NFL Films: NFL 1968-Super Bowl 3-Baltimore Colts vs. New York Jets: Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Broadway Joe Namath, saying goodbye to Miami, after leading the New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl 3.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks faced off on the grandest stage of all as the Baltimore Colts and Johnny Unitas took on the New York Jets and "Broadway" Joe Namath, who guaranteed victory for his team."

From NFL Films

With all due respect to the 1968 New York Jets, Super Bowl 3 is a much different game had Colts QB John Unitas who was still the best QB in pro football at this point, been healthy and at full strength against the Jets and not dealing with a sore throwing arm. Because the Colts with Earl Morral who was a solid, but journeyman NFL QB, drove the ball up and down the field against the Jets defense in the first half. But the Colts had to settle for a short field goal attempt that they missed. And Morall missed Colts WR Jimmy Orr in the end zone and under the ball that was picked off by a Jets DB. A healthy Unitas hits Orr in the end zone.

The Colts should’ve had 10-14 points if not more in the first and you are looking a much different game going into the second half. With the Colts having a 10 or 14-7 lead knowing they can move the ball up and down the field against the Jets. And knowing their great defense can shut down the Jets.

Juan Traverus: 1979 Jordache- Denim Jeans Commercial

Source:Juan Traverus's photo from his video.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Classic Jordache Jeans commercial from 1979!!!” 

From Juan Traverus

When designer denim jeans broke out for women in 1978 or 79, Jordache Jeans were everywhere, Similar with Gloria Vanderbilt's. They were all over TV, especially in sitcoms and all over around town. Sexy women loved wearing them on the town and even dressing them up with their blouses, blazers, and boots. The woman in this photo is obviously more casual, but very sexy and stylish.

Source:Jordache Jeans woman.

I just want to say thank God I was born in 1975 and I’m old enough to remember the tight dark wash denim designer jeans revolution of the late 1970s, that went up to 1984 or 85 or so. Before 1977 or 78 jeans on women tend to be baggy and real thin and loose in the legs and in many cases the pant would hit the ground. If you are familiar with the early 1970s and even the mid 1970s, or the hippie era, you know what I’m talking about.

In 1977 and 78 that changed and women’s jeans denim leather became tight and reveling. Showing your legs and butt as a sexy women became popular. And you started seeing a lot of women in their tight dark wash designer denim jeans on TV a lot and in the movies and out in public and you saw sexy female celebrities showing off their hot bodies in them. The jeans in boots look started in the late 1970s, not 2005-06.

The designer denim jeans for women sort of went out of style by 1986 or so and unfortunately were replaced with acid wash and unfortunately I’m old enough to remember that as well. But smart enough to never where them. And then in the late 1990s the dark wash designer denims came back into style and have been with us ever since and have just gotten tighter with skinny denim trend.

Russia Today: Barack Obama- A Socialist in Disguise?

Source:Russia Today- President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, talking about whether President Barack Obama is actually a Socialist. Newsflash: Barry and Vlad are not friends.

Source:FreeState MD

“Obama: Socialist in disguise?”

From Russia Today

“RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO “TV-Novosti” on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast “materially misleading” content.[72] 

In 2012, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was “waging an information war, and with the entire Western world”.[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia’s annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT’s website and restricting access to RT’s content.[82][83] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[84][85] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia.”

From Wikipedia

I agree Barack Obama may be the worst Socialist ever for the simple reason he’s not a Socialist. And the same thing could be said about George W. Bush being the worst Conservative ever because he wasn’t very conservative, if you look at his record when it came to fiscal policy, especially spending and civil liberties.

To be a Socialist you, you must be a Socialist. I know that sounds crazy, but to be tall, you actually have to be tall. A man can’t just say one day: “Now dammit (or something stronger) I’m tired of being 5’7 and short. So today I declare myself as 6’1 and tall.” Why, because that man will still be 5’7. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that. A patrol officer can’t just make themselves a sergeant and call themselves that. They have to be promoted to sergeant first. 

Calling yourself something or calling someone else something, doesn’t make them what you’re calling them or yourself that, if you or they aren’t actually that. If I’ve lost you on that, I’m not surprised, I’m feeling dizzy from just writing that.

