Jim Heath: CBS Evening News With Dan Rather- Vice President George H.W. Bush (1988

Source:Jim Heath- U.S. Vice President George H.W. Bush (Republican, Texas) on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, in 1988.

"From 1988, a live interview showdown between CBS anchor Dan Rather and Vice President George Bush." 

From Jim Heath

When Vice President George H.W. Bush went on the CBS Evening News in the winter of 1987/88 when it wasn't a certainty that Vice President Bush was going to win the 1988 Republican presidential nomination. , he used this opportunity to try to convince Conservative Republicans that he wasn't a wimp 9as Newsweek called him just 3-4 years later) and that he was willing and would take on what right-wingers call the "liberal media" and Dan Rather was one of their biggest targets. 

The right-wing of the Republican Party has always seen Dan Rather as a closet Liberal Democrat who was out to bring down or at least make Republicans look bad. The right-wing has pretty much hated Dan Rather and perhaps CBS News in general, since the Nixon presidency and their coverage of the Watergate scandal. And saw it as unfair or whatever and what Vice President Bush was doing with this interview with Dan Rather, who at the time was the anchor of the CBS Evening News, was an attempt to convince Republicans that he was tough enough to take on what they call the "liberal media", as well as Democrats.

Iran-Contra was still a big deal in late 1987 and early 1988 and as Vice President, George Bush was clearly involved in this situation and had knowledge of it. He was President Reagan's top deputy, his Chief Counselor on Policy and perhaps even his Chief Operating Officer. 

Even if Vice President Bush didn't have much knowledge of this situation (which I doubt) then that would mean as number two ranking officer in the Federal Government, that he was out of the loop in perhaps the most important political scandal of the Reagan Administration. 

Whether Iran-Contra was or wasn't what this interview was supposed to be about with Dan Rather, thats why Rather wanted to talk about it. And Bush knew this and used it as an opportunity to fight back against again what right-wingers view as the "liberal media".

Reason: John Blundell- 'Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep and The Iron Lady: Fact vs. Fiction'

Source:Reason Magazine- actress Meryl Streep playing United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England)

Source:The Daily Post

“When I first heard of this movie,” says John Blundell, “I immediately was a little worried because of Meryl Streep’s own ideas and polices and so on that are very distinctly not Thatcherite.”

As a longtime Margaret Thatcher ally, few people are in a better position than John Blundell to assess the veracity of the Oscar-nominated bio-pic, The Iron Lady. The former head of influential free-market organizations such as The Institute of Economic Affairs, The Institute for Humane Studies, and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Blundell is also the author of Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady (2007) and the new Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History.

On the eve of the 2012 Academy Awards ceremony, Blundell sat down with Reason.tv to discuss the controversy surrounding the film (which depicts its titular character in the throes of demenita), Streep’s widely praised performance, and the continuing power of Thatcher’s social and political legacy.

“I must admit,” he says, “to being pleasantly surprised. I think overall Margaret comes out of this process with her reputation enhanced and, of course, Meryl Streep’s reputation hugely enhanced.”

From Reason Magazine 

I saw the Iron Lady, the Meryl Streep bio movie about former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher back in May. And I was expecting a great movie about one of the most important world leaders, in at least the last thirty years. And I was disappointed, I don’t believe this movie was intended for political junkies. Or even people who love history such as myself, whether its American history or world history. This movie was intended for people who love movies and feel the need to be entertained.

I think this movie is for people who are not interested in learning about important historical events and people and don’t find that interesting enough to watch that type of thing or read about it. So they see a movie and hopefully its more dressed up for them and comes off as more and I hate this term to describe things like this, but as sexy.

One credit I would give the Iron Lady and something that I was pleasantly surprised by, was that this movie didn’t try to make Maggie Thatcher look like some type of Conservative fool who was interested in selling out the interests of the country to private business interests and didn’t care about the needy and was always looking to go to war. I think Meryl Streep did a very good job of playing Maggie Thatcher as the person she was. And not some Hollywood Leftist vision of her.

To me, what stands out about Maggie Thatcher, who had about a twenty year career in the British Government in the UK Parliament, as Leader of the Opposition and then of course as Prime Minister, is all the important things in her career that they didn’t cover. They didn’t cover much of her as Leader of the Opposition and how she rose from that to be Prime Minister or. Her interactions with the UK Prime Minister. I believe they showed one Question Time performance, or her relationship with President Reagan, or, how she dealt with the Soviet Union.

