4 trillion-dollars and a staff of over 2 million and since we're paying for all of that so-called service and a lot of waste we need to know exactly what we're paying for.

That's what the Government Accountability Office is for, but that's also what C-SPAN is for. Some might say that's the job of Congress to hold the government accountable. Two problems with that: one, Congress is part of the government ( hopefully that isn't any newsflash to U.S, Government students, or Millennial's ) and if it's Congress's job to hold the government accountable, then whose job is it to hold Congress accountable? And two, Congress is made up of politicians ( to state the obvious ) who in too many cases are just if not more interested in getting reelected and getting promoted, as they are in doing their jobs and the right thing. Because if they do their jobs and the right things, it could cost them votes and contributions with people who want the status-quo, because they benefit from the current corruption in government.

Some might say it's the job of the people to hold their government accountable. Which is true, but how are they supposed to do that without the information and facts: just listen and take the word of their politicians and automatically assume they're doing what's right and doing their jobs correctly? Does anyone who is sane, sober, intelligent, and aware of their surroundings actually tend to take the word of any politician that they're familiar with, actually take the word of a typical politician whether they're a career politician or not? Of course not, so we need those eyes and ears in our government and then we need the people to actually examine what they're seeing and take in the information that they get about how our government actually works in this country. Even if that means putting down their smartphone for more than five minutes at a time, or even hours at a time to see how their tax dollars are being spent in this country.

Some might argue who advocate for a closed government that the reason why politicians and government is so unpopular in America and why a 20% rating is actually good numbers for any Congress, ( "hey, if only 8-10 Americans think we're doing a bad job, we must being something right" ) is because we allow cameras in Congress both in the House and Senate and The White House briefing ( even if they're only once every 2 months now ) and we broadcast and cover our government meetings and get to hear from our public officials. And we get to hear about Congress not doing their jobs and not even passing their own budget and appropriations bills and in some cases both the House and Senate not even passing their own budget in their respective chambers. Well, that just makes my point for be, because all C-SPAN and other news organizations do is show exactly what our politicians and other public officials are doing. What they're saying and how they voted and what they proposed and signed into law. Things that we wouldn't know about if we didn't allow cameras and reporters into government.

The Washington Post: Elizabeth Bruenig: 'This Is Not Your Grandfather's Concept of Socialism'

Source: The Washington Post- U.S. House candidate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, (Democratic Socialist, New York)

Source:The New Democrat 

"After Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's primary win, columnist Elizabeth Bruenig explains why democratic socialism is taking off... 

Source: Washington Free Beacon- U.S. House candidate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Democratic Socialist, New York

From The Washington Post

Source: Politico- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont 

Elizabeth Bruenig, is right that what's called democratic socialism or social democracy, is not let's just say it, which is communism. The authoritarian-totalitarian wing of socialism. 

Britain and Sweden, are not North Korea or Cuba, so let's just put all that into the record and evidence on the table, but that's not my main point here. Where I disagree with Liz Bruenig, has to do with where she argues that democratic socialism/social democracy works well in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, it would automatically work in America. That if we just replaced our federal form of government, our federal republic and replace it with a unitarian big centralized formed of government with a British or Scandinavian, or Anglo or Nordic welfare state, that would automatically work in America, since to works in Britain and Scandinavia. That is where she's wrong.

It would be like arguing that since America has this liberal capitalist economic system that has produced the largest economy in the world where we're the only country in the world with at least a 100 million people or more with a per-capita income of 50,000 dollars and one of two countries in the world with at least a 100 million people with a per-capita income of 30,000 dollars or more (Japan being the other) that Britain and Scandinavia, should scrap their democratic socialist models and replace it with a decentralized form of government and a liberal capitalist system, where the people there would have a lot of responsibility, but freedom as well to manage their economic and personal affairs.

We're not a wealthy country, or a wealthy big country, a wealthy large country, we're a wealthy huge country. Whatever you want to say about China, America's per-capita income and living standards are still about eight times greater than China's. Even when China's economy passes America's as the largest in the world, China will still be a developing country where the only people who are doing well in China economically are people who live in their biggest cities, with everyone else in the country and that would be hundreds of millions of people in China living under third-world living conditions.

