Richard Nixon Library: Oral History- Tim Naftali Interviewing George McGovern

Source:Richard Nixon Library- Former U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Party presidential nominee George McGovern, talking to presidential historian Tim Naftali, in 2009. 

"George McGovern recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, 26 August 2009, the Richard
Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum."

From The Richard Nixon Library 

“George Stanley McGovern, who rose from small-town roots in Avon and Mitchell to the highest heights of American politics, died Sunday morning at a Sioux Falls hospice facility from a combination of medical conditions associated with his age. He was 90.

Though he was known mostly for his unsuccessful 1972 presidential campaign, McGovern was more than that. He was an accomplished student and debater during his school days in Mitchell; a World War II bomber pilot decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross; a doctorate-level scholar; a history professor; the rebuilder of the South Dakota Democratic Party; a U.S. representative; director of the Food for Peace program in the Kennedy administration; a U.S. senator; an icon of the anti-Vietnam War effort; a lifelong crusader against the scourge of hunger; a United Nations delegate and ambassador; the author of 14 books; and, in his later years, an elder statesman who remained a sought-after speaker and commenter on issues of the day.” 

Source:The Mitchell Republic- U.S. Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) running for President in 1972.

“Sen. George McGovern gives the victory sign to throng of about 20,000 persons assembled at Madison Square garden, June 14, 1972 in New York for rally in support to his attempt to win the democratic presidential candidacy. (AP Photo/Dave Pickoff)”

From The Mitchell Republic

George McGovern was someone with one hell of a political and professional resume, who represented South Dakota in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as a Leftist Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union. And yet he represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years.

Mr. McGovern served as Director of the U.S. Food For Peace Program, who won the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, who rebuilt the Democratic Party almost on his own, by bringing in so many new Democrats, who thought the Democratic Party was still the Dixiecrat Party that didn’t welcome ethnic or racial minorities or women, and so-forth.

Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976, who was a Progressive Democrat from the South and not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service, that it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially.

George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era, the Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.

The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was not a New Deal Progressive Democrat, but more of a Henry Wallace Democratic Socialist, during a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet

When the country was moving right economically, the George McGovern and the Democratic Party was moving left, thanks to the New-Left and Baby Boomers of the 1960s and 70s. Which made it almost impossible for a McGovernite like a McGovern to win nationally and win statewide perhaps in most states.

The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his time and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country.

But in Senator McGovern’s case, the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and Wallace/McGovern democratic socialism. And instead we’re looking for fewer taxes and more economic development and growth in America.

What I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party.

The Far-Left of the Democratic Party tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties.

George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South and giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on WordPress.

AFP News Agency: 'French Left Claims Senate Win in Poll Blow For Sarkozy'

Source:AFP News Agency- The Bernie Sanders of France?

"France's left-wing opposition struck a blow against embattled centre-right leader President Nicolas Sarkozy's hopes for re-election Sunday, winning a historic victory in a senatorial vote.Duration... 

From the AFP News Agency 

What is considered Center-Left in France, would be their Socialist Party. (Led by Francois Hollande) And what would be Far-Left in France, would be their Communist Party and other hard-core Socialists, who perhaps don't self-describe as Communists, but who certainly have Communists leanings. 

What's Center-Left in France, is Far-Left in America. Just one of the many difference between France and America politically and governmentally. We have a lot of Socialists in America: perhaps 15-20% of the voting electorate and maybe 3-10 Democrats. The difference is American Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics as socialist. They tend to self-describe as progressive or liberal, even though a lot of what they believe is very regressive and illiberal. 

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Scott Wallace- 'Is There Any Henry Wallace Left in The Democratic Party?'

Source:The Real News- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President Harry Truman & Secretary Henry Wallace.

"WHEN VP WAS PROGRESSIVE Pt.2 Scott Wallace: It is a fight to create space for the progressive voice." 

From The Real News

What would the Democratic Party be today had Henry Wallace succeeded with his Progressive Party and they became the official third-party in America? And not just a third-party, but in actual competition with the Democratic and Republican parties. Unlike the Libertarian Party today, which is probably the largest third-party, but not much of a threat to either major party. And maybe had Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Wallace succeeded, the Democratic Socialists (which is what the Henry Wallace Progressives were) in America would have their own home. And not basically represent the Far-Left of the Democratic Party, but the actual mainstream of a major party.

Similar to the New Democratic Party in Canada, or as I call them the Social Democratic Party of Canada. Or even the so-called Progressive Democratic Party of Canada, with the Liberal Party there representing the Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. I’m a Liberal Democrat myself and I don’t use these terms to be insulting, but descriptive. 

The New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Democratic Socialist Party by their standards as well as ours, is considered mainstream in Canada. Even though for the most part they’ve been the third-party. But they’ve always had considerable representation in the Federal Parliament, or at least recently they’ve had for the last twenty years or so.

RT America: 'Socialism in America'

Source:RT America- Niki Korokawa talking to President Vladimir Putin's RT America, about socialism in America.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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 (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Could that be the answer to bring America out of its economic trouble? Is America headed towards socialism? Is it really that big bad wolf people make it out to be? RT's Cedric Moon hosts a panel of Nicki Kurokawa and Michael Prysner where they debate the pros and cons of socialism in America." 