To be a Socialist, you must have a socialist record and socialist policies and ideas. Which is just not there in Barack Obama’s case. Unless you want to play guilt by association (In other words: Joe McCarthy) Meaning people Barry has been associated with in the past, Bill Ayers comes to mind, the guy hosting this show, Al Sharpton, now here’s someone you could make a serious case about being a Socialist. 

But the charges against President Obama are just Tea Party propaganda trying to make a man they hate, seen as Un-American as not one of them and must be defeated and stopped at all costs. So they use one of the most unpopular words in the American-English dictionary which is socialist and socialism and so-forth, trying to make Barack Obama seem as worst then he is to scare people. Thats the modern GOP divide and conquer when you don’t have a popular message of your own.

Mitch: Chicago 1968- The Democratic Convention

Source:Mitch- The 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Source:FreeState MD

“1968 Democratic Convention special.”

From Mitch

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition, made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neo-Confederate wing of the Republican Party today. By 1968, the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the so-called Progressive Caucus in Congress that you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party now had a major, left-wing in it. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Classical Liberals on their Right and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists-Anarchists, as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today.

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two wings on the Left: The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left, people who are against war (at all costs) but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society, but would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish.

The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties: New Democrat Liberals, the center-right, (where I am) the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them, and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names.

And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.

U.S. Representative Jim McDermott: Affordable Care Act

Source:U.S. Representative Jim McDermott- talking about the House Republicans 37th attempt in 3 years, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. (Also known as ObamaCare)

"Rep. McDermott on Republicans' 37th Vote to Repeal the Affordable Care Act" 

From Representative Jim McDermott

You would generally have a better chance of seeing bird fly a real plane or win the Indianapolis 500 in a race car, then to see me agree with Representative Jim McDermott (Democrat, Washington State on anything. Perhaps a January heat wave in Wisconsin or a blizzard in South Florida, happens more often than I agree with Representative Jim McDermott on anything. 

Not that I don't like Jim McDermott, because I actually do, because at the very least you always know what the man is thinking. Which makes him as special as the Cleveland Indians winning the World Series. That just doesn't happen very often in Congress (House or Senate) so when it does, you meed to give the member credit for it. 

My broader and more serious point here is (and yes, I have one) is that Jim McDermott is not just right here, but he's damn right. House Republicans made the whole 112th Congress about reducing the deficit and repealing the Affordable Care Act. They won on deficit reduction and I give them credit for that. But even the U.S. Supreme Court believes the ACA the law of the land. 

House Republicans didn't gain seats in 2012, they lost 8. The Republican Party didn't win back The White House in 2012, they lost it again. Not only that, but Senate Democrats not only held the Senate, but picked up 2 seats. So what's the point on voting to once again repeal the ACA, when you know the legislation will never even get out of Congress, let alone get to The White House? 

Scott Scherer: ‘The Last Days of the Old Cleveland Browns’

Source:Scott Sherer- that famous 1987 AFC Championship Game between the Cleveland Browns and Denver Broncos, with Browns RB Earnest Byner's fumble.

Source:The Daily Journal

“With the recent start to the football season, Art Modell’s passing, and the recent showing of “Cleveland ’95” (NFL)

on the NFL Network, it seemed timely to put this video I made up for viewing. When I first heard the song “These Days”, the storyline of the Browns immediately came to mind.

“But its alright, yea its alright, say its alright…easy for you to say”

From Scott Sherer

This looks more like the story of the 1990s Browns before they relocated to Baltimore and became the Ravens and the New Browns came into existence in 1999. To me this looks like the story of the Bill Belichick Browns which is a good story because it’s about a guy who was getting his first shot as a NFL head coach and something he deserved, but he inherited a bad football team in 1991.

Coach Belichick’s first season where the good days of the Browns of the 1980s were gone and they had become a team that you could expect to lose ten plus games every year. And Bill Belichick didn’t get off to a good start in Cleveland. And started with three straight losing seasons from 1991-93 where progress was slow, but where it finally paid off.

In 1994 the Browns becoming winners and a playoff team for the first time in five years. But financial problems in Cleveland with the Browns playing at a mammoth, aging, stadium in Cleveland Municipal Stadium and these issues were real and the Browns simply wouldn’t have been successful in Cleveland playing in that stadium.