The Iron Lady covered a little bit of the Falkan Islands conflict with Argentina in 1982 and her attempts to cut the British debt and deficit. But about an hour of this movie was about her life post-Prime Ministership. Even though it’s as Prime Minister where she really made her impact, not only in Britain, but the world as well.

I thought that Meryl Streep did a very good job of playing Maggie Thatcher with the material that was given her. As far as what aspects of her life they covered. But no offense to Prime Minister Thatcher, this movie as far as appearances has a similar issue as the movie Game Change had with Sarah Palin. Except that I believe that Meryl Streep is too attractive, too cute, and beautiful to play Maggie Thatcher. Whereas in Game Change, Julianne Moore is not attractive enough to play Sarah Palin, at least as far as I’m concern. 

Forbes Magazine: 'Ex-Citi Chief: Split Up Big Banks'

Source:Forbes Magazine- ex-Citi Bank head Sandy Weill.

"Why Sandy Weill's recent statement is poppycock.  Plus, Facebook earnings on deck, and Sheila Bair's harsh words for big time bankers." 

From Forbes Magazine

I like what the two guys in this Forbes video were saying. Saying now that the big banks should be broken up, after you contributed to the huge financial meltdown of 2007-08, that the country is still paying for, is like a bank robber giving a speech about why you shouldn't rob banks, right before he's sentenced. Where was this before the actual crisis happened? And why should anyone with intelligence, who also happens to be sane and sober, all at the same time, listen to Sandy Weill about anything?

Jack Hunter: 'Goodbye to Conservatism'

Source:Wikipedia- Conservative radio talk show host and blogger Jack Hunter.

"Jack William Hunter Jr. (born June 1, 1974) is an American radio host, political commentator and Politics Editor for Rare.us, a Washington, D.C.-based news website. He began his career in the late 1990s on alternative rock station WAVF 96.1 FM using the moniker "Southern Avenger", an anonymous pro wrestler/superhero-style character. In 2007, Hunter began appearing every Tuesday and Friday morning on WTMA News-Talk 1250 AM, and contributed to a weekly column to the Charleston City Paper.[1] Hunter was also an aide to U.S. Senator Rand Paul, whom Hunter helped write the book The Tea Party Goes to Washington.[2] He is perhaps best known for his decades-old, racially charged writings whose reemergence caused a major media controversy for his boss, Senator Paul.

Hunter's reputation as a political operative was discredited following the Washington Free Beacon's revelation in July 2013 that he had repeatedly espoused racist views on a local South Carolina radio station under the Southern Avenger moniker. His racist comments included expressions of contempt for Hispanic immigrants, and a call for NAACP director Kweisi Mfume, whom he referred to as "NAACP Grand Wizard," to be tied to a tree and whipped.[3][4] Following these revelations, Hunter resigned from Rand Paul's staff in what the Senator called a "mutual decision." In a November 2013 article for Politico, Hunter repudiated his former views, writing "I'm not a racist; I just played one on the radio." 

From Wikipedia 

"To my friends that are supporters of Rick Santorum: I won’t say you are an idiot, I’ll just say the definition of ‘conservative’ has changed… that way I won’t have to have the discussion that you are a flaming douchbag of stupidity." 

From Brian Gallimore  

“September 3, 2008 Interview with TPMtv – Santorum says that the GOP has moved away from the Goldwater, “small government” ideas. The full interview can be seen here… 

Source:Talking Points Memo- interviewing former U.S. Senator (Republican, Pennsylvania) Rick Santorum in 2008.

From Talking Points Memo 

This photo is from a video that conservative blogger Jack Hunter did about Rick Santorum’s support for big government. And Hunter even covers Rick Santorum’s views on the Barry Goldwater classical conservative wing of the Republican Party. That Senator Santorum is obviously not part of.

Source:The Southern Avenger- former U.S. Senator (Republican, Pennsylvania) and 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Jack Hunter the so-called Southern Avenger, is right again when he says that conservatism is not about fixing things or telling people how to live their lives. But that conservatism is about keeping or getting the Federal Government within the Constitution. Meaning that the Federal Government shouldn't be doing anything that's not laid out for it to do, or that it doesn't have the constitutional authority to do under the U.S. Constitution. When you think of conservatism, think again of Barry Goldwater and his book the Conscience of a Conservative, read that book. 

If 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is supposed to be the face of the so-called Modern Conservative, then Conservatives believe that the Federal Government: 

Should be doing more when it comes to public education, not less. 

That we should be doubling the size of Medicare, not reforming Medicare and other entitlement programs to keep them solvent. 

That deficits and debt doesn't matter, at least they didn't matter when Senator Santorum was in Congress with all his votes to increase the national debt and borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for wars and to pay for expanding our social programs like Medicare. 

