The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012: The Legacy of Robert Bork

Source: The Weekly Standard Robert H. Bork-

Source: The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012

I'm sure there were tough Supreme Court nomination debates pre-1987 before Robert Bork, but perhaps not before. Not only the TV age, but the TV cable age where there was twenty-four-hour coverage of Congress everyday with C-SPAN. Which is probably a reason why the Bork nomination was so controversial I guess and divisive. Where you had Democrats who couldn't stand the idea of a Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court and you had Republicans who were in love with Bob Bork and represented exactly what they wanted on the Supreme Court. Especially Neoconservative traditionalist Republicans who question whether or not the United States has a right to privacy and how they believe our freedom of speech shouldn't be as strong as it is and don't see things like indefinite detention and the Patriot Act and censorship of certain media as unconstitutional. And how he would've been the exact choice in who Neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush Administration and exactly who they would've wanted on the Supreme Court. Instead of who they got instead which was Anthony Kennedy who has more of a libertarian streak in him.

Another thing that separated Bob Bork from judicial nominations that came after him, was the fact that Judge Bork would almost go out-of-his-way to let the Senate know where he stands on the issues. And said things like the right to privacy doesn't exist and that Roe V. Wade that made abortion legal in the United States was unconstitutional. And decided improperly to use as examples and post-Bork judicial nominations have gone out-of-their-way not to let the Senate know where they stand on the issues. And what they would do instead is tell Senators what they know about cases that they are talking about, but would refuse to tell them what they think about them, just what they know about them. So we would see judicial nominees like John Roberts and Elena Kagan who are very familiar with the cases in front of them, but wouldn't give much of even a hint on where they stand on those cases for fear of being seen as too ideological.

I'm sure Bob Bork was a very fine man certainly a very honest man and you knew where he stood on the issues. But I'm sure as hell glad as a Liberal Democrat that he was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on a bipartisan vote because of where he stood on civil liberties and things like are Federal civil rights laws constitutional or not. Which I believe they clearly are and i'ts almost silly to debate I believe. And believe Judge Bork would've been dangerous to have up on the Supreme Court as we are now debating civil liberties and individual freedom in this country. The other thing I don't get about the Bork Supreme Court nomination is the President who appointed him. President Ronald Reagan a man that described his own politics as libertarian in 1975 and really never ran from that. Didn't give the Christian-Right and other big government Republicans much to admire him as far as policy when he became President. And maybe that is why he nominates Bob Bork, because he saw that as is way to pay back the Far-Right for their support.
Traditionalism-C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Slouching Towards Gomorrah With Robert Bork

Washington Times: Editorial: Democracy's Egyptian Peril: The Future of Democracy in Egypt

EDITORIAL: Democracy's Egyptian peril - Washington Times

For anyone who has this vision that Egypt will go from a military dictatorial authoritarian republic to a Liberal Democracy. Like we see in lets say in America overnight, is seeing things and is perhaps suffering from paranoia right now. Thats just not the type of country that Egypt is and has been, the best model for Egypt at least for anyone. Who believes in Democracy, is probably Turkey in the Middle East which is a Democracy that has very deep. Conservative religious beliefs where Turks combine their religious with their political beliefs but what Egypt. Does has its what's known as Liberal Democrats in America Egyptians who believe in ethnic and racial. As well as religious and gender tolerance that all Egyptians should be treated equally under law and people. Who believe in individual freedom, civil liberties and human rights which is progress in a country where these. Beliefs weren't very common in this country just two years ago and if they were made public, these people would. Risk being jailed by the Hosni Mubarak Regime.

Egypt right now is split between Liberal Democrats, I guess Islamist Democrats the Muslim Brotherhood. And the old Mubarak Regime what's called the Democratic Party over there but they aren't very Democratic. At best they would people who would be described as Neoconservatives in America that the state is paramount over the individual. And that freedom has to be limited in order to protect the state that individual freedom can be dangerous. Which basically sums up the current Republican Party in America, a large faction of it anyway. I'm of course as a Liberal Democrat myself in America, are with the Liberal Democrats in Egypt and I hope they'll. Emerge as the governing party over there and hopefully at least in the short term serve as the opposition party to the Islamist Democrats. But for Egyptian Liberals to do well in Egypt they, they have to convince Egyptians why Liberalism is way forward. For Egypt, what individual freedom means and so fourth.

