Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label Politics Political Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics Political Theory. Show all posts

Monday, November 25, 2013

"It's the Power, Stupid: Be it Soft, Hard, or Smart, It's All About Power," A Lecture by Prof. Dr. Christianna N. Leahy McDaniel College



Published on Feb 8, 2013 "It's the Power, Stupid: Be it Soft, Hard, or Smart, It's All About Power"

A Lecture by Prof. Dr. Christianna N. Leahy, Professor of Comparative Politics, Chair, Department of Political Science and International Studies, McDaniel College

The ICD Annual Conference on Cultural Diplomacy in the USA
"Options on the Table": Soft Power, Intercultural Dialogue, and the Future of US Foreign Policy" The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (Washington D.C., January 9th - 11th, 2013)
*****

Monday, July 30, 2007

20070730 Answering questions from a Snowman

Answering questions from a Snowman

July 30th, 2007

Seems that not everyone was amused about the prospects of answering questions from a snowman

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney Plan to Skip Youtube ...

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A Republican presidential debate scheduled for live national television coverage will be missing two of the GOP's leading contenders for the nomination… Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney both say they have more important campaign commitments scheduled….”

Dem Debate Attracts 2.6 Million Viewers - Politics ...

WASHINGTON — The melting snowman, Tennessee rednecks and the novelty of the CNN-YouTube Democratic debate attracted 2.6 million television viewers, a slight drop from the numbers who tuned in for a more traditional exchange last month… While the debate Monday stretched the boundaries of traditional political broadcasts, a previous CNN debate of the Democratic candidates on June 3 attracted 2.8 million viewers. A MSNBC televised debate on April 26 attracted 2.3 million… CNN reported getting 45.5 million page views on its Web site and said its television audience among 18-34 year-olds totaled 407,000, highest ever for cable news programing.

For political scientists, I will suggest that we witnessed a memorable moment in TV politics. Then again, I’m not too sure what was most memorable, the snowman asking a question or the fact that presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich actually answered it…

I am Billiam the Snowman from Point Hope, Alaska. Due to global warming, every year, my people move closer and closer to extinction.”

Then there are others who have started a “Billiam the Snowman for President” campaign.

And the snowman drew this response… A snowman's biggest question

Whatever…

Links:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1130125339

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-0BPnnvI47Q

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2510944014

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8K8GVAAOzMk

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291267,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul24/0,4670,DebateYouTube,00.html

####

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

20070717 THE GIPPER on religion

July 17, 2007

Hat tip: Grammy

I received this in an e-mail from the Grammy and I thought it worth sharing:

"The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive. A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens: The more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life."

Ronald Reagan

For more posts on Ronald Reagan on “Soundtrack: click here: President Ronald Reagan

For more information on the web

Saturday, April 14, 2007

20070413 Cindy Sheehan headbutts MoveOn.org


Cindy Sheehan headbutts MoveOn.org - and her own party


April 13th, 2007


If you think the next two weeks in Washington are going to be interesting, it won’t compare to what the rest of the next two years’ll be like – if the left wing of the Democrats, as exemplified by Cindy Sheehan have their way..


Before it is all over, the biggest challenge for the Democrat Party will not be the opposition Republicans of President George W. Bush – it will be keeping the liberal netroots wing of the party from dragging responsible Democrats into alienating the American public with their hyperbole and theatrics.


As an avid follower of all things political, I have long understood that neither the conservatives nor the liberals speak with one voice. That within each camp of political ideology there are many opinions and at any given time – many disagreements.


Within the Republican Party there is a world of differences between moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans. Just as there is a world of differences between conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats.


In recent years I have always been amused when the mainstream media makes a big deal out of Republicans disagreeing with each other.

I, on the other hand, am uncomfortable when there is little in the way of discussion and dialogue, and various approaches put forth about any given challenge.

Andrew Sullivan said it best in a post on August 17th, 2005, “This red-blue thing isn't real: it's a grid put down on the landscape by lazy pundits in order to foster a conflict that isn't there so the people who profit from conflict can work their way with us.” (“20061128 Rashomon, My Dinner with Andre and Picking out the perfect tree”)

All that said I was doing some research the other night for a piece that has slowing been getting articulated on to my keyboard in which I greatly disagreed with my colleague Andrew Kujan’s post, “Bartlett Ignores Constituent Concerns over Iraq War.”

I have worked with Congressman Roscoe Bartlett for a number of years. And I think I know the 6th Congressional District fairly well and - - well, I guess I just thought that Mr. Kujan’s post was not as thoughtful and deliberative as I find much of his writing. Several things he said are inconsistent with what it is that I believe to be the Congressman Bartlett I have come to know over the years – and the 6th District.

