NFL Films: The Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Kansas City Chiefs WR Otis Taylor catching a 42 yard TD pass from QB Len Dawson.

Source:The Daily Journal

“Yesterday Kansas City beat Green Bay, ending the Packer’s 19-game winning streak. This video shows another notable Packers vs. Chiefs game along with the Chiefs other Super Bowl appearance.”

From Gwllyamz

This is going to sound simplistic, but it is so true and important that I have to say it anyway: The difference between the 1966 Kansas City Chiefs and the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs, is that the 69 Chiefs won the Super Bowl.

And why do I say that? Because the 69 Chiefs knew what it was like to lose a Super Bowl on national TV and most of the players on the 66 team were also on the 69 team.

The 69 Chiefs knew that just getting to the Super Bowl was not enough. Or just getting to the Super Bowl and playing a good first half was not enough. That if you didn’t actually win the game, you failed and didn’t accomplish your ultimate goal which was to win the Super Bowl.

There is no second place in the Super Bowl. You either win it or you lose it and that was one of the motivators that served the 69 Chiefs very well in Super Bowl 4.

Think Progress: Michael Waldron: ‘More Proof That America Doesn’t Have A Spending Problem’

Source:Think Progress- with a look at the United States Federal budget.

“The idea that the United States has an out of control spending problem has gripped Washington D.C. for most of the economic recovery, and nowhere is that more evident than in recent budget negotiations, where the conversation has been almost solely about when budgets will balance and by how much they will reduce the debt. […]/p…

From Think Progress 

Leave it up to Think Progress to only report half of the story, which is why I only use them to gage what so-called Progressives (who aren’t very progressive) are thinking in America.

Michael Waldron only covered the discretionary side of the Federal budget. For anyone who that might sound like Greek who doesn’t speak Greek: the discretionary side of the Federal budget is non-national security and so-called entitlement spending. Things like infrastructure, research, education funding, and so-forth. Which is about half of the Federal budget. (Give or take)

According to Michael Waldron of Think Progress, the Federal budget has fallen over the last two years, which is true thanks to the Budget Control Act of 2011. But he didn’t take into account or report how much the Federal budget has grown overall since 2001.

When President Obama took office in 2009, the Federal budget represented around 22% of the American economy. Thats if you don’t include Afghanistan and Iraq, its much higher than that if you do. But the Bush Administration never bothered to put those wars on budget or pay for them.

What the Obama Administration along with their efforts to respond to the Great Recession with the American Recovery Act of 2009-10, they also put the wars on budget and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 on budget which was paid for. So I would argue that they were correct to increase the Federal budget over that period to deal with the economy and healthcare. And we’ve seen the benefits of both but Federal spending under President Obama went up in his first two years.

This is according to the Congressional Budget Office, when President Clinton left office in 2001: the Federal budget represented around twenty percent of the American economy. Under President Bush, we grew to twenty two percent thanks to Medicare Advantage, No Child Left Behind, Hurricane Katrina. But again if you include Afghanistan and Iraq it’s higher the 22%.

The last two years, the Federal budget has come down by roughly ten percent thanks to the Budget Control Act, but we are still at a higher level than we were in 2001, when the economy was still in good shape with more people working. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Daily Beast: Representative Michele Bachmann's Most Outrageous Comments

Source:The Daily Beast- former U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota)

 The only public service that Michele Bachmann ever did was not running for reelection. She did Minnesota a big favor there.

Source:FreeState MD

“Never one to shy away from a tendentious (or just blatantly false) statement, the Tea Party Congresswoman has witnessed her fair share of controversy. From virulent anti-gay sentiment to borderline McCarthyism, watch Bachmann’s worst.”

From The Daily Beast

Some people may think George W. Bush is the Democratic Party’s favorite punching bag. But the fact is President Bush has been out of office for over four years now (thank God) and he’s looking pretty good compared with today’s GOP.

This is a little difficult for me because that’s like coming up with best plays that Larry Bird ever made playing basketball. Or the best passes that Joe Montana ever thrown, or the best home runs that Hank Aron ever hit and so-fourth. Also I don’t live in Representative Bachmann’s House district or state, thank God, otherwise I would’ve moved or been kicked out of there, whatever came first. And I’m not in Congress myself so what I hear about her is from the national media or from blogs. But I can limit it two or three as someone who follows politics closely and has big annoyance when it comes to political hypocrisy and contradiction.

