Kire Schneider Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Father of American Liberalism

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Reform Party: Opinion- Nicholas Hensley: Governing by Finding Common Ground is Irrational & Deserves The Public Interest

Source: Wikipedia-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

I hope the title of this post is long enough, otherwise the hell with it. But I agree with the notion of this blog from the Reform Party that governing simply shouldn’t be about compromise. That even with a divided government with two parties that do not like each other which is putting it very mildly and certainly do not trust each other that both sides at the end of the business day still have a responsibility to not only govern, but to govern well.

And in divided government like today that means taking the best from both sides and putting into a package that works. And throwing out the garbage from both sides instead of just splitting the difference on each key issue. As if that is governing even when trying to go half way on each issue may not and in most cases does not result in a good end result. And there are plenty of examples going back to the early 1980s when the Federal Government became very partisan with a new Conservative President in Ronald Reagan, with a Conservative Republican Senate. To go with a Progressive Democratic House where they managed to govern very well with divided Congress’s.

It is not so much the art of the compromise that should try to be reached. But the art of the consensus. What do both sides want and on a lot of key issues both sides tend to have the same end goals. And after that has been established now where are both sides, what would each side do if they were completely in charge. In other words what is the opening offer from both sides so we know where both side is. And after that has been established you look to the common ground.

You find that and you put that in the final package and then after that you look for victories from both sides. The good from each side and put their ideas alone on certain key issues. For example the 1996 Welfare to Work Law is a perfect example. Republicans wanted time limits and work requirements in the new Welfare system. Democrats wanted job training, education and childcare for people on Welfare. What happened is both sides won and the final bill had job training, education, childcare, time limits and job requirements.

You take the good from both sides and throw out the things that probably wouldn’t work. Or that both sides simply can’t live with. Meaning both sides get their victories, but do not get everything they are looking for. Instead of just splitting the difference and running for the middle on the key issues. And that is how you get good government in a divided government.
Stanford University: Leon Penetta- Reasons For The Bipartisanship in Washington

Monday, December 30, 2013

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Richard Eskow: Was This The Social Contract's Comeback Year?

Crooks and Liars: Opinion: Richard Eskow: Was This The Social Contract's Comeback Year?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance to use several examples, I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where these are all sorts of public program funded through taxes there to take care of people. I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Real Redskins: Blog Rick Tandler: Should Mike Shanahan Stay or Go

Real Redskins: Blog: Mike Tandler: Should Mike Shanahan Stay or Go?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Should Mike Shanahan stay or go as the Redskins Head Coach/Head of Football Operations. That will be the number question and decision that Dan Snyder will have to deal with in the 2014 Redskins offseason. When their season is officially over after playing the New York Giants tomorrow.

Reasons for letting Coach Shanahan go outnumber the reasons for keeping him. In four seasons with the Redskins the Redskins have lost ten or more games three times. And if they do not beat the Giants at New Jersey tomorrow a team that has a better record than the Redskins, won twice as many games 6-9 than the 3-12 Redskins and have already beaten the Redskins on the road this year, the Redskins after already having the worst season of the Shanahan era at 3-12, will fall to 3-13.

And you can’t make the case that Coach Shanahan doesn’t have the players. For one he’s also in charge of personal and two they picked by most of the so-called experts people who understand the NFL to win the NFC East probably the worst division in football this year with the Redskins actually having the worst team. You can say that Coach Shanahan doesn’t have a very good coaching staff especially at the top with his offensive coordinator who also happens to be his son in Kyle Shanahan and defensive coordinator Jim Haslett. But again Coach Shanahan picks his own coaching staff.

The reasons to fire Coach Shanahan are pretty sound and clear and a big reason why it would be a pretty popular decision in Washington. A city that hates to lose and hates losers. But some of the issues with the Redskins management even though Coach Shanahan doesn’t have complete control of the organization, isn’t all of Coach Shanahan’s fault and responsibility. He doesn’t have a solid football person like a team president that he can report to. Who can also supervise and advise him on things like how to sign players and manage the salary cap, negotiate trades, manage the facilities and so forth. Not so much a general manager but someone at the top besides the owner that Coach Shanahan can report to that the coach can get advise from sort of like a partner. But someone who outranks the head coach, like a head of football operations.

Bruce Allen is the team’s official general manager, but he reports and works for the head coach and not the other way around. It is not that Coach Shanahan shouldn’t have the final say in personal, but he shouldn’t be running the entire football operations department either. Someone besides Dan Snyder needs to be there and be able to say, “I like what you are doing here.” But when the coach makes a bad decision be able to step in and say, “we shouldn’t do that.” And even be able to veto things that do not make sense. Someone with a football background.

One of the reasons why the San Francisco 49ers were so successful in the 1980s was because of how their management was structured. Ed Debartalo didn’t try to be the owner of the franchise as well as the team president. Bill Walsh was the head coach/general manager, but he had a team president to report to in Carmen Policy. Instead of Eddie Debartalo trying to fill both roles as owner and president. Well right now Dan Snyder is trying to fill both roles as owner and president of the Redskins. He’s simply not qualified as a businessman and not a professional football man to fill both roles as owner and president. And for the Redskins to succeed in the future with either Mike Shanahan or a new head coach, they need a new management structure.

Their management structure is going to have to change or they are going to remain in between mediocrity and a consistent, to a losing team without much of a future. And another thing that Dan Snyder needs to consider is who out there would be better than Mike Shanahan. To be their head coach/head of football operations who would also be willing to work for Dan Snyder. To make this a little personal.