And instead of conserving the U.S. Constitution, which is what political Conservatives used to be about, we should amend if not throw out the First and Fourth, and perhaps the 10th Amendments as well, so Big Government can make sure every decent American is not listening to music that Senator Santorum and the rest of Christian-Right doesn't approve us, or watching a film they disapprove of, or going to a nightclub they disapprove of, men having sex with men, women having sex with women, consensual sam-sex-marriage, etc. 

People that right-wing populists like to call the Old Right today and even people that Libertarians like Tom Woods and others views as the Old Right, were the real Conservatives, because they were constitutional Conservative. (Something that Michele Bachmann knows nothing about) And these are the folks that today's populist Republicans would call Liberals. Those great Liberals like William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. You can see why I have a hard time taking populist Republicans seriously about anything.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Reagan Foundation: '1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter - 10/28/80'

Source:Reagan Foundation- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) debating Governor Ronald W. Reagan, for President of the United States, in 1980;

"The full-length 1980 Presidential Candidate Debate between Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter on 10/28/80." 

From the Reagan Foundation

Source:Reagan Foundation- Governor Ronald W. Reagan, debating President James E. Carter, in 1980.

Even though the 1980 presidential election between former California Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter turned into a landslide, with Ron Reagan winning something like 44 States, and with around 56% of the popular vote. and with Senate Republicans picking up eleven seats and winning control of the Senate for the first time since 1952, (these stats coming from doing too much research) the election was a tossup, with perhaps a slight edge to Governor Reagan, before the 1st debate.

Reagan, not looking to go to war with the Soviet Union, or anything like that. That he was a cool in the political sense, calm intelligent man, that had core classical conservative beliefs. But that conservatism wasn't crazy and neither was he. 

For President Carter, really his last opportunity to show Americans, when this election was still close and have a chance to beat Reagan and put himself in position of winning the election by giving Americans an alternative vision of where he would want to take America in a 2nd term. The difference between front- running politicians and underdog politicians when it comes to political debates, is that the frontrunner tends to take a positive approach to the debate and just tries to sell themselves:"This is what I'll do if you elect, or reelect me."

The underdog politician, the one who's trailing in the election, tends to take the opposite approach. And decides:"The voters clearly don't like me and so what I have to do, is to convince voters that they should like my opponent even less." And then win the election by default and thats exactly what this debate had. Ron Reagan was clearly in cruise control and tried to make this debate a referendum:

"You should vote for me because I will take this country in a different direction, much different from where we are going now, which is clearly not working." 

Whereas President Carter was on the attack almost the whole debate and trying to make it about Ron Reagan. The famous line in this debate is of course Ron Reagan saying in his closing statement saying: "Are you better of today, then you were four years ago: Is the cost of living lower, are jobs more secure, have the taxes gone up, or down?" That sort of thing. People clearly didn't feel better off in 1980 than they did in 1976 and Reagan was successful in making this election a referendum on President Carter.

Conrad Black: The Invincible Quest- Richard Nixon Biography

Source:Thrift Books- Conrad Black's book about Richard Nixon.

"The Invincible Quest is an authoritative biography of one of the most accomplished and controversial leaders of the twentieth century. Beginning with Richard Nixon's birth to Quaker parents in 1913 and ending with his death in 1994, Conrad Black traces Nixon's career, assessing both his achievements and the evolution of popular and historical thinking about him since his death. Drawing on recently opened tapes and documents, and on Black's personal interviews with many of the major players in Nixon's administration, The Invincible Quest reveals a new side of Nixon: a man who didn't have the advantage of charisma but was surprisingly self-assured and effective; a man dogged by political scandal yet seemingly unstoppable. Opinionated, balanced, and perceptive, The Invincible Quest makes a significant contribution to re-evaluating the idiosyncratic president's entire, eventful career." 

From Thrift Books 

"Conrad Black, currently appearing in a Chicago court on fraud charges, is also a highly respected biographer. "The Invincible Quest: The Life of Richard Milhouse Nixon" is the most thorough biography ever written about America's most controversial President." 

Source:Craig Rintoul- Conrad Black's book about Richard Nixon.

From Craig Rintoul

Richard Nixon, lived such a long, complicated and productive life, with a lot of ups and downs, that writing one book about him, doesn't do him justice. Or the people justice who are interested in learning about him. Every time a new documentary, movie or book about Dick Nixon comes out, I at least look into them and a lot of times get a copy of them for myself. I have a few books about him and several documentaries about him as well.

