Politico Magazine: Larry Sabato: How Goldwater Changed Campaign Forever

Source:Politico Magazine.

Source:The New Democrat

Not many if any Republicans including Senator Barry Goldwater expected Goldwater to win the 1964 presidential election by defeating President Lyndon Johnson and for Congressional Republicans to do anything in Congress. They were expecting big defeats as it related to both the presidential election and Congress. But that wasn't what the 1964 general elections were about for Goldwater Republicans Goldwater Conservatives.

1964 to follow up about what I wrote yesterday, was to create a choice and give Americans a choice in who to vote for. Present a Republican Party that was completely different from the GOP from the 1950s and completely different from the FDR/LBJ progressive Democratic Party. A party that was a lot less government especially federal government oriented. A party that was lot more federalist and more individualistically oriented. That wanted to turn power over to the states and people over their own affairs.

They wanted to create a new party that Conservatives and other right-wingers would feel welcome in. And take power away from the Northeastern Progressives that had been running the GOP and perhaps even make Progressives feel unwanted in the GOP. 1964 wasn't about winning for Barry Goldwater and other Republicans, but building a winning coalition that could put Republicans back in power in the future. That they simply didn't have going into the 1964 general elections.

1966 was about Republicans winning right-wing seats in Congress in House districts and Senate seats. So they could become a factor in Congress again and no longer be buried in the minority in Congress. 1968 is when Richard Nixon figured out how Republicans can win back the White House and win more seats in Congress. And 1968 is where we really see the political flip in American politics. Where Southern states look Republican and Northern states look Democratic. But it all started in 1964 and Barry Goldwater deserves a lot of credit for it. 
Source:Cool Old Videos

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly: 'A Choice Not An Echo Revisited '

Source:The New Democrat

If you want to know why Tea Party Republicans, the non-Conservative Libertarians in that movement, have a tendency to sound like Ron Paul Libertarians on economic and fiscal policy and even to a certain extent of foreign policy as well, but sound like Rick Santorum and other leaders on the Religious-Right on social issues, Phyllis Schlafly and her book A Choice Not An Echo is a big part of that. This movement that became huge in the GOP by the late 1970s combined economic conservatism with religious conservatism as it came to social issues.

I think to understand Phyllis Schlafly and her let's say Traditional Values Coalition, you have to first understand the Republican Party of the 1950s up until lets say 1963 or so. Back then there were such things as Progressive Republicans. The Nelson Rockefeller's and Dwight Eisenhower's of the GOP. Not progressive in today's sense of always trying to expand the size of government and creating new government services for people. But that "government if limited can play a constructive role in society, even in the economy, just as long as individual freedom wasn't subtracted as a result".

The Democratic Party and the FDR New Deal Progressives ran the U.S. Government all by themselves with a little opposition from Southern right-wing Democrats from 1933 to 1947 when Republicans finally won back both chambers of Congress. Which they lost again in 1948 as Harry Truman was elected President. Dwight Eisenhower and his more progressive wing and again progressive in the classical sense, figured out how to counter Progressive Democrats and for Republicans to govern again.

The Eisenhower Progressives message was not to be another social democratic party just like the Democrats at the time. Or be the anti-government, isolationist more conservative libertarian GOP of the 1940s. But find a governing middle and say yes, "we believe that America should have a safety net for people who truly need it. But we don't want a government so big that that individual freedom and initiative is subtracted. And that people who can physically and mentally work, should work and that government can help people, but shouldn't try to take care of them".

That was the point of the Phyllis Schlafly book A Choice Not An Echo. They saw the Eisenhower/Rockefeller wing of the GOP as Democratic or Progressive light and that might be putting it nicely. That the Republican Party needed to move in a direction that was completely the opposite of where the Democratic Leadership was back in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s. And give Americans a real choice as they saw it in who to vote for. I believe the Phyllis Schlafly movement that eventually produced the Religious-Right and today's Neoconservatives was the Tea Party of the 20th Century.