A big part of the discussion that Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and his followers in and outside of government in America like to leave out or just leave out whether they're aware of it or not, is that the countries they like to point to as having high living standards under a democratic socialist system, is with Sweden, Norway, and Finland, have very small populations. 5-10 million, with large pieces of land. 

Sweden and Finland, are about the size of Turkey physically with a about 1-10th the population. Turkey is a large country with about 75 million people, similar to Iran. And Nordic countries are all large energy producers, oil and gas. Scandinavia, has a democratic socialist economic system, because they can afford it. Lots of money with very people to take care of. Very similar to how the Saudi Kingdom operates in Arabia.

So, if Democratic Socialists really want to scrap the American form of government with our federal system and replace it with a democratic socialist unitarian form of government with a socialist welfare state, maybe they should be pushing to get America off of foreign energy all together and making us completely energy independent. Getting us off foreign oil and gas altogether and producing American alternative energy like solar, but also more American traditional energy like nuclear, oil and gas. Bringing in the financial resources that it would take to fund this big socialist welfare state without having to tax Americans and American businesses to the point that it would make it very difficult to work or run a business in America, because of all the taxes that we would have to pay for Welfare.

The Washington Post: George Will: 'Saying Goodbye To Football: Baseball is The True American Pastime'

Source:The Washington Post- The Post takes on baseball. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Baseball is older than the Republic, but that's not the only reason columnist George Will says it has an edge over football."

From The Washington Post

I'm a big fan of baseball myself. Along with football, baseball is the only sport that I can follow for the entire season and actually still enjoy watching regular season games. Not just with the Orioles who I grew up with in Bethesda, Maryland and still consider them to be my number one team even with the Nationals now in Washington. And the Nationals who brought Major League Baseball back to the nation's capital where it's always belonged.

I just don't get the same satisfaction from the NBA or NHL with those two leagues today and I'm only interested in those leagues as far as how the Wizards and Capitals are doing as far as their playoff contention and to a certain extent their playoff games. I don't feel the need to watch the NBA Finals or Stanley Cup Finals anymore. It's just not that interesting for me anymore. That just might be me growing up and having better things to do in June now, or the quality of those leagues especially the NBA, not being what they were in the 1980s when I was a big fan of the NBA especially.

I'm not a fan of the current Roger Goodell NFL and this league really is his league and he now owns it. It's a league where defense is discouraged, where the average playoff team probably throws the ball 60% of the time, because the NFL wants scoring and high-octane offense over everything else. Where playoff teams only have enough defense in order to get key stops towards the end of games.

Today's NFL is where certain franchises are marketed and weighed more than others, because they're popular and the NFL believes if those markets are promoted more and better than others, that will somehow make the NFL more profitable. And of course I'm thinking of a certain franchise that plays near Boston, but there are other franchises that the NFL sees as the faces of the NFL with the Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, and perhaps others. The NFL is now a celebrity oriented entertainment corporation, instead of a major pro sports league.

But where I disagree with George Will, has to do with the MLB becoming more popular than the NFL at some point. Even with the ratings and attendance down in the NFL ( as they should be ) Americans and this goes back to the early 1970s or so, prefer sports where there's a lot of action instead of seeing a lot of guys standing around on a field waiting for something to happen. Baseball like pool, is very interesting even with the delays in between action on the field.

But the reason why the NHL is a major pro sports league in America now is because of the constant fast paced action on the field. The hard-hitting and seeing these athletes do some incredible things on skates and on the ice. Even with the dangers of football, the only thing that I can see bringing that league down to the point where it's no longer the most popular league in America ( if not the world ) is Roger Goodell himself.

And Americans get fed up with the corporate celebrity driven entertainment oriented format of the league. With celebrities being taken seriously as real NFL analysts ( to use as an example ) and Americans decide that they want their sports to just be their sports and their entertainment and celebrity news, to just be those things. But not all combined in the same pot. Which is what you get with the NFL today.

The Washington Post: Anne Applebaum: '100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried'

Source: The Washington Post- Pro-Vladimir Lenin rally in Moscow? 

Source:The New Democrat

"100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried"

From The Washington Post

"World War One broke the 2nd International, as most of the workers' parties supported their own ruling class and the war effort. Lenin and the Bolsheviks maintained a class position, opposing the war, even after the February Revolution, when many former opponents of the war became supporters. The Bolshevik war policy became a key pillar of the party's programme as it led the working masses to victory in October 1917.

