David Winning: Exception To The Rule (1997) Featuring Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack & Sean Young

Source:Wikipedia- Exception To The Rule, 1997 poster. 

Source:The Action Blog

“Exception To The Rule is a 1997 Canadian-German erotic thriller film directed by David Winning and stars Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young and William Devane.

A married jewel trader is seduced by a beautiful woman while on a business trip. Upon returning home, he receives a video tape in the mail of his tryst and a threat to ruin his marriage if he doesn’t turn a shipment of diamonds over to the woman.”

From Wikipedia

"EXCEPTION TO THE RULE - Directed by David Winning.  Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young, William Devane." David Winning"

Source:David Winning- left to right: Sean Young & Kim Cattrall.

From David Winning

“EXCEPTION TO THE RULE – Directed by David Winning pt.2 of clip Kim Cattrall, Eric McCormack, Sean Young, William Devane”

From David Winning

“Kim Cattrall as Carla Rainer in Exception to the Rule (1997)”

Source:Famous Fix- Hollywood Goddess Kim Cattrall 

From Famous Fix

To be completely honest with you: Kim Cattrall is really the only reason why I watched Exception to The Rule and why I'm at best a casual fan of it. I am a big fan of Sean Young and believe she's beautiful, sexy, very adorable, and at times at least very funny as well, but I don't believe this is her best role and movie. Her part is important especially at the end where she ends up killing The Leather N Denim Assassin. ( As I call Kim Cattrall )

But this movie is really about how the Eric McCormack and Carla Rainer ( played by Kim ) interact with each other. He's married to Angela ( played by Sean Young ) and has an affair with a perspective client or friend of McCormick's boss ( played by William DeVane ) and uses that as blackmail leverage to get this young successful lawyer to pay him or. Or threatens to tell his father in law and boss ( played by William DeVane ) about their affair and he holds firm and refuses to pay her. 

As you can imagine she doesn't take that well and that is how the final scene of the movie develops where The Leather N Denim Assassin Carla Rainer ( played by Kim ) breaks in to this young couple's home in an attempt to take Angela hostage in order to get her husband to pay ransom on her. There are good scenes before this moment like where Carla, gets rid of a man who she had a complicated history with by killing him and when he thinks she's playing him off. A nasty murder where she literally runs him over and then blows up the car. She tried murdering Tim Bayer ( played by Eric McCormack ) by trying to run him down in broad daylight earlier in the movie. He attempts to pay her off and does so, which isn't good enough for her which leads up to the last scene of the movie. 

Kim Cattrall is really the only reason I'm interested in this movie. She's this red-hot adorable redhead, with a beautiful body and even a quick sarcastic wit in the movie and in some cases in the movie even comes off as likable in is beyond her goddess like physical appearance. Sean Young has a good scene in the movie as well playing an adorable hostage who manages to break away from her would be captures. But Kim breaking into the home to take Angela hostage, in this beautiful black biker leather jacket, and black denim Levi's, black boots. This scene happening at night and she sort of looks like a thief breaking into a jewelry store or bank at nigh and the confrontation that she has with Tim ( Angela's husband ) is the really the only reasons for me to watch this movie. 

Inside Edition: Ali Rosen- 'Legendary Chef and Traveler Anthony Bourdain Dies At 61': The Man Who Saw and Lived The World

Source:Inside Edition- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Anthony Bourdain, an American chef and television personality, has been found dead of an apparent suicide. He was 61. His body was found in a French hotel room by close friend and chef Éric Ripert, according to CNN.  The pair had been traveling together for the filming of Bourdain's CNN show, "Parts Unknown." As part of his Emmy Award-winning program, which premiered in 2013, Bourdain traveled the world, uncovering lesser-known cuisines."

From Inside Edition

When I first heard about Anthony Bourdain's show Parts Unknown coming to CNN in 2013 or 14, I thought this was another one of those so-called reality TV shows where the lead character is some loudmouth who makes an asshole out of himself ( to be frank ) in order to gain ratings. I'm not a fan of what's called reality TV generally, except for what's actually reality TV which are documentary programs even documentaries about Hollywood, so I was thinking Parts Unknown is not something I'm going to be interested in.

Source: USA Today- Celebrity chef and traveler Anthony Bourdain 

But so-called reality TV is wasn't Tony Bourdain's show and what he wanted to communicate to people. He was a food and cultural documentarian who traveled the world to show people what other people eat and how they live. Who brought people together over good meals and got to learn about them by experiencing them, what they eat, the sites and sounds of their countries. And then he would show everyone else what he learned about Vietnam, Italy, Ecuador, Cuba, and wherever else he would travel to.

