Richard Nixon Presidential Library: ‘New Federalism: Returning Power to The People’

Source:Richard Nixon Presidential Library- President Richard Nixon's OMB Director Richard Nathan.

Source:The New Democrat

“August 08, 2011: Nixon administration officials discuss RN’s national policy to transfer power from the federal government to state and local governments.

Location: Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Participants:

Edwin Harper, Nixon White House Domestic Council Assistant Director;

James Falk, Nixon White House Domesctic Council Associate Director;

Richard Nathan, Assistant Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Nixon;

Shirley Anne Warshaw (moderator), Professor of Political Science, Gettysburg College.

Organized by Nixon White House Associate Director Geoffrey C. Shepard, the forums are co-sponsored by the National Archives and the Richard Nixon Foundation.”

From the Richard Nixon Presidential Library 

"New Federalism Interviews: James Falk" 

Source:Richard Nixon Foundation- interviewing James Falk.

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

"The New Federalism investigates whether returning a variety of regulatory and police powers back to the states will yield better government. It poses the provocative question, Can the states be trusted? and emerges with a qualified yes. This book should be an invaluable resource to federal and state policymakers alike." 

Source:Amazon- The New Federalism.

From Amazon

I think to understand what Richard Nixon’s vision for what they called the New Federalism, you have to understand the political climate of the 1960s, the 1970s, and even the 1950s, when Richard Nixon was Dwight Eisenhower’s Vice President. And then you also have to understand what the Republican Party was like back then as well. Otherwise the New Federalism, the concept of a public safety net coming from a Republican President, will look very alien and foreign to you. It might look like a hip-hopper at a Mississippi country music festival, or something so out of place like that.

During the 1960s, we had President John F. Kennedy’s vision for the New Frontier, where he wanted to use the Federal Government to help people in need, help themselves. Then we had President Lyndon’s B Johnson’s Great Society, where they believed so American  should have to go without and that it was the job of the Federal Government to make sure that everyone is taken care of.

When Richard Nixon becomes President in January, 1969, he didn’t come back to Washington to destroy the New Deal or Great Society. He didn’t have the power to do that with a Democratic Congress (House and Senate) with solid majorities in it. And he didn’t thinking eliminating those programs would be good politically or on policy grounds either. But he believed as a Republican that the country needed a choice and not have a Republican President that governs as a Progressive Democrat.

This might sound hard to believe with Watergate, the plumbers and all the constitutional civil liberty violations that the Nixon White House was guilty of in the early 1970s. But ideologically, Richard Nixon was a Progressive Republican. He had a lot more in common with Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, then he ever had in common with Robert Taft, or Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan. Nixon believed in progress and using government to help create that progress. But he wasn’t a Socialist either or even a Democratic Socialist.

The New Federalism is the Progressive Republican vision of the public safety net in America, where you would have public programs available for people who truly need them, but they would be designed to move people out of poverty, with educational and work requirements, as well as time limits on then. And they would be run by the state and local government’s. But by the Feds, unlike with the Great Society and New Deal. 

President Gerald R. Ford: State of The Union Address (January 12, 1977)

Source:James Miller Center- President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) 38th POTUS (1974-77)

Source:The New Democrat 

"President Ford gives his final State of the Union Address, bidding his farewell to Congress and describing the strength of the United States and what must be done to make further improvements.

From the James Miller Center 

"The initials synonymous with the Republican Party—“GOP”—stand for “grand old party.” As early as the 1870s, politicians and newspapers began to refer to the Republican Party as both the “grand old party” and the “gallant old party” to emphasize its role in preserving the Union during the Civil War. The Republican Party of Minnesota, for instance, adopted a platform in 1874 that it said “guarantees that the grand old party that saved the country is still true to the principles that gave it birth.” 

In spite of its nickname, though, the “grand old party” was only a mere teenager in the early 1870s since the Republican Party had been formed in 1854 by former Whig Party members to oppose the expansion of slavery into western territories." 

Source:History- and The Grand Ole Party.

From History 

I put that Grand Ole Party quote and link in this piece for an excellent reason: The Grand Ole Party is Gerald Ford's party. His job was to restore and preserve, or conserve (if you prefer) confidence in the American form of government and our constitution, after the Watergate debacle of 1972-73, that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. And he did a great job of doing just that.

There have been times in American history when if America didn't have a certain person as President, it wouldn't been clear if they could've survived as a country gotten through that crisis. I'm thinking of: 

Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War

Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression and World War II 

Lyndon Johnson during the civil rights movement

And yes, Gerald R. Ford during the post-Watergate period during the mid-1970s

Now, maybe the country would've survived during those periods with someone else as President, but we would've been a lot worst off. 