This speech was made by Niklas Albin Svennson at the World School of the International Marxist Tendency in 21017."

From In Defence of Marxism

Source: In Defense of Marxism- Pro-Communist rally in Moscow?

Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column seems to be arguing that the New-Right or Alt-Right both in America and in Europe, come from leftist movements and we really aren't talking about right-wingers here, but Far-Leftists who are now backing right-wing Nationalist candidates, because these Nationalist candidates and politicians, are also anti-multiculturalism, integration, globalization, perhaps share certain fundamentalist religious beliefs when it comes to cultural issues.

I hope Anne Applebaum is not making this argument at least from pure partisan lens and is someone on the Right who simply can't admit that there are extremists and fringe elements on her side of the political spectrum. Which is what right-wingers Hugh Hewett and Jeffrey Lord do all the time when they're questioned about some extremist or fringe movement on the Right, there response is always something to the affect, what about these extremists on the Left, or the extremists that are being talked about are really left-wingers. In an attempt dodge the issue.

Hyper-Partisans on the Right argue all the time that Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, are actually leftists. Or that it was Progressive and Liberal Democrats, who fought against and blocked civil rights legislation in Congress in the 1960s. Even though the opposition to those laws actually came from Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party who are Republicans today because of the civil rights law and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. And besides, a lot of people on the Right who make these arguments that Left were the ones blocking civil rights legislation, don't support those laws today.

As far as Nationalists in America and even Neo-Confederates in America who backed Donald Trump and the Republicans who still back President Trump in Congress especially in the House of Representatives, they're part of the right-wing populist Tea Party movement of the late 2000s and earlier part of this decade. Representative Steve King from Iowa, is inline with President Trump on all the cultural and economic issues, as well as foreign affairs. Who sees multiculturalism and non-European immigration as a threat to American culture. Right-wing author and columnist Ann Coulter, is one of the princesses of the Alt-Right, has been one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters since he declared his presidential candidacy in 2015. Same thing with right-wing Nationalist columnist and author Pat Buchanan, who has backed Donald Trump from day one.

We're not talking about Communists or even Democratic Socialists when we're talking about Donald Trump's Nationalist base in America. We're talking about blue-collar populists from the deep South and Midwest, who are primarily European-American, as well as Protestant, but Catholic as well, who believe their America is disappearing and see immigration as a threat to their way of life and culture in America.

Donald Trump who is no genius when it comes to public policy certainly and doesn't even read legislation and policies that comes out in favor of, before changing his mind the next day after hearing from people who disagree with the policy because they've read it and understand it, but Trump doesn't have a keen political eye. And saw a huge opening and feeling in the country and way to tap into it and form his own political movement that he use to get to the White House. Even though 10-15 years ago you cold probably accurately describe Donald Trump as a New York Liberal Democrat.

The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- 'What if Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire'

Source:The Washington Post- Todd Townsend and Carol C. Bleu.

Source:The Daily Review 

"One year after the election, the Washington Post’s Department of Satire imagines what the world would be like if Hillary Clinton had become president - and Donald Trump had lost."

From The Washington Post

Imagine a President Hillary Clinton if you can just for a minute and especially considering the current President of the United States., that shouldn't be too scary.

Millions of men who are on the Alt-Right and the Nationalist -Right in America, would be protesting daily about what they see as a radical feminist Communist in the White House, who seeks to eliminate all forms of masculinity and manhood. And transform all the wealth from Caucasian-Americans, to all racial and ethnic minorities in the country.

Fox News with a daily as well as 24 hours not so special coverage about what they call the criminal in the White House and her attempts to destroy what they call their traditional America.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, Republicans would probably still control the House, but there'a a reasonable chance that Democrats could have won back the Senate, because there would've been a higher Democratic turnout in states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And perhaps Democrats would have won the Senate even if there was a 50-50 split. And we would see House Republicans launching new investigations in to the lives of the Bill and Hillary Clinton. Making the Ken Starr investigation from the 1990s look like not just a fishing expedition, but fishing festival. Wait, the Ken Starr investigation was a fishing expedition.

Perhaps the Christian-Right leaves America and goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran, where its still okay and acceptable to treat girls and women like property. Since they'll no longer be able to do that with a Clinton Administration in America. Judge Roy Moore would be one of the first so-called Christian-Conservatives packing his bags and out on the first flight to Riyadh or Tehran.