When Representative Bachmann announced for President in the summer of 2011, as I and every other blogger and comedian were celebrating about all the new material that was going to come our way free of charge and at her expense coming from Michele herself, she announced she was in favor of two constitutional amendments. One was to outlaw pornography and the other was to outlaw same- sex marriage both at the federal level. Keep in mind this coming from someone who calls herself a constitutional conservative. Also keep in mind this coming from someone who knows as much about conservatism and the U.S. Constitution as a fish knows about Wall Street.

During Representative Bachmann’s four month presidential campaign she also came out against big government. Well, that makes sense because that’s an issue she knows a lot of about with all of her positions in support of big government. Michele has a habit of bashing things she’s in love with, well, take big government to use as an example. And claiming to love and support things that she says she loves. Take well the U.S. Constitution to use as an example.

What if I were a Republican today, first of all I would ask myself why am I a Republican today and if I could answer that question and I was still a Republican, I would want George W. Bush back leading the party. And prey that he learned something from all of his dumb mistakes as President and didn’t repeat them. Because GWB looks like a God compared with today’s Republican Party and Michele Bachmann represents the intelligence and information gap in the Republican Party. And why they can’t win elections they are supposed to win easily going in.

MSNBC: ‘U.S. Senator Jon Tester Backs Marriage Equality’

Source:NBC News- U.S. Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana)

“The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this.

The march towards marriage equality among Democrats is quickly becoming a stampede. Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana posted this message to his Facebook page this afternoon:

“Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.”

There are 55 members of the Senate Democratic caucus, and according to Time magazine’s count, 45 of them have now publicly announced their support for marriage equality. That’s obviously short of 100%, but given the recent push, unanimity appears inevitable.

It’s worth noting that Tester is a “red”-state Democrat who was narrowly re-elected last year, as was Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who also endorsed marriage equality the other day. Some other recent announcements have come from “red”-state Democrats — Virginia’s Mark Warner and Alaska’s Mark Begich — who announced their support for same-sex marriage before their re-election fights in 2014.”

From MSNBC

This is not actually that surprising, if you are familiar with the State of Montana. Montana gets stereotyped (especially by left-wing Democrats) as a hillbilly, backwards, right-wing, redneck state. And sure, there are folks like that in the State of Montana. But in actuality, Montana matches up very well with the other Mountain West and Northwest states in the country, as a more center-right, conservative-libertarian state. Where Democrats (if they’re not left-wing) get elected statewide there on a fairly regular basis. Just not at the presidential level. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The American Prospect: Christopher Ketcham: 'U.S. Out of Vermont'

Source:The American Prospect- Is there such a thing as Federalists, in the Socialist Republic of Vermont:

“Last September, about 60 Vermonters met in the chambers of the house of representatives in Montpelier to celebrate the state’s “independence spirit” and to discuss the goals of “environmental sustainability, economic justice, and Vermont self–determination.” The speaker of the house had given up the space free of charge for the one-day conference. First at the podium was a Princeton-educated yak farmer and professor of journalism named Rob Williams, one of the organizers of the event, who at 9 A.M. opened the proceedings by acknowledging what he called “some unpleasant and hard truths.” Amid the twin global crises of peak oil and climate change, the United States was “an out-of-control empire.” It was “unresponsive to the needs, concerns, and desires of ordinary citizens.”

Williams, who wore a T-shirt that said “U.S. Out of Vermont,” did not advocate revolution. He was looking for a divorce. He wanted Vermont to secede. “Nonviolent secession,” he said, “the detaching from empire and exercising our rights to independence, a deeply American right first expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is a right that demands re-exploration today.” Williams noted that Vermont is one of only three states, along with Texas and Hawaii, that ever existed as an independent republic-in Vermont’s case, from 1777 to 1791-and that as “a national leader on progressive political issues,” the state was “uniquely poised to lead this national conversation on self-determination.”

The murmuring response from the crowd suggested they’d heard it before. Williams and his fellow travelers-who constituted not quite a movement, he said, but more “a network of critical observers”-had been calling for separation from the U.S. since 2003. They had gathered in the ornate rooms of the state house to spread the word in 2005 and again in 2008 and now in 2012. Vermont had not yet separated, but the secessionists who were calling for a “Second Vermont Republic” had gained notoriety, and some small influence, across the state.”