Source: The Chive- One of Anthony Bourdain's best quotes 

In a country and world where we're so divided mainly on political and cultural grounds and now unfortunately even by race, ethnicity, and class, Bourdain brought diversity together with food and culture. And showed millions of Americans and people outside of America, that even with all of our differences that we can still share a great meal together, get to know each other and realize we're not that strange from one another after all.

I'm not a cook and all I know about food and cooking is that food can taste really good, it can taste really bad, and generally somewhere in between, in less you what you're doing or where to eat and have the resources to eat great food on a regular basis. But I know what I like and how to cook for myself and what I got from Bourdain was that not all good food has to taste alike and look alike. That good food comes in all different forms made from all different types of people in different countries.

The other thing that I got from Bourdain which I already knew, but hopefully now millions of other Americans and people outside of America hopefully also know, is that it isn't okay to be yourself, but that being yourself is the only person you should be. Because you're the only person you know really well.

When you try to be someone other than yourself especially a famous celebrity that you look up to, all you're doing is acting. And I realize some people do that for a living and even do it on so-called reality TV. But the non-reality actors are professional actors. And when everyone else tries to be someone other than them self, they're not only not just actors, but now they're amateurs and amateur actors.

In a country and world where so many people especially young people feel the need to be like their favorite celebrity and in many cases reality star, Tony Bourdain taught so many people how to be themselves and why they should always be them self. He taught us about individualism and how to be an individual.

I think Ayn Rand would've loved Anthony Bourdain even if was just for that reason. And if you don't like yourself, maybe it's because you have character issues, or you suffer from low self-esteem, which is something that perhaps Bourdain also had issues with.

But that we're the only person we know really well and the only person where we always know what we're thinking and what we know. And when we try to be someone other than ourself, we're just pretending. Anthony Bourdain's belief in individualism and his ability to bring different people together with food and culture, is what I'm going to miss about him.

Slick Rick Nixon: Woodrow Wilson- The Third Party Speech, 1912

Source:Slick Rick Nixon- Woodrow Wilson, for President in 1912.

Source:The Daily View

"This is a speech from Democrat Governor (future president) Woodrow Wilson along the campaign trail in 1912. Woodrow Wilson talks about the new Progressive Party, criticizing Theodore Roosevelt and his methods of supporting the small business man. This is the AUDIO RESTORED version, so most of the static is totally gone and it should be pretty easy to hear.

Fun Fact: T. Woodrow Wilson served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910 and was Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. As President, he led the United States through World War I and sought the creation of a League of Nations.

For historical authenticity, here is the original: Historical Voices."

Source: Slide Player- Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party 

On domestic policy and perhaps even foreign policy, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, were very similar. They were both Progressives ( in the classic and real sense ) but Teddy Roosevelt wanted to be President again after declining not to run for reelection in 1908 and perhaps not regretting that and after not getting the Republican nomination for President in 1912 created the Progressive Party and ran third-party for President in 1912.

Source: Slide Player- Progressive Democratic Party?

Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and back in 1912 the Democratic Party wasn’t seen and wasn’t a progressive party. A party that was dominated by right-wing Southerners who were basically Neo-Confederates and Nationalists. Wilson wasn’t those things, but he was to the right of Teddy Roosevelt. And in the Republican Party you had a conservative party led by President William H. Taft.

So in 1912 America was still a fairly conservative country, but there was an opening on the Left and perhaps even Far-Left with Eugene Debbs and his Socialist Party to take on the Conservative Republicans led by President Taft, with the Wilson progressive wing in the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt progressive wing in the Republican fleeing to the Progressive Party. Leaving President Taft without enough voters to get reelected.

I don’t see how Woodrow Wilson becomes President of the United States in 1912 or in the distant future if it’s just Democrats vs Republicans. Because the Republican Party had the Conservatives and the Progressives and the Democratic Party was a Dixie party controlled by Southern Neo-Confederates. Which is one thing that makes the 1912 presidential election so interesting and such a great election, because it really was liberal democracy with so much choice for American voters to choose from for President. A real Conservative in William Taft. A real Progressive in Theodore Roosevelt. And a moderate Progressive in Woodrow Wilson. As well as a hard-core Socialist in Eugene Debbs.

Washington Watch: BookTV Afterwords- Carlos Lozada Interviewing David Frum: 'Trumpocracy & The State of Western Democracy'

Source:Washington Watch- Carlos Lozada, interviewing David Frum about his book Trumpocracy.

Source:The New Democrat

"David Frum: Trumpocracy at Amazon
Hour long discussion with David Frum, Former White House speechwriter and The Atlantic columnist. He is interviewed by Washington Post book critic and associate editor Carlos Lozada. Frum is the son of Canadian journalist Barbara Frum.

