C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens: On Bill Clinton (1993)

Source:C-SPAN– British-American Socialist writer Christopher Hitchens, on C-SPAN in 1993.

Source:The New Democrat

“Christopher Hitchens Interview For the Sake of Argument”

From Hitch Archive

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration. Credit to C-SPAN.”

Source:C-SPAN– Left-Wing political writer Christopher Hitchens, on CSPAN in 1993.

From C-SPAN

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration.”

Source:C-SPAN– Pat Buchanan and Chris Hitchens on CSPAN, in 1993.

From C-SPAN

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show.

Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what’s called today an Alt-Rightist: someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis’s and civil wars.

And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes.

Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren’t two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on a certain issue.

Read Full Post »

Remember This: C-SPAN- Carl Rutan Interviewing Pat Buchanan in 1988: Back to The 1950s and 1980s

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The world that Pat Buchanan was talking about and advocating for in this 1988 interview, simply doesn’t exist anymore and we were moving away from it in 1988 if not only escaped from there by then. Gays, no longer live in the closet. African-Americans, have just as much right to vote and are treated the same as Caucasian-Americans now. Women, now work and hold very responsible jobs, making good money, running and managing their own business’s. The music is much different and much more open about life. Americans, now have the freedom and feel the freedom to be themselves. Which is Americans and individuals and we live our lives the way we want to. Not how Pat Buchanan and other Christian-Conservatives feel we should live.

The 1950s, was great for America in many ways. We were not just the economic superpower of the world, but became the number one military and diplomatic power in the world. This was post-World War II where our economy boomed and our infrastructure system boomed as a result. But the problem with this era was that many Americans didn’t benefit from these American advances. Not because of anything that they did, but because of how they were born. Their complexion, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their gender. Not because they were, or could be any less productive than Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. What the 1960s and the 1980s brought to America, was true individual freedom. Both from a personal and economic standpoint.

If you watch this video, think you see Pat Buchanan, essentially acknowledging what I’m arguing here. That the America that he grew up with in the 1950s simply no longer exists. And when he was asked, “do you want to use government to bring that America back?” He answered truthfully and honestly and said he doesn’t believe that, because its simply not possible. Which is a very practical answer and the correct answer. As far as the 1988 presidential election, you had Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the Republican Party. Who represented President Ronald Reagan and his policies in that election. Going up against Governor Michael Dukakis, who represented the New America and the direction that America has been moving to ever since.
Remember This-C-SPAN: Pat Buchanan- Biography, Apartheid, Culture War, Foreign Policy, Free Trade: 1988 Interview

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips: The Triumph of Anglo-America: Religion, Politics & Civil Warfare

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

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American Liberal Democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals and the liberal democracy that they built-in America. After they won the American Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom. Where there was a state religion from the U.K. Where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive. And build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. But the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and Liberal Democracy.

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- The Triumph of Anglo-America

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: Al Franken at The 1996 White House Correspondents Dinner

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Going back about twenty-years here to 1996, this was I guess March of 1996, but they were already counting votes for the 1996 presidential election between President Bill Clinton and Leader Bob Dole. They just decided to wait eight months to tell everyone. Because this presidential election was already over because Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had to sit in the back of Air Force One. And threw a temper tantrum and stopped doing his impersonation of a middle age adult. And went back to being a thirteen-year old little boy who was just told he can’t have ice cream and cake for dinner. And as a result decided to shut down the U.S. Government.

The 1996 presidential election was one of the quickest in American history. Not as quick as 1984 with Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan. Where Vice President Mondale decided to concede the election at 3PM EST on Election Day, but still a very quick election. Bob Dole was stuck between Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. And was trying to get Newt’s fat ass off of his back and take on the best politician in America at least since Ron Reagan. In a country where the economy was booming and where we were essentially at peace with the rest of the world. Other than being peacekeepers in the Balkans.