Of course as a Conservative Republican, Gerry Ford was partisan. He was House Minority for almost 9 years, Vice President and then President of the United States and Leader of the Republican Party. But he wasn't President as a partisan. He knew the situation that he inherited and knew what his job was, which was to restore order and confidence in the American system and form of government. 

There are plenty of people who think that Gerry Ford was a great man and a good President. I'm a Democrat, but I'm one of those people. But almost no one (Democrat or Republican) thinks that Gerry Ford was a bad man. And we're talking about someone who served in the U.S. Government for over 30 years, if you count his military service during World War II.  

This post was updated June 14, 2023.

Sports Channel New York: MLB 1987- 5-16- New York Yankees @ Seattle Mariners: Full Game

Source:Sports Channel New York- covering the Yankees & Mariners from 1987.

Source:The New Democrat

“It’s a SportsChannel feed with Spencer Ross and Ken Harrelson, May 16, 1987, between the New York Yankees and the Seattle Mariners.”

From This is Where You Find Baseball

An interesting matchup with the Yankees of the late 1980s, who were still contenders, but like the Yankees of the mid-1980s, they just contended and didn’t manage to win the AL East back then and until 1994.

Pre-1995, the only way you make the MLB Playoffs is to win your division. So finishing second or third, even if you just finish a few games out of first, was not good enough to make the AL Playoffs or NL Playoffs. So the greatest franchise in MLB missed the playoffs for the final eight seasons of the 1980s, because they couldn’t win their division. But that is a topic for a future post as far as why they couldn’t win their division.

The Mariners on the other hand, we’re just starting to become fairly competitive at this point. They didn’t have their first winning season until the early 1990s, but could no longer be counted on to finish dead last in the AL West. Because they were good enough to now beat good teams.

It wasn’t until the 1990s that the Mariners actually became very good and making the AL Playoffs and winning the AL West. Because they finally put teams together that were built for the Kingdom. Which was a great hitters stadium, where the ball flied and where dimensions were fairly short. And where they had more ground ball pitchers, with very little foul territory.

Inside Out TV: '47 Million Americans on Food Stamps'

Source:Inside Out TV- from the Inside Out piece on Food Stamps.

"There are currently 47 million Americans who turn to food stamps to help make ends meet. The program was just cut by $5 billion on November 1 and more cuts are expected. 

November 1st marked the end of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was passed in 2009 to temporarily expand the SNAP or food stamp program in the US following the economic recession." 

From Inside Out TV

If you want to know how bad the Great Recession was and still is to a certain extent: it's officially over, but we haven't fully recovered from it. Middle class people as of 2008 are now living in poverty, collecting things like long-term Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, perhaps seeking early retirement income from Social Security, Food Assistance, some of these people have gone back to work but are making maybe half of what they use to, or not even that. 

NBC Sports: NFL 79- Halftime Scores: Mike Adamle & Bryant Gumbel

Source:NBC Sports- left to right: NFL 79 anchors Mike Adamle & Bryant Gumbel.

Source:The New Democrat

"A young Bryant Gumbel and Mike Adamle run down week 11 scores from 1979." 

From Daddy Sinister

From 1967-77, the New Orleans Saints never even had a 500 season. Their best record during this period was 5-9, which they accomplished 3 times. But in 1978 under new head coach Dick Nolan, they were in the NFC playoff race up until the last few weeks of that season and finished just a couple games out of the NFC Wildcard at 7-9, after going 3-11 in 1977 under Hank Stram. 

So in 1979, going into that season and into that season, with the Los Angeles Rams dealing with all sorts of key injuries and never being at full strength until the end of that year, the Saints looked like they were about to not just become winners for the 1st time ever, but perhaps get an NFC Playoff birth, and perhaps even win the NFC West, with the Rams down, the 49ers still very bad and the Atlanta Falcons, who finally made it to the playoffs in 1978, but it looked like the Saints could at least be as good as the Falcons in 79. 

I only mention all of this because the Saints-49ers game was one of the scores that Bryant Gunbel and Mike Adamle mentioned. The Saints won that game to move to 6-5 and move into 1st place in the NFC West. 

