Mr. Beat: The American Presidential Election of 1980- John Anderson For President

Source:Mr. Beat– A 3-way presidential election?

Source:The New Democrat 

“The 49th episode in a very long series about the American presidential elections from 1788 to the present. I hope to have them done by Election Day 2016. In 1980, Ronald Reagan seems unstoppable as he tries to “make America great again.”

The 49th Presidential election in American history took place on November 4, 1980. As President, Jimmy Carter faced quite a few obstacles, and things just weren’t all peachy. The country faced low economic growth, high inflation and interest rates, and an energy crisis, in which the prices of oil went way up since supply went down in certain areas. This shortage was partially caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which a new Islamic government hostile to the United States overthrew the old one. ”

From Mr. Beat

There are political Independents and then there are political Independents. Independents tend to get stereotyped as liberal or moderate on social issues and fiscally conservative. Which just isn’t the case in a lot of if not most cases. There are Socialists who are Independents. There are Conservatives who are Independent. There are Libertarians who are Independent and I could go on. A political Independent is just someone who who is not associated with the two major political parties and in some cases not associated with any political party.

Source:Politics Matters– John Anderson For President, 1980

When Representative John Anderson from Illinois, ran for President in the general election in 1980, he ran as a political Independent, but he was a progressive-conservative Republican ideologically. And I know that sounds like jumbo shrimp, or fuel efficient SUV, a Libertarian-Socialist and I could name a tone of other terms that sound like Oxymorons and sound like they were invented by morons who don’t realize that these terms don’t go together.

But back in the 1970s and well before as far back as perhaps the 1940s, there was a Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. People who would be called progressive on social issues and believed in civil rights and commonsense regulations when it came to business, civil liberties, but who also believed in fiscal responsibility. Believed in balanced budgets and lower taxes, a strong national defense, who are anti-Communists and didn’t like authoritarianism at all whether it was communist or some right-wing authoritarian ideology. Believed in the rule of law and being tough on crime.

Representative John Anderson, ran for President in 1980 as an Independent, ( meaning not as a Republican or Democrat ) but ideologically he was a progressive-conservative Republican. He was part of the Nelson Rockefeller or Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican. George H.W. Bush at least before he ran as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President in 1980 was from this wing of the party as well. And governed this was as President himself. Ideologically he was very different from President Ronald Reagan while at the same time sharing values with President Reagan as it related to national defense, anti-communism, lower taxation, and other issues. So if you want to know where someone stands politically, don’t look at their party registration, but look at their politics and what they actually believe.

Read Full Post »

Reform Party USA: Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley- What is The Reform Party

“Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no Reform Party USA today. Why, because what is the Reform Party and what’s the point of it? The Reform Party is what the Republican Party use to be and what they believed in. Before they recruited the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right out of the Democratic Party and into the GOP. They use to believe in fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, strong but limited national defense and foreign policy that’s not designed to police the world and they were tolerant or federalist on social issues. Not believing that the Federal Government or government in general, should be used to tell how Americans should live their own lives and make their personal decisions for them. That was the GOP of the 1960s that Dwight Eisenhower essentially created in the 1950s, that Tom Dewey tried to create in the 1940s. That also had a growing conservative-libertarian wing in it led by Barry Goldwater and others.

If Donald Trump takes down the Republican Party in November and they lose the House as well as the Senate and he decides to take his movement with him and perhaps launches a new third-party and perhaps some nationalist party, the Reform Party could become relevant for the first time since Ross Perot launched this movement in the early 1990s. Along with the Libertarians and this is how the Republican Party could become a national party again that can win the presidency, because it would have the members and voters, to compete for the presidency and not need gerrymandered House districts to hold a majority in the House. Or low turnout elections to win a majority in the Senate, because again they would have the voters to be able to compete with Democrats everywhere. Or perhaps the GOP dies and the Reform Party emerges as the new Center-Right party in America. And brings in Libertarians and Northeastern Conservative Republicans.