Phyllis Schlafly created a movement that went against the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Eisenhower/Rockerfeller Progressive Republicanism of the 1950s, the Great Society of the 1960s, the women's movement, gay libertarian, counter culture, culture revolution, the civil rights movement even. And wanted to take America back to where it was pre-Great Depression even. And take America back to what they would call Traditional America and live under their traditional values. 

Tony Baretta: The Driver (1978)

Source:The New Democrat

The Driver is a great action/drama thriller with Ryan O'Neal, Bruce Dern and many others. About a hotshot getaway driver played by Ryan O'Neal who drives for bank robbers and other robbers and gets them out of the clear and gets paid for that. Apparently The Driver has race car experience, but that is never made real clear in the movie. The Driver has never been caught and this big shot police detective or sergeant and his crew gets assigned to track The Driver down and catch him.

One thing I love about this movie is the realness in it as it relates to life in general. There are no Saints or Devils in it. The Driver the supposed bad guy, is not evil, but certainly not the good guy in the movie. He drives for robbers, but doesn't enjoy hurting people or hurting innocent people. He just takes care of himself and does his job to survive. Not because he wants to hurt people. The lead cop in the movie played by Bruce Dern, is suppose to be the good guy. But lets his ego into his job and uses controversial and extra-legal tactics to try to catch The Driver.

Like a set up a operation involving known robbers to get The Driver to drive for them on the job. To rob a bank that the police know is going down ahead of time and then when the job is done, the police will move in and catch everyone. But release the robbers that were in on the operation because they helped the police out. One major flaw in that plan. The head bad guy in that operation decides to screw the detective and instead of taking the money to the place that he and the detective agreed on, they took the money to a different location so they can get away.

If you like fast paced, high action and dramatic movies that never slow down and are always moving, that are also realistic, The Driver is a great movie. Probably the only Ryan O'Neal movie that I like and one of several Bruce Dern movies that I do like. Because it is not really bad guys versus the good guys, but guys on both sides that have jobs to do and go about those jobs the best that they can. With no one really winning at the end, which you see the movie for yourself to find that out. 

Scott Rathburn: NHL Network- NHL 1981: 1981 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Source:Scott Rathburn- Minnesota North Stars fans.

Source:The New Democrat 

I wish NHL Network, ESPN Classic and perhaps ESPN in general did more NHL history and showed more not just NHL classic games and not just in the offseason, but in the regular season, than they do now. Because even though I'm clearly not a hockey expert and it is at best my third or fourth sport that I follow and I'm not nearly the sports fan that I was as a kid, hockey is still pretty interesting to me and I would like to learn more about the history of the NHL. And seeing films and documentaries and old games allows for fans to do that.

Again no NHL or hockey expert here, but I do know that 1981 was the second of four straight Stanley Cups for the Long Island, soon to be Brooklyn Islanders as I call them. The Islanders of the early 1980s were very similar to the Edmonton Oilers of the mid and late 1980s. They had a lot of firepower led by Mike Bossy and many others. Great goaltending with Billy Smith and a very good defense in front of Smith with a great head coach in Al Arbor.

The NHL of the early 1980s was in a transitional period. With the Montreal Canadians having dominated the NHL in the 1970s, winning like four Stanley Cups. The power in the NHL was headed South to America with the Islanders and even West in Canada with the Oilers and Calgary Flames. Which was good for NHL fans because you didn't know who was going to win the cup every year. Because you had at least three very strong Canadian teams and several strong American teams every year. 
Source:Scott Rathburn

Goodfellas (1990) Joe Pesci & Ray Liotta: You Think I'm Funny?

Source:The New Democrat

Yes Joe, we think you are funny and you’ve been one of the funniest people in Hollywood for a very long time because you are a natural comedian who doesn’t need funny lines to be funny. Because of what you bring to them and how you deliver them. My favorite types of movies are movies that aren’t supposed to be full-time comedies that do not set out to be hysterical, but just are because of the people in them and the characters they play. Breaking Bad on AMC is a perfect example of that and so is Goodfellas.