We'll never know this for sure, but we do know that you still have a large Donald Trump base in the Republican Party who views President Trump as their cult leader. And won't criticize anything that Trump does including not paying his taxes, because Donald Trump is their cult leader. And if he does something it must be okay to them because he did it. And no godlike cult leader can ever be wrong according to them. But without a Donald Trump, these Republicans would return back to Planet Earth at least even if its just for a visit, to stop at all costs Hillary Clinton from doing her job as President of the United States had she won in 2016 and try to prevent her from finishing her first term. 

The Washington Post: Sheri Berman: 'Some Argue That The West Should Limit Democracy To Save Liberalism: Here's Why They're Wrong'

Source:The Washington Post: "Demonstrators gathered to protest Islamic law wave flags during a rally June 10, in New York. In more than two dozen cities across the United States, the group organizing the rallies, ACT for America, is speaking out against Shariah law, saying it is incompatible with Western democracy. (Craig Ruttle/AP)" Also from The Washington Post.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Twenty years ago, Fareed Zakaria analyzed the rise of “illiberal democracy” — a form of government with free and fair elections but without “the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.” Now illiberal democracy seems to be rising, so that even long-standing liberal democracies in Western Europe and the United States seem to be falling under its spell." 

From The Washington Post

America and to a certain extent Europe, has a long history of subsidizing authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and Africa (specifically) for their own national interests. The thinking being that if they don't subsidize these authoritarians whether they're monarchs, theocrats, or Nationalists and let those regimes collapse with democracy taking over, that the opposition would be worst for Western interests than the current regime. 

The Western thinking being that the current regime is the best that they can do as far as the West. And at least the West would be able to work with these authoritarians on issues relating to terrorisms and combating other states where they share mutual enemies.

Well, anyone familiar with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis and what led up to that Iranian authoritarian monarchy under the Shah of Iran knows that subsidizing dictators and authoritarians has its limits. The 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran was partially to the American and British subsidization of an unpopular authoritarian regime in Iran.

Democracy has its limits and everyone familiar with democracy knows that. Which is why democracy in itself is not a strong form of government, because it would always be held hostage to the popular will of the time and people would have a very hard time governing and making tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. Which is why I don't believe in majoritarian or social democracy, with no set constitutional rights that can be thrown out simply because one person no longer believes in them or supports one of them, more than the people who do support those constitutional rights.

Which is why I'm instead a Liberal Democrat who of course believes in free and fair democracy to choose our leaders, but that goes along with the rule of law and checks and balances that protects our liberal individual rights and liberty in general. 

Liberal democracy and social democracy, are not the same things. Once you put basic constitutional and individual rights at the will of the current majority, is when those rights can be put in jeopardy. Especially when there's a rise of populism from either the Far-Left with Socialists who do don't believe in the rule of law and checks and balances, because it limits their big government agenda. Or Nationalists who don't believe in the rule of law either and oppose individuals rights and the ability for people to protest their politics and policies.

The rise of right-wing authoritarian nationalism whether it's the Donald Trump movement in America , or with Vladimir Putin in Russia and other nationalist government's in Eastern Europe like in Hungary and Poland, doesn't mean that liberal democracy and liberalism in general is failing. 

Or with the Neo-Communist rule in Venezuela and the liberal democratic opposition there just goes to show you that liberalism and liberal democracy is still strong and people still want it. Especially after watching the illiberal Socialists there destroy the economy in Venezuela. A country that is energy independent, by the way.

What America should being doing instead is taking a stand against authoritarianism, whether it comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right and stand with the people in those countries that simply want their freedom, as well as check and balances and the rule of law. Instead of having a strongman and regime with most of the power in the country and be held accountable. 

With the nationalist Donald Trump Administration in Washington, don't expect America to do that anytime soon. But that is what America and Europe could be doing to expand liberal democracy and liberalism. And not watch leftist and rightist populist Nationalists, try to takeover once democratic Western countries.

Back to the old argument of who America should be backing with the choice being the devil that we know as far as authoritarian regimes that can work with us on national security issues and help us against terrorists and other authoritarian states, or the people on the ground who want the current regime out-of-power and a chance to form a democratic government.