He graduated from the University of Toronto Schools in 1978 where he was the school captain. At Yale University, he simultaneously earned Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in history, graduating in 1982. He was in Directed Studies, a type of "Great Books" curriculum.

Frum earned his Juris Doctor (J.D.) at Harvard Law School in 1987."

From Washington Watch

Maybe Trumpocracy is another way of talking about the new highly rated Washington reality TV show known as The White House, with Donald Trump. I say highly rated and not highly successful, because it's not successful at least as far as far as how the American people think of it.

Anytime 3-5 voters don't like the politician that is supposed to represent them whatever the office is, that politician is not doing well. 3-5 Americans don't like the job that President Trump is doing, don't like him personally, and don't trust him. He's in Richard Nixon territory as far as how unpopular he is with the American people. But his new show and perhaps Amateur Night at The White House, would be a better name for President Trump's latest reality TV show, is highly rated.

You can't just look at Donald Trump by only looking at one aspect of him. You have to look at the narcissistic, selfish, gigantic, sized personality. You have to look at his governing style, which he doesn't seem to have at least from the outside looking in. You have to look at his policies. You have to look at his supporters which at this point are only little more than a third of the electorate, but we're enough to at least get him the Republican nomination for President.

And then you have to look to his appeasement of those voters. The salesmanship to be kind, the con game would be more accurate in how he appeals to blue-collar, fundamentalist, Christian voters especially in the Republican Party, but in some cases in the upper Midwest the Democratic Party as well.

In 2016 we saw the John Birch Society/George Wallace/Ann Coulter/Pat Buchanan right-wing populist ethno-Tribalist-Nationalist presidential candidate, but with a personality, as well as great sense of humor and even likable at times in Donald Trump. And yes, Donald Trump is a very funny man ( even intentionally ) and even likable when he's in small spaces and groups.

This is a political faction in America that has been around since World War I at least in America that views conspiracy theories as real news like Vice President Lyndon Johnson ordering the assassination of President John Kennedy. And real news as fake and establishment news. Who don't trust institutions especially non-partisan institutions like the CIA and FBI, simply because they can't be controlled by partisans. And operate independently even from the President.

I view Donald Trump as wannabe dictator who picked the last country in the world to try to become a dictator in the United States of America. Sort of like a village idiot who tries to rob a bank with just a leaky water gun at 12 noon on a Monday and wonders what went wrong and how come people were just laughing at him instead of giving him their money.

President Trump knows he can't shut down the private media because we have a guaranteed free press and his administration simply wouldn't allow for him to even try that. So he calls them fake news at least when they report negative facts about him. Which is most of the time. He says his entire intelligence community is wrong when they say that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election.

He accuses people that he personally appointed as being disloyal and part of the establishment when they don't shut down the Russia investigation and even expand it when new facts and evidence come to light about the Trump Campaign's involvement with Russia during the 2016 election. Because he's smart enough to know he can't control these investigations and what Congress does by himself. So he instead attempts to make them look corrupt. He's a wannabe dictator in the wrong country and doesn't like accountability and limited power.

In some ways Donald Trump is the worst nightmare and horror movie coming to real life and part of that is because he's now the President of the United States. Literally the most powerful and most important country in the world, the greatest country in the world as far as how powerful and influential in the world. But part of why we're so strong, powerful, and great, is because of our checks and balances, our accountability. Which was designed in case someone like Donald Trump ever became President.

The reason why we've been able to avoid nationalist populist authoritarians from coming to power in America and why countries like Russia, Poland, Venezuela, haven't, is because of our checks and balances. And is something that Donald Trump is learning the hard way.

The Film Archives: The Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Camille Paglia & Bay Buchanan: On College Students, Education, Government, Women in Politics

Source:The Film Archives- Author Camille Paglia, giving a speech at some event, perhaps in New York City.

Source:The New Democrat

"Buchanan was the national treasurer of the "Reagan for President" primary campaigns of 1976 and 1980, and the Reagan-Bush general election campaigns of 1980 and 1984. After appearing regularly on CNN's news program Inside Politics, she became a commentator for The Situation Room, and later Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull. She previously served as the co-anchor of Equal Time on CNBC and MSNBC, and during that time also hosted a two-hour radio talk show."