Roger Sharp Archive: ABC News Late Wrapup of The Ruby-Oswald Shooting

Source:ABC News- anchor anchor Roger Sharp, anchoring ABC News's coverage of the JFK Assassination.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Following the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, ABC Correspondent Roger Sharp anchors late coverage recapping the events of the day.  Features Correspondent Bill Lord in the field. (November 24, 1963)"

From the Roger Sharp Archive 

ABC News was still not a major news operation yet. CBS News was the biggest TV news division at this point at least in America. Thanks to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. And NBC News with Meet The press and the Huntley Brinkley Report was its closest competitor at this point. But ABC News did the best job that they could even being buried in the ratings and with limited resources. And this like with CBS News and NBC News was the biggest story they ever had. I can honestly say I don’t believe Jack Ruby shooting and killing Lee Oswald was a bad thing and no I don’t consider it murder. Because of course Oswald hadn’t been convicted of assassinating President John F. Kennedy yet. But he is obviously the shooter of Jack Kennedy, the man who assassinated JFK. And he would’ve been convicted of that crime.

Gene Healy: 'John F. Kennedy Was No Conservative'

Source:The American Conservative- John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th POTUS.

Source:The New Democrat

"There are, by now, thousands of books on the Kennedy presidency’s thousand days, and 2013 has brought dozens more to coincide with 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. But in JFK, Conservative, Ira Stoll, former managing editor of the New York Sun and current editor of FutureofCapitalism.com, has managed something truly original—and truly odd. This may be the first book-length attempt at Kennedy hagiography from the Right.

Stoll lays it on pretty thick: in his telling, JFK was a great president, a good man, and—no kidding—a good Catholic. Moreover, Kennedy’s policies—his “tax cuts, his domestic spending restraint, his pro-growth economic policy, his emphasis on free trade and a strong dollar, and his foreign policy driven by the idea that America had a God-given mission to defend freedom”—show that he was, “by the standards of both his time and our own, a conservative.”

It’s a cramped, reductionist account of conservatism, one that collapses the entire political tradition into its neoconservative variant. But an even less charitable person than I could make the case that it’s a fair approximation of “actually existing conservatism,” and Stoll’s thesis has already received a fair bit of praise from commentators on the Right.

God help us. If our 35th president—fiscally profligate, contemptuous of civil liberties, and criminally reckless abroad—is a paragon of modern conservatism, conservatism is in even worse shape than I thought. Let’s review the Kennedy record... 

You can read the rest of Gene Healy's article at The American Conservative

"Author Ira Stoll joins Glenn to make the case that President  John F. Kennedy was actually conservative." 

Source:BlazeTV- Ira Stoll talking to Glen Beck about his book.

From BlazeTV 

I agree with Gene Healy that John F. Kennedy was no Conservative either. As I wrote the other day at The FreeState why JFK was not a Conservative. At least in the Neoconservative or the religious-conservative sense. 

Again, just look at JFK's own personal life, as well as the belief in civil and equal rights for all Americans, as well as personal freedom. 

JFK was a cold warrior Liberal Democrat, the real Liberals Democrats of the time, who advocated for liberal democracy home and abroad. The so-called Neoconservatives, but when they were Democrats. That's JFK politics. You want to look at the Wendell Willkie's and Henry Jackson's, the Gerald Ford's, even, of the world, to get yourself a good idea about Jack Kennedy's own personal politics. 

You are not going to learn anything factual about JFK's politics, from some  hyper-partisan Republican, who believes that conservatism is about big defense spending home and abroad,  deep tax cuts that can't be paid for, and the only fiscal restraint having to do with social welfare spending, but probably nothing else, and that government should advocate and perhaps even enforce what they cal American traditionalism. Which is what you get from the Ira Stoll's of the world.

Senator Mike Lee: 'Bring Them In'

Source:Heritage Foundation- U.S. Senator Mike Lee (Republican, Utah) in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat

"It’s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.  Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on.

It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it’s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us.

And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line.

Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility.

A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program – which provides health insurance to the poor – produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade.

We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up.

We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech - America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it... 

You can read the rest of Senator Mike Lee's statement. 

"In a speech at The Heritage Foundation, Senator Mike Lee identifies the next steps for Republicans to develop a conservative reform agenda. He also introduces four legislative proposals that are part of the conservative reform agenda that he identifies." 

Source:U.S. Senator Mike Lee- speaking to the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

From Senator Mike Lee 

If you look at President Lyndon Johnson's so-called War On Poverty, that his administration launched in 1965 and say that goal of President Johnson's antipoverty agenda was to wipe out poverty by the year, I don't know, 2013 (just to throw out a year) then of course I agree with Senator Lee here and say that the WOP has been mostly a failure. Poverty was roughly in America 20% in 1965, perhaps higher than that, 1/2 African-Americans in the 1960s, lived in poverty. 

But, if you look at the so-called War On Poverty and say that the goal of the WOP was to fight poverty and make it easier for people in poverty to survive, then there has been some successes: 

hunger is down 

more low-income Americans have access to health care 

affordable housing 

thanks to Welfare To Work from 1996, more low-skilled Americans are part of the American workforce 

and perhaps other examples as well. 

