POL491 Video Blog Project

(to the regular readers of this blog: this is a blog project for my polsci senior seminar in case you're wondering why I would post something like this. feel free to comment on it, but no derailing please. serious comments only. thanks)

Jimmy Gaffney

Dr. Browning

Video Project

POL491

16 November 2009

Responsible Parties

Morris P. Fiorina describes two ways in which the two major American political parties act. They either act as decentralized parties or responsible parties. By decentralized he means that there is not much party unity and that congressmen “blithely sacrifice general interests in their pursuit of particularistic constituency interests” (Fiorina). It was because of this that several political scientists believed that voting was not so much in favor of parties, but rather incumbents and their records and under this system no one was being held accountable for the failings in national politics. An example of such failure was the nonexistent party cohesion during the Carter administration that lead to congressmen being worried more about looking good for their constituents instead of backing the president and thus the complete breakdown of legislation resulting in the solving of very few national problems at the time. Therefore many political scientists supported the idea of responsible parties in which members of the parties would be unified and able to enact positive change behind a strong president of the same party (Fiorina). This became the case in 2000 when W. Bush was first elected to the presidency and even more so when his party gained several seats in Congress (and therefore more power) in 2002. In this essay, I am going to discuss the concept of responsible parties in modern politics by using three video clips from the C-SPAN Video Library to explain how each is an example of either the Democrats or the Republicans representing themselves as responsible parties.

The first video is a speech made by President George W. Bush in 2006. In it he expresses his support of amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

This speech and his support of the bill was mostly symbolic (Fiorina). This means that the bill never really had a chance of passing into law and he most likely supported it because it was a good opportunity to express his support for the conservative ideological foundation that makes up a large portion of the Republican Party.

Bush gave this speech on June 5^th, 2006 which was just a few months before the elections that restored majority power in both the House and the Senate to the Democrats (Democrats Retake Congress). Bush and other Republican leaders may have assumed that, as a result of declining numbers in both presidential and congressional ratings, various Republican congressmen stood to lose their jobs. This speech appears to have been an attempt to rally support for those Republicans congressmen and is therefore an example of the concept of responsible parties. Rather than remain ambiguous on the issue, he came out in support of his fellow Republicans when he did not really need to. In the selected portion of his speech he twice said something along the lines of taking power away from judges and giving it to the people. As an influential Republican figure he is trying to unite people to the Republican Party by referring to the public as “the American people” which comes off as patriotic. He is also trying to unite them against “activist”, or liberal, judges which represent the opposite ideology and presumably the opposite party in this case.

The second video is also just before the 2006 mid-term elections, but it is from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum. In it House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi discusses some of the Democrats’ economic plans assuming they will win enough seats to become the majority party in Congress. I could not embed this video and the time frame that I am referencing is from 7:15 to 7:49. The link to the clip is http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/194679-1. The clip is short but it thoroughly demonstrates the Democratic side of the concept of responsible parties. Like Bush, Pelosi also explicitly refers to the people that she is talking about as Americans in attempt to unify them toward her cause. However, unlike Bush, Pelosi made it a point to call attention to how the Republican Party as a whole had in a sense failed the average, middle-class American. Bush somewhat attacked the liberal ideology and the Democrats by speaking about “activist judges”, but in this clip it is clear who Pelosi is trying to establish as the “villain” in attempt to put her party in power. She goes back and forth several times explaining how the actions of the Republicans have affected Americans in negative ways and how the Democrats plan to remedy the situation.

This is an example of responsible party politics because Nancy Pelosi is clearly trying to incite a positive attitude from the public in favor of her party and a negative perception of the other party. According to her, as a whole, the Democrats will do “this”, Republican’s will do “that”, and as Americans we want “this”. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders knew that in 2006 they had a very strong chance of winning the majority and understood that if they expressed themselves as a unified body, a responsible party, representing core values of Middle America, they would most likely win and they did.

The third video serves as a great relevant and recent example of responsible parties from both the Democrats and the Republicans. It is a clip from the debate and vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009 and it clearly reveals the two opposing sides of the bill. The Democrats were in favor of it and the Republicans were opposed. The whole video is 872 minutes long, but the portion selected is of only two opposing representatives that I felt adequately displayed their party’s opposite stances on the issue.

The first person in this clip to speak is Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen. His speech focuses on great Americans politicians throughout the 20^th Century and how they would support the passing of this bill. Interestingly, he includes the recently deceased Senator Ted Kennedy who was a very influential and long time Democratic member of the Senate. Rep. Cohen most likely included Kennedy in his list of important figures as a means to bring Democrats together to support this legislation as Democrats currently have the majority in the House and the Senate and, with the added benefit of having a Democrat as President, they have a strong chance of passing this bill into law (at the time of this writing it has only passed the House). After Cohen’s list of important people he then goes on to explain how passing this bill will bring the United States into the 21^st century. He notes that the U.S. has infant mortality rates similar to those of third world countries and claims that by passing this legislation that will no longer be the case. The tone of his speech (regarding modernizing America) is rather progressive which is typically representative of liberalism which is associated with the Democratic Party (Fiorina). He is attempting to unite the Democrats as being progressive in an attempt to pass this bill.