I’ve made the case for both firing Mike Shanahan and keeping him on board with a new team president. And a new offensive and defensive coordinator and giving Coach Shanahan one more season. And reevaluating him at the end of 2014. Because I haven’t completely made up my mind. But if I’m Dan Snyder I’m leaning towards keeping Coach Shanahan under this new proposed management and coaching arrangement. Instead of firing Coach Shanahan and starting over.

But I would also tell the head coach that, “look are defense was horrible this year and that has to change. You need a defensive coordinator that is going to run the defense based on the personal that he has to work with. We are going back to the 4-3 and you are going to move either Ryan Kerrigan or Brian Orakbo to defensive end. And get an outside linebacker whose a very good pass defender and tackler as well. So you can blitz less and get more of a pass rush with just four or five pass rushers. Instead so you leave more help for your secondary. And give up fewer big plays in the passing and running games.”

This should be a tough decision for Dan Snyder and I hope he hasn’t made up his mind yet. And that postseason meeting with both he and the head coach happens with minds haven’t been made up yet. Because again a very good case for dumping the head coach, but there is also a good case for bringing Mike Shanahan back under the right circumstances.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Chicago Tribune: Editorial- How to Combat Inequality

Source: IQ Debates-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I agree with a lot of what was said in this Chicago Tribune editorial about the problems of why people at the bottom of the American income scale are at the bottom and why the people at the top are at the top. And as much as so-called Progressives (or Social Democrats) in America like to try to make the so-called income inequality argument in America about the rich stealing from the poor, it is not true at least in most cases.

The wealthy in America tend to be wealthy, because they have a wealth of education and marketable skills that they have used to create their success. And have either gotten those skills by having wealthy parents who were able to send them to good schools including college, or came from strong middle class families. And went to good middle class schools and ended up going to and graduating from a good college. By either getting a scholarship, student loans or working really hard and going to school at the same time. Or a combination of all of those, or some of those factors.

But there are also very successful people in America who didn’t come from wealth or even a middle class family. But had strong enough parents to make sure they not only stayed in and finished school, but got themselves a good education. Even if that meant one or both parents working multiple jobs to make that happen. So if you come from a good foundation even one with not a lot of money, but a lot of love and parents who’ll do whatever they can to see that you have a good shot at succeeding in life and you take advantage of those opportunities, you’ll do well in America.

The poor in America whether they are working or not, tend to have gotten off to a bad start in life. Dad walks out, mom left to raise their kid or kids by herself. Or dad in prison and mom not prepared to raise her kids in a proper way without the skills to do so. And then these kids make it worst for themselves by not finishing school and getting whatever education that they can. Having kids before finishing high school and essentially leaving their mother to raise her grandchildren for them.

And of course kids from both poor and rough neighborhoods falling into the wrong crowd as adolescents. Getting in trouble, not finishing high school and now looking at having a juvenile record and doing time. To go along with not having a high school diploma, having kids to take care of too early in life. Without much hope of giving their kids what their parents couldn’t give them. Which is a good start at life coming with a good education and a good shot at doing well in life.

So these are the main reasons for what I call the income gap in America as opposed to income inequality. So then it is about what should be done about these issues. And for me as a Liberal it always gets to opportunity and empowerment coming from education and job training. Having a public education system in this country that is not run by the Federal Government, but where everyone in the country can go to a school that is best for them.

Instead of being forced to going to a school based on where they live. Which is a big reason for the income gap in America with students not getting the skills that they need in life because they live in a low-income neighborhood. And the Federal Government can help with additional resources to our public schools so all of our public school students would be able to go to a good school.

And then with our low-income workforce whether they are currently working or not for our non-employed low-income workforce, it shouldn’t be about just getting them to work, but getting them good work experience as well as the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. Instead of just putting them to work in low-skilled low-income jobs without the ability that they need to get themselves a good job. Which is why job creation with our low-skilled workforce needs to also be about job training as well so this population can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. And that means at least getting a degree at a junior college or a vocational school. So they have the skills they need to do well in life. And the Federal Government and private sector with private job training programs can help provide the resources for this.

If you want to do well in America it takes marketable skills and education to make that happen. Without that you are looking at a life of poverty and living in rough neighborhoods dependent on public assistance for your economic survival. And even if you are working dead-end low-skilled low-income jobs with not much if any hope for advancement and making a good living. But with a good education and job skills, you can do as well in life as your talents and you applying your talents will allow which will benefit the country as a whole.
Intelligence Squared Debates: Income Inequality Impairs The American Dream of Upward Mobility?

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Workers World: Opinion: Kris Hamel: Only Socialism Can Save Detroit: Which Form of Socialism?

Workers World: Opinion: Chris Hamel: Only Socialism Can Save Detroit

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Socialism is one of those things that is hard to explain and define for many people. Which is why it means different things to different people sort of like liberalism. But to put it simply socialism is anything provided by government for the people that is funded by public revenue. Generally through taxes, but not always and it can financed through state-owned enterprises as well. Which was common in Cuba before they moved to a state form of capitalism a few years ago.

When people tend to think of Socialists, they tend to think of people who are Marxists. Named after the famous Far-Left philosopher Carl Marx. And a Marxist is someone who believes in state-owned economics. And believes the state meaning the central government for whatever given country should own and operate the economy and all of it’s enterprises on behalf of the people. To see that no one has too little or too much. I guess that would be what I would call a Classical Socialist to go along with the big welfare state. And all the social services that would come from the central government.

