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 »

Strode Reality: Video: Andrew Sullivan: The Politics of Homosexuality: Intro on Prohibition

.
This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on Blogger

As a straight man I’m obviously not the most qualified person to speak about homosexuality and what homosexuals go through in America or anywhere else around the world. But I am qualified to speak about what I see as far as the bigotry that’s thrown at homosexuals as a Liberal, as a blogger and as someone who is friends with gay people and someone whose worked with Gay people as well. Plus the bigotry that I’ve seen and read get thrown at gays just because they are gay and who they are attracted to.

And how gays carry themselves. Which is what I’m going to do in this blog, and not trying to speak as an expert on homosexuality which I’m clearly not. Just like a gay person wouldn’t be an expert on heterosexuality because of simple fact they aren’t straight and they do not know what it’s like to be straight. And bisexuals may be the only people who could possibly be qualified to be experts on both homosexuality and heterosexuality because they’ve lived the life as both at least to a certain extent.

As a Liberal I actually do believe in the old fashion conservative notion of personal responsibility. That we must be held accountable for our actions for good and bad. Fine I agree with that, but I’m going to give homophobes a pass when it comes to their homophobia just for this reason. Because and I don’t know this as a fact, but if I had to guess the overwhelming majority of homophobes didn’t decide that they are against homosexuality. Or the way they would put it, they do not agree with homosexuality. When they turned eighteen or twenty-one.

That its something that was already part of homophobes lives much longer before those two very important birthdays. And that since a lot of their homophobia if not all of it comes from a religious vantage point and they grow up in strict religious households or communities, that a lot of their homophobia comes to them when they are in church or from their families. That’s one theory and the other one coming from lets say lack of exposure to gay people and not being friends with those people and not having a good idea what its like to be around gay people.

This might sound like a fantasy or something, but I bet if you took the one-hundred of the most bigoted homophobes who didn’t have violent or murderous tendencies, that their homophobia was purely verbal and how they think rather than how they act and you had them live in a community of homosexuals for let’s say a week or a month or even longer than that, the Homophobes views of homosexuals would change drastically. Because they would see that gay people are people almost just like them, but attracted to the other gender and perhaps a little more feminine or masculine. To play off of a gay stereotype.

And that hay people perhaps have different interests, but that they would find things to agree on as well. And even talk about that and homophobia like all other forms of bigotry are based on simple ignorance. Having strong feelings about something that you simply don’t know much about which of course is dangerous. I really believe this because just look at the last ten years where back in 2003-04 gay-marriage was seen as a fringe issue. Now at least half of Americans are in favor of gay-marriage.

But even ten years ago when gay-marriage was unpopular the idea of civil unions seemed mainstream and an appropriate alternative. So we’ve made a lot of progress in just ten years. Which gets to my point that the more people know about something and see that it’s not dangerous and certainly not a threat to you, the harder it is to hate that thing. And more Americans are simply learning more about homosexuality and knowing gay people and seeing that these people are good people by in large just like straights.

Read Full Post »

National Post: Opinion: F.H. Buckley: Canadian Conservatives Shouldn’t Look South For Right-Wing Inspiration

THE NATIONAL POST: OPINION: F.H. BUCKLEY: CANADIAN CONSERVATIVES SHOULD STOP LOOKING TO THE UNITED STATES FOR RIGHT-WING INSPIRATIONFULLCOMMENT.NATIONALPOST.COM

PM Stephen Harper & PM Benjamin Netanyahu

The only thing I agree with F.H. Buckley in his piece comparing Canadian Conservatives with American Conservatives is that “Canada shouldn’t look South for right-wing inspiration”. For obvious reasons I believe, but a big one being that a Canadian Conservative is probably to the left of a American Center-Left Liberal Democrat. Canadian Conservatives look more like FDR Progressives than Goldwater Conservatives.

To risk stating the obvious Canadian conservatism even looks different from American conservatism even in the classical conservative sense like Barry Goldwater or Bill Buckley, or today with Senator Rand Paul. So so-called religious conservatism or religious conservatives who look like theocrats to most of the rest of the world would never fly politically to a Canadian country that if anything is more secular than America and if anything believes in a bigger separation of church and state than Americans as a whole outside of our Bible Belt.