I think the real question here should be where do we go from here and how we move more Americans out of poverty. Not should we expand or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society, but instead how we move more Americans to get themselves out of poverty. And that gets to things like more education, more work, while allowing low-skilled Americans to keep their public assistance, while they're educating themselves and becoming part of the American workforce.

Newsmax: The Steve Salzburg Show- Ira Stoll: Author of JFK Conservative

Source:Newsmax- Ira Stoll, author of JFK Conservative. 

Source: The New Democrat

"And former vice president and managing editor of the New York Sun Author of the new  provocative book "JFK: Conservative." 

From Newsmax

I wrote a couple of posts last week why Jack Kennedy would not only be a Democrat but a loyal Democrat, a good Democrat and even a Liberal Democrat and he’s a big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat. 

For people, especially on the partisan Right, who want to make any person in the Democratic Party, or anyone on the Left that they may claim to respect as less than democratic or liberal, they do not either understand the Democratic Party in America. Or have chosen to ignore those things to make their partisan political points.

To listen to these partisan right-wingers, you get the idea that all Democrats are on the Far-Left and we are all Socialists or Social Democrats. Or today’s Far-Left is the mainstream Democratic Party in America. 

I agree that the Far-Left in America wouldn’t have much to like about Jack Kennedy, because he was someone who believed there was a limit to how much you could tax, people including the wealthy and a limit to how much government can do for people and still have a strong economy and you needed a strong national defense whether you are dealing with the Soviet Union in his time, or private Islāmic terrorists today.

To put Jack Kennedy in modern, mainstream media political standards, you would have to say that JFK would be a Classical Liberal today. Someone who doesn't fit in with the Christian-Right, or the Tea Party, or the Neoconservatives. But he wouldn't be with the Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren's today either. People who the so--called mainstream media like to call Progressives or Liberals. 

Jack Kennedy was a big believer in economic freedom and opportunity, which put him to the left of what I at least would call the Far-Left in America. But he would've been to the Right of the Tea Party Populists, the Christian-Right, and even Libertarian-Right, on civil rights and a lot of other cultural issues. Just look at his own personal life, we're talking about a man who loved personal freedom to the point that he couldn't control his own personal life, especially his sexual life.

You can see the follow piece to this post at The FreeState.

CBS Sports: NBA 1983- Western Conference Semifinals Game 3- Los Angeles Lakers @ Portland Blazers: Full Game

Source:NBA Classic Games- Portland Blazers center Wayne Cooper.

Source:The New Democrat

"1983 NBA Playoffs Los Angeles Lakers vs Portland Trail Blazers Game 3" 

From NBA Classic Games

The Blazers were a very consistent playoff team in the 1980s. I believe making the Western Conference Playoffs every season in the 1980s. They just didn’t have much if any history of advancing in the playoffs in that decade consistently having to play the Lakers or Mavericks or Rockets, teams that were pretty good in that decade. 

The Lakers not only the Western Conference team of the 1980s but the NBA team of that decade. The 1980s I believe should’ve been a decade where the Blazers took a step up and became a consistent Western Conference and NBA Finals contender. If you look at who their head coach was in Jack Ramsey and then you look at their teams with Calvin Natt, later Kiki Vandeweigh, Clyde Drexler the best Blazer of all-time. Mychal Thompson and Steve Johnson were solid big men for them. And then of course Terry Porter as well as their point guard.

NBC Sports: NFL 1978- AFC Divisional- Houston Oilers @ Miami Dolphins: Highlights

Source:Classic Sports- Houston Oilers Head Coach/General Manager Bum Phillips.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Bum vs Shula. If you want to see the first game it's highlights are below. Reposted from classicsportsvids."

From Classic Sports 

An interesting playoff matchup here for several reason: the Houston Oilers made their first playoff appearance from the 1970s in 1978. They were pretty bad in the early 1970s, started winning under head coach Bum Phillips in the mid 1970s, but 1978 they were good enough to make the AFC Playoffs after the NFL expanded to 5 playoff teams for each conference, with two wildcards, instead of one, starting in 1978. 

The Miami Dolphins after being the best franchise in the entire NFL in the early 1970s, started losing a lot of their key players by 1974 and slipped into mediocrity under Don Shula and missed the playoffs 3 straight seasons from 1975-77. So both the Dolphins and Oilers had something to prove in this playoff game. The Oilers wanted to show the NFL that they were not just winners, but could win the AFC and the Super Bowl. The Dolphins wanted to show the NFL that they were back as one of the premier franchises, at least in the AFC. 

NBC Sports: NFL 1978- AFC Wildcard - Houston Oilers @ Miami Dolphins: Highlights

Source:NBC Sports- Houston Oilers head coach Bum Phillips.

