This is Fred Gregory's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Fred Gregory's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Fred Gregory
Recent Activity
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-third-party-candidates-20171211-story.html by Chris Reed 12-11-17 A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California says 59 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents — and, overall, 64 percent of likely voters — agreed with the statement that America's two main parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.” For those following California’s deep-blue politics who may find this surprising, here's how John Myers of the Los Angeles Times put it in perspective: “Lest you think this level of disgust is more deeply ingrained in one subset of California voters, consider this: Even though Democrats in the state are the ones railing against the agenda of President (Donald) Trump and Republicans in Washington, they slightly trail their GOP neighbors in being fed up with the two-party system.” This desire for a third option may seem hard to square with our era of either-or tribal politics — my side is always right, your side is always wrong. But this hankering for something new is nothing new. In the past 45 years, third-party or independent candidates have managed to win governor's races twice in both Alaska and Maine and once in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Connecticut. And in a Gallup Poll five months before the 1992 presidential election, third-party candidate Ross Perot even had a clear lead over Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. Perot nabbed a still-healthy 19 percent of the November vote — despite a gaffe-strewn campaign that included him accusing the Bush campaign of “scheming to smear his daughter with a computer-altered photograph and to disrupt her wedding,” according to a report in The New York Times, and also included Perot repeatedly referring to “you people” in a speech to the NAACP. There's also the phenomenon of celebrity candidates winning elections despite policy views at odds with their parties. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Hollywood background, social liberalism and history of marijuana use didn't make him seem much like a Republican, but he was easily elected governor of California in the 2003 recall of Gray Davis, trouncing state Sen. Tom McClintock — a pure GOP stalwart. Then there’s businessman Trump, who won the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016 after a campaign in which he disavowed traditional GOP calls to cut entitlement spending and give tax breaks to billionaires (views that have changed, obviously, since he reached the White House). So is there a sweet spot in American politics just waiting to be filled? Maybe. In 2004, in one of his best pieces ever in The New Yorker, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell told a story with interesting parallels. Gladwell wrote about Howard Moskowitz, a marketing wizard who didn't believe consumers “know what they desire if what they desire does not yet exist.” Moskowitz was hired by Campbell Soup Co. to boost its Prego spaghetti sauce in its war for market dominance with Ragu. Working with food scientists, he came up with 45 types of spaghetti sauce “designed to differ in every conceivable way: spiciness, sweetness, tartness, saltiness, thickness, aroma, mouth feel, cost of ingredients and so forth.” Campbell eventually took some of his prototypes on the road and had 100 people in four cities eat and rate up to 10 small bowls of different spaghetti sauces. Gladwell wrote: “When Moskowitz charted the results, he saw that everyone had a slightly different definition of what a perfect spaghetti sauce tasted like. If you sifted carefully through the data, though, you could find patterns, and Moskowitz learned that most people's preferences fell into one of three broad groups: plain, spicy and extra-chunky, and of those three the last was the most important. “Why? Because at the time there was no extra-chunky spaghetti sauce in the supermarket. Over the next decade, that new category proved to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Prego. ‘We all said, “Wow!” ’ Monica Wood, who was then the head of market research for Campbell's, recalls. ‘Here there was this third segment — people who liked their spaghetti sauce with lots of stuff in it — and it was completely untapped. So in about 1989-90 we launched Prego extra-chunky. It was extraordinarily successful.’” Might there be such a third option for voters? An anecdotal and statistical case can be built that yes, there is. Politicians who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal — so long as they have a credible background, decent communication skills and the ability to raise funds or self-fund a campaign — could strike a chord with one-third of voters, and maybe far more. Two of the candidates I've already mentioned fit this libertarian-lite profile. Perot, the tech billionaire who got a higher percentage of the vote than any third-party candidate in 80 years with his 1992 run, was a deficit hawk who was pro-choice on abortion and supported gay rights. Schwarzenegger was an apostle of free-market capitalism who liked to quote Milton Friedman, but he staked out liberal stances on abortion and gay rights — on some