Richard Nixon was a man that came from a loving home, but from basically nothing in Whittier, California, yet he ends up graduating from law school, having a good military record, Duke University, U.S. Representative by 33 in 1946 and famous in the House as a freshmen. U.S. Senator by 37, Vice Presidential nominee for Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 at 39. Vice President of the United States by 40, reelected Vice President in 1956. The first influential and important Vice President that Americans were actually familiar with. Republican nominee for President in 1960 at age 47, comes within 100,000 votes and Dick Daily in Chicago and LBJ in Texas of being elected President in 1960. Law partner in a major law firm after the Vice Presidency in the 1960s and Republicans turning to him to run for President in 1967-68, after what he did for Congressional Republicans in 1966.

All of the chapters that I've mentioned about Dick Nixon's life, all are worth a book about them and his life. Nixon's life wasn't just about ups and downs and hot and cold, but about one of the most important figures that we've ever had in American history. His foreign policy dealing with our opponents so we can influence them and their people, instead of ignoring them. Like with Russia and China and was 15-20 years ahead of its time and considered mainstream today. Another fascinating thing about Dick Nixon, was it was his politics that would put him on the progressive wing of the Republican Party (yes, there's such a thing) both on economic and even foreign policy, as well as some social issues. Yet he's loved by the Populist-Right and the Christian-Right of the Republican Party.

It's not just foreign policy where Dick Nixon as President was ahead of him time, but economic policy as well. Welfare to Work over twenty years ahead of its time. The Affordable Care Act gets a lot of its roots from the Nixon health care bill in 1974. President Nixon was pushing energy independence in 1973 well before it became popular.  

It's hard to box Richard Nixon in. If you are going to try to write a bio about Richard Nixon, first you should try to get the whole story. Instead of trying to write the Defense of Richard Nixon or a hatchet job, which a lot of books about him are. And then if you want to write he whole story about Nixon, you should write a series about him. Otherwise you are looking at writing thousands and thousands of pages into one book, assuming you do an accurate job.

National Geographic: 'The Final Report: Watergate'

Source:National Geographic- The Watergate Hotel and Office Complex in Washington.

"The Final Report: Watergate (National Geographic)" 

From Michael L. Clark

It's hard to imagine a dumber political scandal in American political history (and that's saying a mountain's worth) than the Watergate break-in by President Richard Nixon's reelection committee in 1972. I mean this was the equivalent of robbing a loaf of bread at a local convenient store and taking nothing else. 

But Richard Nixon was so paranoid and his people were so loyal to him and they believed the more political information that you have on your opponents, the better and they believed that President Nixon would've approved of this operation, that they did it for him. But there's no evidence to suggest that President Nixon either gave the approval of the operation, or knew about it before it happened.

Americans For Tax Reform: Meet The Press- Grover Norquist: 'Schools Liberal Media On Obstructionist Charges'

Source:Americans For Tax Reform- Grover Norquist, on NBC News's Meet The Press.

"ATR President Grover Norquist joins MSNBC's Meet the Press panel and knocks down absurd charges of GOP obstructionism in Congress." 

From Americans For Tax Reform

Grover Norquist is half-right (which is generally more credit than I'm willing to give him) that the Republican House (not Congress, sorry Democrats) have moved their agenda, including a budget and economic agenda. 

Where Grover is wrong is about Republicans in Congress not being obstructionist. Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have blocked (thanks to the cloture rule) everything that President Obama and Senate Democrats led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, everything that Congressional Democrats (House and Senate) and President Obama want to do as far as passing a Federal budget and moving the economy forward again. Including legislation dealing with infrastructure, middle class tax relief, small business, and immigration. 

So I have a proposed compromise for Senate Majority Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 

Senate Republicans allow Senate Democrats to bring all of their economic bills or put all of those bills into one package, to the floor for debate and amendments. Senate Republicans bring all of their relevant amendments, including the bills that House Republicans have already passed, if they want too. And the Senate votes on everything. And if neither side in the Senate has 60 votes to pass their economic plan, then Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell come together or a handful of other Senate Democrats and Republicans come together to work out an agreement on economic plan that can pass the Senate with at least 60 votes. 

I'm not naive, (despite what other people may say) I know my proposal is not going to happen. You are probably not going to see another major piece of legislation passed out of this Congress the rest of year, other than to keep the government running. Both parties are simply totally focused on the 2012 elections. 

But if common sense ever made an appearance in Washington, especially in Congress (and it also stopped snowing in the North Pole for good) this is what the leaders of both parties would be doing, just because they know neither party has the power to do everything that they want and govern the country by themselves.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: 'Remarks On The Obamacare Repeal Act'

Source:House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- speaking on the House floor about his bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

"Majority Leader Eric Cantor is a results-oriented leader in Congress who supports innovative solutions for free markets, economic growth, job creation and national security." 

