Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Governor Martin O'Malley

Governor Martin O’Malley

The Daily Beast: Opinion: Jonathan Miller: For 2016, Take Martin O’Malley Seriously

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

It is way too early right now to be talking about 2016 for president especially since we are still three months away from the 2014 mid-term elections that will decide who controls Congress next year, or will Congress be divided again and who will control the majority of state governorships and state legislatures. But I wouldn’t be much of a political junky if I didn’t look ahead to elections down the road. And this is one thing that makes politics so interesting is that politicians and potential politicians do the same thing which gives of good stuff to write about.

I’m a native Marylander or Free Stater for those of you not familiar with Maryland, as well as a Democrat who voted twice for Martin O’Malley for Governor of Maryland. And I’m as proud of those two votes as any votes that I’ve ever cast. For several reasons, but here’s a few. He’s a hell of a great Governor who governs one of it not the wealthiest states in the union as far as quality of life, per-capita income and wealth. So of course he has a lot going for him as well as location being in the Mid-Atlantic. But it still takes a good leader to make those things work, or the state can lose ground to other great states in the region like New Jersey or Virginia.

We have the best public schools in the nation and those rankings came during his administration. Maryland doesn’t invest heavily in education, but we invest well and get solid results. During the Great Recession we always had an unemployment rate below the national average and never had serious debt or deficit issues unlike most of the rest of the country. If you want to look at the economy and freedom issues. Again with the great schools not just K-12 but we have a great state college system with Maryland University and others. We have great roads and other infrastructure as well.

The taxes both personal and on business are a little high compared with our competitors in the area. And I would like to see them come down especially since we now have legalized gambling and will probably legalize marijuana in the near future as well. But for the taxes we pay in this state and again a bit high the results that we get in return are pretty good. We are gaining business’s and tourists everyday. Maryland is a state where you have good skiing in the winter, good beaches in the summer on the Atlantic. Where you can gamble, smoke and posses marijuana without going to jail for it. Where gays can get married and where you are never more than two hours away from doing anything.

I believe the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries will not just be about a mushy-middle Centrist who’s afraid to take any solid positions on anything controversial in Hillary Clinton. Or a New Deal Progressive who will take the strongest positions possible perhaps even just to get to the Left of Hillary. I believe there is room for at least one more person who can run and say “I share the same Democratic and liberal values as you do. And I have a record of producing solid results. I’m not from Washington (even though I live next door to it) and I know how to govern”. Who will still be fairly young in 2016 who can appeal to other gen-xers and Millennial’s and that person could be Martin O’Malley.


Read Full Post »

Wealthy Democrat

Politico: Opinion: Kenneth Vogel & Tarini Parti: The Existential Crisis of the Liberal Millionaire

Just so we are clear that Liberals and Democrats (and I mean real Liberal Democrats) aren’t against millionaires and wealth. How I know that because the Democratic Party if anything may have more wealthy millionaire individual donors than the Republican Party. It was Barack Obama who had the most contributions from Wall Street in 2012. Not Mitt Romney in case anyone wasn’t familiar with that. Wall Street doesn’t back incumbents and candidates they believe are against them, or trying to put them out of business, or being wealthy.

There are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are multi-millionaires and if anything worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Hollywood is a perfect example of that and Democrats always get more contributions from Hollywood than Republicans. And the Hollywood types who are all in favor of being economically successful and being wealthy. But tend to be very liberal if not libertarian on the social issues. As well as tend to like liberal economic policies as it relates to education and infrastructure investment.

And these liberal donors back Democrats that they like who tend not to be on the Far-Left. They back center-left Liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in 2004. And are very friendly with the Bill Clinton’s in the Democratic Party. So when you hear things that “Liberal Democrats are against wealth and being rich”, you should look at the Democratic donor list and where Democratic politicians get their political contributions. You’ll see a lot of union contributions, but you’ll also see a lot of contributions from very wealthy Liberals as well.

Read Full Post »


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The former great, RIP, Progressive Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O’Neal, had a saying, “All politics are local.”  Well, of course, that is not all true but a lot of it is, especially when you are talking about Congressional elections where only voters in a district or state  vote for the next Representative or Senator for that seat in the next Congress.

This means that, whether you are a candidate or the incumbent, you have to know the district or state that you represent, or want to represent, in order to get elected and reelected. To put it simply, you can’t be a Bernie Sanders Socialist running statewide in Mississippi and expected to get elected. Keep in mind that Senator Bernie Sanders represents Vermont, probably the most socialist leaning state in the union, with a population of around eight-hundred-thousand and only one U.S. Representative.

You can’t be a religious-right candidate, who wants to incorporate their religious views into law, and expect to be elected statewide in New Hampshire, which just happens to be the most liberal-libertarian state in the Union. It, again, is small state with little more than a million people but it is the “Live Free or Die state” that doesn’t like big government, economic or personal, and wants government to butt out of individual’s lives.