But anyone whose familiar with the developed world as it is called that is the wealthy countries of the world that have large middle class populations and even a decent number of wealthy people, but even the fast developing countries of the developing world like Mexico, China and India to use as examples, know that these countries don’t have state-owned economic systems. And that most of the industries in these countries are in private hands subjected to taxes and regulations by government.

But these countries aren’t completely capitalist either and have large and expansive welfare states. That provide most of the services that people need to do well in life. Like education, pension, health care, health insurance and other services. A lot of these countries tend to be social democratic and run by Social Democrats on the Left. Or people on the Right who even though they might not be Social Democrats aren’t interested in dismantling the welfare state. But in many cases there to see that it doesn’t expand and that these programs are run better. And even getting competition from the private sector to perform these services as well.

The future of Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats especially in America, but the developing world and Europe as well I believe is not the Marxist Socialist approach of government trying to do everything for everybody. But it is the Bernie Sanders wing of the socialist movement. Bernie Sanders the senator from Vermont the only self-described Socialist in the United States Congress.

Senator Sanders is someone who believes in capitalist private enterprise economy. But that is highly taxed and regulated to protect workers and consumers from capitalist predators, but also so the central government has the resources to provide most of the services that people need to live well in life. Which is the type of Socialist that gets elected in America, but also in Europe as well.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Canadian Blaster: Video: NASL 1979-Semifinal-Vancouver Whitecaps @ New York Cosmos: Overtime

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

One of the best played soccer games in both American and Canadian history. I’m not a soccer expert American or otherwise and at best a casual soccer fan. I do have some appreciation for the sport, but do not follow it closely. But I do know this was one of the best games in soccer history between these two countries. Because of the two teams that were involved, how evenly matched they were and the fact that either team could’ve won it. American soccer needs more games like this and need more Americanized rules as well to bring more Americans fans in to today’s MLS. Which is something that the NASL understood 30-40 years ago which is why they were able to draw baseball and football size crowds to their games. And not stuck 15-10 thousand attendance and that would be good crowds for todays MLS.

Friday, November 22, 2013

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks Look at Impact of Senate's Rules Changes

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As I said yesterday Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used. By saying, “even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts. Based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now.

Instead of Senate Republicans blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not. Which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. Again Leader Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while, but stranger things have happened, like Senate Republicans picking up eleven seats in 1980 to give Senate Republicans the majority in the next Congress starting in 1981 to go with a Conservative Republican President in Ronald Reagan.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Andrew Kaczynski: Video: U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Senate Filibuster in 2005

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Newsflash, there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating, because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power. To the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and to debate them.

Filibuster Flashback: Video: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Senate Filibuster in 2005

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. But whoever they are the Senate filibuster is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy. Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

History and Politics Hub: Dennis Prager vs Andrew Sullivan- Defense of Marriage Act- 1996

Source: History and Politics Hub-Andrew Sullivan-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

Conservatism similar to liberalism, it depends on what you mean by it. Unlike with libertarianism where most people who follow politics probably have a pretty good idea what libertarianism actually is. And a big reason for that is how simple it is. Libertarians do not want government in their wallets or personal lives and be left alone unless they are hurting innocent people. But conservatism like Liberalism is a bit more complicated than that.

More people tend to get labeled conservative even if these people who are supposed to be Conservatives disagree with each other on what it means to be a Conservative. For instance Barry Goldwater who I believe is the father of modern classical conservatism, or at least modern conservative libertarianism who was famous for saying get big government out of my wallet and bedroom, he would be a Conservative today.

But someone like Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann who are both called Conservatives or Dennis Prager even, yet even though they probably tend to agree with Senator Goldwater when it comes to economic and foreign policy, but they would sharply disagree when it comes to social issues. Because they meaning Senator Santorum, Representative Bachmann and Mr. Prager believe in serious restrictions when it comes to what people can do with their personal lives.

If your idea of a Conservative is someone whose against big government both as it relates to the economy and as it relates to people’s lives and what people do in their privacy, which is what I believe and I’m a Liberal, than Andrew Sullivan is your Conservative in this debate. But if your idea of a Conservative is someone who believes in a strong national defense, small government as it relates to the economy with low taxes across the board, but traditionalism as far as Americans should live their lives and that government should even enforce that on society, than Santorum and Bachmann would be your Conservatives.

Because someone who also believes in a traditional way of life and when Americans moves away from that it is bad for the country a way of life from let’s say back in the 1950s and that we need legal restrictions on what people can do in their personal lives for the good of the country, to me at least would be a big government Republican or rightist. And Dennis Prager would be your Conservative in this debate if that is your idea of conservative. But he’s not a Conservative in the sense he believes in conserving freedom both economic and personal. As he is in conserving a certain way of life, even if that means in restricting personal freedom.

Again it goes to what you mean by conservative, but conservatism in a political sense is how Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan even described it as, conserving freedom and allowing for people to live their own lives and making their own decisions. In other words conserving freedom, not that it is the job of government to decide how people should live their own lives. And for people who live differently and have different values, they need to be in prison for that.
History and Politics Hub: Dennis Prager vs Andrew Sullivan- Defense of Marriage Act Testimony- 1996

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- Healthcare Socialism 1, Healthcare Capitalism 0

Source: The Dish-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers to use as examples, but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance to use as examples, well you don’t see at least in America. A lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry. Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.

Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. Germany the largest country in Europe and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world. This is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.

Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.