Its not enough for Liberals to say that the Islamists don't go far enough to push Democracy in Egypt and that. They are wrong here and wrong there but they need an agenda of their own to counter what the Islamists are doing. And have an agenda thats built around individual freedom, equal treatment under law for all Egyptians. Why economic freedom should go along with social freedom and religious freedom, why combining religion. With state is dangerous and so fourth they need to communicate what Liberalism would mean for Egypt and why its the way forward. Which is what they haven't done yet.

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: Political Report: Is America Still a Center-Right Country?: Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy's America

Is America still a center-right country? AEI Political Report, December 2012 - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

Before I layout where I believe America is politically I just want to give a quote from Barry Goldwater, whose. Probably my favorite Conservative-Libertarian even though I'm more of a classical Liberal but Senator Goldwater. Once said I believe in the 1960s that he wanted Big Government out of his wallet and bedroom and it might of taken. The rest of the country forty years or so to get there themselves but thats basically where I believe America is. Bill Clinton to quote from the left once said that he believed in what's called an opportunity society where all Americans. Would have the opportunity to chart their own course in life and have the freedom to live their own lives, the second part. I'm paraphrasing but thats what an opportunity society is, Americans tend to believe in what's called the safety net. That should be there for people who can't take care of themselves but that all Americans who are physically and mentally. Capable should be expected to and should be working and taking care of themselves, that as then presidential. Candidate Bill Clinton said in 1992, that Welfare shouldn't be free that it should be an investment in people to. Empower them to be able to take care of themselves.

Whether America is center right or center left we are certainly a mainstream country politically, not Centrist exactly. But we don't go very far left or right and what may seem mainstream in other countries lets says Social Democracies. On the left or more Authoritarian States on the right, seems more like fringes to the majority of Americans in this country. And people who would like to see America move in those directions , tend to have a hard time winning statewide. Or nationally in America, Americans like their economic freedom, we don't like high taxes and regulations. We also like our social freedom and not be told by government or people further to us on the right or left. How we should live our own lives and what it means to be an American, Americans tend to not like to be told. How to live and told what to do by government and what it means to be an American, we like Big Government out. Of our wallets and bedrooms.

This is why I believe had President Kennedy not of been assassinated in 1963, 1964 might of had been the. Best Presidential election in American history because we would've had a real Liberal in Jack Kennedy. Versus a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater both people who believed that Big Government shouldn't be. In our bedrooms or wallets and that Americans should be free to live our own lives and would've represented. Where America has become and two people who also respected each other as well.

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Editorial: "End of the American Superpower": America's New Role In The World

EDITORIAL: End of the American superpower - Washington Times

The days that the United States can police the World are over or coming to an end, we simply don't have the. Resources to do that anymore, especially with the condition of our economy and fiscal situation, where we now own. Debt to countries that we are paying them to defend and thats a good thing, as well as the days that Europe. Can sit on the sidelines and expect America to take care of its national defense are also over as well, which is also a good thing. America has been declining over the last ten years or so but that has to do with our economic situation, we are simply. Not growing now the way we did in the 1980s and 90s but the good news is this has given us an opportunity. As a country to rethink what we should be doing economically and what our foreign and national security policy. Should look like in the future, what role should America have in the World and has also given Europe as well. As I believe Japan the same opportunity, the economic giants of the developed World, to rethink where they should be.

America has been declining economically and perhaps even militarily over the last ten years or so but a lot of. That has to do with policies here at home that have weaken our economic picture, as well as our foreign policy picture. Europe has been declining as well with weaker economic growth, higher unemployment and an aging and dying. Population that they haven't been replacing, as well as government that have promised to do more for their people. Then the economy has been able to produce the resources to pay for, so now they are being forced to rethink. What they want their Federal Governments to do and hopefully as America hopefully soon pulls out of Europe. Europe will then also rethink their military posture and take the lead role in securing their own defense. Which would also boost their economies, because of new industries that would be created.

The American decline doesn't have to be indefinite, China will probably pass us as having the largest economy. In the World within twenty years, even if they are still a developing country but that doesn't mean they'll. Have the most important economy or the strongest militarily in the World as well, America will still have a say. In that depending on how our debt, deficit and economy looks in the future, what we are doing as a country. To develop our economy even further, do we rebuild this country that needs all sorts of new infrastructure investment. And be able to keep pace or even past China and Brazil or do we continue to lag in this critical area. Do we develop a national energy policy that moves us towards energy independence and are at least moving. Off of foreign oil by 2030, or are we still importing oil from countries that don't have our best interest at heart.

