Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘C-SPAN’

28932099733_883f3aa462_o-2

Source: C-SPAN

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show. Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what’s called today an Alt-Rightist. Someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis’s and civil wars. And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes. Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren’t two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on an certain issue.

C-SPAN: The Washington Journal- Christopher Hitchens & Patrick Buchanan in 1993

 

Read Full Post »

PJ Buchanan

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The world that Pat Buchanan was talking about and advocating for in this 1988 interview, simply doesn’t exist anymore and we were moving away from it in 1988 if not only escaped from there by then. Gays, no longer live in the closet. African-Americans, have just as much right to vote and are treated the same as Caucasian-Americans now. Women, now work and hold very responsible jobs, making good money, running and managing their own business’s. The music is much different and much more open about life. Americans, now have the freedom and feel the freedom to be themselves. Which is Americans and individuals and we live our lives the way we want to. Not how Pat Buchanan and other Christian-Conservatives feel we should live.

The 1950s, was great for America in many ways. We were not just the economic superpower of the world, but became the number one military and diplomatic power in the world. This was post-World War II where our economy boomed and our infrastructure system boomed as a result. But the problem with this era was that many Americans didn’t benefit from these American advances. Not because of anything that they did, but because of how they were born. Their complexion, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their gender. Not because they were, or could be any less productive than Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. What the 1960s and the 1980s brought to America, was true individual freedom. Both from a personal and economic standpoint.

If you watch this video, think you see Pat Buchanan, essentially acknowledging what I’m arguing here. That the America that he grew up with in the 1950s simply no longer exists. And when he was asked, “do you want to use government to bring that America back?” He answered truthfully and honestly and said he doesn’t believe that, because its simply not possible. Which is a very practical answer and the correct answer. As far as the 1988 presidential election, you had Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the Republican Party. Who represented President Ronald Reagan and his policies in that election. Going up against Governor Michael Dukakis, who represented the New America and the direction that America has been moving to ever since.
Remember This-C-SPAN: Pat Buchanan- Biography, Apartheid, Culture War, Foreign Policy, Free Trade: 1988 Interview

Read Full Post »

AngloSource: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American Liberal Democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals and the liberal democracy that they built-in America. After they won the American Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom. Where there was a state religion from the U.K. Where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive. And build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. But the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and Liberal Democracy.

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- The Triumph of Anglo-America

Read Full Post »

Al Franken
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Going back about twenty-years here to 1996, this was I guess March of 1996, but they were already counting votes for the 1996 presidential election between President Bill Clinton and Leader Bob Dole. They just decided to wait eight months to tell everyone. Because this presidential election was already over because Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had to sit in the back of Air Force One. And threw a temper tantrum and stopped doing his impersonation of a middle age adult. And went back to being a thirteen-year old little boy who was just told he can’t have ice cream and cake for dinner. And as a result decided to shut down the U.S. Government.

The 1996 presidential election was one of the quickest in American history. Not as quick as 1984 with Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan. Where Vice President Mondale decided to concede the election at 3PM EST on Election Day, but still a very quick election. Bob Dole was stuck between Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. And was trying to get Newt’s fat ass off of his back and take on the best politician in America at least since Ron Reagan. In a country where the economy was booming and where we were essentially at peace with the rest of the world. Other than being peacekeepers in the Balkans.

And I think that was the major motivations of these political investigations in the Republican Congress against President Clinton. Especially with Senator Al Damato’s Banking Committee investigation into the so-called Whitewater story. Bob Dole is a very good if not great man who has given a lot to America and one of the most distinguished people who has ever served in Congress and who accomplished a lot there in his thirty-five years in Congress. Including being Senate Republican Leader for eleven years. But he wasn’t going to beat Bill Clinton and all of Washington knew that including the Republican Leadership.

.

Read Full Post »

General Ike

General Ike

Source: MOX News-C-SPAN: President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address- The Military Industrial Complex

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer.

Ike didn’t believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to.

And that the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that “we have all the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something.” What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.

Read Full Post »

Molly Ivins

Political Humorist

Source: C-SPAN: Political Humorist Molly Ivins Talks About Ross Perot From 1992

Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths. Because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.

And whenever he’s doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.

I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions. But someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.

Read Full Post »

 

Attachment-1-466

Source: The Film Archives- Jon Stewart 

Source: The Film Archives: 1997 White House Correspondents Dinner- Jon Stewart & President BillClinton

President Bill Clinton was the Comedian in Chief. Because, For one he has a great sense of humor and has always had that and if you live the life he has, the life of riding a roller coaster full-time. Having to stop to vomit because of all of those rides and going from being up one second to falling flat on your face (the clean version) the next second, you would have to have a great sense of humor and be able to make fun of yourself to keep your sanity.

But President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of the time he was president. Running and getting elected President of the United States at the birth of the internet. Email and websites already up by 1992 and of course those things having not been fully developed. Like they were in the mid and late 1990s, but they were already there. Cell phones already around by 1992 and the phones you saw then look like the phones you saw by 1995 when cell phones became popular and cool and almost universal.

The twenty-four hour news cycle was big by the early 1990s and just got bigger during the Clinton Administration. With cable news plus the internet to go along with television and radio news along with print media. With these news organizations being addicted to the twenty-four hour news cycle. Having to be the first to report on a story that five people care about. Otherwise it could cost them a tenth of one rating point, or an entire newspaper or magazine subscription.

President Clinton was also Comedian in Chief because of his hate squad, I mean opposition. Who actually turned out to be his best friends who saved him from himself. Because the American people had already decided they liked President Clinton and the job he was doing. And already accepted his flaws and decided they really didn’t like his opposition. Especially since these overly moral and extremely perfect people just also happened to be guilty of the same things that they were accusing President Clinton of. House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes to mind in a hot second. Who needs friends when you have enemies like this?

Once you become President of the United States, the number one sacrifice you give up and sacrifice is your privacy. The whole world is going to know about the same mistakes you and they make. Like having affairs when you are married with a daughter to a women half your age. Or raising money from other countries and you also have to know that your best friends, I mean opposition is going to accuse you of making the same mistakes and doing the same things they’ve done which is just the price of high power.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: