Politics & Prose: Al From- ‘The New Democrats and The Return to Power’

Source:Politics and Prose– Democratic strategist Al From, talking about his book about the New Democrats, at Politics & Prose in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat 

“From founded the Democratic Leadership Council in 1984. In the twenty-five years he served as its CEO, he achieved his goal of bringing the Democratic Party back to power. In this political memoir he recounts the development of the centrist philosophy that continues to be instrumental to the Democrats’ success.”

From Politics and Prose

“Al From discussing his book “The New Democrats and the Return to Power” at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on 9/8/2014.”

Source:CSPAN– Democratic strategist Al From talking about his book about the New Democrats.

From CSPAN

I’m a Liberal Democrat and a New Democrat and yes those are the same things. Except I might be more liberal than New Democrats today on some social issues, especially civil liberties. Especially since 9/11 where I believe we can’t have security without liberty. That they need each other and New Democrats today since 9/11 tend to side more on security than liberty. Hillary Clinton would be a perfect example of that. But the New Democrats are the Liberals and Progressives in the Democratic Party and I’m going to explain that.

The New Democratic philosophy is not Republican light or sounding more progressive or socialist. And moving past the New Deal and Great Society and creating a real welfare state in America. But is about building off the principles of the Founding Fathers in America. And that individual liberty is for everyone. And not just European-American men, but the entire country regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, family income. And using government to expand freedom and not government dependence.
The New Democratic philosophy is about individual liberty for everyone. It is not anti-government and having a government so small that it can’t help people in need. And let the market take care of the rest.

Or a pro-big-government philosophy and using government to take care of everyone. But empowering everyone in need to be able to take care of themselves. And this blog covers a lot of different issues about what exactly that means. But New Democrats aren’t Social Democrats on the far-left or moderate Conservatives on the center-right.
The New Democratic philosophy saved the Democratic Party and represents exactly how Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992. Because pre-1992 Democrats were seen as European Social Democrats who wanted to center most of the power in the country with a big government in Washington to take care of everyone.

They were called Liberal Democrats even though the Democrats in charge who had most of the power in the Democratic Party were Social Democrats on the far-left and mainstream FDR New Deal Progressives. But they weren’t Liberals at least on economic policy and national security.
By the time Bill Clinton left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now clearly beating Republicans on most of the economic issues. By the time George W. Bush left the White House in early 2001, Democrats were now even beating Republicans on fiscal responsibility and the Federal budget. That is the legacy of the New Democratic Coalition that it saved the Democratic Party. And made them a governing party again

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 »

Politico: Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti- ‘The Existential Crisis of the Liberal Millionaire’

Source:POLITICO– I guess David Brock is one of the wealthy leftists.

Source:The New Democrat 

“David Brock has a message for liberal millionaires: Don’t sweat being called hypocrites.

Brock, a former “right-wing hit-man”- turned -top-big-money-Democratic- operative, is part of a behind-the-scenes campaign to convince donors it’s OK to attack the Koch brothers for spending millions of dollars while doing the exact same thing for the left.

“You’re not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I,” Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to someone who attended the conference, but who declined to be identified because it was closed to the press.”

From POLITICO

Just so we are clear that Liberals and Democrats (and I mean real Liberal Democrats) aren’t against millionaires and wealth: How I know that because the Democratic Party if anything may have more wealthy millionaire individual donors than the Republican Party. It was Barack Obama who had the most contributions from Wall Street in 2012. Not Mitt Romney. (In case anyone wasn’t familiar with that) Wall Street doesn’t back incumbents and candidates they believe are against them, or trying to put them out of business, or being wealthy.

There are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are multi-millionaires and if anything worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hollywood is a perfect example of that and Democrats always get more contributions from Hollywood than Republicans. And the Hollywood types who are all in favor of being economically successful and being wealthy. But tend to be very liberal if not libertarian on the social issues. As well as tend to like liberal economic policies as it relates to education and infrastructure investment.

And these liberal donors back Democrats that they like who tend not to be on the Far-Left. They back center-left Progressive Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in 2004. And are very friendly with the Bill Clinton’s in the Democratic Party.

So when you hear things that “Liberal Democrats are against wealth and being rich”, you should look at the Democratic donor list and where Democratic politicians get their political contributions. You’ll see a lot of union contributions, but you’ll also see a lot of contributions from very wealthy Liberals as well.

Read Full Post »

The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow: Richard Trumka- ‘On Labor in the 21st Century’

Source:The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow– AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

“Richard Trumka on Labor in the 21st Century (Full Interview)”

From The Zero Hour With RJ Eskow

If you look at the American labor movement (their leadership, at least) today, it more resembles the politics especially on economic policy, of the British Labour Party, or the Canadian Democratic Party, that I call social democratic party’s, or the German Socialist Democratic Party, more than the politics of the American Democratic Party.