From The Film Archives

I like and respect Camille Paglia a lot, at least when I'm quick enough to understand what she's saying, or at the very least catch every word that she says. She talks the way kitty cats run and Nascar cars race. You can write a book with her mouth in a few minutes. But when I am able to follow along she makes a lot of sense. Her politics at least up to ten years ago would put on the liberal-libertarian or classical liberal wing of the American political spectrum. ( The real Liberals )

She calls herself a feminist but I would put her on the classical side of that as well. That women shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, but that women shouldn't be rewarded based on their gender. Unlike a lot of these so-called radical feminists today on the New-Left ( or Far-Left ) who think America should just be made up of women and gay men and that masculinity ( unless it comes from women ) is somehow a bad thing. That straight men at least Caucasian straight men, are inherently bad people and that straight men are ruining America.

Camille's politics when it comes to liberalism and feminism, seems to be about choice. That women should be able to make their own choices in life and be able to think for themselves. That if they want to work, then that should be their choice. But if they decide to stay home and raise their kids which is also a job and a paying job at that, then that is what should be able to do. That women should be able to think for themselves and not be feel the need to look down at straight men and see them as evil. But if they want to believe that straight men are bad, then that would be their choice as a radical feminist.

That women shouldn't be forced to be big government Socialists, who believe big centralized government has all the answers in life. Or they can be Conservative-Libertarians who don't believe big government has many if any answers at all to solving problems in society. But that they should be able to think for themselves without radical feminists viewing them as sellouts to the feminist cause or a traitors who are in the laps and beds of straight men.

If there was a free market for women, it would've been created by the Camille Paglia liberal wing of feminism. That there should be choice across the board and not just when it comes to abortion and sexuality but in life in general. When and if they work, sexuality in general, how they should think, what their politics should be. Instead of being told by radical feminists and the Socialist-Left or the Christian-Right on what it means to be a real woman in America and how all women should be forced to live.

Book TV: Afterwords- U.S. Senator Tom Daschle Interviewing Ira Shapiro: Broken

Source:Book TV- Ira Shapiro, talking to former Senate Leader Tom Daschle, about his book Broken. Which is about the U.S. Senate.

Source:The Daily View

"Former U.S. trade negotiator and senior Senate staffer Ira Shapiro argues that the U.S. Senate has lost its political center.  He is interviewed by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle."

From BookTV

Warning! This post is for all of you not just political junkies, but Congressional junkies. Which are people with a special type of mental disorder that is worst than simply just being a political junkie. But for people who watch at least one hour of C-SPAN a day and at least one Congressional hearing or part of a hearing each week. You’ll get no news about what rehab the latest hot celebrity is going to and for what for. Or what shoes that person wore when they stopped for coffee in Malibu.

In all seriousness or as serious as I will be for this post, the U.S. Senate is broken and needs to be reformed. So does the U.S. House of Representatives by the way ( the lower chamber of Congress ) and I will get into a little bit of that with this post as well.

But this is really about the Senate ( the upper chamber of Congress ) because it’s so important as an institution because like the court system and the U.S. Justice Department, they’re the only institutions that can hold the President and Executive accountable regardless of which party is in the White House or what the makeup in Congress is both in the House and Senate. And when the Senate doesn’t operate properly because of either hyper-partisanship or one party in the Senate is simply too divided to act, the country suffers and has to live with the gridlock.

Why is Congress both the House and Senate broken? Part of that has to do with the addiction to absolute power that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party has. This consumption to not just control the White House and Congress, but to have such large majorities in both chambers that they wouldn’t have to work with the minority party, especially the minority leadership on anything.

I don’t believe it’s so much the leadership’s in both parties that are driving the hyper-partisanship but the hyper-partisan fringe bases that literally see any type of compromise with the other party as treason and an offense that deserves a primary for that member of Congress or the leader, who decided to work with the other party even on need to pass legislation and when the margins in Congress are close.

Another part has to do with gerrymandering both from the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well. Not just in Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, where the Republican Party has successfully if not unconstitutionally gerrymandered all of the House districts in those states.

But the Democratic Party has done this as well in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s just that the Republican Party currently controls 34-50 statehouses with a solid majority of individual legislatures all over the country and has been more successful at this what I would I call at least an unconstitutional hyper-partisan policy.

Another contributor to this hyper-partisanship in America has to do with dark money. Where outside groups can give a Senator or Representative, financial contributions to their political campaigns without anyone else knowing about that. Not even their constituents would know where the members of Congress are getting their political money.

As well as third-party hyper-partisan groups in both parties who run adds in a state or district  in an attempt to push the incumbent or candidate to vote a certain way when their issue is addressed in Congress. Or run ads to make a particular incumbent  or candidate look bad and to support their opponent without actually naming the candidate. And these groups don’t have to reveal how they’re funding their political operations and neither do members of Congress.

So what would I do about it? Well like any good responsible doctor ( and I’m not ) before they recommend a prescriptions for their patients physical issues, they first look to see what the problems are and then look to see what can be done about those issues.

