Byron York To Host Neoconservative Bill Bennett’s Morning In America Show Tuesday, December 13, 2011–Would Like To Interview Ron Paul–Go On The Show Ron!–Videos!
The Bill Bennett’s MORNING IN AMERICA
http://www.billbennett.com/pages/aboutus/
Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent of The Washington Examiner, extended an open invitation to the Republican Presidential candidates to be interviewed on the Bill Bennett talk radio show that York will be guest hosting Tuesday, December 13. from 6-9 a.m.
I believe Bill Bennett has the best talk radio show on the air today.
I also support and will vote for Ron Paul.
Suggest Ron Paul accept Bryon York’s open invitation.
Many Ron Paul supporters, conservative, libertarians and independents will be listening.
Byron York talks about liberal efforts to ‘pre-tar’ the Tea Party protests as a violent movement
Bill Bennett at Values Voter Summit
Ron Paul – Values Voter Summit 2011
Dr. Bill Bennett at Values Voter Summit 2011
BIG DOG – New Ron Paul Ad
Ron Paul Speaks On Dept. of Education – Fox GOP Debate 9/22/11
Ron Paul Wins Values Voter Summit Straw Poll
Brutal & Uncomfortably Tense: Bill Bennett Painfully Grills Gingrich For Attacking Paul Ryan
Bill Bennett and Byron York defend Ronald Reagan
Byron York – Romney could lose nomination
BYRON YORK on WMAL
Background Articles and Videos
Byron York discusses the rapid growth of government on FOX News
Worst Person: “an awkward goodbye” edition Countdown Reports
Inside Ronald Reagan
A Reason Interview
Manuel Klausner from the July 1975 issue
“…REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?
REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people. …”
“…REASON: Governor, what about the United Nations? Are you in favor of the United States withdrawing from the UN?
REAGAN: Well, I am in favor of certainly a different policy than we’ve had. I think the United States should have taken a very drastic action; perhaps it should have staged a walk-out at the time of the recognition of Red China. I think that the United Nations today is virtually impotent when you stop to think that countries representing two-thirds of the votes of the United Nations represent less than 10 percent of the world population. It’s a funny thing that everybody who wants one man-one vote doesn’t hold it true for the United Nations!
REASON: Governor if the Republicans were to nominate a candidate that was unacceptable to you in 1976, could you support a Libertarian third party candidate?
REAGAN: I have to wait and see what you’re doing and what you are standing for.
REASON: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?
REAGAN: Oh, it would be hard for me to pinpoint anything in that category. I’m an inveterate reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt–I’m one for the classical economists….”
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/singlepage
The perplexing and somewhat frightening Ron Paul
By Byron York
“…Republicans dodged a big bullet at the Ames, Iowa, straw poll. If just 77 of the 4,283 people who voted for Rep. Michele Bachmann had voted instead for Rep. Ron Paul, then Paul would have won the straw poll. In the end, Bachmann came out ahead with 28.55 percent of the vote to Paul’s 27.65 percent. No other candidate was close.
Some well-connected Iowa Republicans viewed it as a bullet dodged because they had long feared the possibility of a Paul victory.
“It would pour jet fuel on the East Coast narrative that Iowa is just too nutty to have such an important place in the nominating process,” says one of those Republicans.
Before the poll, they saw a Paul-Bachmann one-two finish as the worst-case scenario. They ended up with Bachmann-Paul – a result establishment Republicans viewed as somewhat better than the other way around – and got a lot of the criticism anyway.
The criticism came not just from Democrats or so-called Eastern elite RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
“Ron Paul is going to destroy this party if they keep him in there,” said Rush Limbaugh the day after the Aug. 11 Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Ames. “This is nuts on parade.”
Key Republicans in Iowa – and around the country, too – are genuinely baffled by the Paul phenomenon. They understand (and share) many of Paul’s views on the Constitution and limiting the size and scope of the federal government, even if they think Paul sometimes goes too far. What perplexes them is Paul’s take on foreign policy, especially the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Ronald Reagan Was No Libertarian
by Gene Healy
“…”Eight dreary, miserable years” of “egregiously statist policies,” Murray Rothbard snarled in Liberty magazine in 1989. My colleague David Boaz was less dyspeptic, but nearly as disappointed, in his introduction to the 1988 Cato Institute volume “Assessing the Reagan Years”: “The Reagan Revolution turned out to be a paper tiger,” he wrote.