I’m tired of hearing these bogus arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.
Healthcare Triage: Healthcare in Germany

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Bryce Campbel: Video: CBC Sports: CFL 1976-Grey Cup-Regina Roughriders vs. Ottawa Red Blacks: Full Game

Bryce Campbel: Video: CBC Sports: CFL 1976-Grey Cup-Regina Roughriders vs. Ottawa Red Blacks: Full Game

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Battle of the Roughriders! You would have to be familiar with the CFL to get that joke, but one reason why the CFL doesn’t get as much respect in America as perhaps it should it because they did at least at one point have multiple clubs with the same nickname. But this was a very good Grey Cup game, 23-20 the Red Blacks as the Ottawa CFL club is called now beat the Roughriders. Ottawa was able to move the ball well and score points against perhaps the best defense in the CFL in 1976 the Roughriders that only gave up about fifteen points a game. And had the best pass defense in the CFL. They also scored 428 points so they had a very good balanced team. The Red Blacks were able to move the ball with their balanced offense and shut out the Roughriders in the fourth quarter.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Bleacher Report: MLB: Matt Fitzgerald: Athletics May Reportedly May Play at Giants AT&T Park if New Coliseum Deal Fails

Bleacher Report: MLB: Matt Fitzgerald: Athletics May Reportedly Play at Giants AT&T Park if New Coliseum Deal Fails 

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress

It is pretty simple, if the City of Oakland wants to have the Athletics and Raiders playing inside their city, they are going to have to step up and agree to have a new ballpark and football stadium for the Athletics and Raiders. A downtown ballpark and stadium on the waterfront on the bay would be most desirable for both franchises like a stadium complex. And get both clubs out of the Oakland Coliseum within 3-5 years and them playing in profitable stadiums each for themselves within 3-5 years. 
And that means a new 2-3 year lease for both franchises which gives them and the city time to negotiate the new ballpark and stadium. For the future which is something that Pittsburgh went through in the late 1990s that saved the Pirates and Steelers from moving from that great city. And is what Seattle did for the Mariners and Seahawks in the late 1990s as well that kept both clubs in that great city as. 
So if you want to be a major league sports city and perhaps a major league city period, you have to have major league stadiums, ballparks and arenas that teams want to play in. And will allow for them to be profitable in those stadiums. And Oakland just does not have that now in the run down Oakland Coliseum. With the current configuration with the miles of foul territory and the huge upper deck in the outfield that looks more like a downtown big city skyscraper instead of skyboxes that were put in to bring the Raiders back to Oakland. 
The Oakland Coliseum is a horrible place for the baseball now and those cold summer nights at that stadium makes it less inviting for fans as well. As the Athletics and road teams to play there which makes it very difficult for the Athletics to be profitable there. So a new short-term lease for the Athletics would be a better option instead while the new ballpark is being built. And knock down the upper deck in the outfield so it looks like it did before the Raiders came back which was one of the better looking ballparks in baseball. 
And move in the seats in the foul territory so the place has a better baseball feel in the last few seasons. Which would probably bring in more fans just to see the new ballpark as well it being the last seasons at the coliseum for baseball. And move the Raiders to California Memorial Stadium in Berkley home of the California Bears. As the Raiders are waiting for their new football stadium and build the new stadiums with private and public money that the Athletics and Raiders would pay back.
That is how the save the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics that would prevent them from becoming the San José Raiders and Athletics. You renovate and build and they will come and you don’t even have to give these two great franchises that both have had great and the majority of their success in Oakland with free new stadiums at the cost of taxpayers. But with a private/public partnership that both franchises would pay back in sales taxes which would save and create thousands of new jobs in the City of Oakland. And keep it as a major league major city. 

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Film Archives: Video: U.S. Representative Bob Dornan Gets His Words in a One-Minute Speech Stricken Down in 1995

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Representative Bob Dornan wasn’t called ‘B One Bob’ for nothing. He had a tendency to say nutty things and throw a lot of partisan bombs out there without a lot of thought. Another way to describe Bob Dornan would The Blind Bomber because again he had a tendency to say things blindly without much though put into his comments at least as far as the consequences for saying some of the things that he did. And then throw his overly partisan nature and the district that he represented in California, this overly partisan approach cost him his House seat in 1996 to Loretta Sanchez. Whose still in the House today and has been there since 1997. Bob Dornan’s approach is very well suited to talk radio and perhaps cable talk TV, not well-suited for Congress even in the House of Representatives. Where there are rules in place for how members address each other and how they address the President of the United States.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

PBS: NewsHour-Nathan Gonzalez: Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?

Source: PBS NewsHour-Nathan Gonzalez-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

I’ve probably said this before on this blog, but I’m a proud Liberal Democrat and expect to be a Democrat my entire life. Unless the Far-Left were to takeover the Democratic Party, which is not likely. More likely would be a socialist third-party emerging that could actually challenge Democrats. But the two-party-system simply does not work and even though I do blame the Republicans especially their Far-Right and their anti-government Libertarian-Right more on this, one strong political party in America which is the Democratic Party right now if you look at the power, that they have, but also where they are on the issues compared with Americans as a whole, where they are blowing Republicans away right now, is not enough for a large liberal democracy.

One strong political party even if that political party is my party the Democratic Party is simply not enough. The two-party system right now is not just broken. But it is broken and bankrupt and failing. American voters not just themselves with their gerrymandering and their primary systems that in many cases especially the Republican Party, tend to select the most fringe candidates and people who are least interested in governing. And more interested in building their movement and becoming popular. As we see right now in the House Tea Party Caucus.