Jesse Shipp: Don Coryell- The Air Coryell Chargers

Source:Jesse Shipp with an NFL Films clip about former NFL head coach Don Coryell.

 
Source:The Daily Journal

“A short video about Don Coryell from the “History Of The San Diego Chargers”

From Jesse Shipp

I wouldn’t put the 1981 San Diego Chargers on the NFL Films list of teams that didn’t win Super Bowls, that would’ve and what they call Missing Rings. For the simple fact that they didn’t have a Super Bowl team, they had a Super Bowl passing game.

But so did the San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Raiders, Washington Redskins all teams that had Super Bowl passing games. But all teams that won Super Bowls in the 1980s because they had Super Bowl teams. They all had great running games as well as great defenses so they didn’t have to score 30-35 points a game and get into shootouts to win.

Great teams are able to put up a lot of points, when their defense has a bad game, or when they are blowing their opponents away that much it was, because they were blowing teams away because their defense is also playing well.

The Chargers at least of 1981 and look at their playoff games of 1982, 1980 and 1979 and when they became playoff contenders in 1978, they were a passing team without a great running game, at least at playoff time that struggled on defense in the playoffs as well.

So I would put the Chargers in the level of the Miami Dolphins of the early and mid-1980s. Great quarterback and receivers, but not much else that stands out as being part of a great team.

I would put the 1981 Chargers on a list of teams that what would’ve been if they had a good defense as well. And then maybe we are talking about the 1981 Chargers like we are talking about the 1999 St. Louis Rams. A team with basically the exact same offense, but with a great running game as well and also one of the best defenses in the NFL in 1999.

What Air-Coryell was, is basically what I call the Spread Vertical Offense: where basically everyone on offense except for of course the QB and offensive line, are receivers and targets in the passing game where you throw the ball to everyone all over the field.

With a spread offense the defense has to cover the whole field, but where there’s at least one deep option on every pass play sending at least one corner back to go downfield. And hopefully a safety as well leaving the rest field open to other players for the QB to get the ball too.

The problem with the Air-Coryell version of the SVO is that it was a warm dry weather offense. That once the weather goes bad, the Chargers running game wasn’t good enough to pick up the slack for the passing game struggling. When the defenses know that you have to run the ball. The 1981 AFC Final against the Cincinnati Bengals otherwise known as The Freezer Bowl, perfect example.

The reason why the Chargers lost the 1981 AFC Final to the Cincinnati Bengals in what’s known as the Freezer Bowl, horrible football weather is because the Bengals were a big running team that got their big pass plays off of play-action with QB Ken Anderson. That were better defensively and a tougher team than the Chargers and well-suited to win in bad weather.

The Chargers were too single-dimensional, too reliant on the passing game to win. With not enough of a running game and defense to pick up the slack when the passing game was off.

The New York Times: Can Diversity Survive Without Affirmative Action?

Source:The New York Times at the University of California Berkeley.

Source:FreeState MD

“The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in a case involving the University of Texas on the use of race and ethnicity in college and university admissions nationwide. California, Florida, Michigan and Washington have already outlawed affirmative action in admissions decisions.

If a conservative Supreme Court curtails the ability of universities to use race in admissions, could there still be a liberal result with greater emphasis on economic disadvantage in admissions, more financial aid for low-income students, better outreach and reduced emphasis on legacy preferences?”

From The New York Times

With all due to respect to The New York Times: I don’t think this is the right question. I don’t think this should be a choice, I don’t think we should be looking for a diverse society, or a just society.

To be a true, liberal democracy, free society, we have to be a just society. And in a country that’s as diverse as we are, not just racially, ethnically, culturally, religiously, politically, we have to be a just society.

In a just society, everyone is entitled to a fair shot at achieving their own freedom and everyone is treated equally under law. Not rewarded or punished, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, culture, sexuality. But we’re all treated equally under law. And rewarded based on what we contribute to society, what we do for ourselves. But also justly held accountable for our bad behavior.

ABC Sports: FBS 1984-Sugar Bowl-Nebraska Cornhuskers @ Louisiana Tigers: Full Game

Source:ABC Sports 1985 Sugar Bowl intro.

Source:The Daily Journal

“This video is a telecast, broadcast, and production of ABC. I claim no ownership of this material, and do not profit from it in any way. This video is intended for historical and educational viewing purposes.”