Joe Pesci’s character in this movie is a serious bad ass. Whose murdered probably hundreds of people, sort of like Sammy Gravanao from the Gambino Crime Family in New York. But he’s a very funny man who knows how to have a good time and a great story-teller. As you see in this scene, but Goodfellas is not supposed to be a comedy. But a real life story about people who are really bad, but who are also very funny characters.

Joe Pesci’s character Tommy in this movie is a big shot Italian mobster in New York City. Not a capo meaning captain in Italian, but a made guy with his own crew and people under him. Whose very successful with his cover business’s. Business’s that are legitimate technically, but are really there to cover illegal activity like a restaurant. Or a store and he’s a very good story-teller and Henry played by Ray Liotta in this movie mentions that to him. And Tommy jokingly takes that as Henry is insulting him and scares the hell out of Henry.

Ken Pruitt: Wall Street (1987) Gordon Gecko: Greed is Good

Source:The New Democrat

Best part of the first Wall Street movie at least and one of my favorite movies of all-time. And whatever you think of the Gordon Gecko character, or even what you think of Michael Douglas who played him, Douglas did a great job. And what made this speech so great was how accurate and real it was. Here are these people trying to make Gordon Gecko look like this greedy bastard when if anything they are just like Gecko. 

Except that Gecko is better and knows what companies are worth buying and how much he should spend on them and how to reform them. So he can make a profit off of them and of course there was some insider-trading involved here. But the facts and points of the Gecko speech are still the same that greed is good and he explains why. That without greed people wouldn’t want things for themselves. 

Without greed people wouldn’t work as hard so they could have things for themselves. So they could be as successful as possible and enjoy the fruits of their labor. And enjoy being successful, that we are all greedy, it’s just that some people are better at it than others. And people are all greedy at least to a certain extent, that it's just a matter of degree. It's not that we aren't greedy, but what level of greed is tolerable in a free society that is really the question.

Oliver Stone: Wall Street (1987) Starring Michael Douglas & Charlie Sheen

Source:The Daily Post

Wall Street from 1987 is a very good movie about what its like to work on Wall Street and what life is like around it. Perhaps not the most accurate movie, but definitely based on reality about a man who has a lot of power on Wall Street in Gordon Gecko played by Michael Douglas. Who basically makes his living buying companies and selling them for profits as well as investing in other companies. His company if you want to call it that, doesn't make or produce anything. He buys and sells stocks as well as companies and sometimes buys companies that are losing a lot of money. Turns them around so they are profitable, even if that means laying off a lot of people and then sells those companies.

That character in this movie is named Gordon Gecko of course played of course by Michael Douglas with the famous line "greed is good" which I'll get to later, which also has to do with today's debate about Wall Street and another main character called Bud Fox played by of course Charlie Sheen, probably his best movie even though its not his funniest, whose a young upincomer on Wall Street, looking for the fast track whose basically a good guy from a good family but discovers Gordon Gecko and decides Gecko is his trip to the top. A

Bud Fox wants to work with Gordon Gecko or for him. But Gecko only wants to work with the young Fox, if Fox has insider knowledge so they can do some insider trading. Which of course is illegal, but Fox is the son of a union leader and someone who works for an independent airline played of course by Martin Sheen. Who's Charlie's real life father and the airline is about to get sold and that's where the inside knowledge comes in. And Bud Fox has what Gordon Gecko needs to buy the independent airline. 

Bud Fox's connection with Gordon Gecko is about how his knowledge of his father's business and how they can use that to buy that airline. And Fox's ability to scout Gecko's competition and get inside knowledge on them sort of like a spy. And they use that to always stay a step ahead and make sure they are always able to bid more than the competition. Because they know what the competition is able to bid and how much capital they have and what their strengths and weakness's are.

My favorite line in the movie is where Gordon Gecko gives that speech at the stockholders meeting at some company. The famous Greed is Good speech. And the funny thing is even though I'm a Democrat and greed can definitely be bad if miss used like the greed we saw in 2008 that led to the Great Recession. And to a certain extent is still going on is obviously bad and I'm not disputing that. Where corporate executives were allowed to make their companies too big, ran them into the ground and then got bailed out by taxpayers and then walked away with huge bonus's. 