issues “sounding more like a Democrat than a Republican,” according to a 2003 CNN story during the recall campaign. A case could also be made that tech billionaire Michael Bloomberg — a former Democrat who was elected mayor of New York twice as a Republican and then to a third term as an independent — falls in this sweet spot of politics. Polling shows social liberals are increasing in America, reaching a new high of 31 percent, according to a Gallup Poll from earlier this year. But another Gallup survey from 2015 shows there are more than twice as many fiscal conservatives (39 percent) as fiscal liberals (19 percent). No tidy Venn diagrams are available showing how many libertarian-lites there are, but the phenomenon is significant enough that it's already being assailed by liberal critics. Here's what Huffington Post writer Jess Coleman had to say in 2015: “As public support has rapidly shifted on issues such as same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization — the so-called ‘social issues’ — we've seen a major rise in the ‘social liberal, fiscal conservative.’ But I'm not buying it. This contortion is nothing more than a red herring. ... (What) the ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ person is really saying is: ‘I support the plight of the marginalized, so long as I don't have to do anything about it.’ ” Harvard Crimson writer Megan O. Corrigan had a similar take that same year: “(The) ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ catchphrase indicates commitment to liberalism only when it does not cost money. ... But what about women's access to paid-for daycare and maternity leave? What about health care for the poor, housing for the homeless, treatment programs for addicts and access to good public education for every child? The idea that these policies are fiscal rather than social is absurd.” Coleman and Corrigan make a strong point. But calling people who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal hard-hearted isn't likely to win them over. And maybe, just maybe, in 2020, these Americans and the rest of the electorate will get the Prego extra-chunky option in the presidential race, in the form of an independent bid by tech billionaire-reality TV star-NBA owner Mark Cuban. Earlier this year he told Vice that he was “socially liberal, fiscally conservative and proudly independent” in an interview — days after telling The Washington Post that he wasn't interested in running for president, but “sometimes you got to do what you got to do.” Do it, Mark, do it. As the Prego marketing genius suggested, voters can't know what they desire if what they desire does not yet exist.
TC: You are being to hard on Ole Roy. Maybe he was out in Kalifornia to schmooze and exchange ideas on how to destroy a state with Governor Moonbeam. Or just to smoke a legal joint. Who knows perhaps it is Cooper's manipulative and duplicitous character at play here. Like you suggest he should inform the citizens about the purpose of his trip to the land of fruits and nuts. Don't hold your breath for the real reasons.
It is Greensboro. One party rule. I guess we should just grin and accept it ?
I am sure, at least I hope, Jeff Phillips and other commissioners will remember this stunt when school budget rolls around.
I guess the N&R will not report this moment a home town hero is in the spot light, We'll see
Hear, hear what the man says. And the lady too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6sn2ziB2OM
I hope Alan Branson and Jeff Phillips are listening to you TC . Also Pat Tillman. Tired of the poor mouthing of our Guilford County school administrators. Enough is enough. Pull the curtain.. close the gate
LOCK HER UP !
Balanced Budget Amendment Mirroring 1995 Effort Fails to Get Two-Thirds in House https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/balanced-budget-amendment-mirroring-1995-effort-fails-get-two-thirds-house/
I didn't hear him answer the question about shutting down Diamond and Silk. A forum for all ideas ??
It has been tried before: https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/considering-balanced-budget-amendment-lessons-history "History shows that the potency of a balanced budget amendment attracts fervent efforts to confuse the issues, especially by creating counterfeit versions and exceptions to provide political cover. Proponents of a BBA should prepare accordingly. If not for high-profile political defections in the mid-1990s, the BBA would have been approved by Congress. Had it then been ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, today’s debates over borrowing limits, entitlements, and spending levels would be greatly different, if not absent. However, the versions considered in the ’90s were notably weaker than both the House and Senate versions of the BBA-plus now being considered. Had an earlier version been adopted, today’s debate might be about efforts by Congress to evade the spirit of the BBA by exploiting loopholes in that earlier version. This is why vigilance is necessary to prevent the insertion of loopholes into the language of a BBA-plus. Those who do not learn from the failures of history are doomed to repeat them." — The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
It gas gone super viral
Yes why has the GOP failed to field a candidate for AG with charisma and voter appeal. This shouldn't be.