What I’m doing here is a political diagnosis of Congress, especially the Senate which traditionally has operated and been run through bipartisanship. Where the Minority Leader was almost as important and powerful as the Leader of the Senate.

There are several things that can be done to fix Congress. And trying to make the Senate look like House where the minority party is simply just there to vote against the majority party, like in the House for the most part, which seems to be the goals of current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, or to try to make the House look like the Senate where you basically need a super majority to pass the most basic pieces of legislation except for reconciliation, wouldn’t work.

The House needs to continue to be the House, otherwise Congressional gridlock will just get even worst. But the House should be more like the Senate at least in this sense. Allow for the minority party under the leadership of the Minority Leader, to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to all legislation in the House. Both in committee and on the floor. The majority party would still not have to work with the minority party, but at least the minority would be able to debate, offer amendments and alternatives, and get votes on those proposals.

Reform if not eliminate the Senate filibuster. Right now even amendments to bills can be filibustered and blocked in the Senate. If you keep the filibuster, only limit it to the final passage of bills after debate and voting on amendments have been completed.

Allow the minority party under the leadership of the Minority Leader, to offer amendments to all bills that come to committee and make it to the floor for debate and consideration. Eliminate the filibuster, but replace it with a tabling motion that could only be made by the Leader and Minority Leader, that could only be offered at the end of debate on legislation. Which would take 60 votes to overrule the tabling motion.

Which would mean the Senate along with the judiciary and the U.S. Justice Department, will continue to serve as checks on executive power regardless of which party is in power and if they have complete power with control over Congress as well. But the Senate and House as well, would be able to get back to debating and legislating. Offering other ideas and alternatives as well.

Amendments and alternatives to bills, could no longer be filibustered or even tabled with this new set of Senate rules. But either floor manager ( the Chairman or Ranking Member of the committee ) could mark amendments that don’t have bipartisan co-sponsors as controversial. Amendments that are simply design to weaken or defeat bills. And the member with the controversial amendment could appeal to the chair and their amendment would then need 60 votes to pass, instead of 51. But they would still get their amendment voted on.

Eliminate gerrymandering of all U.S. House districts, as well as all state legislative districts in the country. Which will vote out the hyper-partisans on the Far-Right and Far-Left in America. Those people would be replaced by center-right Republicans and center-left Democrats. And these Representative’s would then have political incentive to work with members of the other party and even vote with them from time to time.

Pass a Federal complete disclosure act of all political contributions to all Federal campaigns. For all Federal incumbents and candidates, but all third-party groups would also have to disclose under Federal law how they’re paying for their political operations. Where they’re getting their money and have no loopholes in this disclosure act.

American voters would then be able to see where their members of Congress, as well as their President, is getting their political money. When they see a third-party political ad on TV, they’ll see where that group is getting their money.

Don’t see commonsense bipartisan proposals and plans ever passing in Congress and don’t expect an approach to how Congress operates like this anytime soon. Not until the U.S. Supreme Court outlaws gerrymandering at least. Unless Americans voters make this an import issue and you start seeing rallies around the country calling for the end of hyper-partisanship in Congress. But if you want to fix Congress, especially the Senate, but the House as well, this would be an approach that could accomplish that.

TYT Interviews: Cenk Uygur Interviewing Dave Spencer- 'Can Dave Spencer Save The Republican Party?'

Source:TYT Interviews- TYT's Cenk Uygur, interviewing Dave Spencer about the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party.

Source:The Daily View

"Dave Spencer is a "Rockefeller Republican" in two senses: first, in that he believes the GOP should be more open to compromise, evidence-based and reasonable and second, because his great-great-grandfather was actually John D. Rockefeller."

From TYT Interviews

Cenk Uygur asked Dave Spencer the perfect question early in this interview which was why are you a Republican? With Dave Spencer answering it because he believed in fiscal conservatism and I guess what he would call social tolerance. Meaning you’re not pushing social issues generally other than supporting the right to privacy, free speech, our basic individual rights in the U.S. Constitution and you’re against racial and ethnic discrimination, as well as gender discrimination.

But you’re in politics because you want government to work well and to serve the people. Not to try to do too much and just do the basics well. That was Nelson Rockefeller’s Republican Party. Add George Romney and at least to a certain extent Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower as well, George H.W. Bush.

That GOP still exists even today and even in Congress with Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Representative Charlie Dent and his center-right coalition in the House. And even though the Republican Party today is dominated by the Christian-Right and Christian-Nationalists, who believe their America is disappearing and politics to them is no longer so much about Democrats vs Republican, but European-American Protestants vs everyone else in America, including European-Americans who aren’t Protestant. Like Jews, Italians, the Irish, to use as examples.