The current Republican Party is designed to fail and will go out of business as even a potential governing party, probably within ten years. And if that does happen and a real Center-Right party does not emerge to replace the Republican Party, we will become of a one-party-state. In a country that is supposed to be a liberal democracy. Not healthy, because that is how centralized dictatorships get created. And why we need short-term at least a new Center-Right party to replace what use to be a Center-Right party in the Republican Party.

And why Northeastern and Midwest Republicans and Blue Dog and Southern Democrats need to think about doing this. Getting together with Center-Right Independents who are not Republicans. Because of either the Religious-Right or the partisanship and the Tea Party calling them rhinos and all of that. To save our political system. Long-term I would like to see a multiple-party system going from Socialists, or Communists on the Far-Left.

To Theocrats and Confederates on the Far-Right. While still having the Liberals on the Center-Left. And Conservatives on the Center-Right. But short-term we need a strong Center-Right party in America. To compete against the Center-Left Democratic Party for the good of our political system. So the Republican Party as it is currently set up doesn’t become a failed party. Without a strong party to replace it.
PBS: NewsHour- Nathan Gonzalez: Would a Third Major Party Ease Congressional Gridlock?

Friday, October 11, 2013

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on Shutdown’s Tectonic Effect For Republicans

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on Shutdown’s Tectonic Effect For Republicans

The effect of the government shutdown on the House Republican Conference where most of the blame should be targeted, the House Republican Leadership not being able to take on the Tea Party Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus setting out to destroy the Affordable Care Act at all costs and then a few Senate Republicans like Ted Cruz obviously, but go to Mike Lee and Rand Paul, so most of the blame for the government shutdown goes to Congressional Republicans.

And the consequences are Speaker Boehner looks like a bigger weakling than he already is. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who was already in danger of being reelected next year, facing both a strong Republican primary challenge from of course a Tea Party Republican in Mark Bevin, but whoever wins that race will face a well-funded with the backing of the entire Democratic Party, Democrat in Allison Grimes. And remember, Kentucky is not Mississippi. Democrats win at all levels in Kentucky. The governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and the state House is controlled by Democrats. Facing a very unpopular Republican in Mitch McConnell.

And the U.S. House of Representatives because the Tea Party Republicans who won Democratic seats in 2010, now have to go home and explain why they supported the government shutdown. And Northeastern Republicans, whether they are in the Tea Party or not. Who represent swing districts, will either have to take on the Tea Party. And risk a primary challenge from the Tea Party, or be in favor of the government shutdown. And risk losing their seat to a Democrat. And the Democratic Party will not let House Republicans forget about the government shutdown or be able to dodge it.

Friday, September 27, 2013

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Mark Shields & Ramesh Ponnuru on Government Shutdown & Iran

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress

The question in the House Republican Conference right now is whose in charge. The father meaning Speaking John Boehner or some of his little children the Tea Party Caucus. And right now it looks like the Boehner little children are in charge. And unless Speaker Boehner takes charge of his children, the Federal Government will shutdown next week. 

Because Democrats will never agree to defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act just to do what the Federal Government is supposed to do every year that every other organization in the country has to do. Which is pass an annual budget and pay their debts. The Tea Party Caucus which seems to be running the House Republican Conference right now, has decided to try a last stand to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And put the rest of government at risk as a result. 

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

MLB Classics-CBS Sports: MLB 1993-World Series-Game 6-Philadelphia Phillies @ Toronto Blue Jays: Full Game

Source: MLB Classics- Toronto Blue Jays OF, Joe Carter-
Source: FRS Daily Times Plus

Sean McDonough “Touch them all Joe, you’ll never hit a bigger home run!” Referring to Blue Jays outfielder Joe Carter who hit the winning walk off home run in Game 6 to clinch the 1993 World Series for the Toronto Blue Jays. Giving them back to back championships.That is what game 6 of this World Series was all about. The Phillies playing for their season and just for the opportunity to get to game 7 to have another opportunity to win the 1993 World Series. The Blues Jays, playing to defend their 1993 MLB World Series Championship. And win this World Series so they don’t have to play a game 7 and risk losing this World Series. And that is what made this game so great. Because the Phillies had to win it and did their best to do so.
MLB Classics-CBS Sports: MLB 1993- World Series Game 6- Philadelphia Phillies @ Toronto Blue Jays: Full Game

Saturday, September 21, 2013

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Brooks and Dionne Discuss Conflict in The GOP, Confronting Gun Violence

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress

The Tea Party gets their vote on ObamaCare in the House and it is killed by Senate Democrats. And the House Tea Party is introduced to reality meaning that they figure out that they can’t repeal the Affordable Care Act in this Congress. That is assuming that there are enough Tea Party Republicans finally get this and say, “we’ve fought the good fight and lost. And will come back in the next Congress.” That is assuming a lot and I hope that Brooks and Dionne are right in the sense that I do not want a government shutdown. But there are a faction of Tea Party Republicans that are in the, “I won’t give up until ObamaCare is repealed. No matter who I take down with me including the Republican Party. So we’ll see which side of the GOP wins in the end.” The suicide pilots in the Tea Party, or the adults with their feet on the ground.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Pop Candies TV: Dyan Cannon, at Los Angeles Lakers Game, 2013