I still give Senate Democrats the edge in retaining the U.S. Senate in November and I don’t see them losing a lot of seats in the U.S. House either. I say that because, since 2005-06, they’ve figured out that the way to win House and Senate seats is by having their candidates represent the districts and states they are running in politically and ideologically. That means not recruiting Democrats who are as far to the left as, lets say, Elizabeth Warren, running in Red States but, in such situations, have fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal candidates instead.

They also recruit New Democrats, the real Liberals of the Democratic Party, the JFK/WJC wing of the party, to run in the Northeast and Midwest and even the West Coast and Mid Atlantic. Democrats who are very liberal on social issues and believe in economic opportunity and empowerment instead of  government dependence.  This makes them pretty liberal on economic issues as well.  You recruit for the district and state instead of saying that Socialist Bernie Sanders and New Deal Progressive Elizabeth Warren can get elected anywhere in the country.  That is beyond political fantasy.

The social democrat, Occupy Wall Street, wing of the Democratic Party believes in recruiting the most left Democrat possible and getting out the vote for that person.  The Democratic Party has many leftist members of Congress who work only to advance their agenda and will never work with Republicans on anything.  They wonder why Democrats lost 5-6 presidential elections from 1968-88 and lost the U.S. Senate in 1980 and Congress as a whole in 1994.

Senators Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, Senate candidates Allison Grimes, Michelle Nunn, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Georgia respectfully are the potential for Democrats to hold the Senate in 2014.  They are Senators from deeply red states but are perfectly tailored to represent them because these states tend to like candidates and incumbents who are somewhat independent and aren’t afraid to go against their party establishment and aren’t very far to the right or left politically.  They all have a non-elitist, non-Washington, common person approach to  politics.

Democrats hold the Senate now with a 55-45 majority because they have a lot of senators who represent red states.  They could easily pick up 3-4 more with Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, states with unpopular Republican incumbents because they recruit for the state instead of the party.  The  Republican Party hasn’t figured this out yet.  They have 45 senators and are in the minority because they are fanatically bound to nominate the furthest right candidate no matter the district or state.

WLKY Louisville: Bill Clinton Campaigns For Alison Lundergan Grimes


Read Full Post »

Democratic Socialists

Democratic Socialists

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- Where’s The Liberal Tea Party?

It depends on what you mean when it comes to Liberal because there are many Liberal-Democratic groups. Who do not qualify for today’s popular definition of Liberal but who are Liberal-Democrats in most cases. That they believe in the United States Constitution and that is all of it. Not trying to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and make America more like Europe. Who believe in both individual freedom both personal and economic freedom but that individual freedom. Needs to work for everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality. And not just be there for wealthy people and people born to wealth but for the whole country and. A lot of these people are called New-Democrats who tend to be labeled moderate but they aren’t they just moderate. Compared with the New-Left in the Democratic Party that emerged in the 1960s. This faction of the Democratic Party is alive and very well this is how the Democratic Party. Countered the Goldwater-Reagan coalition in the Republican Party and came to power and prominence in the Democratic Party in the late 1980s and 1990s. And this is the faction of the Democratic Party I come from.

But if what you mean by Liberal is that government should be Liberal with tax payers money. To spend on their behalf and use that money to take care of everyone. Rather than allowing everyone to have the freedom to take care of themselves and even empowering low-income and. Low-skilled Americans to get themselves the skills that they need to take care of themselves. If your idea of Liberal in America is what tends to be called in Europe Socialist or Social-Democrat. This faction of the country in America which is essentially called Occupy Wall Street. The reason why they aren’t as powerful as the Tea Party. The Far-Left or perhaps Progressive version of the Tea Party. The reason why they aren’t as powerful is because for a couple of reasons. They aren’t as big and they do not have the resources and the man-power. And the reason why they aren’t that big is because they do not have the resources. And the reason why they do not have the resources is because they aren’t that big. They are a small faction in a very large Democratic Party.

The Tea Party does have a blue-collar grassroots section of the movement. But they are for the most part funded by right-wing and in a lot of case Libertarian business interests. Like the Koch Corporation that backs people who back their economic interests. And since Social-Democrats or Democratic-Socialists which is what Occupy Wall Street, as well as Anarchists. On the Far-left is made up of it makes it very difficult for them to raise money. For one unless you are that far to the Left, why would donate money to them or work for them. And two these activists tend to be anti-business, anti-corporate and even anti-capitalist in some. Cases and do not want their money which is why they are simply not that big especially compared. With the Tea Party and why they are so small.

