CNN: Senator Edward Kennedy- 'The Dream Shall Never Die (1980)'

Source:CNN- U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 1962-2009.

Source:The Daily Journal

"On the day it was announced that Sen. Edward Kennedy died at age 77, CNN replays a portion of a speech from Kennedy at the 1980 Democratic National Convention announcing he was ending his Presidential campaign against Jimmy Carter." 

From Political News Politics 

Just on a personal note first: Kiran Gentry who was a CNN anchor for a while during the late 2000s and perhaps after that, working with John Roberts to anchor this Ted Kennedy coverage.

Had Democrats seen more of this during the primaries, maybe Ted Kennedy beats President Carter in 1980. You don't wait till the last speech of your presidential campaign to give your best speech. Especially after it's already been decided that you aren't going to win. Especially when you never figured out while you were running in the first place. This was the whole nothing to lose speech, so you might as well make it your best. Not his 1981 inauguration, after beating President Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Ted Kennedy, didn't want to be president. Not sure his family did either, but his supporters especially what I at least could call the Socialist Left in the Democratic Party, wanted him to run for president. That is why, plus the facts that President Jimmy Carter, was so unpopular politically and there was  a bad economy, a Democratic Congress, that Senator Ted Kennedy was obviously part of. Democrats were in serious trouble in 1980.

Looking back at it now, not sure if the Ted Kennedy presidential run hurt or helped President Carter. In a way it actually helped him, because the Democratic contest really got his reelection campaign going. And he just didn't beat Senator Kennedy in most of the primaries, but he trounced him. Teddy, didn't wain a major primary until March of 1980.

But it hurt the President in the sense that now the party was divided between their Socialist Left and even George McGovern New-Left and their Center-Left. Their New Democratic Coalition that Jimmy Carter represented, going up in the fall against a very united Republican Party that was all behind Ronald Reagan. And anxious to get back into power and win The White House back.

The Real News: Paul Jay & Robert Pollin: 'The Full Employment Debate'

Source:The Real News Network- talking about full employment.

"Bob Pollin, author of Back to Full Employment, begins a series examining whether full employment is possible and how to get there." 

From The Real News Network

To jump into this discussion with Paul Jay and Robert Pollin: my definition of full employment, is 0% unemployment. Which means that every adult and juvenile in America who wants or needs a job, any job, has a job. 

But to achieve full employment, you might as well wipe out poverty and cancer, and perhaps get started on wiping out racism and sexism, while you are at it. Hopefully Santa Clause is having a slow year and can help you out with that, because that's what it would take to eliminate all of these negative conditions in society.

But what I think Robert Pollin is actually talking about, is acceptable unemployment. When unemployment and poverty are down, (and he pointed to the 1990s) the economy is much better, because a lot of people are not just working, but earning a good living as well. 

At risk at sounding conservative: when the national debt and deficit is low, at least compared with the size of the economy, the economy is much better as well, because the government is borrowing less or perhaps not borrowing at all, like in the late 1990s, which means real interest rates and inflation are also low, which makes everything that we consume in society, as well as borrowing in the private sector, a lot cheaper. 

But again, I think the real discussion is here, is low unemployment, versus high unemployment. As well as good jobs, versus jobs that people only take, when that's the best available job for them and perhaps they have to take another job as well, just to survive financially.

All Histories: 'New Deal- 1930's Government Promotional'

Source:All Histories- film about the New Deal.

Source:The Daily Journal

“A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.” 

From All Histories 

As bad as authoritarian regimes and states are, they don’t have a monopoly when it comes to government propaganda or government propaganda films. They do those things, of course, and so does the developing, democratic world that has a history of corruption and authoritarianism in their past. But so does the democratic, developed world, including in the West and even in the United States. Which is what you see from the New Deal propaganda film from President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration in the 1930s.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: 'DEA Head's Absurd Marijuana Testimony'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Director Michelle Leonhart, was apparently high herself when she was at this U.S. House committee hearing.

"Michele Leonhart, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, ducked a tough line of questioning from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) on Wednesday, refusing to answer a number of questions about the comparative health impacts of marijuana and other, harder drugs.

Leonard was testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Polis, a top congressional advocate for marijuana law reform, took the opportunity to grill the DEA administrator on some specifics about marijuana, which has been decriminalized in some parts of his state and legalized for medical purposes in the rest...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

I think you are mote likely to see the Cleveland Indians win the World Series, the Detroit Lions to play in a Super Bowl, for Miami, Florida to get two weeks straight of snow in August, then you are to see or hear me agree with Cenk Uygur on anything. If he told me it was hot and sunny in Phoenix today, I check the weather report in Phoenix, Arizona, before I took his word on that. So whatever you do when you see a blue moon, the sun come out in Seattle, or an ocean that's just run out of water, because Cenk is damn right about this. 