America is supposed to be the beacon on the hill that stands up for individual rights and liberal democratic values. "The city on the shining hill" (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan) And I'm not a Neoconservative looking to replace every authoritarian regime that I don't like. And again democracy has limits and you could literally end up replacing one authoritarian regime with another, which is what happened in Iran in 1979.

But once you go down the road of subsidizing authoritarians over the people that have to live under that form of authoritarianism, you put yourself at the mercy of those people there. And then they rise up and perhaps replace the authoritarian regime that you're backing.

Which is why America should be pushing for democracy, but pushing for liberal democracy that comes with rule of law, checks and balances, and individual rights. And backing oppositions and government's that believe in those liberal democratic values as well.

The Washington Post: Jonathan Turley: 'Voters Want a Revolution- Here's What That Would Take'

Source:The Washington Post- Bernie Sanders Socialist supporters?

Source:The New Democrat

"America is fuming. In Super Tuesday exit polls, as many as 95 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Democrats said they were “angry” or “dissatisfied” with the federal government. I’ve heard the same when speaking to audiences across the country. Conservatives and liberals alike talk about their frustrations with a dysfunctional political system that is unresponsive to their needs and disconnected from their lives.

Voters say they want a revolution. But that’s going to take more than electing personalities that channel our angry politics. If we want real change, we need to look at fundamental reforms to all three branches of our government." 

From The Washington Post

The problem that Social Democrats have in America, the so-called Bernie Sanders movement, is that they don't live in a social democracy. So much of what they want to do simply can't happen with the way our constitutional liberal democratic, federal republic is set up. 

You can't scrap the U.S. Congress and go to a unicameral parliamentary system that maybe has an upper house in name only, but without any real power. Like the House of Lords in the United Kingdom. You can't scrap the presidency and executive branch by referendum or by a simple majority vote in Congress with the House and Senate agreeing to it. And then go to having a Prime Minister who also happen to be a member of Parliament and the leader of the majority or largest party there.

Our U.S. Constitution and Federal Republic was set up by our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) the way it was very specific and important reasons. They didn't like big, centralized, authoritarian, government, centralized with one authority. That was the system they were escaping from in Britain and a big reason for our Revolutionary War that gave us the United States of America. 

Because of what the Founding Liberals went through in Britain, they set up different branches of government and checks and balances and specifically made it hard for one party to govern by themselves and run Congress by themselves. Especially if one party controls both the presidency and the House and Senate. As well as a judicial branch to serve as both a check on the President and Congress when they pass laws that go outside of the Constitution.

Because of the way our country and government is set up and with our political culture as diverse as it is, we don't see a lot of political revolutions that lead to changes that require amending the Constitution in order to bring about that revolution. Which means to make government work better, you need better leaders and the only way you get that is through good people running for office and getting elected by smart voters. Who aren't dumb enough to vote for people who promise them all sorts of free stuff or take positions now that we're the opposite of where they were just a few years ago.

If you follow American politics closely, you know exactly who I'm talking about. Which means to make the current government better you have to work within the system to bring about that. And our current system already allows for broad, progressive reforms.

I like Professor Jonathan Turley's proposal on the Supreme Court, but I would go even further and expand it to 50 members one for each state. Still all appointed by the President and having to be confirmed by the Senate. As well as ending lifetime limits and having each Justice having to come up for reappointment to stay on the Court. But that reform can be done within the current system through Congress and the President. 

I like Professor Turley's proposal to end gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. And have each House district drawn to reflect the population of the state and overall voter registration. But I would go even further than that put in full-disclosure for all every member of Congress and candidate for Congress as far as where and when they get contributions. As well as all third-party groups that spend money on political campaigns. But again these reforms can be done through Congress and the President.

I've argued this several times before, but the problems with American government is not the system and the Constitution that protects it as well as the people. The problems with American government are our politicians and the voters who send them to government. 

With better voters and better candidates with more good people bothering to run for office, or at least voting, but voting for good qualified people and we could fix most if not all the problems in the country. Without spending anytime trying to pass one constitutional amendment. That even if were to pass both in the House and Senate, would take at least ten years for 34 states or more to ratify. When you could have passed your progressive reforms simply through statue through the Congress and the President.