"Bum vs Shula. If you want to see the first game it's highlights are below. Reposted from classicsportsvids" 

From Classic Sports

The Houston Oilers were playing an AFC Wildcard game on the road in 1978, because they finished second only to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC Central that year. But not because the Miami Dolphins were a better team. Because if anything the Oilers were better. B

Back then and until 1990, you had to win your division in order to host an NFL playoff game. As it should be, at least as far as I’m concern. So because the Oilers were in the same division as the Steelers in 78 and finished behind the Steelers that season, the Dolphins won the AFC East, so the Dolphins hosted this wildcard against the Oilers. 

The Oilers were the second best team in the AFC in 78. They just didn’t win their division, because again they were in the same division with the Steelers, the best team in the AFC in 78 and Super Bowl champion.

Townhall: Derek Hunter: 'The Problem With Libertarians'

Source:Townhall- I'm willing to bet my last dollar that Terry Mcaullife is not a Libertarian.

Source:The New Democrat 

"There was a time I called myself a Libertarian. And there was a time I was a Libertarian. I just wanted to get government to leave me alone, to leave people alone and to go all crazy and limit itself to doing only that which is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. That was what a Libertarian was. But it’s not anymore. 

The word no longer has any meaning, no definition or parameters, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of. And there’s no one to blame for that except Libertarians themselves.

So what happened?

By not even loosely defining the parameters of a set of beliefs, Libertarians allowed their brand – as it was – to be hijacked by anyone willing to wear the label. They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

That pretty much sums it up.

Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

The great Reason magazine is a wonderful publication filled with great articles, solid journalism you won’t find elsewhere…and a voice that does little more than complain.

Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government, stories ignored by other media outlets. But you won’t find much in the way of philosophy or solutions. (There’s some, it just doesn’t seem to be a focus.) They preach to the choir, and it ends there.

I love the Cato Institute and have a lot of good friends who work there, and they do offer some good solutions. They just refuse to do anything about them. Cato has a deserved reputation for refusing to play nice with anyone else. When was the last legislative “victory” spearheaded or introduced by Cato? 

From Townhall 

"Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is an expert on discrimination, labor policy, regulation, and South Africa as well as a well-known columnist and the author of South Africa's War Against Capitalism (1989), The State Against Blacks (1982), and More Liberty Means Less Government (1999).

In this lecture given at a Libertarian Party of Georgia event on March 23, 1991, Williams talks about libertarianism generally and relates his own moral arguments against state coercion. Williams also briefly suggests a few things he thinks libertarians should be doing if they want the libertarian movement to grow." 

Source:Libertarianism.Org- Professor Walter E. Williams in 1991.

From Libertarianism.Org 

So let's see if I have this straight: Derek Hunter once viewed himself as a Libertarian, till he figured out that Libertarians believe in legalizing pot, prostitution, and don't want America interfering into other countries wars. So what the hell did he think Libertarians believed in? 

I agree that there doesn't seem to be any real definition of Libertarian now and that's the fault of people who call themselves Libertarians, even though in the real world, there really just right-wing Anarchists, the so-called Anarcho-Libertarians. 

So I'll give you my definition of Libertarian: 

"Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.[1][2][3][4] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association." Actually I lied, that's Wikipedia's definition, but that's the best one available right now.

NBC Sports: 1987 MLB All Star Game

Source:NBC Sports- Kansas City Royals starting pitcher Bret Saberhagen. When he was on and healthy, one of the top pitchers in all of MLB in the 1980s.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1987 MLB ASG Film" 

From Ian Ward 

What I remember about the 1987 MLB All Star Game as a 14 year old, was the Oakland Coliseum and a few other things. But when they only played baseball there, after the Raiders moved to Los Angeles in 1983, I think the Oakland Coliseum, even with the miles of foul territory, where relief pitchers would get a workout just walking from the bullpen, to the pitchers mound, or just back and forth from the mound to the dugout, or where someone of them would try to hail cabs, so they wouldn't have to walk as far from the bullpen and dugout to the mound, (ha, ha) I think this was a beautiful place for baseball. 

This ballpark looked good, there was alway plenty of sun, the grass beyond the outfield walls, 48,000 for baseball, so there should've been a lot of great seats for baseball (at least without the miles of foul territory) and the Athletics started winning again shortly after the Raiders left. 

Officially, the Oakland Coliseum was a multi-purpose stadium, but it was always a baseball first stadium. And with no football there, they could put in lower-deck box seats in the foul territory and it would be a great place just for baseball. 

ESPN: This Week In Baseball (7-18-1978)

Source:ESPN- New York Yankees announcer Phil Rizzuto.