And I think that was the major motivations of these political investigations in the Republican Congress against President Clinton. Especially with Senator Al Damato’s Banking Committee investigation into the so-called Whitewater story. Bob Dole is a very good if not great man who has given a lot to America and one of the most distinguished people who has ever served in Congress and who accomplished a lot there in his thirty-five years in Congress. Including being Senate Republican Leader for eleven years. But he wasn’t going to beat Bill Clinton and all of Washington knew that including the Republican Leadership.

.

Read Full Post »

President Dwight Eisenhower: ‘Farewell Address & Warning For America (1961)’

Source:C-SPAN– President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Democrat, Texas) 1961 farewell address.

“President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the nation January 17, 1961”

From Some Off Stuff

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer.

Ike didn’t believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to.

President Eisenhower believed the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that “we have all the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something.” What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: Political Humorist Molly Ivins- Talking About Ross Perot (1992)

Source:CSPAN– political humorist Molly Ivins on Ross Perot

“Molly Ivins
August 30, 1944 – January 31, 2007

I first heard Molly in this program.
Thanks, Goddess, and bless her!
She lives forever in our hearts

Summary: Susan Faludi, Pulitzer prize-winning author of a book on the backlash against feminism in the media and society in the 1990’s, and Molly Ivins, political commentator and author, interviewed each other.

Also available on audio-cassette at Amazon:
Women on the Verge!: Susan Faludi and Molly Ivins in Conversation…

Source:RGHM

Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.

Whenever Ross is doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.

I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government. Kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions, but someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat , on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives-C-SPAN: 1997 White House Correspondents Dinner Featuring President Bill Clinton and Comedian Job Stewart

 

Source:The Film Archives– comedian and political satirist Jon Stewart.

“Bill Clinton & Jon Stewart: Stand-Up Comedy – White House Correspondents’ Dinner (1997) Although best known for his work on The Daily Show, Stewart has had roles in several films and television series. More Jon Stewart…

From The Film Archives

President Bill Clinton was the Comedian in Chief. Because, For one he has a great sense of humor and has always had that and if you live the life he has, the life of riding a roller coaster full-time. Having to stop to vomit because of all of those rides and going from being up one second to falling flat on your face (the clean version) the next second, you would have to have a great sense of humor and be able to make fun of yourself to keep your sanity.

But President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of the time he was president. Running and getting elected President of the United States at the birth of the internet. Email and websites already up by 1992 and of course those things having not been fully developed. Like they were in the mid and late 1990s, but they were already there. Cell phones already around by 1992 and the phones you saw then look like the phones you saw by 1995 when cell phones became popular and cool and almost universal.

The twenty-four hour news cycle was big by the early 1990s and just got bigger during the Clinton Administration. With cable news plus the internet to go along with television and radio news along with print media. With these news organizations being addicted to the twenty-four hour news cycle. Having to be the first to report on a story that five people care about. Otherwise it could cost them a tenth of one rating point, or an entire newspaper or magazine subscription.

President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of his hate squad, I mean opposition. Who actually turned out to be his best friends who saved him from himself. Because the American people had already decided they liked President Clinton and the job he was doing. And already accepted his flaws and decided they really didn’t like his opposition. Especially since these overly moral and extremely perfect people just also happened to be guilty of the same things that they were accusing President Clinton of. House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes to mind in a hot second. Who needs friends when you have enemies like this?

Once you become President of the United States, the number one sacrifice you give up and sacrifice is your privacy. The whole world is going to know about the same mistakes you and they make. Like having affairs when you are married with a daughter to a women half your age. Or raising money from other countries and you also have to know that your best friends, I mean opposition is going to accuse you of making the same mistakes and doing the same things they’ve done which is just the price of high power.

Read Full Post »

Mox News: Video: C-SPAN: Lewis Black: The Beltway Alone Was Built by Idiots: Why Congress Doesn’t Work

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

In the fall of 2011, Congress, with a Republican House and Democratic Senate, reached  a debt ceiling agreement with President Obama.  As part of that agreement,  Congress took on the monumental task of finding an additional two-trillion dollars, I believe, in savings when they wrote the Federal budget for fiscal year 2012.  The U.S. Congress has only three tasks every year, passing the budget, the appropriations bills that follow, and performing oversight over the executive branch.