Canadian Conservatives to me at least represent the best form of a right-wing movement perhaps in the Western world. Because as much as Canada gets stereotyped as a big government socialist state it really isn’t. Their Federal Government and they do have a Federal system spends less of their country’s Gross Domestic Product than we do. And they tax business less than America does. And they do believe in fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism more than American so-called Conservatives. At least in the sense of not taxing and spending and running up big debts and deficits annually. And take a conservative fiscal look across their Federal budget including their defense budget more than American so-called Conservatives do.

There’s really nothing wrong with the Canadian right-wing at least as I see it as an American. They have true Conservatives up there who believe in good government. But part of good government is limited government since there is a limit to the good that government can do for people especially if people aren’t willing to do everything for themselves. And Canada should simply just focus on what works in Canada. As Americans hopefully will get back to what works in America.

Read Full Post »

BBC News: HardTalk- Abdul Mawgoud Dardery: Freedom and Justice Party

Source:BBC News– Abdul Mawgoud Dardery from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

“What now for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its political wing the Freedom and Justice Party? Rarely has the fall from power of a party been so quick, dramatic and violent. Since President Morsi’s removal by the army, thousands of the Brotherhood’s members and supporters have been arrested, including most of its senior leaders. Hardtalk speaks to Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a member of the now suspended parliament. What is the Brotherhood’s next move?”

From BBC News

There doesn’t seem to be a big or strong enough liberal or even conservative democratic movement in Egypt that is big enough to take on the Islamic-Theocrats and the military authoritarians in Egypt. Leaving Egypt stuck between two forms of authoritarianism:

People in favor of the current police state and never moving away from that. And people who want to impose an Islamic-Theocracy on Egypt.

What Egypt needs for democracy to have any shot at becoming real in a big Arab country with no history of democracy, is for Center-Right democrats (liberal or conservative) and a Center-Left to emerge in Egypt, so Egyptians who want it, can not only push and vote for democracy, but have choices in what type of democracy that they want in Egypt.

Read Full Post »

Sam Seder: Federal Judge Blocks 6-Week Abortion Banning Bill

Source:The Majority Report– pro-choice activists on abortion.

“A federal judge in North Dakota has issued a block on the country’s most restrictive abortion law, the “fetal heartbeat” ban, stating it is unconstitutional…

This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report.”

Source:The Majority Report

I don’t love it, but I do find it amusing, even sadly so when I hear people who call themselves fiscal Conservatives, who claim government is too big and spends too much money and yet they spend taxpayer dollars on bills that if they don’t know that they’ll get thrown out on constitutional grounds. Their lawyers at the very least are smart enough to know that. And yet taxpayers still have to pay for the costs of them writing their bills and paying for staff’s work and everything else. North Dakota and their anti-abortion bill, that bans abortion after six-weeks of pregnancy, is a perfect example of that.

If you can forget about the unconstitutionality and big government aspects of the bill, with the state stepping in to make health care decision for competent women, you can also dislike the bill for the waste of tax dollars that come with it. Money that could be used to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, law enforcement, jails, prisons, or lowering property taxes, is being spent to pass a bill that will eventually get thrown out. And that is before you add up the costs of what it will take to defend the unconstitutional law in the first place.

But the politics and politicians don’t take positions too many times to be consistent and accurate. But to meet short-term, political goals. Which is why they’re not leaders, but sheep trapped in herds instead.

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

Read Full Post »

PBS: NewsHour- ‘Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services’

Source:PBS NewsHour– Ilyse Hogue from National Pro-Choice America.

“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

“Five states have moved to adopt tighter abortion regulations, including North Dakota, which has the nation’s strictest abortion regulation, outlawing abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected. Jeffrey Brown gets perspectives from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America.”

From the PBS NewsHour

All of these abortion restriction laws are coming in red states that like to complain about big government and government interfering in our lives and so-forth and yet they write laws that do exactly that. And interfere with the most personal of decisions that Americans will ever make which get’s to our healthcare.

In this case women’s healthcare and who decides whether women give birth or not after being pregnant. Apparently big government in red states is government they do not like mainly as it relates to the economy. But big government that they do like as it has to do with our personal lives is okay, because: “It’s in our national interest to have government making these decisions for us. Rather than individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make these decisions for ourselves.”