Source: Pop Candies TV- Dyan Cannon-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Dyan Cannon would 75-76 at this point and still looks better than women in their sixties, fifties, forties, thirties, twenties even and good look women as well. I mean she was born during the Great Depression, pre-World War II even and she still has guys, young guys checking her out wherever she goes. And still fills out denim jeans and boots as well or better than women young enough to be her daughter and even half her age. The woman is not just a goddess who lives in Hollywood because she’s an entertainer, but she’s a true Hollywood Goddess. Who should be in the Hollywood Hall of Fame, if there’s such a thing. A great actress, very funny, still gorgeous and baby-face adorable and has a body that makes guys young enough to her grandson want to check her out. But other than these things, just an ordinary women. Sorry I brought her up.
Pop Candies TV: Dyan Cannon Brings Brownies To A Lakers Game

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Social Design: The Doctors Wives 1971- Featuring Dyan Cannon

Source: The Social Design- Hollywood Goddess Dyan Cannon-
Source: FRS Daily Times Plus

Dyan Cannon is one of my favorite sexy babies all time. And not just because she’s baby-face adorable, hot and with a real nice body. Even though all of those things are true, but she’s also very funny especially when she is so cute personally and she can also act. This scene from The Doctors Wives is a pretty good example of that. These women are all married to big shot doctors who also happen to be workaholics. Who are perhaps more in love with their jobs than their wives. The men and women are supposed to be playing cards. But Dyan or her character is horny and feels the need or craving for sex. And knows her fellow players are not satisfied with their husbands. And thinks it might be their fault that their husbands don’t spend a lot of time with them. And offers to have sex with all the men to show the women what they’re doing wrong with their men. A very funny scene with a very funny adorable sexy hot actress, Dyan Cannon.
The Social Design: The Doctors Wives 1971- Dyan Cannon: At The Card Table

Sunday, September 15, 2013

KKD: Civil Rights at The 1960 Republican National Convention

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Nelson Rockefeller, was a politician without a national political party in the 1960s and 70s. Because he was an economic Progressive in a party that was moving right on economic policy. And Republicans were moving far away from progressive big government social and economic programs. Especially ones that were centralized at the Federal level. And were looking for politicians that were in favor shrinking the Federal Government and decentralizing power at the Federal level and giving more power to the states and individuals.

Nelson, was essentially a FDR New Deal Progressive Republican, but who was also a Federalist. Someone who believed in public infrastructure, public education, aid to the poor. But who was also a Federalist and wanted these social investments run at the state and local levels. Who was also a big believer in a strong defense and law enforcement and tough law enforcement, as well as equal rights. Who was more of a Progressive on economic policy and equal rights and even national defense. Who was able to win as a Republican, because he was a Northeastern Republican that had a strong Progressive faction, even into the 1960s.

And this debate or discussion about civil rights in the Republican Party in 1960s, is the perfect example of what type of party they were back then. You had the Progressive-Federalists, led by Nelson and others. But you also had a growing Conservative-Libertarian wing, led by Senator Barry Goldwater and other Republicans in Congress. That were strong economic Conservatives and didn’t want big government in people’s personal lives either. But were such believers in property rights that they believed that individuals had the right to deny service people even based on race. And Vice President Richard Nixon, trying to please both factions.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

The National: Video: Canada Reacts to Quebec's Charter of Values

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress

This is what statism from the Far-Left looks like at its worst. And I say this is coming from the Far-Left, because Quebec is an overwhelmingly socialist province. Statism in Canada at least to this extent with government telling people what they can and can’t wear in public. With what I at least would call Fundamentalist Atheism. Which is not only anti-religion, but intolerant of religion. And doesn’t believe individuals should be able to make these decisions for themselves.

And this feeling comes from the Far-Left generally. And had this been a story about Mississippi, an overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian state in America, perhaps the capital of the Christian-Right in America, I would’ve called this statism from the Far-Right. Of people who tend to be intolerant of non-Christian religions. With Islam being a big target of there’s. But what is going on in Quebec is clearly statism from the Far-Left. And shouldn’t be tolerated, or any type of religious bigotry coming from government.

Canada is obviously different from America. With their own national identity, culture, way of doing things, Constitution and just about everything else. And they’re a bit left of Americans typically to begin with. But Quebec is even further left than Canada as a whole and probably the most socialist of any province in Canada. So they need to figure out these issues for themselves in their own country. Based on their values and Constitution. But this would clearly be unacceptable and unconstitutional in America and thrown out.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

BookTV: U.S. Senator Robert Byrd- Child of The Coalfields

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, D, West Virginia-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Robert Byrd certainly had his flaws like once being a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which he later renounced. But what I respect most about Senator Byrd was his knowledge of the United States Congress and Constitution. Which is what missed most about him in Congress today. Senator Byrd was a self-taught Appalachian West Virginian, who literally had to work for everything that he ever received in life. The definition of someone who comes from nothing is almost someone who comes from Appalachia. Perhaps especially West Virginia which might be the poorest and most underdeveloped state in the union. Despite it’s beauty and natural resources, like coal. Which you would think could finance their infrastructure and education system by itself. You can say all you want about his Far-Right KKK bigotry of his early years and even into his fifties. Which will always be part of his legacy, but he was a lot more than that and a very effective and excellent legislature.

Bob Byrd was a classical legislature and member of Congress, who viewed his role as either a Representative, or Senator, or Senate Leader, as his job to represent West Virginia the state he loved and represented for 56 years in Congress, to represent his state . Because his state had so little. So what other members , the media and public, would call pork, Senator Byrd saw those infrastructure projects and pork, as tools to advance the state that he loved and represented in Congress again for 56 years. Six in the U.S. House and 50 in the Senate. Twelve years as Democratic Leader in the Senate alone. Six as Majority Leader and six as Minority Leader. And he was also what I could call at least a Classical Progressive. Someone who didn’t want government to do everything for everybody, which is how Socialists tend to feel. But use government to help people in need and help people could couldn’t help themselves.