These are questions we have to answer as a country and start rebuilding our economy and get past this 1-2%. Economic growth rate that we've been stuck at the last couple of years and move to finally get our debt and deficit. Under control which would mean countries would have less leverage over us and we develop a new foreign policy. That built around being Leader for Liberal Democracy in the World, not trying to force it on anyone but working. With others who want it and don't currently have it and working with our allies when crisis's pop up in the World. Rather then trying to police the World ourselves.

FRSFreeStatePlus: Commentary: Seth Mandel: "George McGovern’s Futile Warning on Labor Unions": George McGovern's Diverse Ideology

McGovern’s Futile Warning on Unions: pThe extent to which George McGovern, who died in late October, was identified with American liberalism itself can be seen in headlines of his various obituaries. CNN’s headline called him an “unabashed liberal voice”; PBS went with “Liberal Icon”; the New York Times chose “Prairie Liberal” (though the online edition dropped the word “prairie”); and [...]/p

FRSFreeStatePlus
George McGovern throughout his career and since has been identified with American Liberalism, as if he's the. Hero for Americans Liberals or champion of Liberal causes and Liberal philosophy but he's not my Liberal champion. I identify more with Jack Kennedy or Wendell Willkie and today with John Kerry and Dick Durbin, both Democratic Leaders. In the US Senate, then I do with Senator McGovern or more with Bill Clinton then I do with Senator McGovern. Its not as if George McGovern didn't have Liberal tendencies, because he clearly did especially on social issues. Where granted Senator McGovern was clearly a social Liberal and I'm proud he was as a Liberal myself and he even had. Some Liberal positions on some economic issues, like the right to organize and organize labor and so fourth. And Senator McGovern was a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy and did believe in things like a strong. National defense, he wasn't pacifist or an isolationist and perhaps not even a dove, he was World War II veteran. And served his country very well.

But to say that George McGovern was the champion or hero or God of American Liberalism, is a very big stretch. He would be described today as a Progressive or Social Democrat, if he was still in Congress today, a place. Where he served for twenty two years, both in the House and Senate all together, I bet you he would've been a member. Of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but he would've been one of their most responsible members. And also someone who would've been able to work with the Democratic leadership, including the President. And someone who would've been able to work with Republicans as well, like he was able to work so well. Bob Dole in the Senate but ideologically he was more of a Social then Liberal Democrat, someone who put. A lot of faith in government to solve the peoples problems, rather then people being able to solve their own problems.

So George McGoevrn was really diverse when it came to his politics, on social issues clearly a Liberal, Liberal-Libertarian. Even, a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy but more of a Progressive-Social Democrat on economic policy. As they are called in Europe, rather then the Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan for American Liberals. Wendell Willkie, Jack Kennedy are the real Liberal heros in America, people who put their faith in the people. To be able to solve their own problems, if they are just empowered to do so, rather then a big central government doing it for them.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Role of Conservatism in (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- former U.S. Senator (Republican, Arizona) and 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

“A clip from William F. Buckley’s 1966 interview with Barry Goldwater on “Firing Line.” 

From Moog Rogue 

What Barry Goldwater was doing in this clip was arguing for the two-party system and saying that Republicans don’t have to be Progressive Democrats or Democratic-light in order to win elections and gain power in America.

In early 1966 after the Republican Party took back-to-back-to-back political beatings in Washington from 1960-64, what Senator Goldwater was saying her sounds rather foolish:

But in 1965, House Republicans elect Representative Gerald Ford to be their leader in the House

1966 House Republicans win 45 seats in the House, with a whole lot of Conservative Republicans in Congress, especially in the House getting elected

Thanks to Richard Nixon, Republicans win The White House back in 1968. not because they sound and talked like Democrats, but because they were Republicans, with even Progressive Republicans sounding and thinking different politically then Progressive Democrats.

So I believe Senator Goldwater was onto something in 1966, even if he was the only Republican who knew what Republicans needed to do to get back into power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

The White House: 'President Obama Speaks on the Economy and Middle-Class Tax Cuts'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking in Detroit, Michigan.

"President Obama delivers remarks at the Daimler Detroit Diesel Plant. December 10, 2012."

From The White House