The Washington Post: Ishaan Tharoor- 'U.S. Democrats Are Embracing The Term Liberal'

Source:The Washington Post- "Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wait for his arrival in downtown on Tuesday in Concord, N.H." From The Washington Post

Source:The New Democrat 

"According to a new Pew poll, more Democratic voters are identifying with the label "liberal," marking a discernible upward trend.

"In 2015, more Democratic voters identified as liberals (42%) than as moderates (38%) or conservatives (17%)," reported the Pew Research Center. White Democrats, millennials and those with postgraduate degrees in particular characterized their political views as "liberal." You can see the steady growth of self-declared liberals within Democratic ranks in this chart below." 

From The Washington Post

Thanks to the mainstream media and what a lot of Americans have been taught growing up, the words liberals and liberalism have been associated with left and leftism. And of course a lot of leftists in America (democratic and otherwise) are closeted Socialists because thanks to the Cold War, Socialists and Communists were treated like rapists or terrorists. And no decent American who cared about their professional reputations, want to be associated with Socialist or Communist when it came to their political philosophy. So they self-described their politics as liberal or progressive. 

What the rest of the developed world calls Socialists or Social Democrats, Americans tend to call those folks Liberals. I think that's changing now as more Americans especially younger Americans are now learning about liberalism and liberal democracy, as well as socialism and social democracy and realizing that those two political philosophies are actually very different from each other. 

According to the mainstream definition or pop culture definition of Liberal, Liberals are supposed to be antiestablishment, defenders of the supposed oppress (meaning women and minorities) and always wanting more government and more taxes. 

The supposed view of a big governmentalist is someone who believes in more government, or a liberal amount of government, meaning a lot of government. And it's the job of government take care of people and protect people, even at times for themselves. That the more government you have, the more people will taken care and the less that they'll have to do for themselves.  

But if you actually want to know what liberalism actually is what Liberals actually believe not just in America, but in Europe as well where Liberals are considered center-right and liberalism is considered to be a center-right political philosophy: 

"Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a democratic form of government. It is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)" 

From Wikipedia 

But to go to today's politics someone like Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) who is the only self-described Socialist in the U.S. Congress (but not the only Socialist in Congress) Senator Sanders self-describes his own politics as a Democratic Socialist as someone who believes in democratic socialism or social democracy, a European Center-Left Democrat, ideologically. 

Senator Sanders does this because he's one of the few Americans who actually knows that socialism and liberalism aren't the same things. But according to the mainstream media in America, Senator Sanders is the most liberal member of Congress, because he seems to believe in the most government and highest taxes. 

If you want a quick definition of Liberal, I'll give you one anyway: a Liberal believes in individual liberty. Liberals are defenders of liberty, not supporters of big government, because Liberals believe in liberal democracy, not socialism. Which is why Liberals are considered Center-Right in Europe and should have the classification in America as well. 

The Washington Post: Katrina Vanden Heuvel: A New Definition of Freedom in America

Source:The Washington Post with an article about Hillary R. Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

Source:The New Democrat

It’s great to see Democrats talking about freedom again. This is something that Liberals and Progressives should be talking about anyway. Since we created freedom in America. With the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, the national infrastructure system, regulatory state and safety net. Liberals and Progressives, just tend to differ on what freedom is and means. Liberals, tend to be more interested in individual rights and opportunity. Tools that can be used to be able to live in freedom and build a good life for yourself and your family.

Progressives and Social Democrats, tend to be more interested in social welfare rights. The ability to not have to go without. That the basic necessities in life will always be guaranteed. To always be guaranteed education, housing, health care, income, food, health insurance and perhaps some others. That these rights would be guaranteed by the Federal Government, of course. All part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, especially Freedom From Want and his Economic Bill of Rights.

And freedom to me as a Liberal, is the ability for one to live their own life and be completely responsible for their own life. To make their own decisions and live with the consequences for good and bad. To not have government interfere with their economic, or personal affairs. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent people. To have the knowledge and resources to be able to provide for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions. Freedom to me, is about tools and power. Where government comes in, is not to make sure everyone is taken care of. And not as FDR put to have the Freedom From Want, but the freedom to control their own destiny in life. Freedom of Self-Determination.