I think Cenk's best point here is that when he said: "I don't know why Barack Obama does anything" Just for the record: I'm not a mindreader either, but I think I know why President Obama is a pro-drug warrior. He's a politician who still believes he needs the pro-War On Drugs vote (as small as it might be today) to get reelected President of the United States. You take a risk anytime you elect a career politician to do anything and one of those risks is that he'll believe his political career is more important than the right policy. But again, I'm not a mindreader either.

American Experience: President Lyndon B. Johnson: War On Poverty

Source:PBS- President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Texas) 36th President of the United States (1963-69)

"Lyndon B Johnson - The Great Society"

SourceSAAB FANN

I give credit to President Lyndon Johnson for taking on poverty in America as serious as he did. And understanding how poverty affects not only these people, but how it affects the rest of the country. Because it limits people in poverty ability to purchase products that are made by Americans and made in America. Which reduces our consumer spending, which lowers our economic growth. Meaning less jobs are created than would be created had more people had money to spend and we have less people living in the middle class. 

The lover our poverty rate is, the more consumer spenders we have in America, the higher our economic and job growth is, the less people we have actually living on public assistance in America. 

Reducing poverty in America is good for everybody, especially employers, because they have a larger crop of people to select from in who to higher. More people graduating from high school and actually getting a good education and moving on a getting a degree at a good school. It's also good for employers, because they would have more customers who can actually by their products, including more people who work for them and produce those products.

So lower poverty and a stronger larger middle class is good for the whole country, especially for the people who were once living in poverty. Because now they have the skills and a good job to take care of themselves, but it's also good for everyone else who had to pay the taxes to be able to take care of these people. While they weren't ready to take care of themselves. This is something that President Johnson understood. That was his vision anyway. 

What I don't think he quite figured out that President Nixon of all people figured out and then President Clinton put into law in the 1990s, was the best way to get people out of poverty, is through education, job training, and then job placement into a good job. So they have the resources to take care of themselves. The Great Society has a lot of programs in it that were deigned to financially support people while they are in poverty, but doesn't do much to help them out of poverty.

We had a 13% poverty level in America by the time President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. That didn't happen by accident and people on the right especially have made the argument, that this was a result of the economic boom of that decade. And that was part of it, but if you are a low-skilled worker or a low-skilled person seeking work, you are not going to get a good job with those skills. No matter how good the economy is. 

But if you empower these people by putting them back in school and into job training, they'll benefit from the economic boom as well. 

The only people in America that are eligible for public assistance, are retired workers and seniors and people who don't earn enough money to financially support themselves. Or who aren't retired, but aren't earning any money on their own. They're on Welfare or Unemployment Insurance. 

So to move people out of poverty, people in poverty need the skills to get themselves a good job and not be eligible for public assistance at all. Because they're earning enough money on their own.

Sam Seder: 'Why Paul Ryan is a Gift to Progressives'

Source:Sam Seder- talking about Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report 

Mitt Romney has handed a gift to progressives by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate... 

From Sam Seder

I still don't know why Sam Seder thinks Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) is a gift to so-called Progressives (people in actuality are closeted Socialists who are scared to death of being outed as American Socialists) and I watched the whole damn video.

The advantage of Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan for Vice President, Representative Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Democrats (left-wing, right, center) can say that Governor Romney is now on board with the Ryan Plan. A plan that turns Medicare into a voucher system, all the new unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy, new spending in defense that's also not paid for, etc. 

Remember, Mitt doesn't have a budget and government plan of his own. His message is essentially: "Elect me President with a Republican Congress and we'll see next year." Now Democrats can say (whether it's true or not) that the Ryan Plan, is the Romney Plan. 

What would Mitt do then? He would be stuck in a catch 22, the old damned if you do, damned if you don't. If he says he's not in favor of the Ryan Plan, which is very unpopular outside of the Republican Party, that would hurt him at least with the right-wing of the Republican Party. But if he's in favor, that hurts him with everyone else in the country.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: 'Defense Industry Wants Higher Taxes To Avoid Cut'

Source:The Young Turks- come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away. (To paraphrase The Chairman of The Board Frank Sinatra) How about we fly away from Washington and move to the real world instead.

"The very real possibility that defense programs will suffer deep, across the board spending cuts early next year has major defense contractors and their allies making an unusual plea to members of Congress: Put everything on the table to avoid the so-called sequester — including higher taxes.

That might not sound like an extraordinary ask. But it's typical for incumbent interests to leave all questions of ways and means to Congress. And given the defense industry's enormous power and historic alignment with the GOP, it could have enough force to finally break the GOP of its anti-tax absolutism...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

This doesn't surprise me. There are plenty of Neoconservatives, who used to be center-right Democrats in the 1970s and 80s, who are now center-right Republicans, who've always put national security over tax policy, including lower taxes on everyone, to make sure that the defense budget is always as high as they want it to be. Higher taxes are never their preferred option, but they would take that, if it's the only way they can preserve their giant sized, American defense budget. If Cenk Uygur knew anything about Neoconservatives and neoconservatism, perhaps he wouldn't be flipping out so much over this.