The second speech in the video is by Republican Rep. Jeff Miller. Immediately he seeks to accuse the Democrats of belittling average Americans in favor of gathering support for the Republican stance on the bill. His speech is very short and not so much factual as it is emotional. He ends with the claim that Americans want freedom and that the Democrat-sponsored bill will violate the freedoms of Americans if passed. Miller attempts unite people under the Republican Party with a core American value.

The bill passed with a vote of 220-215 with only 39 Democrats opposing the bill and only 1 Republican in favor of it (Karl et al). In this case, both parties represented responsible parties. While 39 Democrats opposed the bill, 180 of them followed party lines and passed it. They knew that as a responsible party they would have no obstacles in passing this legislation. On the other hand, Republicans were responsible as well. Only one of them voted in favor of it meaning that 175 united and voted against it. They most likely knew that since they represented an extreme minority in the House, they did not have a good chance of getting their way. But they came together as a responsible party, symbolically, as Bush did in my first clip. Perhaps this demonstrates that even in weak times, when their overall party organization and welfare has been questioned by the media, they are in fact strong, and if given the opportunity to become the majority again will act as a responsible party and pass legislation representing their party’s beliefs.

This essay has examined three video examples of the concept of responsible parties. The first was a speech by President W. Bush in which he gave symbolic support of a less-than-likely-to-pass amendment to the Constitution in order to demonstrate his allegiance to a responsible Republican Party. The second clip was of Nancy Pelosi just prior to the 2006 elections in attempt to gain the support of a unified, responsible Democratic Party that if in power, according to Pelosi, had the opportunity to right the wrongdoings of the Republicans and improve America. The third clip was of two congressmen of opposing ideologies supporting their party’s stance on the health care bill that recently passed the House. Both speeches represented the ideals of their respective parties and in the end both parties followed the responsible party model. The Democrats followed it to demonstrate that they do have the power to make the changes their party promised, and the Republicans followed it to show that even though their party has struggled in recent years, they are still strong.

Works Cited

C-SPAN Video Library. Web. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/.

"Democrats Retake Congress." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/.

Fiorina, Morris P. Parties as Problem Solvers. Principles and Practice of American Politics. 4th ed. Washington DC: CQ. 611-24. Print.

Karl, Jonathan, Rachel Martin, and Teddy Davis. "Nancy Pelosi and Democrats Pass Sweeping Health Care Reform Bill in House, Now All Eyes on Senate." ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more. 8 Nov. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367.

Sullivan, Andy. "Struggling Republicans to Pick New Party Chief." Reuters.com - World News, Financial News, Breaking US & International News. 29 Jan. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50S10K20090129.

How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.

If conservatism was a passenger on my boat I would kindly ask him to immediately remove himself and swim to the nearest deserted island. Then I would wonder how the hell he got on my ship. Its not that I'm expressly opposed to his presence, I just know that he really wouldn't like New America. My point is, I don't like conservatism and I would say that it's bad for humanity.

Conservatism is an archaic principle that has little to no place in the modern world. Radio host Michael Savage regularly sums up conservatism as protecting "borders, language, and culture" and I think most people would agree to that definition in terms of today's mainstream conservative movement. Its very isolationist and encourages an "us versus them" view of humanity. I strongly feel that all people are born equal and the only way to truly progress as civilized and intelligent species, is to stop thinking of each other as American, Liberal, or Christian.

To be continued...

It's been awhile, but here we go...

Hmmmm while I doubt that too many people check up on this anymore, I feel the need to vent so here we go.

I pay a lot of attention to politics and the news. One source (and I would hardly call it a source) that I go to is Fox News Channel. Why you ask? Sure it's great to listen to people that you agree with on other networks, but I feel that it is also good to listen to people you disagree with in order to keep your political skills sharp. I watch Fox not to be informed, but rather to debate and challenge every lie that they tell.

Anyways, I have had enough of the sheer idiocy of their guests and supposed "analysts". Lately Hannity, Beck, the morons on Red Eye, and Gretchen have made it a point on their respective programs to bitch and moan about how the media is not criticizing Obama like they did for Bush. Tonight on Hannity's "All-American Panel" (that's the name of the panel, not me mocking it although I might as well be) he had one bumbling, nervous liberal and two uninformed conservatives sharing their twisted politics. Fox always like to say they are fair and balanced, but whenever they have a liberal analyst, it is always the most nervous and crazy sounded liberal they can find. But that's not why I'm pissed off right now. I'm pissed because of the "professional" conservative analysts featured. One was a ex-professional football player and the other is a conservative blogger with a bad face-lift.