The Reform Party, to me at least represents the Republican Party when it wasn’t owned by the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. A party where the Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right European-American nationalist groups, didn’t feel at home in. Because it was a big-tent party that welcomed African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jewish-Americans, women, Catholics, immigrants, etc. Where it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and yes even Barry Goldwater. Not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Donald Trump, or the Tea Party. A party that could not only competed in the Northeast with moderate-conservative Republicans, but in the Midwest and the West with Conservative-Libertarians and even California, but in the South as well. And could win high turnout elections, because it had the members and voters to compete everywhere with the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case for the GOP today.

Read Full Post »

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority In Flux?

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people who chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein’s what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren’t crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let’s say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don’t caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership’s in both parties aren’t interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we’ve seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus’. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed.
.

Read Full Post »

History Comes to Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For the Presidency in 1968

Governor Nelson Rockefeller, R, New York

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service. What party would he be affiliated with? I think it’s clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe GOV. Rockefeller would’ve had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party that’s now dominated by the Christian Right and to some extent Neoconservatives.

But neoconservatism has lost a lot if influence in the Republican Party, at least in the last two elections. Which I believe is a good thing, but the Religious-Right is still there and powerful there. And of course now with the Tea Party movement that’s now run by economic Conservatives and Religious Conservatives and with GOV. Rockefeller being fairly liberal at least to some extent on social issues except for crime and punishment, I don’t see how Nelson Rockefeller gets elected in the Republican Party today. He would probably be a better fit as a Democrat today with his liberal views on some social Issues. And his beliefs in public service and infrastructure investment, but probably like a Joe Lieberman.

Nelson Rockefeller was a social Liberal and somewhat progressive on economic policy. But more conservative on crime and punishment and foreign policy. I mean the Rockefeller Drug Laws aren’t called that for nothing, GOV. Rockefeller played a big role in advancing the War on Drugs in America. And also served as President Ford’s Vice President. Mr. Rockefeleller clearly had conservative leanings, but not enough of them for him to be successful in the Republican Party today. So where would Nelson Rockefeller go politically or maybe he would work on a third-party Movement instead.

I don’t see Nelson Rockefeller as a centrist, but an independent and they are different. A centrist is someone who’s pretty much middle of the road on most major political issues. But Rockefeller had clear political views, some conservative which is why he was a Republican. But also some liberal and progressive which is why I don’t believe he would be a Republican today. So maybe the Independence Party or a movement for that would’ve taken off with Rockefelller and George Wallace as their Leaders.

Nelson Rockefeller would be a prototypical Independent candidate and perfect for that type of political party as well. Someone who could help advance an Independence movement and would’ve been a great third-party candidate today. I don’t think he would’ve gotten elected President this way, but definitely been a factor as a presidential candidate. Sort of like George Wallace in 1968, Jack Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992. And perhaps because of this we could’ve ended the two-party-system that under represents a lot of American voters and we could’ve had more choices in who to vote for.
History Comes To Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For The Presidency in 1968

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: ‘The Contenders- Ross Perot Preview’

Source:CSPAN– Political historian Carl Cannon.

“C-SPAN continues its series “The Contenders” LIVE on Friday, December 9 at 8:00 p.m. ET with Ross Perot. In this clip, Presidential Historian Richard Norton Smith, Goucher College History Professor Jean Baker and Washington Editor of Real Clear Politics Carl Cannon discuss Perot. More information on the series can be found here:CSPAN.”

From CSPAN

Ross Perot not that he ever had a real shot at being elected President of the United States, but his style of politics and what he believed in and the people he represents and spoke for, represents how Independent, Center-Right political candidates can get elected in America.

And I put Ross Perot on the Center-Right in American politics because he is a true fiscal Conservative who believes in fiscal responsibility, not running up debt and deficits, as well as being a national security, as well as deficit hawk.