I’ll get back to Mr. Kujan’s post at a later time – in another post.


In my research I came across “Congress and MoveOn” ...by Cindy Sheehan - - “The democratic congress has betrayed American voters, progressive supporters, and the troops in Iraq.” Seems that Ms. Sheehan has some issues with MoveOn and instead of opting to find some common ground for a cohesive and coherent loyal opposition approach to the policies of President George W. Bush’s administration, she has chosen to pee in her own Wheaties.

Now, as anyone knows who has followed by columns and blog posts for the last number of years, Cindy Sheehan has never impressed me as the most cogent contributor to any discussion about American foreign policy or the war in Iraq.

(August 24, 2005, “Cindy Sheehan’s Texas Quagmire:” “Just when you thought that Dr. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was one fry short of a happy meal, in walks – stage left, way-left – Cindy Sheehan to super-size the totally bizarre state of political discourse in our great country.”)

When the Democrats won a majority in Congress in the last election, I predicted two things; the liberal Democrats will over-play their hand and leave conservative Democrats and Republicans behind shaking their heads.


And that the liberal wing of the Democrat Party would hijack the opportunity to lead and govern by acting out on the many real and perceived slights at the hands of Republican majority for so many years and would deteriorate into investigation after investigation and reprisal after reprisal.


But ultimately, the Democrats would deteriorate into so much infighting as to deny themselves an opportunity to lead the country in any different direction.

In order for the liberal Democrats to prevail in charting a different course they must find a course that brings along as many conservative Democrats and Republicans as possible. They must remain as cohesive – and coherent as possible.

As I wrote on April 4, 2007, “Dems declare war on Mormon Crickets:”

“In order to procure a winning, albeit razor thin, margin in the voting on the supplemental budget, both the House and the Senate bills were "so loaded with pork, congressmen could die of trichinosis," quipped political commentator Don Surber.

“And the numbers are staggering. President Bush's initial request was for $103 billion and yet the Senate tacked on $18.5 billion in earmarked pet pork projects, spending totally unrelated to the war effort and the House hung $20 billion onto the funding request.”

Then I read this piece by Cindy Sheehan posted on Michael Moore’s web site and I said a prayer for all my colleagues who fervent believe that our great nation must pursue a different approach in Iraq: “Congress and MoveOn.”

“THE DEMOCRATS ARE FUNDING IRAQ ESCALATION: The Democratic leadership has proposed $100 billion of supplemental funding for an increased troop presence in Iraq. The leadership opted for the "slow bleed" policy over a month ago. This extends the occupation for at least another 18 months, and allows permanent placement of troops thereafter for "training" or "combating terrorism." It also will permit the Bush Administration to initiate a war with Iran without Congressional oversight. The surge of 20,000 troops recently increased to 30,000 and will likely increase to 100,000 by year-end…”

[…]

“In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House.”

[…]

“As a consequence, Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll. The Democrats failure to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections.”

[…]

“MoveOn is an autocratic organization run by a small group of elitist wannabe power-brokers; it cannot be reformed, but you can let their politburo know your feelings (eli@moveon.org, Namrita.Chaudhary@gmail.com, tom@moveon.org), and you can unsubscribe! You also can refuse to lend them your name (their petitions are mainly for fund-raising), your efforts, and your money, and instead join with one of the many active progressive and antiwar organizations (check out United for Peace and Justice- UFPJ for a detailed listing of local and national groups, which incidentally does not include MoveOn). None of the MoveOn leadership has served their country in the armed forces; like Dick Cheney and 95% of Congress they had more important things to do, which did not and do not include supporting the troops that are in harms way.

Ay caramba. Read the rest of her vitriol here – and say a prayer for the Democrats and our nation: “Congress and MoveOn.”

Want more? Read, “Leaders vs. Climbers.”

Or, “MoveOn moves in with Pelosi | Salon News:”

“I was annoyed by MoveOn's decision to deal with Iraq war legislation in a pragmatic and incremental fashion. I see a fundamental disconnect between their grassroots organizing and rhetoric on the one hand, and the pragmatic lobbying that led them to endorse Pelosi's rather weak bill on the other. A similar annoyance among many of MoveOn's members is the subject of Farhad Manjoo's latest article in Salon, MoveOn moves in with Pelosi.”