Why does the non-fact based opinion of an ex-nfl player matter enough to be shared on a news network? This guy has no qualifications and is simply warping the opinions and beliefs of those who know even less than him. At one point he asked why former president Bush is under scrutiny for waterboarding and then went on to preach that Bush was defending us from terrorists and that he should have done more (suggesting caning). Now because he said that, there are going to be a 1,000 more idiots out there asking the same thing completely ignoring the fact that torture is ILLEGAL and that the U.S. has even led UN sanctions against other nations that have done the same thing (Japan for water boarding). This person has no business informing the public because he apparently has trouble distinguishing fact from NOTHING.

The other analyst, the blogger with the mug you don't want to chug, was an even bigger imbecile. She is Pamela Geller and her website www.atlasshrugs.com is filled mistruths and mindelss zombie followers applauding her for every word that she spews. On the show, she claimed that when it comes to abortions, liberals only want to drive you to the abortion clinic. Hmmmm, I'm a liberal and I do not want anyone to have to get an abortion. I would rather that people had a choice that they can make for themselves. On her website, she claims that all democrats protect child rapists? I'm not even going to argue this one as there is nothing that could be further from one-sided coverage of an issue than this.

How in good conscience can Sean Hannity invite these idiots to share their bias when his program airs on a NEWS channel. There is no news here. Back to Fox's anti-Obama campaign, aren't other news networks doing the same thing Fox did when Bush was in office? Get off your high horse Fox, they are doing the same damn thing you have done for the last eight years. All that these hosts are doing is bitching about Obama and offering "news" with their good ol' fashioned right-wing spin. How is it possible that you can even judge Obama after 100 days? Oh wait, you can't. All of their talk about how Obama is befriending terrorisim supporters (specifically Chavez) is completely misguided and I feel sorry for those who treat this bullshit as actual news.

Next Semester

okay so here we go with a break from my usual political rants. What classes are you guys taking next semester? Fun ones? Not so fun ones? GO!!!


This is what I get to look forward to:
-Genetics & Molec Biol--scary shit
-Lab in Genetics & Molec Biol--scary shit up close
-Environmental Engineering--fuck if I know, it counts for cred
-Intro to Political Analysis--could be interesting. it's statistics + politics
-U.S. Foreign Policy: Selected Problems Intl Relations --gonna be awesome
-Spanish Level IV - ay, dios mio! no entiendo!

Thnxgvn Projex

The Thanksgiving break is short, so we have to make the most out of our time. The Galactic Super Senate has already passed a measure in which we are going to test the lethally hot Buffalo Sause "Defcon 5". I would like to take this opportunity to propose another measure which will be recorded and donated to the internet: getting the most out of your soda. This would include but not be limited to...

1: Buying 2 liter bottles and filling up your own smaller bottles.
2: Explaining how carbonation works.
3: What to do if your soda has been shaken.
4: The rate at which an open can or bottle loses carbonation.
5: Buying generic or store brand soda for a fraction of the price.

This will be filmed, edited, and posted on the various "how to" sites like 5min.com or instructables.com. Its about time we gave something back to after taking oh so much.

We Need to Talk

Ok this is getting ridiculous now. As anyone from California knows, if you travel to the other end of the state you are not in the same state anymore. You're not even in the same country. Dare I say not even the same planet. To be honest, I'm more than surprised we don't have two different accents. There's northern California, southern California, and 400 miles of dirt separating the two. I think its about time we stopped ignoring the issue. California is too big and too diverse. Its like a bad marriage, and we need a divorce.

Can someone explain to me why we can't do this? I mean sure it'll make the country flag a little weird with 51 stars, but can't we just combine two of those stupidly small states on the east coast? Consider this, when you travel and meet someone how often do you just say "California"? It's about always followed with Northern, Southern, Bay Area, San Diego, or some modifier like that. I say Bay Area because I don't want people thinking I may be from LA. Its hard to get more different than SF and LA. I'm also convinced that Prop 8 passed because of the "other" half. If Northern Cali was its own state from the beginning I wouldn't doubt that we could have a gay governor. Which I'm saying is a GOOD thing. Not because gays are inherently better at being governor, but because it would reflect our acceptance of people beyond their race or sexual orientation.

Also, we should move the capitol. I mean really, Sacremento?

So the only real question is what to name the new states.

Election 2008

For some of you looking for election results in CA, you may be finding it hard to find the results for the issues you voted for. So here it goes. Commentary included!!