And backing Republicans who share their cultural values which is more important to them than what is the best defense policy, the national debt, budget deficit, the best way to grow the economy, to use as examples.

I don’t know Dave Spencer personally, but what I get from this interview is that Dave Spencer is still a Republican and wants to reform the Republican Party, instead of become a Democrat or try to form some new center-right third party, is that the Republican Party has a history of being a party about ideas and policy instead of cultural values and trying to divide the country based on these so-called Cultural-War issues. And saying they’re the real Americans and everyone else are the Un-Americans.

Based on the presidential campaign that Donald Trump ran in 2016, he should’ve gotten clobbered because only one racial group supported him strongly. But he was running against a boring Democrat in Hillary Clinton who struggled just to get her voters to the polls and thanks to low Democratic turnout Donald Trump is President and not Hillary Clinton.

But long-term unless Democrats just give up on voting, the Republican Party is going to have to become a party about ideas and policy that is a big tent party, if they want to stay in business not get clobbered in Congress, lose the White House and have no shot at winning either back with the current makeup of their party.

Dave Spencer’s Rockefeller Progressive Center-Right coalition in the Party, as well as Conservative-Libertarians, is how the Republican Party gets back to the GOP and become a strong popular governing party again.

Guy John: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- 'George Romney: On Americanism in 1992'

Source:Guy John- Governor George Romney, on The Open Mind with Richard Heffner, in 1992.

Source:The Daily View

"George Romney on Americanism. Power to the people."

From Guy John

In the first couple minutes of this interview George Romney sounds like someone from the Christian-Right arguing that the problem with America is our culture, lifestyle, way of life. That Americans weren’t living a moral life or to it bluntly what someone on the Christian-Right would call a Christian way of life. Americans having sex before they’re married, women giving birth out-of-wedlock

And then Governor Romney gets into another problem that he believed America having to do with too much poverty in our inner cities and not enough education for them and the country as a whole. The second part I agree with Governor Romney on.

This interview was done in 1992 and back then America had a large deficit and was just starting to get out of the recession that it was in in 1990-91. Not that different to where America was in 2009 especially in the summer and fall of 09.

And Governor Romney was arguing that the reason why Congress and the White House, couldn’t deal with the deficit was because of special interest groups and members of Congress not wanting to cut their own pork and spending for their districts and states in order to deal with the deficit. He was right about that back then and even more so 26 years later. Our campaign finance system is really a topic for another piece.

The last part having to do with the growth and size of the Federal Government, is really up Governor Romney’s ally being that he was a former Governor obviously ( Governor of Michigan ) and was also both a Progressive but a Federalist as well. He believed government could play a positive role in solving problems in the country, but when it came to economic and social problems that the best government was the closest government to the problems.

And Governor Romney believed a lot of these Federal programs having to do with Welfare and poverty in general should be run by the states. Instead of the Federal Government trying to manage social welfare programs for the entire country and all fifty states.

As I mentioned before George Romney represents a Republican Party from another era. A Republican Party that was about problem solving and governing, instead of fighting political battles and trying to destroy Democrats, the Democratic Party, and trying to consolidate so much power with Republican Party.

Romney represents a Republican Party that wasn’t interested in one’s religion or personal lifestyle, but the personal and professional qualifications of the people and would they be able to do a good job or not. Not if they’re Protestant or not, or what part of the country they’re from, what they think about sexuality and so-forth. Issues that the modern Republican is consumed by now instead of qualifications and public policy positions.

CNN: Special Preview- 'The Radical Story of Patty Hearst': Story of The Symbionese Liberation Army

Source:CNN- From Nor-Cal heiress to New-Left Socialist revolutionary.

Source:The New Democrat

"Patty Hearst transformed from heiress to terrorist in a saga of privilege, celebrity, politics, media, revolution, and violence. The docuseries premieres Sunday February 11 9 PM ET on CNN."

From CNN

I believe to understand the kidnapping of Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army, you have to understand the 1970s especially the early and mid 1970s. I don't want to sound overdramatic but America was at a breaking point at this point with a whole generation of Baby Boomers who were pissed off at America and the American system and wanted something different as far as our culture, way of life, and even form of government.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s you had this Marxist-Socialist terrorist group called The Weather Underground and Students For a Democratic Society. They go out of business by the early 1970s and this new far left-wing group of Communists emerges in California called the Symbionese Liberation Army.

The SLA believed wealthy people especially wealthy Caucasians and wealthy Caucasian men and wealthy corporations owned and managed by these men, were keeping poor Americans of all backgrounds, as well as minorities down. And they decided they would fight back and use violence to accomplish these political objectives. Which was to force wealthy Caucasian people to give money to the poor and feed the poor.