And then you get to the constitutional and legal aspects of this where these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. Because of the rock solid pro-choice majority on it. And you have states defending laws in court with taxpayer funds that will be ruled unconstitutional. Money that would’ve been spent for other things that would not get thrown out.

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

Read Full Post »

Kathleen Parker: ‘Barack Obama’s Dream: To Run Against Rick Santorum’

Source:The Washington Post– columnist Kathleen Parker.

“Let me be blunt: If Republicans nominate Rick Santorum to run for president, they will lose.

The prospect of four more years of President Barack Obama holds some appeal for many Americans but probably not for most Republicans. It may give doubters among them some comfort, however, to know that Obama and Santorum share the same prayer: that Santorum be the Republican nominee.

It gives me no pleasure to rap Santorum, a man I know and respect even if I disagree with him on some issues. Not that he minds. He’s a scrapper who loves a fight — and he forgives. Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He’s just a good man in the wrong century.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong about everything, but he’s so far out of step with the majority of Americans that he can’t hope to win the votes of moderates and independents so crucial to victory in November. The Republican Party’s insistence on conservative purity, meanwhile, will result in the cold comfort of defeat with honor and, in the longer term, potential extinction.

Increasingly, the party is growing grayer and whiter. Nine out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic white, and more than half are highly religious, according to Gallup. This isn’t news, but when this demographic is suddenly associated with renewed debate about whether women should have access to contraception — never mind abortion — suddenly they begin to look like the Republican Brotherhood.

Add to that perception the abhorrent, pre-abortion ultrasound legislation proposed in Virginia, and you can kiss the pope’s ring and voters’ retreating backsides.

The proposed law, temporarily tabled, called for women seeking an abortion to be forced to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Aldous Huxley’s “The Devils of Loudon” comes to mind, but he was writing about exorcisms in a convent of 17th-century France. When did Republicans, who supposedly believe in less government intervention, begin thinking that invading a person’s body against her will was remotely acceptable?

Skip to main content
Opinions
Editorials
Columns
Guest opinions
Cartoons
Submit a guest opinion
Opinions
Obama’s dream: To run against Santorum

The prospect of four more years of President Barack Obama holds some appeal for many Americans but probably not for most Republicans. It may give doubters among them some comfort, however, to know that Obama and Santorum share the same prayer: that Santorum be the Republican nominee.

It gives me no pleasure to rap Santorum, a man I know and respect even if I disagree with him on some issues. Not that he minds. He’s a scrapper who loves a fight — and he forgives. Bottom line: Santorum is a good man. He’s just a good man in the wrong century.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong about everything, but he’s so far out of step with the majority of Americans that he can’t hope to win the votes of moderates and independents so crucial to victory in November. The Republican Party’s insistence on conservative purity, meanwhile, will result in the cold comfort of defeat with honor and, in the longer term, potential extinction.

Increasingly, the party is growing grayer and whiter. Nine out of 10 Republicans are non-Hispanic white, and more than half are highly religious, according to Gallup. This isn’t news, but when this demographic is suddenly associated with renewed debate about whether women should have access to contraception — never mind abortion — suddenly they begin to look like the Republican Brotherhood.

Add to that perception the abhorrent, pre-abortion ultrasound legislation proposed in Virginia, and you can kiss the pope’s ring and voters’ retreating backsides.

The proposed law, temporarily tabled, called for women seeking an abortion to be forced to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Aldous Huxley’s “The Devils of Loudon” comes to mind, but he was writing about exorcisms in a convent of 17th-century France. When did Republicans, who supposedly believe in less government intervention, begin thinking that invading a person’s body against her will was remotely acceptable?

Saner minds have prevailed, at least for now, but the fact that the bill was ever conceived and taken seriously by at least some legislators gives freedom-loving voters every reason to run the other way.

Informed consent is, in my view, a reasonable goal. Surely removal of a human fetus deserves the same level of awareness we would insist upon in removing, say, a gall bladder. If some women change their minds after viewing the contents of their womb, then they obviously needed more information than they had going in. Still, any procedure should be voluntary, and inserting a probe into a woman against her will is rape by any other name.

Obviously, this is no place for the state.

The Virginia bill and the broader, bogus message often repeated on left-leaning talk shows that Republicans are campaigning against birth control have created a perfect storm for defeat. The math is clear: Sixty-seven percent of women are either Democrats (41 percent) or independents (26 percent); more women than men vote; 55 percent of women ages 18-22 voted in the 2008 presidential election.