Or read: “the art of the possible:”

“I always find it distressing and absurd when politicians bemoan that only so much of their agenda is politically possible, then proceed to do absolutely nothing to actually move the goal posts of possibility by spending their political capital. I am bemused by Congressional Democrats and their apologists who point out that only so much progress on ending the war can 'pragmatically' be made, and thus we must compromise and accomplish what little we can.”

Read the rest here: “the art of the possible.”

It is going to be a really interesting two years.

####

Monday, July 09, 2001

20010709 McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

July 9th, 2001

-----Original Message-----

From: Ellen Sauerbrey

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:12 PM

Subject: 20010709 McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

To Maryland political activists,

As you know, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" bill recently passed the Senate is now under consideration in the House. What you may not know is how horribly this measure will impact on the Republican party at the state and national level.

We are in a fight for our lives and I am calling on you to join me in contacting our Congressmen quickly, and vociferously urging them to oppose McCain-Feingold and instead to support the Ney bill which is far more acceptable.

I have attached an op-ed that I have submitted to The Sun that gives a full explanation of the issue, but let me briefly say that legislation that bans soft money from being shared with state political parties will decimate state political parties and leave in their place strengthened and unregulated special interest groups and the media.

"Soft money" is NOT inherently bad. In fact it is more accurately called non-federal money because it is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission.

It is used by state parties for overhead, voter registration, generic issue pieces, phone banks and get out the vote efforts.

Contrary to what you have heard, soft money is NOT unregulated. Just because it is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission does not mean that It is not regulated.

Every dollar is regulated by the law of the states in which it is spent. In addition, banning non campaign groups from running issue ads for two months prior to the election is a blatant infringement on the First Amendment.

Ellen Sauerbrey

McCain-Feingold- A Poison Pill for Political Parties

By Ellen Sauerbrey – Maryland Republican National Committeewoman

Our American political system is based on the ability of people with similar beliefs to band together in political parties to promote their political philosophy and support candidates of their choice.

Commenting on the effects of proposed campaign finance reform legislation, House Democrat Caucus Chairman Martin Frost observed “ The political parties would be neutered, and third-party groups would run the show”.

The McCain-Feingold bill, banning “soft money”, that has passed the Senate would indeed cripple political parties and leave special interest groups and the media as the major advocates of issues. If in place during the last election cycle, McCain-Feingold would have deprived the Democrat party of half of its funds and the Republican Party of one-third of the funds raised. However, special interest groups could still collect unlimited soft money from any source.

In campaign finance jargon, “Soft money” is evil money, or so we are told. Yet most people do not have the slightest idea what the term means.

Soft money is money raised and spent by political parties subject to state, not federal, election law. It is the money national parties transfer to state parties for non-federal purposes and share with state and local candidates. It is the money used for redistricting, overhead and issue debate by the state and national parties.

Soft money is voluntarily contributed, but it is disclosed and regulated. It is spent and recorded in accordance with state law.

Banning soft money will make illegal the money contributed by national parties to state party’s traditional voter registration, get out the vote, and absentee ballot programs whenever there is a federal candidate on the ballot. In the last election cycle the Republican National Committee sent $93 million “soft dollars” to state parties that helped fund 110 million get out the vote and generic issue pieces, 25 million absentee ballots, and 65 million generic phone calls.

Those who believe that strong political parties are the best defense against the influence of special interests, media moguls and self financed millionaire candidates, see the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill as a disaster that will cripple the two-party system and federalize most of campaign finance and issue discussion. In usurping the authority of states to regulate campaign expenditures, it essentially nationalizes state election law.

National political parties are not just parties of Congress and Senators but work with states to promote Governors and local candidates. In the 2000 election cycle, the Republican National Committee contributed $11 Million to State Legislative Races and $7 million to Governors; all regulated by state law.

As McCain-Feingold strangles political parties, drying up nearly half of their funds, other interest groups could still collect unlimited funds from any source – unregulated and unreported. Labor union activity estimated by a Rutgers study to have been valued at $300 million in 2000 cycle is unregulated and remains unregulated.

Of the $500 million spent on issue ads during the 2000 election cycle, 68% was spent by third party special interest groups – twice that of both political parties combined. Under a soft money ban, political parties will be muzzled leaving unregulated special interest groups and the media to control political discourse.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has it right when he says, “In an effort to take money out of politics, we’ve taken parties out of politics.”

The Republican National Committee, made up of each state party chairman and the National Committeeman and Committeewoman from every state, has voted unanimously against the concepts in McCain-Feingold three times. Hopefully House members will join us in support of a true campaign reform measure that strengthens, not weakens, citizen involvement in their government.

####