Even with his KKK membership and beliefs that minorities weren’t equal and not deserving of the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution in his early career in Congress, Bob Byrd was always a Progressive. Not that progressivism is about bigotry, because of course it isn’t, but he always believed that government could be used as a force for good not to manage people’s lives for them, because again he wasn’t a Socialist. But used to help people in need in and outside of West Virginia. And use to empower people to get themselves on their own feet. With things like infrastructure, education, job training and a real safety net for people who truly need it. People who didn’t have the skills and education to financially support themselves. Who needed short-term assistance to get those skills and help them get those skills. SO they could eventually make it on their own.
BookTV: U.S. Senator Robert Byrd- Child of The Appalachian Coalfields

Monday, September 2, 2013

Black Blog: "Robert Byrd Former Terrorist"

Source: Black Blog-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

A terrorist organization which of course the Ku Klux Klan is without a doubt they are the Al-Qaeda of the Far-Right in America who want to destroy people who are not Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And Robert Byrd was a member of this organization while he was still Congress. Up until I believe the 1970s when he became a Leader of Senate Democrats. First serving as Assistant Leader in the mid 1970s and then became Leader of the Senate in 1977. And served as Democratic Leader until 1989.

But to be a member of a terrorist organization and actually be directly involved in terrorist operations, are two different things. And there hasn’t been any evidence reported that Bob Byrd was directly involved in KKK terrorist activities. As a member of that organization. What we know, is that he was dues paying member, even while in Congress in the 1950s and 1960s and went to Klan meetings. But that is different from being involved in terrorist activities. Like blowing up African-American churches and murdering African-Americans simply because of their race.

Bob Byrd, was against the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. And just didn’t vote against the civil rights laws that Congress passed in the 1950s and 60s, but was one of the leading filibusters in the Senate. Along with Senator Strom Thurmond, Jim Eastland, Dick Russell and several other Southern Democrats or Dixiecrats in Congress. And these are very big stains on otherwise a very good Congressional career that Senator Byrd put together both in the House and Senate. But that is different from actually being a terrorist.
Black Blog: Robert Byrd Former Former Terrorist

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Sam Seder: Federal Judge Blocks 6-Week Abortion Banning Bill

Source: FRS Daily Times Plus
Source: FRS Daily Times Plus

I don’t love it, but I do find it amusing, even sadly so when I hear people who call themselves fiscal Conservatives, who claim government is too big and spends too much money. And yet they spend taxpayer dollars on bills that if they don’t know that they’ll get thrown out on constitutional grounds, their lawyers at the very least are smart enough to know that. And yet taxpayers still have to pay for the costs of them writing their bills and paying for staff’s work and everything else. North Dakota and their anti-abortion bill, that bans abortion after six-weeks of pregnancy, is a perfect example of that.

If you can forget about the unconstitutionality and big government aspects of the bill, with the state stepping in to make health care decision for competent women, you can also dislike the bill for the waste of tax dollars that come with it. Money that could be used to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, law enforcement, jails, prisons, or lowering property taxes. Is being spent to pass a bill that will eventually get thrown out. And that is before you add up the costs of what it will take to defend the unconstitutional law in the first place. But this politics and politicians don’t take positions too many times to be consistent and accurate. But to meet short-term political goals.
Sam Seder: Federal Judge Blocks Abortion Banning Bill

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

CFL Video-CBC Sports: CFL 1978-Western Semifinal-Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Calgary Stampeders: Short Clip

Source: CFL Video-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

At first glance, those Calgary Stampeders uniforms, look like the Atlanta Falcons uniforms of the 1970 and 80s. And Georgia Bulldog uniforms of any period. With the red helmets, red jerseys and gray pants. 38-4, sorry if I give away the score to anyone who is actually interested in this game who hasn’t seen it yet. But the announcer was talking about how good the Stampeder defense was in 78, especially their front four. And comparing it to the Edmonton Eskimos front line as well. Which was a big part of all the CFL championship success that the Eskimos had in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And when you give up four points in a CFL playoff game, you either have a great defense, or you’re playing a team with a poor offense. The Blue Bombers scored 371 points in 1978, in sixteen games. So they could obviously move the football and score. Only the Eskimos beat the Stampeders in the CFL Playoffs in 78, in the Western Final. So they have a very good team in 78.
CFL Video: CFL 1978- West Semi Final- Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Calgary Stampeders: Short Clip

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

CFL Video-CBC Sports: CFL 1978-Week 10-Montreal Alouettes @ Toronto Argonauts: Short Video

Source: CFL Video-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

I just looked this up, before someone accuses me of being an expert on the Canadian Football League. The Montreal Alouettes were 8-7 in 1978 and made it all the way to the Grey Cup. Where they lost to the 10-4 Edmonton Eskimos. A team, that was barely over 500, makes to all the way to the CFL Championship. Similar to the 1979 Los Angeles Rams, that were 9-7 in the NFL, but won their division as well as the NFC and made it to the Super Bowl. But they had a very good team on paper as far as talent and their coaching staff. And dealt with a lot of injuries key players during the first half of the 79 season. Got healthy in the second half and went on a big role and made it all the way to the Super Bowl. Where they would lose to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Perhaps the 78 Alouettes were in a similar situation. The Toronto Argonauts however, had an awful 4-11 record in 78. So this wasn’t a matchup of great teams.
CFL Video-CBC Sports: CFL 1978- Week 10- Montreal Alouettes @ Toronto Argonauts: Short Clip

Saturday, May 11, 2013

RBG Street Scholar: James Baldwin and Dick Gregory- Baldwin's Nigger 1969

Source: RBG Street Scholar-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

James Baldwin’s message seems to be about individual empowerment and individual freedom. That African-Americans should empower themselves and standup for their own lives and take charge of their own lives. And perhaps even stop complaining. Not forget about all the injustices that came to this community before. But for this community to move forward they need to take control of their own lives and build their own lives and communities.