Republicans are caught in a nearly impossible situation, none more than the more temperate-minded Mitt Romney. It is important to remember, however, why contraception came up in the first place. Republicans were forced to man their battlements by the Obama administration’s new health-care rule requiring that Catholic organizations pay for contraception in violation of conscience. From there, things spiraled out of the realm of religious liberty, where this debate belongs, and into the fray of moral differences.

Santorum’s original surge was based not on social issues but on his authenticity and his ability to identify with middle-class struggles. He was the un-Romney. But now this appealing profile has been occluded by social positions that make him an outlier to mainstream Americans.

Republicans may sleep better if they nominate The Most Conservative Person In The World, but they won’t be seeing the executive branch anytime soon. It’s too bad this election season got lost in the weeds of religious conviction. It wouldn’t have happened if the Obama administration had simply taken one of several other routes available for providing birth control to women who want it. Instead, Obama aimed right at the heart of the Republican Party and, one can only assume, got exactly what he wanted: a culture war in which Rick Santorum would be the natural point man and, in the broader public’s perception, the voice of the GOP.”

From The Washington Post

“Rick Santorum is a big government, big spending, nanny state “Republican.” He lost his last election by 18 points. He is part of the Republican party that behaved like Democrats in terms of spending and size of government. He voted for the Bridge to Nowhere TWO TIMES and repeatedly voted to protect unions. We need to leave this failed part of Republicanism and return to a true, proven and accomplished small government conservative like Newt Gingrich.”

Source:Mike L– Fox News discussing Rick Santorum for President.

From Mike L

Imagine if President Obama said he wanted more Americans on public assistance instead of in higher education, imagine how the right-wing would’ve reacted. They would’ve called Barack Obama a Socialist: “See, we’ve been right all along: Barack Obama is a Socialist. He wants more people in America dependent on government. Instead of taking care of themselves. He wants to transform America into Europe.”

Rick Santorum and the rest of the right-wing can’t have it both ways and be credible. If you believe higher education and being self-sufficient is the right thing, instead of being dependent on public assistance, something they’ve been saying for eighty years if not longer, then you can’t say well thats a bad idea now, just because someone you don’t like agrees with you.

What the Republican Party should be saying is that: “Government dependence is bad and we need more people working in America paying their own bills, instead of living off of people who do. Even Barack Obama understands this, we’ve been right all along.”

People simply for the most part (unless they are an athlete or entertainer) can’t make it on their own in America, with just a high school diploma. Our economy is just too advanced now. People need higher education and get those extra skills just to have a good chance of getting a good job in this country. Which is something that President Obama was acknowledging and Rick Santorum doesn’t understand.

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

Read Full Post »

Bad Lip Reading: Rick Santorum

Source:Bad Lip Reading– Rick Santorum: having an off day or is he just more honest when he’s drunk? LOL

“Rick Santorum” — A BLR Soundbite”

From Bad Lip Reading

Imagine this: you’re a member of the opposition party, facing a President that has presided over the Great Recession (the worst recession we’ve had since the Great Depression of the 1930s) you’re facing a President that’s also presided over a fairly modest if not weak economic recovery (we are still growing at around 2% GDP with 8.2% unemployment) and you run your worst possible candidate to try to defeat the sitting President, in Rick Santorum. In fairness to Senator Santorum: Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign didn’t make it to January. And Sarah Palin didn’t bother to run for President.Perhaps she can’t get a fly of Alaska.

The up in-coming presidential election is almost completely about the economy, at least to Independent voters that will decide the presidential election. So all you need is a presidential nominee that can talk economics and communicate a plan back to strong economic growth. And bring down our high unemployment rate. You do that and ask the question: “Are you better off today, then you were four years ago?” You win the presidential election by 5-10 points and take Congress with you.

I just laid out the perfect storm for how Republicans should be able to win back the White House. But the problem is we are dealing with a Republican Party that’s now dominated by Christian-Nationalists that believe gay marriage and pornography are bigger threats to the country, than terrorism or the weak economic recovery.

The Far-Right in America, doesn’t live in the same world as sane people. They care more about ideological purity than they do winning presidential elections. Someone who represents their Far-Right, big government political ideology, then winning the presidential election and doing what’s in the best interest of the country.

