Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon: Grumpy Old Men (1993)

Source:Movie Clips– Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are Grumpy Old Men.

Source:The New Democrat

“This cheerful holiday comedy, a surprise box office smash, featured a generous dollop of raunchy, crude humor and was greatly elevated by the presence of masterful performers in the lead roles. Jack Lemmon is John Gustafson, an ice-fishing Minnesota native who has been feuding with his neighbor and former best friend Max Goldman (Walter Matthau) for decades. The battle of wills between John and Max is characterized by crude name calling and harmless practical jokes. Max is unaware that John is having serious problems, chiefly that his daughter Melanie (Daryl Hannah) is experiencing marital woes and that his house is about to be confiscated by an officious IRS agent (Buck Henry). When it seems that John and Max may finally put aside their childish rivalry, however, sexy new neighbor Ariel (Ann-Margret) arrives and dates both men, pitting them against each other more fiercely than ever before. Despite their mutual loathing, the death of a friend, John’s problems, and a budding romance between Max’s son Jacob (Kevin Pollak) and Melanie may force the two old friends to reconcile.”

From Movie Clips

What else do two lonely grumpy old men who also happen to be played by one of the best comedy teams of all time,Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon, need more than Ann Margret. But that is exactly what this movie is about: two lonely guys who happen to live across the street from each other, their worst enemy, and yet probably couldn’t explain why they do not like each other. And there just happens to be this gorgeous sexy redhead played by Ann Margret who moves into their little rural Minnesota town and energizes both their lives.

I haven’t seen this movie in a while but if memory serves, these two senior citizens are in their late sixties or seventies and hate the hell out of each other but also happen to have lived across the street from each other in a rural small town in Minnesota for 40 years or more. They hate each other but don’t know why and are also lonely widowers with kids, and Jack Lemmon’s character is a grandfather as well, with a son-in-law, and they have plenty of time to play childish pranks on each other.

Things change when Ann Margret comes to smallville Minnesota to live up the street from Walter and Jack and gives both of these lonely widowers something to live for. They are both old enough to be Ann’s father but both make a big play for her and take her out in the hope of starting a romance. This movie becomes a competition over who will be Ann Margret’s next boyfriend.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Crossfire- U.S. Representative’s Keith Ellison & Cory Gardner: ‘Weaponizing The Debt Ceiling’

Source:CNN– On the left, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) and on the right, U.S. Representative Cory Gardner (Republican, Colorado)

“Rep. Keith Ellison says the GOP is creating economic uncertainty by bringing the debt ceiling into the Obamacare debate. More from CNN at:CNN.”

From CNN 

At risk of sounding like a Democrat here: I believe Representative Ellison sounds very reasonable here. Which is surprising to me because he represents the left-wing (if not Far-Left) flank of the House Democratic Caucus, as well as Democratic Party as a whole. Representative Gardner, is just toeing the Tea Party Republican line: “You give us what we want on ObamaCare, or the government will shut down.”

Source:CNN– On the left, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) and on the right, U.S. Representative Cory Gardner (Republican, Colorado)

I actually agree with Republicans here when it comes to the debt ceiling that we should pay for the increase in it. But House Republicans are going to have to compromise again on it like they did in 2011 to get anything done. And I agree with them here because our debt is too high and we simply can’t keep pushing it off just because economic growth is so low and unemployment is relatively still high. That our fiscal problems are going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later while we still can control our own fiscal policy. Rather than having to make drastic policies to avoid even worst things from happening in the future.

You pay for the debt ceiling increase something we did in the 1990s and 1980s in a responsible way, you are telling Wall Street and world markets that America is serious about its economy and fiscal situation. And we are going to do what we need to do to get it under control and finally fix these problems.

So the compromise between the White House and Democratic Senate with House Republicans on funding the Federal Government and raising the debt ceiling, is that House Republicans do not get a defunding of the Affordable Care Act. The debt ceiling is raised in a strategic way where everyone that can afford to get cut that doesn’t hurt the economy gets cut. Not across the board but everywhere in the federal budget where we can afford to and should save: taxes, entitlements and, defense policy reform great places to start along with agriculture. Everybody gives a lot and gets a lot and both sided can move on to other issues.

Read Full Post »

The Nation: George Zornick- ‘A Truly Progressive Budget Vision’

Source:The Nation– U.S. Representative Keith Eillison (Democrat, Minnesota) Co-Chair of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, in the House.

Source:The Daily Times

“Paul Ryan’s recently released budget will not become law—at least not any time soon. The Democratic Senate would never pass it, President Obama would never sign it. Ryan surely knows this, and his proposal is a fantasy budget: more an ideological argument than genuine attempt at legislating.

That hasn’t stopped widespread media coverage of Ryan’s proposal, and that’s fine: he’s a leading thinker of the conservative movement, with real power. But corresponding attention should also be paid to the opposite ideological vision sketched out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the “Back to Work” budget proposal, released on Wednesday.”

From The Nation

I’ll give the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) credit for once: they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy.

So now what the so-called CPC has done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business’s. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short-term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business’s move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high-water pants. Or people dancing to disco in high-water pants. People dancing disco in the ocean, in high-water pants (If you can’t wear high-water pants in the ocean, where can you wear them?) Why, because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power when it comes to job creation. That what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector so they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees.

What makes great economic sense when it comes to infrastructure investment, is government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather than government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership.