Source:The American Prospect

What I respect about Vermont is that even though they are basically the Socialist Republic or State of Vermont (and I’m not as far to the left of them on economic policy, but I probably tend to agree with Vermonters on social issues) is that they represent socialism in it’s best form. A democratic form in the sense that they aren’t trying to run people’s personal lives. And they believe in a good deal of personal freedom, even economic freedom. That is they aren’t trying to takeover industries with the state and have the state run them, but that they believe in a generous welfare state or safety net. Combined with economic and personal freedom. But the perhaps the thing I respect about them the most is that they are Federalists in a leftist sense: “We like socialism, but we don’t want it coming from the Federal Government. We can govern ourselves.”

Vermont is the roadmap for national leftist democrats in other states in their quest (or fantasy) to transform America into a social democracy, a socialist-federalist roadmap. Which means:

a high deal of personal freedom as long as you aren’t hurting innocent people with what you are doing.

A high deal of economic freedom with things like property rights, you just have to pay high taxes on them to finance a generous welfare state. But that the State of Vermont would be doing these things for Vermonters, not Uncle Sam with its top-down, Washington knows best approach. And they also aren’t going to try to force Vermonters to live a certain way even for their own good. And give Vermonters the ability to make decisions and take risks with their own lives.

Social Democrats in America having been trying to transform America into a social democracy at least since the New Deal era. Thinking that centralize planning and control at the Federal level works in these European countries that means it will automatically work here as well. And that Americans will accept it even if they didn’t vote for it. What they don’t understand is that America is simply a hell of a lot bigger and more decentralize and more individualistic. And that top-down tends to not very popular, but gradually moving state by state like in Vermont, could accomplish what leftist democrats have been wanting all along, which is basically a social democracy in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Nation: Rick Perlstein: ‘Why a Democratic Majority Is Not Demographic Inevitability’

Source:The Nation- "Protestors rally against SB1070 immigration bill in Arizona in 2010. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin.)" Also from The Nation Magazine.

“In February, I wrote the first part in a promised series about why today’s political conventional wisdom—that, as Jonathan Chait put it “conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests”—may be premature. I cleared the decks by pointing to all those other moments—in 1964, 1972, 1974 (and, I didn’t note, 1992)—when equally confident prognostications of permanent Democratic majorities came a cropper. This time, I take on the most conspicuous this-time-it’s-going-to-be different argument: that the white vote in presidential elections has gone from almost 90 percent in 1980 to about 70 percent in 2012; that there are 24 million Hispanics currently eligible to vote and there will be 40 million by 2030; and that only 27 percent of Hispanic voters chose Mitt Romney for president (chart here)—and so, abracadabra, Democrats Über Alles!

Now, it might hard for us to wrap our minds around a different way of seeing things in these days of Joe Arpaeio and Jan Brewer—and Susana Martinez, the Latina governor of New Mexico who promises to repeal her state’s law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses even though her own grandparents were undocumented immigrants. But, taking the long view—and isn’t that the whole point of this exercise?—it has to be acknowledged: party identities aren’t passed on through the genes. Blocs of “natural Democrats” have become natural Republicans before. Indeed, in at least one instance, it happened with shocking rapidity. As I noted last time, in the 1960s, droves of white Democrat ethnics—Italians, Eastern Europeans, the Irish—started voting Republican in a backlash against the Democrats’ continued embrace of civil rights in the wake of a failed open housing bill and the urban riots. Only an eye-blink earlier, they had been considered the soul of the New Deal coalition.”

Source:The Nation

The worst mistake that you can make in American politics is to assume that anything is permanent especially when you are ahead. Or to relax when you are ahead and not look to continue to improve and think you’ve reached the mountaintop and will never  be knocked off. The second biggest mistake is to assume your opponents are dead when they are down and you’ll be in power forever. And I have some examples of that.