Ross Perot believes in limited government and that everything that government does has to be limited to what we need it to do, not what we want it to do. And that all government including entitlement programs have to be efficient and affordable. But someone who was tolerant to moderate on social issues. Who didn’t push those issues and didn’t believe the Federal Government should be involved in them in most cases and would probably leave the states to deal with them.

Perot was sort of an Eisenhower or Ford Republican whose philosophy was based around accountability. And limiting government to doing the things that we need it to do and do those things well. Who represents roughly forty percent of the country and how people of this mindset could do well in the future especially if they put together one party that represents this whole movement.

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 »

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 »

No Labels: Video: U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and Jon Huntsman on The Morning Joe: A Shared Vision For a Stronger America

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This sounds more like an agenda for a third-party, an American Independence Party. A new center-right fiscally conservative socially moderate or federalist party. Where Jon Huntsman would make a great nominee for president. Instead of an agenda for this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Where both chambers are so divided on basically everything. They just passed a budget, but that is part of their job and shouldn’t be congratulated for that.

I like the goals and what No Labels is trying to accomplish here. Of trying to bring pragmatists together to solve the problems of the country from both parties. The problem is right now they only have goals without any real solutions. You want to reform Washington, you have to reform Congress to the point where the majority and minority parties in both chambers are allowed to offer relevant substitutes and amendments to bills that the majority brings up. So both sides in the House and Senate at least have their say and can at least have their ideas voted on to what the House and Senate are debating. To turn Congress into a competition of ideas and not partisan attacks.

The other way you fix Washington in this current ultra partisan political environment is for the American people to step up and give one party enough power to govern and put their agenda through. Then at least we would have a real governing party in this country with the power to govern. Because right now it is just too partisan and we are too divided as a country for Democrats and Republicans to do much work together.

Read Full Post »

Charles Wheelan: ‘The Centrist Manifesto: Is this Realistic?’

Source: Charles Wheelan– Centrist political activist Charles Wheelan

“TheCentristMovement.org/
facebook.com/TheCentristMovement
twitter.com/CentristUpdate

The Centrist Manifesto: Is this Realistic?

Produced by Devon Koch for Charles Wheelan with Don Casler
Music: The Living Physicist by Dan O’Connor”

From The Centrist Manifesto

I’ve written a couple of blog posts over the last few weeks about Independent third parties. And what do I mean by Independent because anyone who is  not a Democrat or Republican politically is technically an Independent. But I’m not talking Independent so much in a party registration, but Independent in an ideological sense, voters who do not fit in well in the Left or Right boxes.

But I’m not sure there’s such a thing as a centrist in America politics. With all due respect to Charles Wheelan, who I believe means well, if his idea of a centrist is someone who is conservative on fiscal policy but liberal or social issues, we already have that ideological faction and those folks make up what’s left of the Center-Right in the Republican Party. And to a certain extent what’s known as the Reform Party in America.

If your idea of centrist is someone who doesn’t have any political philosophy, doesn’t know what they believe, doesn’t have any political core, I’m not sure those voters exist either. Unless you are talking about white-collar, hipster Millennials who only vote when they think it’s cool, or only vote when they think there’s a cool politician or candidate to vote for. Which is sort of what we saw as part of Barack Obama’s coalition back in 2007-08.

You don’t have to be a Republican or Democrat or a members of any political party in America to have a political core and know what you believe ideologically.

I believe most American voters who vote on a regular basis because they think it’s their duty and want to have some say in our our government is formed and whose job it will to represent them, have some idea what they believe politically.

These folks could be Conservatives, (at least in the classical sense) they could Liberals, (at least in the classical sense) they could be Progressives, (at least in the classical sense) or they could be Libertarians or Socialists. But generally American voters have a pretty good idea what they believe politically. And some idea who they want representing them in government politically. Even if they’re not Democrats or Republicans.

Read Full Post »

Larry King: U.S. Representative Ron Paul- ‘Can A Modern Day Ross Perot Win The White House?’