These are indeed times that try men's souls. OMG, just look at the obscene $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Bill. ( i haven't read it and I expect only a few in congress have ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsLcAgJu24w
All this talk about repealing the Second Amendment is silly. Justice John Paul Stevens at his advanced age can be forgiven for missing the urinal on this one. The Constitution was not written as a novel or a creative work of fiction. It was written by scholars and statesmen who had a full grasp of history and governance. The Second Amendment was not something pulled out of thin air but a vital component of a Constitution that was guaranteeing everyone life, liberty, and happiness. What few realize is that the Second Amendment has a long history that goes back a lot farther than our Constitution that enshrined it. The English Bill of Rights was adopted by the British Parliament in 1689, a century before the American Bill of Rights was adopted as part of our Constitution by our Congress in 1791. On December 16, 1689, the British Parliament addressed the issue of “subjects” being armed. Here’s what was contained in the British Bill of Rights: [1] By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when the Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law. …[2] That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence (sic) suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” (Ref: George B. Adams and H. Morse Stephens, eds., Select Documents of English Constitutional History. New York; The MacMillan Company, 1927.) So you see, much of this controversy goes right back to protestants but – and this is a big but – we received the right to bear arms only because somehow papists and fellow papists were already armed and employed contrary to law. Could this have been a perverse prelude to the equal protection concept of the 14th Amendment? We need to weigh all this in the culture of the time. By the end of the 17th century, most of the wars and battles between the Protestants and ‘papists’ were over even though the language still seemed rough and denigratory at times. I’m sure the MPs meant no insult to the papists and indeed they were willing to adjust British law to accommodate and allow all subjects, Protestants and papists, to own and bear arms. Had a papist in 1688 or earlier in England and decided to come to a home to put a nice round ball of lead into a Protestant's heart, the MPs were saying, a year later, that Protestans now had the same right as I to arm themselves and to protect themselves. A hundred years later, by the time Jefferson and the boys wrote the Declaration of Independence, it was over. Whatever passion might have existed at one time between the colonies and the mother country was finished, kaput, gone, zap, over and out! The Declaration laid old George III out in every which way, calling him a ‘tyrant’ and ‘unfit to be the ruler of a free people,’ etc. It must be remembered that at the time there was not universal agreement in the colonies that a break from England was necessary or prudent. Washington’s army was a bunch of untrained men willing to go up against the best trained and equipped military in the world at the time. I can just imagine the late-night arguments in the taverns in New York (formerly New Amsterdam). The Never-George types were just as numerous as the Never-Washington folks. One of the first encounters, the Battle of Long Island, saw the Brits drive Washington and his men off the island. Historians say that General Howe on the British side, permitted Washington and his ragtag army to escape, in order to appeal to the colonists and win over their support for giving up the dream of independence. It didn’t work. Four years later, Washington and his men were successful. To get back to the Second Amendment, there can be little doubt that several things were going through the minds of the founders when they debated it and accepted it in the Bill of Rights. Surely, the English Bill of Rights quoted above played heavily in this and it followed from the First Amendment’s freedoms that the issue of Protestant versus papist was no longer dispositive. The second thing that probably went though their minds was the very real possibility that a patriot family might be at risk from someone loyal to the King of England. Even though the war was over and the Brits had lost, there was growing sentiment for decades that it all might have been a mistake and that we should say we’re sorry and beg to be accepted back into the kingdom. And, of course there was the War of 1812 that probably put an end to whatever sentiment there was left in America to rejoin England.