Infrastructure investment that’s needed, especially in a sluggish economy, always makes great economic sense. The question is always how is it paid for. The CPC has their approach, but the reason why a lot of their ideas are usually dead as high-water pants and disco George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, is because they generally don’t have much if any power, even in their party and Congress, but they’re so far out in left field, even in the Democratic Party.

Read Full Post »

FOX News: ‘Is Michele Bachmann a Constitutional Conservative?’

Source:The Daily Times– U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) debating the Patriot Act on the House Floor.

“A closer look at some of representative Bachmann’s recent actions.
Article Used:The Los Angeles Times.”

From FOX News

As a Liberal who actually does love the U.S. Constitution, because American liberalism is based on liberty and the Constitution that we use as our guiding Force, the American Civil Liberties Union is all about the U.S. Constitution and defending it and when I hear so-called Constitutional Conservatives (Michele Bachmann comes to mind) claim to be Constitutional Conservatives, I get this sudden urge to look at their records and then point them out.

The Christian-Right has their version of the Holy Bible as their guiding force. Liberals have something that was actually written in law that governs America.

And when I hear the Far-Right saying how much they love the Constitution but then seem to be against the First Amendment except or political speech, or the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 17th Amendment that gives the people the right to decide who their Senators in Congress are, and unfortunately I could go, but people only have so much time to live, but when I hear them make those claims, I get the urge to laugh my face off (to be clean) into next week.

Christian-Nationalists being in favor of allowing the executive branch to suspend constitutional rights when they feel they endanger the country or against the Equal Protection Clause especially to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other, the Christian-Right trying to bring religion closer to government, so-called Tea Party conservatives trying to prevent workers from organizing and collective bargaining: I mean seriously what Constitution do they believe in conserving?

I think to myself really, because these are fundamental constitutional Rights that these so-called Conservatives seem to be against. Perhaps it’s not the U.S. Constitution they love but only parts of it.

Political conservatism is supposed to be centered around the U.S. Constitution and protecting and defending those basic rights that makes our country great especially in a liberal democracy. Conservatism is not supposed to about authoritarian big government where rights can be suspended if the government feels its in the best interest and doesn’t even have to justify it.

Conservatism at least conservative-libertarianism with Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and others is supposed to be about limited government and preventing government from getting big. Because they believed when government got big, the people gave up some of their freedom. Mainstream conservatism is about protecting constitutional rights, not denying that they exist.

Read Full Post »

CNN: AC360- ‘Anderson Cooper: Keeping Michele Bachmann Honest’

Source:CNN– Representative Michele Bachmann, was always a great candidate for Anderson Cooper’s RidicuList as well.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Michele Bachmann, Queen Of The Dumb, Lies About Planned Parenthood. Michele Bachmann makes up a quote about a Planned Parenthood executive.”

From CNN

Back in the late 1990s and 2000s former President Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove, mastered the political strategy of divide and Conquer. He didn’t invent the political strategy. That probably happened with the Nixon Campaign, but nobody has done it better before or since.

When you know you’re in a tough election and your candidate isn’t very popular, instead of talking about what you’re good at and what you want to do, you try to destroy your opponent. So they seem worse than you are. And you take stories about your opponents and give the worst possible spin about them as you can come up with. To make your opponent look as bad as possible.

Which is exactly what Michele Bachmann has done ever since taking office in the House. And now running for President of the United States. Ah’ an American Citizen, she was born in America, she’s at least 35 years old, she’s free. So in her mind she’s as qualified as anyone else to run for President of the United States. Which by the way are her only qualifications to run for President of the United States.

Representative Bachmann is an expert on nothing, except perhaps ignorance. Makes up things as she goes along and represents what happens when American voters vote style over substance. Representative Bachmann has style, but where’s the rest. Palin and Bachmann are both attractive, funny intentionally and unintentionally and have style. But neither one of them has any there, there.

As a Liberal Democrat my dream ticket for the Republican Party in 2012, are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Or in reverse order. The problem being that at least Sarah Palin understands that she’s not qualified to be President. At least not yet and Michele Bachmann hasn’t gotten that message. And the other problem even though there have been plenty of obvious clues put in front of her, being that the GOP is not dumb enough to nominate either one of them for President. And wouldn’t accept the other for Vice President.

Which is why I’ve always said that Sarah Palin is not going to run for President. Because the GOP Leadership has told her not to. And the Republican establishment would run away from her. I mean, can you imagine a Palin/Bachmann ticket or in reverse order. Against Obama/Biden, all the President has to do: “Look you may not like us, but look at the other crew spending all of their time denying and retracting things that they’ve said. Just trying to prove that they are qualified to be President and Vice President of the United States.”

President Obama would just have to say: “You got to reëlect me for no other reason to prevent the other crew that doesn’t even understand their jobs that they are running for from being elected.” I mean can you imagine President Palin or Bachmann getting that famous 3AM call. What would their response be: “Don’t bother me, I’m sleeping. I’ll defend the country or respond to the crisis when the sun is up.” I’m expecting President Obama to get reelected in 2012 if for no other reason, because of their competition or lack of competition.

And the divisive primary’s that the Republican Party is about to face, where Iowa and New Hampshire could be won by two different candidates and neither one of them is named Mitt Romney. Which would force Romney to make a big play in South Carolina and make a divided Republican race even more divided. But a Palin/Bachmann ticket or the other

Read Full Post »