From House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

There's a better term for what the House Republicans (led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor) are doing here, I just can't think of it right now and haven't found it. But to put it simply: it's commonplace for Congress (House and Senate) to take up partisan, political votes, that they know won't either pass in the other chamber, or will be vetoed by the President, or will get blocked in the Senate, if the Senate Minority Leader has enough votes to block whatever the House majority leadership is trying to pass.  

House Republicans led by Speaker John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Republican, Virginia) know their ObamaCare (also known as the Affordable Care Act) repeal will die in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) will simply not take the bill up, or will have it voted down with all the Democrats voting against it and trying to use that vote against vulnerable, Senate Republicans, who are up for reelection. 

House Republicans also know that they don't have a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, a bill that they've been campaigning against at least since 2010. So even if their repeal were to pass and they still didn't have an alternative to it, we would go back to the health care system that we had in 2009 that left 45 million Americans without health insurance, or at least affordable health insurance. Which seems to be what the Republican Party Leadership wants anyway. 

PBS NewsHour: Judy Woodruff- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer & Senator John Cornyn: ACA Ruling

Source:PBS NewsHour- House Minority Whip (Democrat, Maryland) and Senator John Cornyn (Republican, Texas)

"The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul Thursday. Marcia Coyle parses the ruling with Jeffrey Brown." 

From the PBS NewsHour

Now that the John Roberts, Republican led Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) Republicans will now has a choice in how they play this out during the rest of the election season, with both the House and Senate up for reelection and Republicans wanting to retake the The White House.

Looks like House Republicans are going to continue to do what they're been doing for the last three years: run on repealing the ACA and then say they'll work to pass a new health care law, even though there is no Republican Party plan to what they would replace the ACA with. 

Senate Republicans are in a different position. They're still in the minority in the Senate, even with 47 seats and to win back the Senate, they might need a real plan, or at least their incumbents and candidates who are up for reelection. 

Republican Party presidential nominee Mitt Romney is in a different position. He passed in Massachusetts as their Governor the very law that became known as ObamaCare back in 2006 and now he's running against his own health care law. So he could say: "I was for it before I was against it." Let's see how that plays in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. 

American Enterprise Institute: Dean Clancy: 'Three Steps to Patient-Centered Care'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Dean Clancy talking about health care reform at AEI.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:American Enterprise Institute." 

From AEI  

Dean Clancy is talking about 3 ways he would reform health care in America, but he didn't really anything on the table. He was really talking about the health care system in America pre-2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed. 

Mr. Clancy talked about controlling health care costs, without putting anything on the table. 

He talked about expanding individual liberty in the health care market, but without putting anything on the table. 

And then he talked about what he called health care status, which I guess is the right-wing talking point for pre-existing conditions. And said that someone's health status, which could a pre-existing condition that someone was born with, or a woman whose had kids in her life, should be used against them in either denying them health insurance or charging them more for health insurance. 

What Mr. Clancy seems to be talking about but doing it more openly and honestly (unlike the House Republicans and the Tea Party populist wing of the Republican Party) is saying that we should go back to the health care system of 2009 and before that. I would love to see Mitt Romney run for President out in the open on that, as well as House Republicans in swing districts and Senate Republicans in swing states. 

Reagan Foundation: 'Candidacy for Presidency: Ronald Reagans Announcement of Candidacy For President of U.S. 11/13/79'

Source:Reagan Foundation- Governor Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) announcing his run for President, in 1979.

"Ronald Reagan's Announcement of Candidacy for President of the United States on 11/13/79.

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at:Reagan Foundation."

Source:Reagan Foundation

You could make a case that when Ronald Reagan announced that he was running for President in November, 1979 that he won the 1980 presidential election and defeated President Jimmy Carter right there. Because of how different the message that he was giving, then what was being delivered from President Carter. 

President Carter constantly told the country how bad the situation was. Reporting on from one disaster from another, especially economically and even telling the country that they were partially at fault for this. Living too well and that was contributing to the economic problems. The country feeling as bad, or if not worse than the President said we were doing. 

To sound really corny: what Ronald Reagan was saying in 1979-80 is that our best days are still ahead of us, if we change course, go in a different direction, get the economy going again. And he had a plan for all of that. We can argue about how successful he was with the all the economic growth and jobs, but in exchange for high deficits, debt, and interest rates. But he was laying his vision for America being the City on a Shining Hill.