But as Gordon Gecko said "greed is good, because greed allows for people to be as productive as possible to make as much money as possible. And grows companies as much as possible to make create as many good jobs as possible". The main reason why Wall Street is so relevant today, because of course of the Occupy Wall Street movement that's going on today because of their bad practices in the past and their abuse of greed as I just laid out. And how unpopular Wall Street has become today, not as unpopular as Congress (but that would be a hell of an accomplishment for anyone to accomplish and is a great movie period as far as I'm concern. But also a great movie if you're interested in OWS. 

Youth Justice NC: North Carolina's School to Prison Pipeline

Source:The FreeState

If you look at our current prison inmate population, you’ll see a lot of prison inmates who didn’t finish high school before they came to prison, or barely finished high school. If you look at a lot of our juvenile inmate population, kids that should be in school, but because of their bad behavior and committing felony’s while still being juveniles, or have been expelled from high school. You see a lot of juveniles that our education system hasn’t reached yet. 

You see people who are headed down the road of starting criminal careers and entering our criminal justice system as adults. After they’ve committed crimes against society. If you look at our criminal gangs, organized crime families, you see a lot of people who dropped out of high school to become a criminals. And of course end up in jail or prison at some point in their careers.

So I believe the answers to solving the problems of overcrowded prisons and bringing down our prison population in the future are fairly simple. But hard to apply and it gets to public education. Quality public education, graduating more students from high school with good educations, so they can move on to college, vocational school, the military, law Enforcement, foreign service, to use as examples. 

So they can go down the road of becoming productive citizens in society and not becoming criminals by simply preventing crimes in the future by preventing people from becoming criminals. And that gets to a better public education system, including educating our juvenile offenders before they become career criminals. Crime prevention really is about public education. 

I would argue especially for students in low-income high crime areas. Where there may be more opportunities to get involved in organized crime. So the better we educate our students and the more students we reach, the less career criminals we’ll have in the future.

Liza Liz Bethy: Brenda & Dylan: Beverly Hills 90210

Source:The Daily Post

When I was a freshmen in high school, FOX was still a very young TV network at this point. They came out with a high school soap Opera, with the cast all out of high school. Some of them graduating high school 5-7 years before this show came out. Beverly Hills 90210 which definitely had its cheesy aspects about it, like some of the writing and the fact that a pair of twins, one male and female looked nothing alike . But this was the first prime time soap opera for adolescents of any kind and it was a well rated prime time soap opera. 

Beverly Hills was the soap opera of my Generation X and this high school class of 1993 on the show was only a year ahead of me. So I got to watch it for three seasons while they were still in High School on the show. And while I was still in high school in real life. It was about a upper middle class family that moves from Minneapolis to Los Angles actually in Beverly Hills. 

Because the father played by James Eckhouse who plays Jim Walsh on the show, the husband of Cindy Walsh and the father of a set of twins, Brandon and Brenda Walsh, played by Jason Priestly and Shannen Doherty, gets a job in Beverly Hills and moves his family out there. And is about how this family relates to their new friends out in Beverly Hills and life in general in a new city. 

This show had its drawbacks some of it was cheesy. But when I was in High School, I watched this show every week. Because it actually dealt with what adolescents were going through in real life. In an entertaining and a lot of times even funny way. So it was good TV. 

The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Ronald Reagan: Talks About Balancing the Budget (1975)

Source: Johnny Carson- Ronald Reagan & Johnny Carson.

Source:The Daily Post

I like and respect Ronald Reagan a lot, I've always had even though I'm a Liberal Democrat. Which might be like hearing how much a Boston Red Sox fan loves a player for the New York Yankees. But in my case my affection for President Reagan is real. Both personally and politically, even though we don't agree on a whole lot. Except as it relates to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, individual liberty and limited government. 

But our policies look a lot different, not a difference between big government and small government. But more relating in the role of government, not so much the overall size, but what it should be doing. But to listen to Ron Reagan talk about the need for a balance budget, is like listening to an obese person talk about the need for a healthy diet and exercise. Whatever they know about what they are talking about, is only through bad experiences. 