From BM Boldt

An interesting matchup for a Sugar Bowl, because you have a power football oriented Big 12 football team in the Nebraska Cornhuskers, on both sides of the ball, where they probably ran the ball seventy to eighty percent of the time, including their quarterback, with a big strong offensive line as well and big and strong on defense.

The Cornhuskers essentially playing a spread offense Louisiana Tigers team, that spread the defense out with three receivers or more, looking for one on one mismatch advantages that they could take advantage of, with their speed receivers and running backs and throwing the ball quickly.

So in a matchup like that where both teams move the ball very well and score a lot of points, but does it differently, it is the defense that plays the best and adjust the best that generally wins the game.

Janet Jackson: The Pleasure Principle

Source:Janet Jackson's The Pleasure Principle official video from 1986.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Music video by Janet Jackson performing The Pleasure Principle.”

From Janet Jackson

To be completely honest with you: if you were to judge The Pleasure Principle as just a song and listened to Janet Jackson just sing the song standing in front of a microphone and without the dancing, we are not talking about a very good song.

I’m a Janet fan, but the song itself is not that great and maybe that is just part of the era that it came from which is the 1980s, which wasn’t a very good decade for American music rhythm and blues, or anything else. And I think this song is somewhat cheesy compared with the 1990s which was great decade for American music.

I’ve seen this video and heard this song countless times and I’m still not sure what this is about. But if you judge the song by just the video, this is a great video, song or no song. The music to the lyrics are very good and you throw in Janet herself and I don’t know if there is a better singer/dancer than Janet Jackson. Easily one of the best musical dancers of all-time and one of the sexiest as well if not the best of all-time.

Janet is a very attractive beautiful baby-face woman with a great body. Who almost thirty-years later after this song came out, she hasn’t lost a thing anywhere. And if anything she is a better entertainer now than she was in 1986.

Chuck Collins: George McGovern 1972- The People’s Campaign

Source:Chuck Collins with a 1972 George McGovern for President ad.

Source:FreeState MD

“This is about the truth of it, sadly. Yet even knowing all that, we re-elected him in a landslide. What does that say about us?”

From Chuck Collins

Just because Senator McGovern didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the 1972 presidential election because of how popular President Nixon was then and with his foreign policy success. Including ending the Vietnam War and opening Russia and China.

And with the state of the Democratic Party thanks to the emergence of the New-Left in it that became todays Green Party and Occupy Wall Street movement. It was as if what Democrats were saying with George McGovern:“We’re not going to win anyway. So we might as well nominate our heart and go down big, but swinging.”

Just because you probably aren’t going to win an election, it doesn’t mean you have to prove to the wold how unqualified you are to not just govern a huge divided country, but to even win the presidency. And go out-of-your-way to do what you can to make that happen for yourself. And not run the best campaign that you can. Otherwise you might as well not have bothered running for president in the first place. And stay in the Senate and continue be part of the loyal opposition in Congress instead.

But what happened with the McGovern Campaign is that they never gave themselves much of an opportunity to win this election. And neither did the Democratic Party with the division between the Center-Left and Far-Left in the party.

I have a lot of respect for how George McGovern as far as how he managed his life and career. He truly was a public servant and a people’s politician and always believed in doing what was in the public’s interest. Also as far as what he accomplished politically and moving the Democratic Party from being dependent on racists anti-minority Dixiecrats to win presidential elections. By bringing in ethnic and racial minorities, as well as women and men. And making the Democratic Party very competitive in the North.

But the McGovern presidential campaign represents what can happen to the Democratic Party when their leadership is weak. And they don’t have a strong Center-Left establishment. And as a result they become divided and their Far-Left takes over. And they nominate George McGovern as their leader in 1972.

Carl Milton: FBS 1988-Tennessee Volunteers @ Georgia Bulldogs: Full Game

Source:Carl Milton with the 1988 Volunteers-Bulldogs game.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Rodney Hampton and the Georgia Bulldogs defeat the Tennessee Volunteers 28-17 at Sanford Stadium in the season opener for both teams. I do not own the rights to this video and do not profit in any way.”