Source:Larry King– former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking to longtime talk show host Larry King.

“Will voter frustration with ‘party politics’ create a wave of support for a modern day Ross Perot? Former presidential candidate Ron Paul tells Larry why it’s so difficult for a third party to succeed.”

From Larry King

I think the main reason why Independent presidential campaigns have failed and have barely won even on state when they’ve run, even the well-funded candidates like Ross Perot in 1992 and 96, or John Anderson in 1992, has to do with party infrastructure. And in the Independents case of even the Reform Party’s case, no party infrastructure.

If you are raising money not just to keep your national presidential campaign going, but money to get ballot access or get in TV debates or just to get on TV, you are digging yourself a bigger hole anytime you try to do anything. The main advantage that the Democrats and Republicans have over even the Center-Right Independents like the Ross Perot’s, has to do with party infrastructure.

The Democrats and Republicans are already on every ballot that they run for office for. Unlike the third-party candidates whether they’re Far-Left like with the Green Party or Libertarian-Right with the Libertarian Party or Center-Right like with the Reform Party candidates, who are not just struggling to keep their campaigns going and stay in business, but then have to raise a lot more money just to try to get ballot access or get into the debates or get on TV at all.

Read Full Post »

PBS NewsHour: Hari Sreenivasan- Nathan Gonzalez: ‘Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?’

Source:PBS NewsHour– Nathan Gonzalez from the Rothenberg Political Report.

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.”

From Wikipedia

“For the past 10 years, Gallup has asked: Do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job representing the American people or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed? This week, respondents saying the two major parties did an adequate job hit an all-time low, and the percentage of people saying a third party is needed hit an all-time high. Nathan Gonzales, Deputy Editor of the Rothenberg Political Report joins Hari Sreenivasan from Washington.”

From the PBS NewsHour

I’ve probably said this before on this blog, but I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and expect to be a Democrat my entire life. Unless the Far-Left were to takeover the Democratic Party, which is not likely. More likely would be a socialist third-party emerging that could actually challenge Democrats.

But the two-party-system simply does not work and even though I do blame the Republicans especially their Far-Right and their anti-government Libertarian-Right more on this, one strong political party in America which is the Democratic Party right now if you look at the power, that they have, but also where they are on the issues compared with Americans as a whole, where they are blowing Republicans away right now, is not enough for a large liberal democracy.

One strong political party even if that political party is my party the Democratic Party is simply not enough. The two-party system right now is not just broken, but it is broken and bankrupt and failing. American voters not just themselves with their gerrymandering and their primary systems that in many cases especially the Republican Party, tend to select the most fringe candidates and people who are least interested in governing. And more interested in building their movement and becoming popular. As we see right now in the House Tea Party Caucus.

The current Republican Party is designed to fail and will go out of business as even a potential governing party, probably within ten years. And if that does happen and a real Center-Right party does not emerge to replace the Republican Party, we will become of a one-party-state in a country that is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Not healthy, because that is how centralized dictatorships get created. And why we need short-term at least a new Center-Right party to replace what use to be a Center-Right party in the Republican Party.

Northeastern and Midwest Republicans and Blue Dog and Southern Democrats need to think about creating a new Center-Right party and getting together with Center-Right Independents who are not Republicans, because of either the Religious-Right or the partisanship and the Tea Party calling them rhinos and all of that, to save our political system. Long-term I would like to see a multiple-party system going from Socialists, or Communists on the Far-Left, to Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right. Let everybody be heard and have their voice and let the voters decide who should be in power.

Progressives on the Center-Left and Classical-Liberals Conservatives on the Center-Right, for most likely always be governing America, at least at the Federal level. But short-term we need a strong Center-Right party in America to compete against the Center-Left Democratic Party for the good of our political system. So the Republican Party as it is currently set up doesn’t become a failed party. Without a strong party to replace it.

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

Read Full Post »