Source:The Daily Post 

“1978-07-18 This Week in Baseball”

From Classic MLB

I think this is a photo from a Boston Red Sox game at Fenway Park in 1978. But I don't know for sure. The video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:MLB Productions- I think this at Fenway Park.

There were a lot of interesting stories about the 1978 MLB season. The World Series was a great one with the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Yankees. The two league championship series were good as well. With the Dodgers having to beat the Philadelphia Phillies and the Yankees having to beat the Kansas City Royals just to get to the MLB World Series. 

In 1978, here were new divisional contenders, like the San Francisco Giants in the NL West, the Milwaukee Brewers in the AL East, the Anaheim Angels in the AL West. There was Pete Rose’s 44 game hitting streak, the longest streak of games with at least one hit since Joe DiMaggio in 1941. And of course the never-ending Yankees soap opera involving George Steinbrenner and whoever he saw as a rival to his absolute power in New York. In the late 1970s and 1980s that of course was manager Billy Martin. 

There was a lot going on in 1978 making TWIB a very interesting show. Especially with Mell Allen as the host.

Sean Hannity: 'Maybe it’s Time For a New Conservative Party’

Source:Freedoms Lighthouse- right-wing radio talk show host Sean Hannity.

Source:The FreeState

"Sean Hannity reacting to the GOP Establishment's apparent decision to capitulate to Obama and the Democrats on both the Government Shutdown and the Debt Limit increase." 

From Freedoms Lighthouse

"Time for a new political party", when was the last time someone said that? Perhaps 5 minutes ago and I just haven't had time to catch it. 

Perhaps the main difference other than not being in leadership and having a real seat at the negotiating table, but one of the main differences between being in the establishment, (an adult in the room) whether you are talking about a political party or any other major organization, that's made up of different philosophical factions in it, like a large political party and being a radical whose looking in (because you are not even allowed in the room) is that leadership has to govern and get things done. 

Because leadership has to govern, they get to make deals and work things out with people that they wouldn't normally choose to have to work with. Like Republican leaders negotiating with Democratic leaders, the latest debt ceiling and government shutdown being the latest example of that. 

Whereas the radical (right or left) at the end of the day doesn't has to govern. They don't even have to vote. They can make all the crazy statements that they want and raise as much money and get as much free airtime as they want (especially if they're not trying to become a party leader) and it doesn't make a bit of difference. Their party leadership already thinks that they're crazy, irresponsible, and perhaps drunk and high as well. And their base just loves them even more, perhaps because they seem crazy, irresponsible, drunk, and high, but only all the time.

What the Sean Hannity's of the world apparently still don't understand, is that the Republican Party has less political power today, than they did even a year ago. Fewer seats in the House, perhaps more competitive seats on their side, especially because of the Tea Party government shutdown. 

The Democratic Party has a reelected President in Barack Obama, who doesn't have to worry about his next election, because he just had his last one. And a Democratic Senate with 55 seats, with all 55 members and perhaps even a few Republicans even before the shutdown ended, who wants the shutdown over because they think shutting down the government and risking a government default, over ObamaCare, is mind bogglingly stupid. Something that could get them nominated to the National Morons Convention. (If there is such a thing) 

But again, Sean Hannity is a radical who doesn't have any seat in government at all, let alone at the negotiating table and is free to say whatever the hell he wants too, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

MLB: MLB 1979- This Week in Baseball

Source:MLB- The Mystery Man from one of the commercials.

Source:The Daily Post

“1979 08 07 This Week in Baseball” 

From MLB 

Montreal Expos catcher Gary Carter being interviewed for one the segments from This Week in Baseball, during this August, 1979 episode of that series. A real exciting interview with too much information. He gave away the whole store when he said that if the Expos continue to play well and stay healthy, they could win the NL East. I almost threw up my lunch when I heard that. LOL

Source:MLB- Montreal Expos catcher Gary Carter.

1979, is still one of the best seasons in Major League Baseball and another example of why MLB should’ve went with the wildcard playoff format much earlier than they did, which was 1995. You had three teams that won 90 or more games in the AL East alone. 

The Orioles, Red Sox and Milwaukee Brewers. The Yankees, won 89 games, but had a better record than the Anaheim Angels, that won the AL West. But because of no wildcard and that only division winners qualified for the playoffs, the Yankees didn’t qualify. The Orioles, were the only team in the AL East that made the playoffs in 79. Even though four AL East teams won 89 or more games.

In the AL West, the Angels won the division with 88 win. Their first division championship ever. And two clubs in the Kansas City Royals and Texas Rangers that battled them for that division. 