From Carl Milton

One of the better rivalries in the SEC Tennessee-Georgia. Even though both teams arch-rival plays in Florida and perhaps you know the same of the school. Also two of the best and traditionally two of the best football programs in the SEC. Seems every year the last twenty-years or so either Georgia, Florida or Tennessee has won the SEC East and gone on to play in one of the BCS bowl games. And in Tennessee’s and Florida’s case have won national championships. Something Georgia is still trying to win again for the first time since 1980.

So these are not only two of the best football programs in the SEC, but also perhaps the two best schools in the SEC. Whether you have to be a real student and do the work as a student to play there. So this is always a great matchup when these two teams play each other.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey: 1968 Democratic National Convention Acceptance Speech

Source:CSPAN- Vice President Humbert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota) accepting the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, in Chicago, Illinois.

Source:FreeState MD

“Here is Vice President Humphrey’s acceptance speech from that turbulent and wild convention in August 1968.

He was very much the establishment candidate in ’68, and was the favorite through the race after President Johnson quit. He might not have been the most popular choice in ’68 but he did come close to winning, which might have been the closest anyone could have come that year, but it depends on which history expert you ask. Humphrey does seem like a nice guy however.” 

From EFAN 2011

Hubert Humphrey, didn’t lose the 1968 presidential election because he was a bad candidate or ran a bad campaign or wasn’t qualified to be President of the United States. The opposites are true and even though as it turns out 1968 was his best shot at being elected President of the United States, something he had been thinking about at least since 1957 after Dwight Eisenhower was reelected President in a landslide. Vice President Humphrey was caught in a perfect political storm for both the Democratic Party because of how much damaged it did to the party that lasted at least until 1976 and came back again in 1980 the same political divisions that reemerged again in the late 1970s.

But it was also a perfect political storm for the Republican Party because it not only brought them back to power with Richard Nixon, but made them a real competitive conservative national party again. Where the Republican Party represented the center-right in the country. And the Democratic Party now representing the center-left in the country.

1964 and 1968, even though only one of those elections resulted in short-term success and if you count 1966 and that would be two elections for the Republican Party which they won made them a conservative, national, competitive, party, that would fight communism and other authoritarianism. That would promote economic freedom and business and be a fiscally conservative party. These were the positive aspects of the GOP merging with the South.

What these elections did to the Democratic Party, was create chaos for them. Because it meant they could no longer count on the South for votes and to win elections with them. Plus, they had this emerging young more social-democratic, anti-military New-Left, coming into the party. That pushed the Democratic Party to the Far-Left on many national issues through the 1970s and even into the 1980s. Which they didn’t recover from until 1992 when the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president and of course he wins that election and Democrats keep control of Congress as well. But what 1968 along with 66 and even 64 did, was realign both the Republican Party and Democratic Party.

Alena Daydream: ‘Mariah Carey-Happy Birthday To You’

Source:Alena Daydream- R&B Goddess Mariah Carey singing Happy Birthday, to The Greatest of All Time, Muhammad Ali.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Mariah Carey-Happy Birthday To You”

From Alena Daydream

I’m going to be real blunt here and say that Muhammad Ali’s rocket took off to the moon once Mariah not only came on the stage, but as she approached Muhammad. His rocket then took off to another galaxy. I could put it more direct than that, but I think you get the idea.

I mean seeing Mariah live is not a birthday present, but a lifetime of birthday presents and may prevent Muhammad from developing Alzheimer’s . Because he’ll never forget this performance. She’s the goddess of my generation I believe at least in the music industry. A hot, baby-face, adorable goddess with a body of a goddess and she knows all of these things and uses them os well. And oh by the way, the best singer in the business at least when it comes to her voice post-Whitney Houston and Frank Sinatra

CBS News: Face The Nation With Bob Schieffer: 'The Confident Defeat That Wasn't'

Source:CBS News- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) appearing on CBS News Face The Nation, in 1972.

Source:The Daily Journal

"Democrats Sen. Hubert Humphrey and Rep. George McGovern appeared together on "Face the Nation" while they were campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. They both expressed confidence that President Richard Nixon was beatable. Of course, neither of them ultimately did."

From CBS News

Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate talking to CBS News Face The Nation about Senator Hubert Humphrey and their presidential campaigns. The video that this photo is from, is not currently available online right now.

Source:CBS News- Face The Nation talking to George McGovern & Hubert Humphrey.

