The Washington Post: Robert Costa- Presidential Run Not Off the Table For Paul Ryan

Source: The Washington Post- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan R, Wisconsin and Melanie Turner, in North Carolina.

Source: The New Democrat

I wouldn't bet anything that Representative Paul Ryan will run for president in 2016. I actually might be leaning in the other direction, because I don't believe he wants the job at least not now. And besides lets face it, he's never been elected statewide to anything or even run statewide for anything. He isn't even in his party's leadership with real power over what gets done and what is voted on the House floor. Yes he serves in Congress, but in the lower House, the House of Representatives where he serves in a very partisan Republican district.

The reason why the only presidential nominees that have come out of Congress have been Senators at least going back a hundred-sixty years, is because Senators represent the whole state. Senators tend to have at least some executive experience before arriving to the Senate. They also just don't represent their party in the Senate, but represent their state as a whole. And in a lot of cases they have to appeal to Independents and perhaps moderates in the other party to at least avoid a tough reelection. Representatives especially the stars, don't have those issues and just need to avoid primaries.

So Representative Ryan would have a major resume problem as a presidential candidate, even if he were to win the GOP nomination. I think Governor of Wisconsin would be very attractive for him, assuming he doesn't want to be a lifer in the House, as he put it and wants to make a real run for president. Especially if Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin loses tomorrow. And look to run for Governor in 2018 and perhaps the White House in 2020 or 2024, when he would only be in his fifties at that point.

When was the last time and sitting U.S. Representative even made a strong big for their party's presidential nomination, let alone won it? 1988 maybe with Representative Dick Gephardt, but his campaign because he wasn't able to appeal outside of the Midwest was fairly short. The same thing happen to him in 2004 and that is when he had just stepped down as House Minority Leader when Democrats failed to win back the House in 2002. There's a reason why our president's have tended to be executives for the most part with a few Senators as well. Because those people have to be able to appeal outside of their party's base to be successful. 
Source:The Huffington Post

HBO Films: Alec Baldwin: The Lost Ballparks of Major League Baseball

Source:The Daily Post

As someone who loves baseball especially Major League Baseball, I have a collection of books about it's history because it's such a great game that I love. And has such a great history which to me at least is more interesting than the game today. I feel the same way about the National Football League. I'm into MLB history so much that I have at least three books that are about the old ballparks of MLB. 

And in these books you see photos of pass ballparks of MLB. Like the old Yankee Stadium, the old Oakland Coliseum before the Raiders moved back into it. You move the seats forward in the foul territory of the Coliseum and you are talking about a perfect ballpark, as long as you only play baseball in it. It has like a mile of foul territory in it, so dugout seats at the Coliseum or home plate seats actually weren't that great because you were so far back. 

The old Candlestick Park in San Francisco, that didn't have the upper deck in the outfield, that was put in for the 49ers was a beautiful ballpark. Tiger Stadium in Detroit that was great for both pitchers and batters, depending on where the batter hit the ball. Was also a great ballpark. Baltimore Memorial Stadium one of my favorites as an Orioles fan, but also because I love watching games there, another great ballpark, where the fans were on top of the action. High walls in right and left field so fans there were looking down at the action.

What was great about the old ballparks, unlike the 1970s and 80s with the cookie cutter stadiums that were designed for both football and baseball, was that the old parks were built and designed for baseball. So the fans were on top of the action and had a great view of the game. And in a lot of cases there were no upper decks in the outfield. So you could see a lot of the city that the park was located in. Crosley Field in Cincinnati was a perfect example of that. 

So the architecture of these ballparks was a lot better. You just didn't have great seats and that meant in basically every part of the park, but you had a great view of the rest of the park and part of the city the park was located in. Unlike some of the cookie cutters like in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and other places, where the only view of the park you had, except for the game, was the rest of the stadium depending on where you sat. So if you had upper deck home plate seats, what you saw from there was the upper deck in the outfield.

One of the great things about Major League Baseball is that in the last twenty years, the league has moved away from the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums. And back to having ballparks just for baseball and other entertainment events, but just the baseball team would play there. Instead of sharing a stadium with a football team, where the stadium is too big for baseball and in some cases too small for football. 

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.