Patty Hearst the daughter of Randolph Hearst who owned a media empire in San Francisco, California which included the San Francisco Examiner newspaper and some TV stations, was the first major target and capture of this Marxist-Communist revolutionary group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. ( Or SLA )

The SLA kidnaps Patty Hearst in February, 1974 in order to get her father to give up 10s of millions of dollars and spend that money feeding the poor in Berkeley, California and other parts of Northern California. Kidnapping especially depending on how you treat your hostages, is about as radical and in some cases violent of a terrorist action that you can commit against anyone. But the SLA was as radical and violent of a political terrorist organization that we've seen in America.

The late 1960s and the 1970s back then, doesn't look much different from the radical left-wing groups that we see today with the so-called ANTIFA movement and these political correctness groups. Back then you had a very large generation of Americans who were pissed off at society and the government and wanted something radically different. With the so-called ANTIFA group now who also use terrorism to accomplish their Far-Left political objectives, you have a generation of Millennial's who are also pissed off at America and hate our form of government. What has changed is the media and the ability for radical groups to get their message out there and to get noticed.

Deborah Gordon: Governor George Romney- 1968 Interview by Lou Gordon: 'Brainwashed in Vietnam'

Source:Deborah Gordon- Michigan Governor George Romney, being interviewed by Detroit journalist Lou Gordon about Vietnam, in 1968.

Source:The Daily View

"George Romney Interview by Lou Gordon on being brainwashed on Vietnam. 1968."

From Deborah Gordon

Governor George Romney not only telling Lou Gordon that he was against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War in 1968, but that he had been brainwashed. Which is a very interesting point and for these reasons. Prior to Watergate and the Vietnam War, Americans tended to trust what their government was telling them until they saw real information that contradicted that. The Silent Generation is probably the last generation that tended to believe what their government was telling them.

The Vietnam War and Watergate, go up to the Iran Contra in the 1980s, and Bill Clinton scandals minor and major, real and fake, from the 1990s and of course that started to change. If Americans were to believe what their government was telling them, they need real hard information and facts first before they believe what their Representative or Senator, or President is saying. Americans today are more inclined to believe that their politicians are lying to them when they’re attempting to sound factual, than they’re simply just wrong or actually telling the truth.

But why do Americans tend to believe their government is lying to them, or at least not telling them the truth? Go back to the mid and late 1960s with President Lyndon Johnson over the Vietnam War, where President Johnson and his National Security Council were saying how great the Vietnam War was going and that we were winning that the Communist Vietnamese were close to surrendering. When the fact any solider or marine on the ground in Vietnam fighting for America and to free Vietnam from communism, knew the opposite was true. The Americans won the battles but the Communists were winning the war and holding their territory with Americans taking a lot of causalities and injuries.

What Governor Romney was telling journalist Lou Gordon in 1968 about his trip to Vietnam and what he personally saw there as far as the war there, was that America wasn’t wining this war even though that is what the American military and foreign affairs officers were telling Governor Romney is that America was winning. So Romney thought he was being brainwashed by his government officials there which is why he came out against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War after supporting it before.

Andrew Kaczynski: Governor George Romney- 1968 Presidential Campaign Announcement

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- Governor George Romney, announcing his 1968 campaign for President.

Source:The Daily View

"George Romney 1968 Presidential Announcement."

From Andrew Kaczynski

I love this George Romney speech because this is exactly what the Republican Party was once about at least, with a solid conservative-libertarian faction led by Senator Barry Goldwater and others. If this was the GOP today, I might be a Republican myself. And this coming from a JFK Liberal Democrat.

Just listen to this video of Governor Romney’s speech. He was talking about progressive solutions to real problems in America like Welfare and poverty, as well as fiscal situation in the country and the need for fiscal responsibility, but calling for progressive federalist solutions to these problems.

Governor Romney and Richard Nixon sound very similar on these issues because they were both part of that old progressive center-right wing of the Republican Party. Republicans who believed that progress could be made with government, but that it had to be limited and the states and localities had to be part of the solutions. Instead of setting up big Federal programs run by Big Government to serve every state especially the people who live in those states. Which was also a problem for Governor Romney because he and the GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon, sounded very similar on economic policy.

Governor Romney arguing for Welfare reform and federalism in 1968. President Richard Nixon in 1969 proposed Welfare reform and what he called a New Federalism. Which was about ( to use a Washington term ) block granting the New Deal and Great Society safety net and antipoverty programs over to the states and allowing for the states to run them.