Its like saying, "we now know what doesn't work, had we known now then, we wouldn't of done a, because now we know a doesn't work. We would've done b or c instead, because we now know that b or c works". Its speaking in hindsight rather than foresight and not very visionary as far as this is what we should do, because we know it works based on this evidence. 

Had President Reagan listened to then candidate Reagan back in 1975, when he was talking about deficit reduction, he probably wouldn't of proposed the Economic Recovery Act of 1981. At least in that form, the economy was awful and needed a lot of stimulus and perhaps he would've proposed the tax cuts he did, the taxes then were way too high on everyone. Ranging somewhere between 20-70%. But since he felt the need for a balanced budget, he would've at least proposed to pay for those tax cuts. He would've proposed the increases in the defense budget, but proposed to pay for them. 

The fact is that President Reagan inherited a national debt of around 1T$ or more. Left office with around a 5T$ national debt, inherited a budget deficit from President Carter who had one of the worst economies we've ever seen. But it was 40B$, which thirty years ago wasn't a large deficit. Defenders of President Reagan like to say, "well thats the fault of the Democratic Congress's". The fact is President Reagan only had one Democratic Congress, his last two years. 

He had a Republican Senate for his first six years. President Reagan never sent a balanced budget to Congress or proposed a balance budget plan. What they did was deficit reduction, including tax hikes during his presidency. To say the Reagan Administration spent money like drunken sailors, would be an insult to drunken sailors. To use Senator John McCain's joke, they spent money like drunken Congressmen at a Congressional pork party, who are worried about reelection. Ron Reagan should've trusted his first instincts. 
Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson

Young Americans For Freedom: Governor Ronald Reagan (1975)

Source:YAF- Governor Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) addressing YAF in 1975.

"Ronald Reagan gives this address to Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) at a 1975 meeting.  He talks about how to use bold banners, not pale pastels, when activists advance conservative ideas."

Source:Young Americans For Freedom

Back in this time period of 1974-75 just as then Governor Ronald Reagan was leaving the state house in California and looking into running for President in 1976, he described his politics as libertarian. His politics were very similar to Senator Barry Goldwater. These were both "get big government out of our wallets and bedrooms" Republicans and Barry Goldwater would probably be called a Libertarian today. 

Representative Ron Paul comes the closest to Goldwater-Reagan today. Foreign policy would be where they are different and both Goldwater and Reagan believed in at least some forms of taxation as well. And would be probably be (excuse the term, but this is how it is) shitting bricks if they were alive today and saw what had happened to the Republican Party. 

If Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan were alive today, instead of seeing a party that they built a lot of it on themselves, a party that was around to fight big government. Instead Reagan and Goldwater they would see a party that was promoting big government. Thanks to the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives and all their new big government ideas, with their borrow and spend fiscal policy of the last decade. 

Ronald Reagan was talking about a new Conservative Republican Party that would be dominated by Classical Conservatives, Constitutional Conservatives, Federalists. That wouldn't make race, ethnicity, cultural, or gender, as issues in their party, but instead constitutional conservatism, that could appeal to Constitutional Conservatives of all racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, or economic backgrounds. That would take on the left-wing of the Democratic Party. And he accomplished a lot of what he was talking about in 1980, when the he won the presidency and the Republican Party finally won back the U.S. Senate and picked up 30 seats in the U.S. House.

Max Power: The Kitchen Debate: Richard Nixon vs. Nikita Khrushchev

Source:The FreeState

The friendly TV debate that then United States Vice President Richard Nixon had with then Soviet Union President Nikita Khrushchev, was entertaining and important to the extent, that at least America and Europe could see some of the differences between the superpowers. That America wasn’t just a Superpower when it came to our military and diplomatic power. But we were an economic power as well. And that Russia was basically a third world nation, behind the rest of the Developed World in a lot of areas. 