Hillary Clinton on Saturday, will give a huge presidential campaign speech at the FDR Four Freedoms Park in New York. And it will be about her vision for America and why she wants to be President of the United States. At least that is how its being built. And she’ll have the opportunity to start to bring me over to her side, if her speech covers the themes that I just talked about when it comes to what freedom means. And if she talks about she wants an America where all Americans can succeed and have the freedom to take care of themselves and their families and have both economic and personal security and not the freedom to not have to take responsibility for yourself and be taken care of by government, she’ll be able to impress me and bring her to her side.

The Washington Post: Christopher Ingraham: The Orwellian Deception of Chuck Grassley's Leniency Industrial Complex

Source:The New Democrat

Anyone who calls them self a Conservative and especially a fiscal Conservative, but who supports the American Prison Industrial Complex and our current criminal justice system, I at the very least would question how fiscally conservative are you. I would also question how conservative you are when you have Conservative Republicans in Congress like Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who oppose our Prison Industrial Complex and our criminal justice system as is. At least when it comes to sentencing non-violent offenders in America.

Seriously, what is fiscally conservative about locking non-violent drug offenders who aren’t dealers but users in prison for 3-5 years if not longer? Especially when a lot of these people are educated and productive already, or could be in college, or vocational school, or in a job training program getting the education they need to be successful and productive citizens in life. But no, the so-called Modern Conservative, Neoconservative really, says, “no, what we should do instead is have those offenders locked up in prison sitting in cells most of the time. And when they are out of their cells, they are sweeping floors or making license plates, or something.”

Is the so-called fiscal Conservative or Modern Conservative aware that locking up these productive young people who also happen to be non-violent drug users who are only guilty of possessing or using illegal drugs comes at the cost of taxpayers? That taxpayers get stuck paying for the cost of living of offenders who otherwise could support themselves on the outside? Money that government has to take from individuals through taxation to spend on people in prison who otherwise could be on the outside earning a living and paying taxes. Instead of sitting in prison and collecting taxes.

A true fiscal Conservative would say, “government should only spend what it needs to in order to perform the duties that we need to as a country. And should spend that money as fiscally responsible as possible.” And part of that is not locking people up in prison, which is the most expensive way to house people, that don’t need to be in prison. That could be in drug rehab or halfway houses at their expense by the way. Or in college, a vocational school, or a job training program, preparing for life as a productive adult.

The Smarter Sentencing Act, which is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill in the U.S. Senate, supported by the Senators that I mentioned earlier, is not about being soft on crime. But being smart on crime and treating offenders based on the treat that they represent to society. You go hard on violent offenders and other serious offenders. But you’re more lenient on offenders who don’t represent a serious threat, if any threat to the country.

The Washington Post: 'Venezuela & Cuba: Partners in Repression'

Source:The New Democrat

Just as Cuba has started to move away from Castro Marxism/authoritarianism and have opened up their economy and at least to a small extent their country, Venezuela has moved towards Castro Marxism/authoritarianism. Which is a sad state of affairs for Venezuela a mid-size that is energy independent with a good deal of land and a lot of potential to become a developed country. If their government just freed their people and allowed for them to build that society.

The answer for America is not to cutoff economic and diplomatic ties with Venezuela, which is what we did with Cuba in the early 1960s and Iran in the late 1970s. The answer is to punish their bad behavior in conjunction with our North and South American allies. And give them incentive to improve their own behavior. So they don’t have to live under an indefinite period of sanctions like Cuba and Iran. And one way to do that is by working with the Venezuela liberal democratic opposition with our allies. So the Maduro Regime is not the only voice in Venezuela.

The Maduro Regime needs to get the message that oppression and repression and other forms of authoritarianism even in the name of socialism which is certainly not democratic in Venezuela, is not how they are going to build a developed society. And when they act in that way they need to pay a heavy price for that from America and our allies especially in South America. But in Mexico as well especially a huge country that has made it out of authoritarian and is building a developed country of their own through democratic means.

The Washington Post: Jonathan Capehart: 'John Boehner Needs to Follow His Own Advice on DHS Funding'

Source:The New Democrat

It is not often that I agree with House Speaker John Boehner on anything and I’ll let you judge for yourself how often that is. But he has a point here. The House did their job at least in round one and passed a Homeland Security funding bill. They passed a bad bill with the immigration defunding and the Senate shouldn’t pass that provision. What the Senate should do is first debate the bad House bill and then try to fix it.