The NL East, you have a very good divisional race as well. With Pirates winning that division, who won several division championships in the 1970s and won two MLB World Series as well. The Montreal Expos, who up until the late 70s, were consistent losers, made a strong run at the NL East, but finished three games back of the Pirates. The Expos, were actually very good in the late 1970s and early 80s and even the early and mid 1990s. But only made the NL Playoffs once in this whole period, because they only won one division championship.

The NL West, only two teams with winning records, but two good teams in the Reds and Houston Astros. The Reds winning that division with 91 wins, with the Astros finishing a couple of games back. In 1979, you had three great division races. 

The AL West, NL East and NL West and even though the Orioles won the AL East by seven games, they also won 102 games that year. And we’re in a division with two other clubs that were good enough to be very good playoff teams, that won 90 or more games as well. And the Yankees, again if they were in the AL West, would’ve won that division. 

MLB, was behind the times back then and should’ve expanded their playoff format much sooner than they did.

The American Conservative: Daniel McCarthy: 'Why The Shutdown is a Disaster For Small-Government Principles'

Source:U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas)

Source:The FreeState

"The measure of a party’s commitment to limiting government is what it does in power. In opposition a party can do a few things, but obviously not as much as when it wields both executive and legislative authority.

By that criterion, what is one to make of the Republican Party?

With one house of one branch of government under its control, the GOP is fighting desperately to stop an expansion of social insurance—Obamacare—and might like to cut non-defense spending as well. Because holding the House of Representatives is not enough to repeal legislation, the GOP has to resort to more drastic steps—refusing to pass a continuing resolution to fund government if Obamacare is part of the CR. And now the party is signaling a refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless it gets something in return. Without a debt-ceiling hike, the federal government begins to default in about a week.

But no problem: shouldn’t a small-government party be happy to close the government for a while, showing everyone just which employees are “essential”? And isn’t the national debt something a small-government party wants to see capped and paid down, not constantly raised?

This would all make sense—Republicans are a small-government party, standing for principle—if not for what Republicans actually do when they are the party in power.

Obamacare is a bad law that addresses a real problem: everyone needs healthcare, insurance is a way of meeting unknown future needs, yet not everyone had insurance. By contrast, Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug add-on to Medicare passed by a Republican House and signed into law by a Republican president in 2003, was gratuitous: a new benefit for the wealthiest age cohort. But the small-government party supported it. And as is well known, Medicare Part D is but an outward and visible sign of the GOP’s overall spending tendencies the last time the party held power.

The story that voters are told today, both by Republicans themselves and by a mainstream media that views Republicans in general as extremely anti-government, is that the party has changed over the last five years. Whatever a Republican House may have done in 2003 just isn’t relevant to what a different Republican House wants in 2013.

There are two problems with that storyline. First, the 2003 Republican House was a continuation of the 1990s Republican House, which also shut down the government in a spending battle with a Democratic president. Something must have happened between 1995 and 2003 that led the Republican House to change its philosophy. In fact, several things happened, but the most important was the election of a Republican president in 2000. A Republican House would not have been eager to pass something like Medicare Part D under a Democratic president.

So if the small-government 1995 Republicans became the big-spending 2003 Republicans, what reason is there to believe that small-government 2013 Republicans won’t become big-spending 2017 or 2021 Republicans?

The second problem with the story that says Republicans have changed is that for all the new blood that has come into the congressional GOP, the party’s leaders—elected by its members, of course—are much the same people responsible for the 2003 Republican Party. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan—the GOP’s present House and Senate leaders and its 2012 vice presidential nominee—all voted for Medicare Part D. The party’s 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, instituted his own Obamacare-like system as governor of Massachusetts. This is a surprising leadership cadre for a party that’s supposed to be radically different in 2013 from what it was in 2003.

Instead of “Republicans have really changed,” a more plausible story is, “Republicans are pretty much the same,” both in key personnel and in principle. The principle the party has lived by in 1995, in 2003, and in 2013 is that Republican presidents and their policies are good, Democratic presidents and their policies are bad. The size of government or the national debt is a secondary concern, if that. The real test is what a party does when it holds power, not how desperately it struggles when the other party has power.

How does Ted Cruz fit into this? Although he worked for the George W. Bush Justice Department, he’s only been in the Senate while Obama has been in office, so whether his behavior would be the same under a Republican president is an open question. There were anti-spending Republicans who in 2003 voted against Bush’s entitlement expansion—Ron Paul and Jim DeMint among them—and there are others today, such as Justin Amash, who have shown an independent streak that suggests they would behave under a president from their own party as they do under one from the other party.