Saying that Congress has the monumental task of writing the budget is like saying that Joe the cab driver has the monumental task of driving somebody to the airpot.  That’s his job.  Joe probably drives somebody to the airport at least once a day. Or that Sally has the monumental task of waking up in the morning and getting ready to go to work. Unless Sally is unemployed, this is something that she does every weekday.  For Congress, their routine duties area virtually beyond their capabilities.  The petty, short-sighted, and utterly irrational partisanship consumes Congress everyday.

I’m a Democrat and I don’t believe that both sides are equally at fault here.  The Democratic leaders are willing to working with the Republican Leaders to do what needs to be done, whereas the Republican Leadership is scared (pardon the word) shitless of working with Democrats on anything because of the Tea Party. But Republicans have of course the Tea Party to contend with and not having to deal with a primary challenge if they do not compromise with Democrats and get a real deal. But Democrats have lets call them the Occupy Wall Street faction of their party that they do not want to have to deal with when they are running for reelection as well. And you prevent that from happening by not negotiating with Republicans especially on entitlements.

So, we are left with gridlock.  The art of the possible, in the words of the great Progressive Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, becomes the skill of the impossible. Where both sides become experts on nothing, that is doing nothing as well as perhaps actual experts on nothing. Because if either side compromises they risk getting primaries,(to use a Congressional term) in the next election. “Hey I might not get everything I want or what I get perhaps even looks like nothing or the twin of nothing, but at least the other side aint getting anything either”. Which is why the perfect name for any Washington pro sports franchise would be the Washington Gridlocks where nothing gets done.

Washington Gridlock

 

Read Full Post »

Chris Brandt: U.S. Representative Steve Cohen Schools DEA Official at House Oversight Hearing

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

I agree with Representative Steve Cohen that marijuana prohibition is definitely a joke and overwhelmingly hurts ethnic and racial minorities compared with Anglos and Caucasians.  It is a war on freedom to criminalize what people do to themselves, especially when we are talking about a drug that can’t kill you immediately, unlike heroin or cocaine. We are really talking about a drug as it relates to health aspects like alcohol.  It is actually far less dangerous than tobacco, which is legal.

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives: U.S. Representative Bob Dornan: ‘Gets His Words in a One-Minute Speech Stricken Down in 1995’

Source:The Film Archives– U.S. Representative Bob Dornan (Republican, California) they didn’t call Bob Dornan B-One Bob for nothing: he was a right-wing bomb thrower.

Source:The New Democrat

“Robert Kenneth “Bob” Dornan (born April 3, 1933) is a Republican and former member of the United States House of Representatives from California and a vocal advocate of pro-life and social conservative causes.

A boisterous former actor and television talk show host, Dornan had a flair for the dramatic that drew him supporters and detractors well beyond his congressional districts. Though never a major power in Washington, he became one of the most well-known members of the House of Representatives and has been described as “one of the leading firebrands among American politicians.”

In 1995, he received a minor reprimand from the House for stating in a floor speech that President Bill Clinton had “given aid and comfort to the enemy” during the Vietnam War. In 1996, Dornan ran for President of the United States, using his campaign primarily as a vehicle to continue to criticize Clinton. In a GOP debate in Iowa on January 13, Dornan called Clinton a “criminal” and a “pathological liar.” When asked why voters should choose Dornan over his Republican rivals to challenge Clinton in the general election, he argued that he had more children and grandchildren than the others, with only Richard Lugar coming anywhere near him on that score…

From The Film Archives

Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called “B One Bob” for nothing he had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought.

Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber, or Kamikaze Bomber, because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did.

B-One Bob also had an overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997.

Bob Dornan’s approach is very well-suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress, even in the House of Representatives, where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States.

Read Full Post »