James Baldwin, who what I’ve heard from him, sounds more like Martin King, than Malcolm X, when it came to the civil rights movement, or the Black Power movement. Someone who not only believes in non-violence, but believes in social democracy and democratic socialism when it comes to solving the problems of the African-American community. In this speech, sounds more like Malcolm X. Talking about personal responsibility, to go along with individual freedom and empowerment.

That African-Americans, should stand up and take their freedom and build their own community. And not expect others to do that for them. Sounds very much like Malcolm X. Fighting violence with violence, which is essentially what Malcolm X preached when it came to racist Caucasians who abuse African-Americans, would’ve not of accomplished what was needed to end racist laws and state-sponsored racism. Because it wouldn’t have brought other communities to support the African-American freedom fighters. But individual freedom through education and economic development and infrastructure in underserved communities, would give African-Americans the tools that they need to live in freedom.
RBG Street Scholar: James Baldwin & Dick Gregory- Baldwin's Nigger 1969

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

George Carlin: Jon Stewart interviews George Carlin

Source: George Carlin-
Source: George Carlin: Jon Stewart Interviews George Carlin

What separates George Carlin from let's call them other counter-culture satirists and comedians on the left let's say who critique American society and culture, is that for one George Carlin is often more right than his other colleagues. But he also doesn't have a political agenda that he's pushing. He's not trying to get government to do this or that for the country. Also his satire is bipartisan, he doesn't critique politicians in both parties just to look fair, but he critiques politicians that he disagrees with. No mater their political or ideological affiliations.

Carlin is a classical rebel in the sense that he's against the establishment whoever it.  Because he doesn't have a political agenda of his own. His real political message if he has one is about education and that the people need to educate themselves and stop reelecting people that keep the same system in place and that we should take responsibility for our own lives. Rather than blaming people that we elect and reelect for giving us the system that we have or where we are in life. It's not Carlin's consistency that I admire so much, but that he's consistently right.

PBS: NewsHour- Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

All of these abortion restriction laws are coming in red states that like to complain about big government. And government interfering in our lives and so forth and yet they write laws that do exactly that. And interfere with the most personal of decisions that Americans will ever make which get’s to our healthcare. In this case women’s healthcare and who decides whether women give birth or not after being pregnant. Apparently big government in red states is government they do not like mainly as it relates to the economy. But big government that they do like as it has to do with our personal lives is okay, because, “it’s in our national interest to have government making these decisions for us. Rather than individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make these decisions for ourselves.” And then you get to the constitutional and legal aspects of this where these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. Because of the rock solid pro-choice majority on it. And you have states defending laws in court with taxpayer funds that will be ruled unconstitutional. Money that would’ve been spent for other things that would not get thrown out.
PBS: NewsHour- Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services

Monday, April 29, 2013

Pop User: Conservative Roundtable- Howard Phillips Welcomes U.S. Representative Ron Paul: In 1997

Source: Pop User-
Source: Pop User: Conservative Roundtable- Howard Phillips Welcomes U.S. Representative Ron Paul: In 1997

What I personally respect about Ron Paul is that the Ron Paul you see back in the late 1990s in 1997, is the same Ron Paul today and fighting and believing in the same things. In what he views as a constitutional government and that the Federal Government is grown way too big and it must be limited back to where it was pre-New Deal of the 1930s and so-forth. And that we need more individual freedom both economic and personal and eliminate prohibition all together.

What I like about Ron Paul as a Liberal myself and not a Libertarian in Ron Paul's case, is the whole idea of individual freedom both economic and personal as well, as personal responsibility. But even though I believe the Federal Government is too big and more power needs to be sent down to the states and people themselves, we disagree about how much smaller the Federal Government should be. But where Ron Paul was sixteen years ago is the Ron Paul that we see today and is one politician that you can count on. At least to the extent that you know what he believes and that he won't change his politics when the politics change.

Saturday, April 27, 2013 Video: C-Span: White House Correspondents Dinner: Barack Obama is Not Who You Think He is

This just in Barack Obama is not the young strapping Muslim-Socialist that he use to be. It must be true because the humble Barack Obama admitted that himself. The press and the President have different jobs to do which is as true and obvious as Barack Obama is an American-citizen. And the job of the President is run his administration and the press's job is to report what they believe will sell the most. Or in CNN's case report every side of the story hoping that one of them is true. And I believe it's a good idea that President Obama is reaching out with Congressional Republicans, especially Senate Republicans who never seem. Ready to vote yes or no on any of the President's proposals and keep wanting to talk about his policies instead. Another words filibuster for the 99.9% of the population who aren't political-junkies By the way President Obama proposed to reach out to Senate Republicans but they filibustered that as well. Oh by the way people you non political-junkies have no idea what the you guys are missing, you must have lives or. Something but at least President Obama is reaching out to the press and Republicans when he can.