Organized labor in America, at least at their leadership level, tends to be in favor of democratic socialism and expanding democratic socialism in America. Like single-payer health care, guaranteed pensions, guaranteed employment and then they tend to be anti-business, anti-free trade, even though a lot of their members work for business.

Even though the Democratic Party still supports the right to organize and collective bargain, including for public employees and the Democratic Socialist faction of the Democratic Party is still in lock step with organized labor. Especially the so-called House Progressive Caucus, they are still a small faction of the party.

The Democratic Party has moved away and I believe for good reason from the policy’s of the leadership of organized labor, for about twenty years now. And have become a Center-Left, pro-capitalist party. Still liberal on social issues and supporters of the safety net. But doesn’t believe government can solve all problems that society faces with more government programs.

The Democratic Party had been handcuffed to a certain extent to organized labor in the past. Organized labor still has strong roots in the Democratic Party, but no longer runs it.

Organized labor still controls about 20% of the party, the so-called House Progressive Caucus. They are becoming a movement without a party and their numbers are shrinking. They need to realign and reform and find a party that they can influence. If they still want to be a major force in American politics.

Even though the leadership of organized labor is left-wing, a lot of their members are blue-collar and if they are Democrats, more like FDR and Harry Truman, Center-Left, Progressive Democrats, as opposed to the Henry Wallace, or George McGovern, Far-Left Democratic Socialists, that are making big waves in the modern Democratic Party today.

Read Full Post »

Crooks & Liars: Richard Eskow- ‘Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?’

Source:Crooks & Liars– U.S. House Minority While Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland) speaking at a Third Way policy conference.

“What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today.”

You can read the rest of Richard Eskow’s piece at Crooks & Liars

“A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.”

Source:All Histories– a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories 

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people.

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Read Full Post »

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller: ‘ObamaCare is Winning in Kentucky Thanks to Steve Beshear’

Source:The Daily Beast– From left to right: Governor Steve Beshear, (Democrat, Kentucky) U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky,

“We stuck with the Union in favor of our favorite son, Lincoln, but then joined in common cause with the Confederacy after the Civil War had ended. A century later, we boasted some of the nation’s most progressive civil rights laws; yet, to this date, we still feature many of America’s most segregated societies. And while Kentucky’s been one of the largest beneficiaries of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state, the dominant strain in our politics remains a fierce anti-government, anti-tax worldview.

Kentucky’s perplexing and hypocritical aversion to big government has been exploited brilliantly by our senior senator Mitch McConnell, who’s capitalized on our cultural resentment of elite interference to transform the Bluegrass State into a deep-red citadel in federal elections. More recently, our junior senator Rand Paul catapulted McConnell’s vision much further than Mitch intended, placing Kentucky in the crosshairs of the Tea Party revolution. But while these two political icons and their surrogates clash over the depth of government slashing, they’ve been steadfastly united behind one common vision: the defeat, and, more recently, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

It’s no coincidence then that Obamacare is beginning to expose the political fault line that divides the two Kentuckys. The GOP’s effective—and quite misleading—messaging plays into the anti-establishment populace’s greatest fears about out-of-control outside interference: the myth of a government-run-health-care system, engineered by a President with socialist tendencies (and whose skin pigmentation and exotic name frankly heighten popular anxiety in some of the nation’s least educated counties). And yet, when you wade through the propaganda and understand the law’s true impact, Kentucky needs the Affordable Care Act…desperately. It’s a state consistently ranked near the bottom of nearly every national health survey, where one out of every six citizens remains uninsured.

With our long-standing tradition of timid politicians fearful of incurring the wrath of the anti-government mobs, it wouldn’t have been surprising to see Kentucky join much of Red America and reject both Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion to the working poor, as well as its option of establishing a state-run health benefit exchange to provide affordable health care to the remaining uninsured.

But in a delicious irony, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul’s home state may ultimately serve as the proving ground of Obamacare’s success. That’s due to the political chutzpah of one man: Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear.

Over the past several months, Beshear used his broad executive powers to bypass resistance from the GOP-controlled state Senate to ensure that the Commonwealth is the only Southern state that both expanded its Medicaid rolls and opened up a health benefit exchange, providing access to affordable health care to our more than 640,000 uninsured citizens. And while the federal launch of the program has been plagued with technical difficulties, Kentucky’s experience has been exemplary: In its first day, 10,766 applications for health coverage were initiated, 6,909 completed and 2,989 families were enrolled. Obama himself bragged that Kentucky led the nation with its glitch-minimized performance.