In 1964 the Republican Party led by Barry Goldwater failed to even get 40% of the popular vote for President which is a hard thing to do in a two-man Presidential race. And Democrats added to their landslide majorities in Congress (House and Senate) leaving Congressional Republicans with around 145 seats in the House and thirty-two in the Senate. Congressional Republicans bounced back by 1966 and won back a lot of seats in both the House and Senate and thanks to Richard Nixon won back the White House in 1968.

The smart political play when you are up is to continue to drive forward and climb the hill even if you are already at the top. You find a bigger hill or mountain try to climb up that as well by building your own party. Understand why you have the power that you currently have and the new voters you picked up and why you are out-of-power in places where you can win back.

And I’m thinking of the U.S. House of Representatives where Republicans are still in charge there and at the state level where Republicans currently hold 30-50 Governorships and a solid majority of both legislatures and legislative members even in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All Democratic states and in swing states like Florida and Virginia that both voted to reelect President Obama.

We now live in a liberal democratic country at least as far as social issues are concern. With a solid majority of Americans who believe in a good deal of personal freedom with government not interfering in our personal lives. Gay marriage and marijuana are perfect examples of that and something Liberal

Democrats need to capitalize on the support for more personal freedom in America, but a social liberal message alone won’t be enough to win back the U.S. House and states like Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin ,all states where Democrats should do well there especially with our new voters.

Democrats are going to need a center-left, progressive economic message as well that’s about opportunity, freedom and responsibility and expanding those things to Americans who currently don’t have them for the Democratic Party to do as well as it can and should.

I’m happy that President Obama was reelected and reelected in an electoral landslide and that Senate Democrats not only held their majority, but added to it. But we still have plenty of work to do like taking back the U.S. House and giving the Democrats complete control of Congress again and winning back some state houses and legislatures so there aren’t as many Republican looking House districts in Democratic leaning states. Time to be happy, but never be completely satisfied. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Salon Magazine: David Sirota: 'How to Turn a State Liberal'

Source:Salon Magazine- Colorado Governor David Hickenlooper.

“As Colorado goes, so goes the nation. With the culture and demographics of the Intermountain West so rapidly changing, this motto about my home state has become conventional wisdom in national electoral politics, and for good reason. After all, the square state is the capital of the so-called Rocky Mountain Empire, a region that is fast becoming the political equivalent of a test market for the whole country. And if it is true that the way Colorado goes is the way the nation as a whole goes, then America better get ready for some extremely large changes.

Part of Colorado’s story of change comes from the statehouse where Democrats control both the governor’s office and both chambers of the Legislature. But as much of the story comes from outside the Capitol, where organic grass-roots uprisings are obliterating old political assumptions.

For decades, this was a state whose electoral topography was reliable Republican and whose politics was dominated by an unholy coalition of cultural conservatives and oil and gas interests. In the 1980s and 1990s, it became the national conservative movement in a microcosmic petri dish, passing socially conservative constitutional amendments and a so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights aimed at pulverizing the public sector.”

From Salon Magazine

I have this wild notion that David Sirota’s notion of what liberal and liberalism are, is a lot different than what mine are. Perhaps that’s because he writes for Salon Magazine, which is made of up New-Left columnists, people who are closeted Socialists, but in some cases are self-described Democratic Socialists. So maybe what I should talk about here is how to turn a state Democratic, especially Center-Left Democratic and make it more progressive, not socialist.

It’s changing demographics, not just ethnically and racially, but culturally and regionally, that’s reshaping the Democratic and Republican parties in America. The country, especially the West like Colorado, is becoming more urban and suburban. While you have a Republican Party that’s becoming more rural, Anglo-Saxon, more Protestant, especially fundamentalist Protestant, older, more male, more blue-collar.

While the Democratic Party has been reaching out to Latino-Americans since the 1990s, at least, you have a Republican Party with a strong faction in it calling those Americans Un-American and invaders. So we’re seeing more Latinos move to the Democratic Party, from the Republican Party, because they feel more welcome in the Democratic Party.

I’m not sure the country is changing so much ideologically, even though we’re seeing a higher percentage of Americans support more personal freedom as it relates to same-sex-marriage, marijuana, gambling, the right to privacy in general, as well as free speech.

I think the real changes have to do with racial, ethnic, and regional demographics, with one party meaning the Democratic Party embracing the New America, while the Republican Party is still trying to take us back to the 1950s culturally, racially, and ethnically.

You can also see this post on WordPress.