That Russia's living standards were much lower than Europe, Canada and America. And this had to do with the fact that Russia was a communist state and America is a liberal democracy. The main reason why America, Canada, Europe and Japan were so far ahead of Russia during the Cold War and now, has to do with the fact, that we are free. We are all democracies economically and socially. We all have plenty of freedom to live our own lives. 

And in America especially where Europe tends to be more generous with their safety nets, Americans tend to be held responsible with the decisions that we make in life. Wheres the Soviet Union, most of the power in the country was centralized with the State. They were held with most of the authority to govern the country and responsible for looking after their people. Providing them with jobs, education, healthcare etc.

Vice President Nixon did an effective job in this debate of laying out some of the differences between America and Russia and where we were ahead of them and with space. Where Russia was ahead of us, which we turned around in the 1960s and debates like this are important. Especially if they are done in a respectful way.

Brendan Cashell: Woman Frisked in a B-Movie

Source:Brendan Cashell- if you were up real late, perhaps you couldn't sleep, at least back in the 1990s, chances are you might see a film like this. Especially on Cinemax, but perhaps Showtime, and maybe even FX.

Source:The New Democrat

"Frisked in tight jeans."

From Brendan Cashell

I wish I had some idea of what movie this is. But I don't even know who the actors are. This could very well be some amateur or perhaps some b-porn actors who decided to put together a short film together. Not even the guy who uploaded this video on YouTube seems to know what film this is from. 

Source:Brendan Cashell- name this film.

Just from the coloring of the picture and perhaps the clothing that they're wearing, I'm thinking early 1990s and perhaps in Los Angeles. Those Levi's were fairly common in Hollywood during that period. But I that's my best guess as far when this film was even filmed. 

Source:Brendan Cashell- frisked in a b-movie.

Here's an example of a cop who should be working as a pimp or running a strip bar or something. And leaving the law enforcement business to people who get enough at home and do not stop sexy women so they can get off. Another bad movie that will keep guys attention in long enough to be able to check out the sexy women in it.  

One of those low-budget films you tend to see late night like at 3AM on Showtime or Cinemax. Can't even tell you title of this movie, because I have no idea what it is. Not sure the person who uploaded the video knows what the movie is and perhaps just decided to record it when they were up late after drinking too much RedBull and being on the computer too long and not being able to go to sleep.

But this is a sexy scene because of the woman in it, but also an example of bad cops going wild who need to find another line of work. Like flipping laundry or washing floors in jail or prison. 

BBC: Strong Girls- Sexy Women Working Hard in Brown Leather Jeans

Source:BBC- From one of the episodes of BBC's Strong Girls. One of the women working hard in skin-tight leather jeans.

Source:The Daily Post

"Ladies in brown leather pants. From big strong girls, BBC Television." Originally from BBC.

From BBC

I gotta admit, I love seeing sexy women working hard in leather jeans. Which we don’t get to see a lot in America, because leather jeans aren’t very popular, outside of the biking and rock and roll culture. And they have even lost some popularity with those cultures as well. But leather jeans are still fairly popular in Europe, especially in Britain and Germany. You see them a lot on soap operas and with fashion models at shows.

I saw a show which was a British home improvement show. And there were a couple of sexy British ladies working hard doing renovations on a house somewhere in Britain, wearing tight brown leather jeans. One of them wearing a brown leather suit with brown leather boots and they looked great. Tight leather jeans on sexy women can be as sexy as tight denim jeans on sexy women. You have attractive well-built women wearing leather jeans, and you're going to get a great look at her curves. That's the whole point of leather jeans, to show off women’s or men’s curves. Their legs and butts and how they look in them.

But seeing these women working hard in leather jeans, doing hard physical work, Gives me a question. Are these pants comfortable especially when doing physical work. Britain obviously doesn’t get a lot of hot humid weather. But would you see women in Italy, France or Spain working hard especially in the summer. Countries that get weather that’s very similar to the American Southeast. Imagine how hard they would be sweating in those pants. I mean I’m not complaining, they looked great on that show. And I would watch over and over, I just have a hard time seeing American women doing the same work in those pants during the summer.