It would be hyperbolic to crown Steve Beshear as a profile in courage. The Governor’s second and final term expires in two years, and he’s made clear that this is his last political hurrah. However, Beshear is keenly interested in the political prospects of his son Andy—the betting favorite in the 2015 race for Attorney General—and he understands that even a tangential connection to the unpopular Obama carries a heavy political burden. Furthermore, the Governor isn’t quietly going about the business of administering the new law: Beshear has been gleefully poking the eye of the Tea Party beast — and its subservient U.S. Senators—and channeling Harry Truman in the national media circuit: In a recent New York Times op-ed, Beshear crowed: “[T]o those more worried about political power than Kentucky’s families, I say, ‘Get over it’…and get out of the way so I can help my people. Here in Kentucky, we cannot afford to waste another day or another life.”

From The Daily Beast 

I’m not a mindreader (obviously) but if I had to guess I would say that the hyper-partisan, right-wing base of the Republican Party hates the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) but I don’t think that’s who they really hate or what they really hate.

What the right-wing in America really hates is President Barack Hussein Obama, who the Far-Right of the party, which might be the dominant faction in the Republican Party, sees as an Un-American, Muslim-Socialist, from Kenya, who represents everything that they hate about modern America. And now that President Obama has ObamaCare on his legacy, that adds 20 million Americans to the health insurance roles in this country, they hate him even more.

Again, I’m no mindreader, but had a President John McCain got the Affordable Care Act or McCainCare (as it would’ve been called) and gotten the exact same law that President Obama gotten through a Democratic Congress in 2009-10, you wouldn’t see the Republican Party, even with a Republican House trying to repeal the ACA today. The Republican right-wing’s opposition to ObamaCare, is really about Barack Obama, not as much as the law itself.

Read Full Post »

President Barack H. Obama: ‘End This Government Shutdown’

Source:The White House– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States of America.

“Weekly Address: End the Government Shutdown

WASHINGTON, DC— In this week’s address, President Obama said that Republicans in the House of Representatives chose to shut down the government over a health care law they don’t like. He urged the Congress to pass a budget that funds our government, with no partisan strings attached. The President made clear he will work with anyone of either party on ways to grow this economy, create new jobs, and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul — but not under the shadow of these threats to our economy.”

From Dazzle Site

What Democrats should be doing especially the Democratic National Committee and the House Democratic Leadership, is pressuring vulnerable House Republicans in their districts and urging voters there to call their Republican Representatives and urging them to end this government shutdown by coming out in favor of the Senate passed government funding bill, that has House Republican budget numbers (not Democratic) but is a clean funding bill without outside language in it, like repealing or defunding the Affordable Care Act.

You get 20-30 House Republicans to come out in favor of this and even be in favor of a discharge petition to get the Senate funding bill on the House floor, Speaker Boehner would see he no longer has the votes to block the Senate bill and would call for a vote of it himself to avoid being embarrassed by it on the House floor. Or would stick with the House Tea Party Caucus in order to not lose his job. Either way, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would be able to get the Senate bill to the House floor and the government shutdown would be over.

Read Full Post »

The McLaughlin Group: American Exceptionalism

“The McLaughlin Group 9/13/13”

From The McLaughlin Group

The simple fact that the most of the democratic world tends to look to America when there’s a crisis like this dealing with human rights and humanitarian crisis’, is the perfect example of American exceptionalism. But that can be used to go too far when you think your power is unlimited.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Piers Morgan Tonight- Nicholas Kristof: ‘Vladimir Putin Exudes Hypocrisy in Op-Ed’

Source:CNN– New York Times left-wing columnist Nicholas Kristof.

“Nicholas Kristof talks about Vladimir Putin being a hypocrite in the New York Times Op-ed and the U.S. response to Syria. More from CNN at:CNN.”

From CNN

If President Putin was actually serious about ending the violence in Syria, he would stop arming the Assad Regime that is using the weapons against their own people. Just throwing out a thought there. But sometimes commonsense is needed because people run out of it or ignore it.

Read Full Post »

PBS: Newshour: ‘Shields and Brooks on President Obama’s Syria Address’

Source:PBS NewsHour– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking about Syria from The White House.

“Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff to discuss President Barack Obama’s address to the nation on the Assad regime’s chemical weapons attack in Syria, the state of diplomatic efforts and prospects for Congressional authorization of a U.S. military strike.”

From the PBS NewsHour

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor[6] based in Arlington, Virginia. The PBS is a publicly funded[7] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational 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, Wild Kratts, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, The Kidsongs Television Show, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nature Cat, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Peg + Cat, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping Up Appearances, and This Old House.[8]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[9] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.”

From Wikipedia

I believe President Obama at the end of the day helped himself with Congress which at the end of the day quite frankly is all he needs theoretically depending on your position on the War Powers Act. Not Congress as a whole but Congressional Democrats in the House and Senate with enough Republicans by the time they vote.

If the President follows through after this speech to pass his resolution narrowly in the House and Senate because of his argument about we can’t allow dictators to go unpunished when they murder their own people and that we do not want to see Americans be hit by these same weapons as well that they have to be put out of business for our security and our allies as well as the Syrian people, then this will be a constructive moment for his presidency.

Read Full Post »