Which was the middle position between the George McGovern McGovermite Democratic Socialists in the Democratic Party who believed that not only should the Federal Government continue to run these programs, but that they should be expanded and that new programs should be created on top of the New Deal and Great Society and that taxes should be raised on everyone to pay for them. And the Conservative Libertarians in the GOP led by Barry Goldwater, arguing that these programs shouldn’t exist at all.

The only real difference that George Romney had with Richard Nixon, had to do with the Vietnam War. Romney arguing that the war was a failure and that it was time for America to get out of it. And there just wasn’t enough Republican voters back then to line up and vote for Romney on that issue.

If anything Republicans back then believed the war need to be fought better and that we should go harder in Vietnam. But George Romney represents the old Progressive-Federalist wing of the Republican Party along with Nelson Rockefeller who also ran for President in 1968, at a time when that faction of the party was starting to get smaller.

CBS News: Face The Nation- Governor George Romney: 'Addresses 1964 Republican National Convention'

Source:Face The Nation- Governor George Romney, speaking to the 1964 Republican National Convention, talking about right-wing extremism.

Source:The Daily View

"George Romney addresses 1964 Republican convention. The Governor of Michigan urged Republicans at the 1964 GOP convention to reject "extremism."

From Face The Nation

What I get from this short five minute version of Michigan Governor George Romney speaking at the 1964 Republican National Convention, is that he wasn’t necessarily against Senator Barry Goldwater and his presidential campaign. But he was worried about the Republican Party moving right and even Far-Right.

From 1964-68, the GOP was moving in transition from a center-right moderate conservative party with a solid progressive Northeastern base that Governor Romney was part of, to expanding the base of the party and moving south as well as west. Bringing in Christian-Conservatives from the South and Conservative-Libertarians from the West. Barry Goldwater was one of those Western Conservative-Libertarians.

Governor Romney and Governor Nelson Rockefeller and other Progressive Republicans, were worried that America wasn’t ready for this hardcore what was called back then conservative message,  but what today would be a conservative-libertarian message as far as Goldwater that was about individual freedom both economic and personal, as well as limited government and personal responsibility, as well as federalist when it came to government. And as a result the GOP would get wiped out in the 1964 general elections which was exactly what happened. And they were worried that the GOP couldn’t compete with just a small percentage of the electorate.

What Rockefeller and Romney got wrong, was that they were only correct in the short-term. Millions of Southern Democrats who voted for President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, voted for Richard Nixon for President in 1968. Congressional Republicans had a big comeback in 1966 by winning in the South in the House and Senate and winning out west.

Richard Nixon was part of the Progressive Republican base in California and New York, but being the great politician that he was, was also able to communicate with Goldwater Conservatives and Christian-Conservatives in the South, while retaining his Northeastern Republican Progressive base, to win the presidency in 1968 and win going way reelection in 1972.

But the remaking and renovation of the modern GOP that we see today started in 1964. Romney and Rockefeller, were wrong about the long-term affects that moving right would have on the GOP.

Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann Interviewing Gianno Caldwell- Where Are The Nelson Rockefeller Republicans?

Source:Thom Hartmann- Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R, New York) running for President, perhaps in 1960.

Source:The Daily View

"Thom Hartmann talks with Gianno Caldwell, Republican Strategist-Caldwell Strategic Consulting, Website: Gianno Caldwell.

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!"

From Thom Hartmann

The first few minutes of this interview is about Donald Trump and takes place in 2015. I’m not interested in Donald Trump for this piece, but if you are then you’re welcome to watch the video.

But I am interested in Nelson Rockefeller and what was the progressive wing of the Republican Party at least from the 1950s through the 1970s and perhaps even 1980s.

Nelson was a Progressive Republican along with Governor George Romney and a few Congressional Republicans like Senator Jacob Javits, Senator Charles Matthias, even President Richard Nixon and perhaps even Dwight Eisenhower when it came to economic policy and civil rights.

The Republican Party use to represent the Northeast and Midwest and had a conservative-libertarian wing in the West like Senator Barry Goldwater and others. Thanks to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the 1960s in general , you saw Southerners who were anti-civil rights and anti-desegregation Democrats, move to the Republican Party. With Northern Republicans moving to the Democratic Party.

I wouldn’t say the Rockefeller Progressive wing of the Republican Party is dead, but certainly on political life support. Senator Susan Collins., Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland, Representative Charlie Dent and perhaps 30-40 House Republicans. But the Republican Party today is essentially Southern Bible Belt Christian-Conservative party, with conservative-libertarian wing in the west led by Senator Jeff Flake and others.

With a pro-business Northeastern wing of the Republican Party that is progressive if not liberal on social issues or at least neutral, but pro-business and wanting to see taxes and regulations down on business other than the environment and when it comes to safety.