CBS News: 'President Gerald Ford Talks Ronald Reagan On Face The Nation in 1976'

Source:CBS News- President Gerald R. Ford (Republican, Michigan) talking to CBS News Face The Nation, in 1976.

Source:The New Democrat 

"President Gerald Ford talks about the possible nomination of Ronald Reagan for president, and the possibility of Reagan as Ford's running mate on the June 6, 1976 edition of Face the Nation. Ford's eventual running mate was Robert Dole, and they lost to Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. (CBS NEWS)" 

From CBS News

President Gerald Ford trying to run as a centrist in 1976 even though he had a pretty conservative record in Congress as a Representative from Grand Rapids, Michigan and as House Minority Leader. And then had a pretty conservative record as President especially when it came to fiscal policy and taxes. But also as it related to foreign policy and national security. But Ronald Reagan saw President Ford as not tough enough when it came to Russia and foreign policy in general and was a basis for running against him in 1976.

CBS News: Governor Ronald Reagan- Talks President Gerald Ford: On Face The Nation (1975)

Source: CBS News-

Source:The New Democrat 

I don't have the exact date on this, but I believe this is early 1975. The year I'm sure of and it was just after Ronald Reagan left the California Governor's Mansion as a two-term Governor of California. 1975 representing a new Congress with the next major national election being the 1976 presidential election. With the speculation in Washington being who was going to run for president. President Gerald Ford who inherited the job from President Richard Nixon in 1974 when President Nixon resigned. And would Ron Reagan run against the President or not in the Republican presidential primaries.
Source:CBS News

CSPAN: S.E. Cupp & Brett Joshpe on Conservative Ideas in American Life & Popular Culture (2008)

Source:The New Democrat

At least to me S.E. Cupp and I'm not familiar with Brett Joshpe, but S.E. to me looks like a real Barry Goldwater get big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, classrooms and boardrooms Conservative. Who doesn't want to outlaw anything that she disapproves of and wouldn't personally be involved with. Like certain times of entertainment, language, homosexuality, gambling and perhaps even marijuana and same-sex-marriage. That she and young Conservatives are the hope for the Republican Party in the future as the country is becoming more tolerant and individualistic. And even liberal and libertarian.

The Washington Post: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

Source:The New Democrat

I'm going to take you on a trip back in time to the mid 1960s and we'll work are way up to the early 1980s as well. Imagine had the Barry Goldwater classical conservative movement managed to take over the Republican Party during this time period. And today it becomes what we see with Senator Rand Paul, or they combine with his father former Representative Ron Paul and this kind of conservative libertarian movement took over the Republican Party. With the Dick Nixon's, Gerry Ford's, Ron Reagan, George Bush's who all had things in common with this movement, but who are perhaps not pure conservative libertarians, but able to work with these movement's to lead the party.

Imagine had the Conservative Libertarians taken over the GOP and essentially kicked out the Northeastern Progressives, or those Republicans become more like moderate Conservatives as we see with Mitt Romney and Olympia Snowe to use as examples. The Libertarian Party never gets up and running is ever formed in the early 1970s. Why, because there simply wouldn't any need for it. The Progressives in the Democratic Party would've continued to push the safety net and perhaps even for a welfare state which is even bigger. But the Republican Party wouldn't of helped them and instead would've pushed to reform current federal social insurance programs and decentralize them and send them to the states.

The Christian Right still comes into business, but wouldn't have the power that they do today, or have had the last forty years or so. Because again you have these Conservative Libertarians and moderate Conservatives from the Northeast and Midwest and even Mid-Atlantic running the party. The Christian  Right would've been left with a handful of seats in Congress in the Bible Belt for the most part. And probably treated by their Congressional Leadership the way the Progressive Caucus is treated in the House and Senate. As people you basically only talk to when you need their votes.

Another reason why the Libertarian Party would've never had gotten started is because again the Christian Right and the Neoconservatives aren't running the GOP. So the big government social agenda in the GOP is never put on the table in any big way as either part of the party platform, or into law. Even if this did happen, I'm not saying the Republican Party would be winning a majority of the African-American vote. The civil rights laws and all of those Southern Democrats bolting to the GOP as a result changed that forever. But maybe they get thirty or forty percent of the African-American vote. And the same thing with the Latin-American vote because you wouldn't consistently see Republicans who are tagged with either racial views or racists towards these groups.

Of course the Conservative Libertarians don't run the GOP. But they are certainly a growing and strong faction in the party today and I believe the GOP's best hope of appealing to Latinos and Millennial's in the future. And what you instead of Conservative Libertarians in charge are the Christian Right, Neoconservatives and Neoconfederates who love to talk about how much they love the Constitution. When at the same time they talk about how much they want to change the Constitution. Who take the Ron Paul anti-government views when it comes to the economy and public social insurance and almost anything that the Federal Government does that is not national security related as being unconstitutional. While they want to give the Federal Government more power as it relates to Americans personal lives.