[W]e shouldn’t make any president into a plaster saint.
True enough: Reagan was no libertarian. Instead of wrapping ourselves in his mantle, those of us who support deep reductions in government’s size and power should take a clear-eyed look at the Reagan record.
The Cato Institute did just that in “Assessing the Reagan Years,” which showed that under Reagan, federal spending actually increased from 23 percent to 24 percent of gross national product, while payroll tax increases resulted in a net tax increase for most Americans.
Not only did Reagan renege on his promise to abolish President Carter’s new Cabinet departments, Education and Energy, he appointed secretaries dedicated to their preservation.
Carter did more than Reagan to deregulate the economy, the authors explained, and while farm subsidies tripled under Reagan’s watch, Reagan eliminated only one (one!) major federal program, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (which was almost immediately reborn under another name).
“On so many issues,” Boaz lamented, the Reagan administration “never even showed up for battle.”
Worse, on one key issue where the president actually showed up, his efforts left the country demonstrably less free.
President Nixon popularized the phrase “the war on drugs,” but Reagan was the first chief executive who really took that metaphor seriously. Via executive order, he declared drug trafficking a “national security threat,” and in a 1986 televised address he invoked World War II, calling drug abuse “a form of tyranny” and imploring Americans to “join us in this great, new national crusade.”
As a result of that failed crusade, the United States now has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world.
Why, then, do most libertarians today remember our 40th president fondly? Edmund Morris captured Reagan’s appeal nicely in a passage from his much-maligned biography, Dutch:
“Across America and Europe, in huge areas of the world where commerce was once state-controlled, Reagan’s philosophy of hard work and earned reward has made Marxism a memory. If [upon signing the ’81 tax cuts] he had laid down his last pen … and said to the press, ‘Ten years from now, you fellows, there are going to be stock markets in Moscow and Shanghai,’ guffaws would have filled the valley. But who can doubt that somewhere deep down (as he leaned back in his chair, put one high-heeled boot on the table, and mugged for the cameras), Dutch believed?”
Few at the time showed that kind of vision, and Reagan deserves enormous credit for it. Still, we shouldn’t make any president into a plaster saint. There’s an unhealthy touch of idolatry in the question, “What would Reagan do?” …”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12763
Gingrich reaction: Republicans livid, accuse former speaker of hypocrisy in attack on Ryan
By Byron York
“…This morning Republicans are just beginning to assess the damage that former House Speaker and current presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has done to the GOP budget plan currently before Congress. On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Gingrich denounced House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to restructure Medicare, saying, “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
On his radio program Monday morning, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett, who knows Gingrich well but is also close to Ryan, reacted angrily to Gingrich’s remarks. Referring to Ryan’s Medicare plan as “right-wing social engineering” is, Bennett said, “an unforgivable mistake, in my judgment.” Bennett went on to say that Gingrich “has taken himself out of serious consideration for the [2012] race.” [Full disclosure: I appear on, and sometimes serve as guest host of, the Bennett program.]
Gingrich’s remarks rankled for three reasons. One, they hurt the Republican plan. Two, they were particularly disdainful; Gingrich didn’t just said that he disagreed with Ryan, he referred to Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering.” And three, they contradicted what Gingrich himself has said about Ryan’s budget.
To make that last point, Bennett played a clip of an interview he conducted with Gingrich on April 5, barely more than a month ago. At that time, Gingrich was full of praise for the Ryan budget. “Paul Ryan has stepped up to the plate,” Gingrich said. “This is a very, very serious budget and I think rivals with [what] John Kasich did as budget chairman in getting to a balanced budget in the 1990s, just for the scale and courage involved…”
“Paul Ryan is going to define modern conservatism at a serious level,” Gingrich continued on April 5. “You can quibble over details but the general shape of what he’s doing will define 2012 for Republicans.”
Reagan was no neocon
By: Gene Healy
“…Reagan had a genuine horror of nuclear weapons, and wanted them abolished. He called mutually assured destruction “the craziest thing I ever heard of.” His three military interventions — Grenada, Lebanon and Libya — were “limited operations of short duration,” and he carefully avoided direct confrontation with the Soviets.
This got Reagan into trouble with the neocons early on. They took to the oped pages to lament “The Muddle in Foreign Policy” (Irving Kristol) and chronicle the “Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy” (Norman Podhoretz).
Incredibly, Podhoretz accused Reagan of “following a strategy of helping the Soviet Union stabilize its empire,” instead of “encouraging the breakdown of that empire from within.”