The whole reason why Rick Santorum is seen as a serious contender for the presidential nomination, is because he appeals to Christian-Fundamentalists and blue-collar Republicans. When thirty years ago he would’ve been seen as nothing more than a Far-Right presidential candidate, like Pat Robertson. Like an escaped mental patient who wondered into a political convention and just got this vision that he was President of the United States and got someone to fill out the paperwork for him.

But the problem with the GOP today is that they have more Pat Robertson’s than Barry Goldwater’s or Ron Reagan’s, when it comes to social Issues and national security. Sure, the Far-Right has it’s presidential candidate. And a competitive shot at winning the presidential nomination. The problem for the GOP is most of the country isn’t part of the Far-Right. And someone like a Rick Santorum would have a hard time winning 45% of the vote. And would kill the GOP’s chances of retaining the House and winning back the Senate.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: President Barack Obama- ‘Ronald Reagan Could Not Win a Republican Primary Today’

Source:CBS News– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) talking about Ronald Reagan and the modern Republican Party. (Not the GOP)

“During a speech at the Associated Press luncheon at the ASNE convention on Tuesday, President Obama said that Ronald Reagan would not be able to get through a Republican primary today based on his acceptance of the need to raise revenue through higher taxes.”

From CBS News

When Ronald Reagan was President of the United States and running for that job, as well as Governor of California and speaking in favor of Conservative Republicans like Barry Goldwater and others, thats what the Republican Party was: and actual conservative party (with a progressive faction) not a religious-theocratic arty as it’s now.

The Republican Party (Republican in name only, now) use to be about individual liberty, limited government, and the U.S. Constitution. And they didn’t put things like national security and their sense of national morality over individual liberty, limited government, and the U.S. Constitution. As they do now, again with a few exceptions like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, Governor Jon Huntsmen, and a few others.

So when today’s religious and Neoconservatives of the World like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and others, speak in favor of Ron Reagan, they are not speaking in favor of his politics. Before Reagan became President he described his politics as Libertarian, thats not what today’s Republicans speak in favor of. But they speak in favor of Ron Reagan’s ability to connect with American voters. And want to be associated with that, not Reagan’s politics.

Thanks to George W. Bush and the Christian-Right, the old Conservative Republican and their Leaders were kicked out of power. So someone like Senator John McCain who twenty years ago would’ve been considered a Conservative Republican and one of the leaders of that movement in Congress, today gets called a Moderate Republican, because he doesn’t fit into with todays Christian and New-Right, Ron Reagan like Barry Goldwater, not only couldn’t get nominated for President today, but I believe they would both of left the party.

Read Full Post »

ABC News: Good Morning America- Rick Santorum: ‘In It To Win’

Source:ABC News– Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (Republican, Pennsylvania) talking to ABC News about his presidential campaign.

“Former Senator from Pennsylvania declares intention to run for U.S. president. For more on this story, click here:ABC News.”

From ABC News

Is there any point in taking Rick Santorum seriously anymore except for maybe when we need and are looking for a good laugh: I mean this is the guy who’s a devout Catholic who blamed with Catholic Church scandal with their Priests back in 2002, on gays.

Now today Senator Santorum says the reason why American soldiers fought in World War II, so they can have freedom of choice in their health care.

Senator Santorum, didn’t mention the fact that American military personal fought in World War II: number one, to defend themselves, number two, to defend their fellow servicemen, and number three to defend their country. Thats why we fought in World War II. It’s not like guys were telling their wives and families: “Honey, dad, mom etc, I must fight in World War II so we can continue to have freedom of choice in our health care!”

We went to War in World War II to save European Jews from being genocide and two prevent further genocides of Jews. (To state the obvious) It had nothing to do with health care or health insurance.

And for Rick Santorum, by the way how he ever get elected to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania: Was the whole state high on marijuana on Election Day in 1994? His statement is complete nonsense. (For lack of a better word)

Rick Santorum who I assume for argument sake means well and I don’t put people down for the fun of it (contrary to popular opinion) is another example of how weak the GOP presidential field of 2012 is.

Senator Santorum is also  another example of how the President Obama’s potential competition is his best asset. And who thirty years ago would’ve been considered a fringe Far-Right presidential  candidate, because of his outrageous statements.

Read Full Post »