The fact is there wasn't any Democrat who could even beat President Nixon in 1972, or even give him a tough race, because of the disarray in the Democratic Party between it's Center-Left and Far-Left. Similar to how the Republican Party is today. And there wasn't a Democrat who could bring those two sides together. 

But even without the emergence of the McGovernites that put all of their support behind Senator George McGovern in 1972, I think they would have a hard time defeating President Nixon. Because of the emerging Southern base in the Republican Party and that the Democrats hadn't locked down the Northeast and West Coast, as well as big Midwestern cities as far as their base. African-Americans and Latinos, were still voting Republican in 1972.

Compared with the late 1960s at least, 1972 looked like a fairly peaceful and establishment friendly year. And when that is the case the party in power and that is the party with the presidency, tends to do well. Even if the young Baby Boomers and the broader New-Left in the Democratic Party felt differently. 

By 1972, the Vietnam War was ending, America was negotiating with Russia and China and opening up a relationship with the People's Republic of China. The country by in-large felt pretty good. The Great Deflation of the 1970s that basically hammered the American economy from really 1973 on, hadn't happen yet. So when the country is like this they tend to feel fairly good and aren't looking for a change in leadership. 

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Norman Thomas (1953)

Source:CBS News talking to Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas in 1953.

Source:FreeState MD

“LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH DR. NORMAN THOMAS – National Archives and Records Administration 1953-02-16 – ARC Identifier 95979 / Local Identifier LW-LW-48 – TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Hardy Burt talk with Dr. Norman Thomas, Socialist Leader, on criticism of the new Eisenhower administration policies regarding Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek, communism, bombing of Manchurian bases, recognition of the People’s Republic of China, Korean truce, a third World War and world peace. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon.”

From the Public Resource 

What I respect about Norman Thomas (even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy) is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. 

Norman Thomas was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how it’s been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far-lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world, for a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism, as if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise.

Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war.

Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him

Thom Hartmann: Caller: How Big Should Government Be?

Source:Thom Hartmann debating a caller on his talk show.

Source:FreeState MD

“Thom Hartmann talks with a caller who wants to know the purpose of government and how big Thom thinks it should be. Thom shares what the Constitution has to say.”

From Thom Hartmann

“Thom Hartmann will be leaving The Big Picture TV show (on RT TV and Free Speech TV) at the end of September. We’ve had a great run with The Big Picture and earlier this summer we decided to discontinue that evening show so we could focus more directly on our daily 3-hour midday show, The Thom Hartmann Program.

Having complete editorial control over a TV show syndicated internationally into more than 700 million homes was a great (and rare) opportunity. We worked hard not to do “sports” or “soap opera” when covering politics, and instead focus on issues; we believe we accomplished a lot in that regard. We’re grateful to RT for the opportunity, and for fully honoring our contractual independence at all times.

You’ll still be hearing and seeing me on The Thom Hartmann Program, which is growing weekly in the noon-3 PM ET daypart." 

From Thom Hartmann 

Source:Russia Today is Vladimir Putin's Russian funded news network.

“How big should government be” 

From Thom Hartmann

In this editorial, Thom Hartmann said that government should be big enough to insure that all Americans have access to quality affordable health care. And I guess that means health insurance as well and education.

Does that mean that Thom believes that the Federal Government should be running the entire healthcare and education systems in this country? I know he’s in favor of Medicare For All, which would basically make Medicare the sole provider of health insurance in this country. I disagree with him on that, but I know he’s in favor of Medicare single-payer for all. But my question would be for Thom, does that mean he’s also in favor of the U.S. Government running the entire health care system in this country, or just as it relates to health insurance?

The purpose of any government in any free society, especially a liberal democracy like America, is to protect the innocent in society from both foreign and domestic predators. And to ensure that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, culture, is treated equally under law and that everyone has a real shot to succeed in society and make it in America.

The purpose of government in a free society, especially in a liberal democracy like America, is not to run our lives for us, or to protect the party in power from the people, or to try to guarantee total equality, so there are no rich or no poor. But to see to that as many innocent people as possible are protected from predators, that predators are justly punished for their crimes, and that everyone has a real shot in society to make it in America on their own and live in freedom.

This post was updated 11/03/2023.