The point I believe Mike Gerson was making in his column about the Tea Party is that they put the Republican Party in jeopardy with their anti-government approach because they have a habit of bashing public services that a majority Americans like and use everyday. And public infrastructure is a perfect example of that and the reason why Congress hasn't passed a highway bill yet this year is because the Tea Party in the House essentially believes the Federal Government has no business in funding infrastructure. Which makes Congress's job when it comes to legislating almost impossible, but infrastructure is just an example of that. The Republican Party pays a price for it because they look like people who can't get meals prepared and cars parked you know doing the basic business of government.

Richard Nixon Foundation: 'President Nixon Unveils Family Assistance Program in 1969'

Source:Richard Nixon Foundation- President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) talking about Welfare Reform in 1969.

Source:The New Democrat 

"On August 8, 1969, President Nixon addressed the nation on his administration's domestic program proposals. The focal point of his address and domestic legislative push was the Family Assistance Plan, a plan crafted with the help of chief Urban Affairs counsel Daniel Patrick Moynihan." 

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

What President Nixon is talking about here in 1969 became what is now known as Welfare to Work. The bipartisan law that Congress passed in 1996 that was signed by President Bill Clinton. The old Welfare system was based on subsidizing low-skilled adults who didn't have the skills needed to get a good job and support themselves and their families. But essentially left them in poverty without much of an ability to move up and get off of Welfare and move to the middle class.

What President Nixon is talking about here is to continue to subsidize people in poverty. But to empower them to be able to move out of poverty with things like education and job training. But also design a system where working regardless of the job pays more than not working. I believe in that as well which is why I support increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars an hour and index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost of living. And then tie today's Welfare cash payments to today's $7.25 an hour minimum wage for a forty hour a week fifty-two weeks a year job.

You want people in poverty to stay in poverty than you encourage people not to work and pay them more not to work than they could make working with their current skills. But if you want people to actually get out of poverty, than you have to empower people on Welfare to get themselves the skills that they need to move up the economic ladder and get off of Welfare all together. Which is my approach and President Nixon covered some of that in this speech.

The Federalist: David Corbin & Matt Parks: What Should a Do Something Congress Do

Source:The New Democrat

In an era where the American people were actually crying out for something different and real that could bring the country together that was facing the most difficult economic and financial challenges since the Great Depression and I'm thinking of 2008/09, President Barack Obama gives us essentially a political slogan which is "Hope and Change". What is that other than what those two words mean even when you put them together, Hope and Change. What are we hoping for and what do we want to change from and what do we want to be instead.

Whatever you think of the New Deal from Franklin Roosevelt, or Fair Deal with Harry Truman, or Camelot with Jack Kennedy, or the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson, or the Reagan Revolution, these were all real agendas. With real policies, policy initiatives and policy goals designed to take the country in a certain direction for the good of the country. And a big problem that I've had with Barack Obama as President is that even though he's had real policy initiatives and goals and has wanted to move the country in a new direction, he's lacked the vision to move the country behind that agenda and support him.

You can make all the complaints about Congressional Republicans that you want especially in the Senate about blocking President Obama's agenda. But they haven't paid much of a political price for their obstructionism because except for President Obama's reelection as President he hasn't been able to bring Independents who may be politically more incline to vote for Democrats behind him. Because the President and other Democrats haven't communicated very effectively reasons to get behind President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Where is and what is President Obama's agenda and policies when it comes to all the challenges that the country faces on a whole range of issues? I could probably give you a pretty good idea issue by issue, but I couldn't tell what that agenda is called because it doesn't have a name. Because even as political slogans might sound cheesy or like political gamesmanship today with how simplistic and even superficial American voters can be when it comes to choosing who to vote for and voting a lot of times for candidates and incumbents based on personality, political slogans can be very helpful in bringing voters behind you.

I don't believe even President Obama even knows what his political agenda is, or can at least tell you in a few words and make it clear for everyone. He instead goes issue by issue which I guess has its own effectiveness when he's successful. But he's gone from Hope and Change to at best Practical Progressivism (my words) which is not exactly and attention grabber for non-hard core political junkies and not something that expires Independents behind you.

CSPAN: Brian Lamb Interviewing Cal Thomas: Contemporary America: Condemning Culture, Media & Modern America

Source:The New Democrat

Cal Thomas standing up for traditional Anglo-Saxon America when Anglo-Saxons and to me that is people of British descent were essentially running the country both culturally and politically. People on the religious and cultural right in America who tend to be of Anglo-Saxon descent, but not all of them and Protestant as well essentially believe that America has been going down hill since the Baby Boomers came of age in the 1960s.

Pre-1960s America was a collectivist country culturally as far as how Americans tended to live. Dad worked, Mom stayed at home and essentially raised the kids, but not as a single mom because Dad paid the bills and saw his kids early in the morning, at night and on the weekends. African-Americans were second-class citizens and essentially around to serve Caucasian-Americans. Gays were locked in the closet and boys were raised to be live this way. And girls were raised to serve their men.

That all changed in the 1960s with the Baby Boom Generation and the hippy movement where millions of Americans figured out that they didn't have to live in the social and cultural box that their parents and grandparents created for them. And decided that is not how they wanted to live and rebelled and set out to live their own lives the way they wanted to. And the traditional values coalition paint back to the 1960s as the time when America started going downhill. And elements of the Tea Party has been trying to take America back to the 1950s ever since culturally and even though law.