In Reagan’s Middle East policies, especially, there was much for hawks to rue, such as the administration’s sharp condemnation of Israel’s 1981 “preventive strike” on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, and Reagan’s decision to withdraw U.S. peacekeepers from Lebanon after a truck bomb killed more than 200 Marines.
In a 2007 debate, to the chagrin of Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, invoked Reagan to argue for getting out of the Middle East: “We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.”
Despite Reagan’s “ringing speeches,” he was “quite circumscribed in his efforts at democracy promotion,” Colin Dueck writes in “Hard Line,” a new history of GOP foreign policy. Reagan viewed the U.S. as a city on a hill, a “model to other countries,” not a crusader state with “an obligation to forcibly promote democracy overseas.”
Most of all, what separates Reagan from his hawkish latter-day admirers was his optimism. He viewed the United States as dynamic and free — and, therefore, strong enough to outlast any enemy.
For the neoconservatives, however, it’s always 1939, and the free world is always under siege, whether from a decrepit Soviet monolith of the 1980s or today’s allegedly “existential threat” presented by several hundred cave-dwelling Islamists.
In the Gorbachev era, Norman Podhoretz accused Reagan of buying into “the fantasy of communist collapse.” Some fantasy.
Reagan had been right when he proclaimed in 1981 that “the West will not contain communism; it will transcend communism,” dismissing it as “a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.” The Gipper’s threat-addled fans at the Standard could use some of his confidence today.
In recent decades, Republicans have repeatedly honored Reagan’s memory by naming federal buildings after him — a curious tribute indeed. They’d do better to look at his actual record.
In foreign affairs, the Reagan legacy is one of realism and restraint.
Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of “The Cult of the Presidency.” …”
Ron Paul On Bill Bennett’s Morning In America Show–6-8 A.M Eastern Time,Wednesday, November 16, 2011?–Talk Radio–Videos
“Why Can’t We Be Friends”
John Denver..Sunshine On My Shoulders
Ron Paul Ad – Life
Campaign for Liberty supporter calls Bill Bennett
Near the end of his Tuesday’s radio talk show, Bill Bennett announced that he will have a surprise guest on his show Wednesday.
He did not mention the guest’s name because he thought you would not want to listen.
Will the surprise guest be Ron Paul?
Keep in mind that Newt Gingrich was on the show Tuesday and Bennett has a standing offer to all the Presidential candidates to call in and be on the radio show.
Also keep in mind that Paul mentioned Bill Bennett by name as one of the neoconservatives.
Ron Paul Calls Out Neocons By Name!
Ron Paul On Southern Avenger – Neoconservatives & The War State
Jack Hunter on Freedom Watch 03/31/11
Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question
SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”
Bennett claims to be a classical liberal, but when it comes to guests on his show in the area of foreign policy, the majority of them are neoconservatives.
Wake up early and listen to William’s show and see if Ron Paul, MD and William Bennett, PhD, J.D. have a conversation.
Call in.
UPDATED
Never mind.
I am not surprised that Bill Bennett invites William A. Galston, a progressive liberal Democrat, student of Leo Strauss, that currently works at the Brookings Institution, as a guest on his show.
Galston believes Romney would be the strongest candidate to beat Barack Obama.
Nonsense.
Galston probably believed that Gerald Ford was the strongest candidate to beat Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Ron Paul like Ronald Reagan before him was not the choice of either the Republican Party establishment nor the Democratic Party establishment in 1976 or 1980. Both party establishments want to nominate a progressive or liberal candidate. Romney and Perry are the leading candidates for the Republican Party establishment.
The conservative and libertarian movement will stay home on election day if the Republican Party nominates yet another progressive and/or neoconservative.
I simply do not trust Romney. He is a progressive Republican.
If I want to vote for a progressive candidate, I would vote for Obama or Clinton.
Since I am a traditional libertarian or classical liberal I plan to support and vote for Ron Paul.
However, in defense of William, Ron Paul, his campaign staff and supporters would be well advised to read Galston’s papers to understand how the a progressive liberal Democrat thinks and who they wish to run against so they can win.
The focus should be first on the issue of trust.
Do you trust Barack Obama or Ron Paul?
The second focus should be on the economy, job creation and inflation (rising food, gasoline and clothing prices).
Paul must link balancing the budget, cutting spending and taxes, creating money, and bringing the troops with creating more jobs.