You may already know this if you follow me on this blog, but I hate the motion to proceed rule in the U.S. Senate. And you really need to be a Congressional junkie on Congress to know what the Senate motion to proceed rule is. But the Senate Leader can’t bring a bill up on the Senate floor without sixty votes. Which is stupid because the whole point of being in the majority in the Senate is getting to set the agenda. If the Leader can’t bring up bills on his own and needs sixty votes to do that, it really makes the role of the majority pretty weak.

Another good thing about the Senate is the role of the minority. Unlike in the House the minority can try to change or in this case fix any bill that the Senate majority brings up. They can do that with the amendment process and they can block bills if they have forty-one votes to do so. Senate Democrats having a sizable minority with forty-six votes can block bills on their own. Knowing that what they should be doing instead is saying, “we’ll debate the bad House bill, but we are going to try to fix it as well. And if we are able to strip the immigration defunding in it, we’ll vote for final passage. But if not, then we’ll block the bill on final passage”.

But to try to block a bill before it is even allowed to be debated, is a waste of time. Time that could be spent at least trying to fix the bad House bill and bringing along a few Republican Senators especially Republicans who’ll have tough races next year in the Northeast and Midwest who want to do other things in this Congress and get passed this issue. The House passed their bill a bad bill at that. Senate Republicans brought up the bill that they want. Now its the job of Senate Democrats to fix the bad bill. And if they are successful there, then they can send a clean bill back to the House. But if not then they can block the House bill and work with Senate Republicans on a compromise.

The Washington Post: Michael Gerson: Are Democrats Stuck in 1979?

Source:The Washington Post-

Source:The New Democrat

Just to answer Mike Gerson’s title of his column, no. Democrats are not stuck in 1979, but some are. Pre-1976 and why the Democratic Party lost back-to-back presidential elections in 1968 and 72 and in 72 Senator George McGovern loses to President Richard Nixon in a landslide, Democrats were seen as what would be called redistributionist, welfare statists Social Democrats that would be more into government dependence and redistribution to help people in need and to try to make the economy more equal. Than to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom with things like economic growth, job creation, job training and education. So they could get ahead in America as well.

Jimmy Carter comes along in 1976 and tries to change how the Democratic Party was seen and no longer make it look like a big government welfare statist party that it was seen as before. He had limited success obviously as a New Democrat, but he had a social democratic, Democratic led Congress to deal with. That had large majorities to deal with in both the House and Senate, all four years as President. Which meant if President Carter wanted to get any of his more new democratic proposals accomplished, things like welfare reform and what would become the Affordable Care Act in 2010, trade, deficit reduction, he had to work with Congressional Republicans. Without losing too many Democrats especially in the leadership.

The Democratic Party post-Jimmy Carter would lose too more landslide presidential elections in 1984 and 88. Why, one because they were running against Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Americans started feeling good again. But two, they were still seen as a social democratic McGovernite party that they were seen as in 1972. The Democratic Party of 1968 and 72 was much further left than the LBJ Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1960s. The New Deal/Great Society Progressive Democrats of the 1930s and 60s, were now replaced with McGovernite New Left Democrats that is known as Occupy Wall Street today. That sees Bernie Sanders as their hero and perhaps Elizabeth Warren. But not Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to rhetoric, President Obama is further left than President Bill Clinton and certainly Hillary Clinton. Who I believe in Hillary’s case may be to the right of her husband rhetorically. But their policies when it comes to crime, trade, foreign policy, national security, civil rights, fiscal policy are fairly similar. Barack Obama at times at least may sound like a Elizabeth Warren Progressive, but he governs like a New Democrat. Which is how he ran for president in the 2008 general election, how he’s governed as President and how he ran for reelection in 2012.

As much as Republicans and perhaps even Mike Gerson, who tends to be much smarter than this, but as much as they want to paint Barack Obama as some New Left or Far Left Social Democrat or something, he’s not. I mean why do you think his so-called progressive base is not happy with him? Why do you think they were disappointed with him in his first term and still are today? Because they thought he was one of them. A Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern or Bernie Sanders. People that far to the left can’t get elected President of the United States. Barack Obama is a center-left moderate to liberal-progressive president, who is not far enough to the left for me on social issues. That is how he has governed, because that is who he is.