From RT America 

Similar to conservatism and libertarianism, socialism is a very diverse political philosophy with all sorts of different political factions. There isn't one definition of socialism, just like there isn't an official definition of conservatism or libertarianism. 

I put socialism into three different political factions: Social Democrats.Democratic Socialists, the most popular faction of socialism not just in America, but everywhere else, at least in the developed world. And then Communists who represent the authoritarian wing of socialism and tell people if you give the government your freedom and individualism, the government will take care of you. Which is essentially what Communist government's tell their people. 

And then you have people that I call at least Neo-Communists, people who aren't completely authoritarian and even anti-democracy, but try to limit opposition, individual choice, and individualism, to protect their regime. Venezuela is an example of a Neo-Communist government.

There isn't one sent of Socialists, just like there isn't one set of Conservatives. You have Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and then you have Communist leader Fidel Castro, from Cuba. They share certain principles as they relate to economics and wealth, but Senator Sanders believes not just in democracy, but social democracy and President Castro doesn't believe in any democracy at all. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- 'Show & Tell: Death Penalty, Barbaric?'

Source:Russia Today- the Sexy Blonde?

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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 (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"Now that Troy Davis has been executed, despite the amount of doubt surrounding his guilt, we asked if you if you think the US should still use the death penalty. Take a look at our responses. As always thanks for your responses and here's our next question for you. We discussed accusations by the GOP that President Obama is waging class warfare by proposing raising taxes on millionaires. So what do you think? Is Obama a class warrior?" 

From Russia Today

Before I get into my position on the death penalty I just want to lay out as one of maybe five people who haven't followed the Troy Davis case. All right, maybe ten people in the country. The Far-Left has been all over this story, like water on fish. I absolutely have no idea whether Mr Davis is guilty of the murder he was convicted of. And he's not the reason why I'm writing this post. But I will admit, that without this story I wouldn't be writing this post at this time. 

The death penalty is not an issue I think that much about except when I'm watching true crime shows and thats the only time. And I've basically has the same position on the death penalty since my late teen early 20s. If you believe in human life and that all innocent life is worth cherishing, which is what I do, then there needs to a the toughest standards for people who don't and will intentionally take innocent lives, for whatever the reasons. Which is who and what the death penalty is for: for people who don't respect innocent lives to the point that they'll intentionally take them regardless of the reasons for doing so. 

Bernie Sanders: 'My Medicaid Matters Rally'

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) holding a political rally in defense of the low-income Federal insurance program known as Medicaid. 

"Recorded on September 21, 2011" 

From Bernie Sanders

Before one celebrates how great the Medicaid health insurance program is, they should understand that it's a bare-bones operation. Meaning that it only covers certain things and not other things, including health care that people may need to survive. It's very expensive for the states to run and for the most part do run this program with not much help from the Federal Government who make them run it. States don't have a choice. If the Feds don't come up with the money, they are let's say stuck (for lack of a better word) and have to find that missing revenue for themselves. 

Russia Today: The Alyona Show- Dean Baker- 'President Obama's Deficit Plan: Class Warfare?'

Source:Russia Today- anchor Alyona Minkovski, talking to left-wing economist Dean Baker.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a state-controlled international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[5][6] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT operates as a multilingual service with conventional 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 (since 2010),[7] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also offer some locally based content." 

From Wikipedia 

"The White House has proposed a plan to save 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, but they've tacked on 1.1 trillion in planned war savings to try and push that up to 4 trillion. Then, there's the Buffet Rule where the president will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than 1 million dollars to ensure that they pay at least the same rate as middle-income taxpayers. Republicans have already responded by calling it class warfare. Obama also said if the super committee comes up with only cuts to entitlement programs and no tax increases, he'll veto the plan. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research discusses." 

From Russia Today

The real question should be here is President Obama's deficit reduction plan a policy plan or a political plan, or is it a combination of both, I would argue its a little of both. 

It is a policy plan because Barack Obama I believe clearly believes in taxing millionaires more as a way to pay down the debt and deficit. He's been arguing for that at least since he started running for President back in 2007. I'll give the President that: he's proposing something he actually believes in. Which unfortunately as common in American politics as mice chasing cats. 

The Obama plan is clearly a political plan as well. This deficit reduction plan is clearly about throwing a bone to the Left (and I'm sorry if this offends the Far-Left) to bring them back in his corner for the 2012 presidential campaign and that they work for his reelection, which at this point is clearly in doubt. And he needs both of these factions to not only vote for him in 2012, but work for him as well in 2012. 

Is this plan class warfare? Of course not, it's an attempt to demand that the people in the country pay their fair share of taxes in what's left of our progressive taxation system. It's an attempt to demand that the only group of people thats benefited in our economy the last ten years, that they pay more in taxes to help pay down our massive debt and deficit, because they can afford to and won't get hurt by it. 

Class warfare would be about punishing a class of people just because they are part of that class and do it to the point that it hurts them. An example of class warfare would be to lay a group of middle class workers off, so executives can make more money. Which is done on a regular basis or running a big company into bankruptcy where thousands of people lose their jobs and life savings. Perhaps even reputations and then walking away with a big bonus package.