Every issue discussed should be linked to creating more jobs and moving away from a warfare and welfare economy to a peace and prosperity economy.
Ron Paul should start asking the American people during the remaining debates the following:
“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Just like Ronald Reagan did:
Reagan 1980 Are you better off than you were four years ago?
If you want cradle to grave dependency on the government and a warfare and welfare economy, vote for Romney, Perry or Obama.
If you want to put faith, family, friends and freedom first and a peace and prosperity economy, vote for Ron Paul.
William the time has come to have Ron Paul as a guest on your show.
Ron Paul On CNBC With Kudlow About Polling 2nd In Iowa
November 7, 2011
One Year to Go: President Barack Obama’s Uphill Battle for Reelection in 2012
William A. Galston
“…Despite recent signs of a modest upturn in President Barack Obama’s political fortunes, the 2012 election is likely to be close and hard-fought. More than in any contest since 1992, the economy will be the overwhelming focus. But fundamental clashes about the role of government will also be in play against a backdrop of record low public confidence in our governing institutions. And contests involving incumbents tend to be referenda on their records more than choices between candidates. If the election pitting Obama against the strongest potential Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, were held tomorrow, the president would probably lose.
But a year is a very long time in American politics, and three factors could change the odds in Obama’s favor. Economic growth could exceed expectations, and the unemployment rate—long stuck at 9 percent—could come down fast enough to restore a modicum of Americans’ shattered hopes for the future. The Republicans could commit creedal suicide by nominating a presidential candidate outside the mainstream or unqualified for the office. And the Obama campaign could make a wise
decision to focus first and foremost on the states—principally in the Midwest—that have decided presidential elections in the past half century and are poised to do so again next year. If the president tries to rerun his 2008 campaign under very different circumstances, he could end up turning potential victory into defeat. …”
“…During the 2007-2009 recession, median household income declined by 3.2 percent. Since the official end of the recession in mid-2009, it has declined by an additional 6.7 percent. Median household income now stands below what it was in 2000. For most American households, the past ten years have been a lost decade.
While some groups have done worse than others, few have been spared. Median income for households headed by high school graduates has declined by 13.6 percent since 2007. But those with some college education have lost 12 percent, and even those headed by college graduates have lost 6.9 percent. Young adults and those nearing retirement have been especially hard-hit in the past two years: since mid-2009, household incomes of those under 25 are down 9.5 percent, 25 to 34 year olds have surrendered 9.8 percent, and households headed by workers in their early 60s have shed 10.7 percent on top of a 10.8 percent decline in 2007-2009—a staggering 21.5 percent loss overall.
During the early phase of the Obama administration, the vast majority of Americans blamed former president George W. Bush for the country’s economic woes. While they still do, President Obama is increasingly being held responsible as well: 53 percent of the voters now blame him a “great deal” or a “moderate amount” for the economy, up more than 20 points. Not surprisingly, most Republicans have held him responsible from the very beginning, and most Democrats still don’t. The big swing has come among Independents, whose “blame Obama” percentage has risen from 37 percent in early 2009 to 60 percent in the fall of 2011 (Gallup,
September 21, 2011). …”
“…To an extraordinary degree, public attention is focused on a single issue. Fifty-seven percent of the people regard the economy and jobs as the most important issues facing the country, compared to 5 percent for the budget deficit, 2 percent for health and education, and 1 percent for poverty, crime and war. (Neither abortion nor moral values registers even 1 percent.)
Most people think the economy is doing badly, and they don’t expect things to improve anytime soon. This represents an abrupt change. As recently as the first quarter of 2011, more people thought the economy was getting better than getting worse. By September, only 12 percent saw improvement, while 43 percent were experiencing decline. Indeed, four in five Americans think the economy is still in recession, and only 37 percent think it will be better a year from now. Only 15 percent think they are better off than when Obama became president, versus 35 percent who feel worse off.
A recent Wall Street Journal analysis illuminates the harsh reality underlying this assessment. During the 2007-2009 recession,
median household income declined by 3.2 percent. Since the official end of the recession in mid-2009, it has declined by an additional 6.7 percent. Median household income now stands below what it was in 2000. For most American households, the past ten years have been a lost decade. …”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/1107_obama_galston/1107_obama_galston.pdf
The Brand of Conservatism That Will Win (and the One That Will Fail) in 2012
William A. Galston, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies
The New Republic
“…Tuesday night’s election results illuminate the terrain on which the 2012 election will be fought. The American people want government to address their problems, but not at the cost of excessive intrusion in their lives. They recoil from ideologically motivated attacks on workers and on women. While they are open to a moderate brand of conservatism, they will reject a harder-edge and more extreme version. …”
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/1109_conservatism_galston.aspx
William Galston is a political theorist.