What a jerk. The comments on your video link are priceless Now retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment
This is a grand-slam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHjD6EJ964
Toggle Commented Mar 18, 2018 on The FBI and the GOP-e at Triad Conservative
This too is also excellent: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html RTWT
Your point# 5 is spot on. From Max Eden at City Journal https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-did-parkland-shooter-slip-through-cracks-15741.html?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=41c9cf285d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-41c9cf285d-109318249 In the aftermath of the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, political debate has focused almost exclusively on the role of guns in American society. Largely ignored is the question of what role Broward County’s overhauled approach to school safety played in the total system failure leading up to the massacre, in which authorities took no action on repeated warnings about the eventual shooter. In an effort to combat the “school to prison pipeline,” schools across the country have come under pressure from the federal government and civil rights activists to reduce suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests. The unintended consequences of pressuring schools to produce ever-lower discipline statistics deserve much more examination. Florida’s Broward County, home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, was among the leaders in this nationwide policy shift. According to Washington Post reporting, Broward County schools once recorded more in-school arrests than any other Florida district. But in 2013, the school board and the sheriff’s office agreed on a new policy to discontinue police referrals for a dozen infractions ranging from drug use to assault. The number of school-based arrests plummeted by 63 percent from 2012 to 2016. The Obama administration lauded Broward’s reforms, and in 2015 invited the district’s superintendent to the White House for an event, “Rethink Discipline,” that would highlight the success of Broward and other localities’ success in “transforming policies and school climate.” Confessed killer Nikolas Cruz, a notorious and emotionally disturbed student, was suspended from Stoneman Douglas High. He was even expelled for bringing weapons to school. Yet he was never arrested before the shooting. In a county less devoted to undoing school disciplinary policies, perhaps Cruz would have been arrested for one of his many violent or threatening incidents. When Cruz got into a fight in September of 2016, he was referred to social workers rather than to the police. When he allegedly assaulted a student in January 2017, it triggered a school-based threat assessment—but no police involvement. The Washington Post notes that Cruz “was well-known to school and mental health authorities and was entrenched in the process for getting students help rather than referring them to law enforcement.” Would an arrest record have changed the judgment of the FBI agents who ignored the tip that Cruz wanted to kill his classmates? Certainly Cruz could not have legally purchased a gun if the 2016 social-services investigation determined that he was a threat to himself and others. That year, according to the Washington Post, the sheriff’s office was informed that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school.” The office determined that Cruz had knives and a BB gun and sent this information to the school resource officer (presumably the now-infamous Scot Peterson). It’s unclear whether Peterson investigated; if he did, neither he nor anyone else evidently filed a report. When social services approached Peterson in its investigation of Cruz, the officer “refused to share any information . . . regarding [an] incident that took place.” Peterson and his colleagues appear to have been under pressure to post lower statistics on school-safety problems. This climate of disengagement could have allowed Cruz to slip through the cracks in the system. CNN’s Jake Tapper pressed Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel about what role the new policies might have played in the county’s failure to respond to the many red flags that Cruz’s behavior had raised. “Were there not incidents committed by the shooter as a student,” Tapper asked, “had this new policy not been in place that otherwise he would have been arrested for and not able to legally buy a gun?” The sheriff praised the program. “It’s an excellent program,” he said. “It’s helping many, many people. What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system.” The police, he said, can’t be faulted here because “there’s no malfeasance or misfeasance if you don’t know about something.” Perhaps not. But the explicit aim of Broward’s new approach to school safety was to keep students like Cruz off the police’s radar. If the Sheriff’s department didn’t know about his deeply troubling behavior, perhaps it was because they were no longer supposed to know about it. Reporters should dig deeper into the implementation of a policy that prevented school officials from contacting the police, even when common sense would call for it, as it surely did in Cruz’s case. There remain more questions than answers at this point, but we owe the families of Cruz’s 17 victims better than another scripted culture war, with each side voicing the usual talking points. Hundreds of school districts, serving millions of students across the country, have followed Broward County’s dubious lead on school safety. Parents across the country need more answers about how this could happen, so let’s start asking the questions now."
Increase the reward to one million and see what comes out
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2018 on Could This Be True? at Triad Conservative
If illegals -- non citizens- can be kept off the voting rolls , and the border can be secured then Texas can remain solid RED . Go Longhorns
Not as so gloomily predicted https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/hard-to-trust-the-media-s-political-coverage-after-texas-X8ZyI6Js2kScw1_O8eux4A
Mississippi.. Anybody but another Trent " Not A " Lott
Toggle Commented Mar 6, 2018 on GOP Drama in Mississippi at Triad Conservative
No Cooper did not have a Grinch heart change. He was most assuredly uncomfortable in that setting . The Governor ( by 10,000 votes ) is just as you describe him,,, an anti-Christian.