Read Full Post »

Green Party

Green Party

Source:  Independent Political Report: Sasha Brookner- ‘From Blue to Green: Why I Left the Democratic Party’ | Independent Political Report: Third Party News.

I get the whole disappointment in President Obama from Liberals when it comes to the War on Drugs and civil-liberties. As a Liberal myself because if anything the Obama Administration has made those things worst for Americans. And in large part you could at least argue that they have been done for political reasons trying to look tough for Independents. Its on economic-policy where I do not get or respect the disappointment from lets say Progressives in President Obama. Because candidate Obama back in 2007-08 never ran as a George McGovern Social-Democrat. Who was going to return America back to the 1960s with some new New Deal or Great Society with a host of new. Social-programs, thats not the type of Democrat Barack Obama has ever been and had the Far-Left in America had done their. Research they would’ve seen that a long time ago and instead of supporting Barack Obama. Would’ve instead supported Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich or Jill Stein for President. Senator/President Obama has never wanted to to expand the safety-net in America but make current programs work better. And to have more Americans working and supporting themselves.

The whole deal of why Sasha Brookner left the Democratic Party. Well someone with his political philosophy is better off not being a Democrat and perhaps working to create a new and united. Progressive Social-Democratic Party that would represent all Social-Democrats or Democratic-Socialists in America. Including the Progressive-Caucus in the Democratic Party and a perfect example of why we should blowup the two party system so Progressives and people who are. Republicans today who do not fit in well in the Republican Party would have their own political party of their own. Where their candidates would be on all ballots, included in all polls that are released to the public. Included in all debates as well and have access to the same public money that Democrats and Republicans have today. And we would see a real political system that represents all of America and not just Liberals and Conservatives.

As much as Sasha Brookner disagrees with this, its not as if Democrats and Republicans are the same. Thats absolute nonsense that anyone who understands both parties knows very well, its that the Far-Left in the Democratic Party and outside of the Democratic Party. Thats very different from the Democratic Party as a whole and why they may seem like Republicans because Democrats aren’t as. Typically as far to the left as they are which is why Social-Democrats in America need a political party of their own.

Read Full Post »


43rd President of The United States

43rd President of The United States

Crooks and Liars: Politics: John Amato: What Ross Douthat Overlooks About President Bush’s Failures: What Reunited The Democratic Party in America.

Looking back at it now, George W. Bush never should’ve been reelected President  in 2004. Even though he had a better economy then President Obama in 2012, but  because of Afghanistan and Iraq, rising debt and deficit. Was perhaps as vulnerable a President for reelection as his father in 1992. What he had going for him was John Kerry, who in a lot of ways is a great man and I. Believe would’ve made a very good President and his father had Bill Clinton who was ready to be elected President and knew how to get it done. We’ve really been in a Democratic era as far as party since 2004. All of these New-Democrats we see today and the message of the party was started in 2004. We just didn’t have a leader who get us over the finish line, got us damn close and had he handled. Ohio better like spending the rest of his money there, he wins that election despite being swift boated by Karl Rove and company. But that just goes to President Bush’s vulnerability as a candidate for reelection.

After the Democratic Party lost the Senate in 2002 and were now confronting a united Republican Congress in 2003-04. They didn’t have any agenda of their own at least coming out of Congress. But by the late summer of 2003, the Iraq War was already looking like a big mistake and a distraction from Afghanistan. And the Congressional Republicans pass their Medicare Advantage plan borrowing 700B$ to pay for that in late 2003. In the House and Senate with almost know Democratic support and then the Democratic Presidential season. Heats up in late 2003 and not only Democrats ready to see what the Democratic Party had to offer but Independents as well. Perhaps losing support for President Bush, the New Democratic Party had what it needed to not only fight. Back but then by nominating John Kerry for President, had an agenda of their own.

Go back and watch the first Presidential debate in 2004. President Bush thanks to the swift boating of Senator Kerry and Kerry not defending himself, had like. A ten point lead going into that debate, that was Bush’s chance to seal the deal to reelection. But it was all that Kerry needed to get back in the debate and show what he and the Democratic Party had to offer and what Republicans were. Doing was wrong and why it was wrong and he clobbered Bush in that first debate. Leaving that debate with his first lead in the polls against President Bush without any Al Gore personal mistakes in it. If the same John Kerry who not only defended himself in that debate but landed shot after shot against. President Bush who didn’t seem prepared to defend himself. If that was the Kerry we saw against the swift boat attacks, he wins that election.

As I said before we’ve been in a Democratic era since 2004. We just didn’t have a leader to get us over the finish line which changed in 2005-06 where we had. Several different leaders of the party in Congress and with Howard Dean leading the party as party Chairman with one goal in mind. Defeat the Republican Congress and give President Bush a check to stop him. And then in 2008 we get our leader in Barack Obama who took us over the finish line.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: