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.