He is the Saul I Stern Professor of Civic Engagement and the director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park. In addition, he is a Senior Fellow of Governance at the Brookings Institution. He was also a senior adviser to President of the United States Bill Clinton on domestic policy, and has also been employed by the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and Walter Mondale.
Since 1995, Galston has served as a founding member of the Board of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and as chair of the Campaign’s Task Force on Religion and Public Values. He previously taught in the department of Government at the University of Texas-Austin.
In political philosophy, Galston has written influential works on political pluralism and on domestic policy issues in liberal society.
Galston was a student of classicist and political philosopher Leo Strauss.
Selected works
- Justice and the Human Good, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
- Liberal Purposes, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
- Liberal Pluralism, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
- The Practice of Liberal Pluralism, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Public Matters: Essays on Politics, Policy and Religion, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Galston
John Denver – Leaving on a Jet Plane
John Denver – Country Roads
Background Articles and Videos
LPAC 2011: Jack Hunter
A Tale of Two Rights | by The Southern Avenger
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Memo To Senator McCain: Turn Sarah Palin Loose
The Young Divas – Turn Me Loose
Memo To: Senator McCain
Subject: Turn Sarah Loose
It is time to turn Governor Sarah Palin loose on the conservative base with interviews on talk radio.
Start with the diva of conservative talk radio, Laura Ingraham.
Follow this with interviews with the following conservative and libertarian talk show hosts:
Bill Bennett
Mike Gallagher
Neal Boortz
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Michael Reagan
Dennis Miller
Monica Crowlely
John Gibson
Hugh Hewitt
Michael Medved
Dennis Prager
Michael Savage
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
If you do this you will win.
The choice is yours.
Sunny & The Sunliners “Talk To Me” (OLDIE)
Cream – Sunshine of your Love
Hugh Hewitt got Sarah call and Bill Bennett replayed today on his show, Morning in America:
Sarah Palin on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Great interview.
Private Palin call your Mother you little stinker!
Governor Palin call Laura Ingraham Thursday!
Your are on a roll, go down the above list.
Ronald Reagan “Morning in America”
Background Articles and Videos
Sarah Palin: Babies, Guns, Jesus
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082908/content/01125111.guest.html
Palin Will Spend More Time With Couric, Cont’d [Byron York]
“…Some Republicans believe the McCain campaign made a fundamental mistake in the Palin rollout by focusing on those traditional broadcast networks. (The only other interview Palin has done was with Sean Hannity on Fox News.) Palin is the person who almost single-handedly repaired John McCain’s relations with the conservative base, and a base media strategy might have been a more effective one. If, a week or so after the Republican convention, Palin had done a lot of talk radio — Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, Bennett, Hewitt, etc. — she would have had widespread exposure to the voters most favorably disposed to her. Of course the campaign press corps would have complained, but they would also probably have been forced to use snippets from Palin’s talk-radio interviews, which means that what Palin said in a friendly atmosphere would ultimately make its way to an even wider audience, one that includes independents and undecided voters. After that radio immersion period — starting, say, about now — Palin would do interviews with everyone.
P.S. One more thought. I know I stressed talk radio above, but it would probably have been wiser for the McCain team to have fashioned a rollout combining talk radio, the blogosphere, and local news outlets in key states. Debuting Palin on a network newscast seems like, well, an old-fashioned kind of strategy. It certainly wasn’t a fresh approach. …”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ1MDEzYmM1MWQ2NTg4MTYwN2Q1NTVkMDE0MjU2Njk=
Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Larry Kudlow
Charlie Rose – Sarah Palin
CNN Brown: ‘Free Sarah Palin
Chicago Trib’s news priorities: Nude Palin trumps economy
By Michelle Malkin
Financial crisis? What financial crisis? How about that nude Sarah Palin painting by a PDS-infected artist who used his naked daughter as the model?
Ick: …”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/chicago-tribs-news-priorities-nude-palin-trumps-economy/
LOL
Red State Update: Palin-Biden Debate (In Anticipation Of)
Pronk Palisades 
You must be logged in to post a comment.