But the consistent faction in the 2003 GOP was not setting the party’s direction then, and today’s insurgents have yet to gain a foothold in leadership that suggests they will set the agenda in the future—however useful they may be to the party’s confrontational strategy whenever a Democrat is in office.

The GOP won’t be a serious small-government party until it attains power and has actually wielded that power to implement significant reforms and reductions. Everything that’s happening now is just theater—whatever the outcome of the present standoff, even if the House Republicans get everything they want, it could all be undone by another big-government Republican president and compliant Congress. The opposite is also true: if small-government Republicans get nothing out of this battle—if a clean CR and debt-ceiling hike pass—they would still have an opportunity to get what they want the next time they win national power, assuming they’re serious about what they want—more serious the GOP proved to be under Bush.

The question now becomes whether the shutdown and prospect of a default is increasing or decreasing the chances of Republicans gaining power nationally. About that, there’s not much doubt: these antics are hurting Republicans nationally more than Democrats. This doesn’t matter so much for retaining control of the House—Democrats won more votes for the House last year but Republicans maintained control because of the way districts are configured—but it does matter in terms of winning the White House. (What the shutdown and default mean for control of the Senate can be argued either way.)

If small-government Republicans, however many of them there are, are undercutting the chances of getting a president who could actually achieve their major goals by today fighting unpopular battles over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling, are they really serious small-government politicians after all? At the very least, they would be short-sighted and ineffective small-government politicians; at worst, they would be mere actors, mouthing the lines and even performing small-government actions, but actions of no long-term substance.

Reducing and restructuring government is going to take time and careful planning, but what we see from the Republicans—abetted by certain activist groups and entertainers who feed off over-emotional listeners, viewers, and donors—is a party whose leadership and record in power is big government and whose committed small-government faction is crippling rather than augmenting its appeal to the country as a whole. This is a recipe for defeat of the small-government faction in future presidential nominating contests—where the Republican Party has shown a longstanding preference for candidates who seem like they can win over centrist voters—and that means even if a Republican can win the White House again in the near future, he’s more likely to be a Republican in the Bush mold.

The challenge for small-government Republicans today—the principled, consistent, and serious ones—is to win over the center of the country and a national electorate. Does the shutdown, let alone a threat of default, really help with that?" 

From The American Conservative

"Peter King Slams GOP 'Terror Politics' on Government Shutdown" 

Source:DNC Press- U.S. Representative Peter King (Republican, New York)

From DNC Press

I saw and interview on CNN’s The Situation Room today. And Wolf Blitzer who was interviewing Republican Representative Peter King, a Conservative Republican by any standard outside of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, who basically said this that he’s voted against the Affordable Care Act (what Republicans like to call ObamaCare) every chance he’s gotten. 

But for Republicans to get what they want, they need more power. That they do not have the power to get what they want, which is to eliminate the ACA and downsize the Federal Government to the vision that Barry Goldwater had for it when he wrote his famous book. And ran for President and when the modern conservative movement lets say was being built in the 1960s.

The American people, in poll after poll have spoken about ObamaCare and said they still do not like the law. But aren’t willing to shut the government down just to see if they can repeal, or defund it. Which is what House Republicans are trying to do right now which is to see how can they push the American economy to the cliff, before Democrats retreat. And give them exactly what they want for the good of the country. 

The country has spoken about ObamaCare and they didn’t like it when it was passed. So the threw out sixty-two House Democrats where most of them probably voted for the ACA. And gave House Republicans a sizable majority for 2011-12. But the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken about the ACA as well and ruled it constitutional.

We had a general election in 2012, both the president and Congress and the American people spoke again. And reelected President Obama overwhelmingly the man who signed the Affordable Care Act into law and campaigned on it. When he ran for president in 2007-08 and ran on it again when he ran for reelection in 2011-12. 

Then you look at the Congressional elections, Senate Democrats not only still control the Senate, but added two seats to their majority. Again they all voted for the ACA and the members who were elected in 2012 support the ACA as well. A bill that is still unpopular in most polls in the country but gaining support. Republicans still hold the House, but lost eight seats and now are in danger of losing their majority all together in 2012. Thanks to the government shutdown over ObamaCare.

House Republicans, especially the leadership say well they were reelected to. The problem with that argument is that they weren’t reelected to do everything that they want to do. Their voters in their little House districts may have reelected them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare. But the rest of the country didn’t give them the power to do that. 

So it is very simple for Republicans going forward. We have a divided government, but Republicans have the smaller share of this divide. Which means they simply do not have the power to get everything they want. And for them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare, they simply need to take back the Senate and White House while holding the House. And they won’t get that opportunity until the 2016 general elections. Short of that, they need to work with Democrats on things they can work on, or risk losing whatever power they still have.