Prop 1a - Train connecting LA, Bay Area, and Sacramento - passed
Prop 2 - Standards for Confining Farm Animals - passed
Prop 3 - Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. - passed
Prop 4 - Parent Notif. Before Terminating Minor's Pregnancy - no
Prop 5 - Nonviolent Drug Offense. Sentencing, Parole, Rehab - no
Prop 6 - Police, Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Laws - no
Prop 7 - Renewable Energy Generation - no
Prop 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry - looking like it will pass. not official yet
Prop 9 - Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole - passed
Prop 10 - Altern. Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bonds - No
Prop 11 - Redistricting - passed
Prop 12 - Veterans' Bond - passed

County Measure Q - SMART Rail Quarter Cent Sales Tax - passed


So, there they are. How do you feel about them?

To be honest, I am pretty shocked on some of them. I don't know what kind of TV ads have been on back there swaying opinions one way or the other, but why in the hell did some of these pass?

Let's start with the first one; the safe, reliable railway system connecting southern CA and northern CA. Why? Why do we honestly need that? It sounds like a great idea, as a matter of fact a lot of what was on the ballot sounded like a great idea, but who the hell is going to pay for it? It's expected cost is somewhere near 20 Billion dollars and its expected upkeep is millions if not billions per year. Just guess where that is going to come from? The taxpayers, that's where. The state is in the hole and has been for awhile now, it does not have the money for this. We are trying to rebuild our economy, yet for some reason people felt the need to spend money on a luxury, not even a necessity. Think about what 20 billion dollars would do for CA schools. Now this sounds like a wild idea, but what about just not spending that much money period! You know saving it up, getting positive and out of debt. I know that makes too much sense, but come on people, a fucking 20 billion dollar train?

Now let's discuss drugs. So, many may be thinking they're criminals so why should we have to pay to help with their rehab. I know I know, I just went on a rant about senseless spending, but this is different. It does not cost nearly as much, and actually saves money. It's not just about rehab for non-violent drug offenders either. Laws regarding the punishments dealt to people who violate drug laws in a non-violent manner were also going to be reformed. That means, less people in jail, and thus less money required to house inmates. It was a chance to break away from this awful and totalitarian-like war on drugs where the government can make our decisions for us and unjustly punish us for doing no harm to anyone else whatsoever. It's a war that will never be won, actually increases crime rates, and increases needless government spending. Yeah, I know, drugs are bad. But it should still be our choice and this bill was going to be a way for us to get closer to getting that choice back.

I was really taken back with the two props. regarding renewable energy and alternate fuel vehicles getting shot down by so much. Let's just keep using gas, we don't need to break our dependence from foreign countries.

What about our police? I guess we don't need to give them more money as we don't need any more law enforcement because we have those rehab programs...oh wait. I don't consider this one as big of a deal as others, I'm just shocked it lost by so much.

SMART. A railway to connect Sonoma and Marin. Makes sense because they are sooooo far right? However, even I'll admit in all seriousness, it will be good for the environment. I voted no, but it's not the worst thing to get passed this year. However, if you voted yes for this and bitch about our already high sales tax increasing, I will slap you.

And finally, yes you knew it was coming, proposition 8. While it may not be passed yet, as there are some 3 million or so absentee ballots that have yet to be counted, it is not looking good. I cannot believe and am very disappointed with the flat out intolerance demonstrated by the passing of this amendment to our state's constitution. I live in Indiana for school. It is an extremely conservative part of the country. One thing that gets me through it is the ability to know that the whole world is not like this. California, to me, represents change that is to come. It represents modern and progressive ideals that the rest of the country will eventually come to follow. The passing of prop 8 scares me. If California, arguably the most progressive state in the U.S., cannot be an advocate for gay rights, who can? The passing of this is hateful, and I am ashamed to say that I share a state with so many hateful people. There is absolutely no practical reason to pass 8. Denying homosexuals the right to get married is simply based on one groups intolerance for the other and nothing else. Christian fundamentalists with no concept of what American society should be, passed this. I'll admit a large percentage of the country was founded by Christians. but, an even larger part of the foundation of this country is based on the freedom to choose religion. It is wrong for Christians to force their ideals on people of other beliefs and that is exactly what is happening here. Prop 8 supporters will argue that it does not really matter because they can still have unions and get all the rights of married couples anyways. But it does matter, this is segregation. Why should one group have the right to tell another group they cannot do something with no logical reason beyond religious reason which should not come up in political forums anyways. Who gives a shit if because of this not passing, kids would have to learn that homosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is a part of society whether people like it or not and kids will learn about it in one way or another. Wouldn't it be better for them to learn about it in a safe environment like school? They just don't want their kids to learn about it being okay so they can indoctrinate them until they are intolerant assholes too. People who actively supported this bill are imbeciles and should probably get bent. The mentality they possess is intolerant, slack-jawed, idiotic and similar to what you would get from generations of inbreeding. If you voted for this, you are severely misinformed about modern life and I would love to hear/debate your reasoning. Way to fail on this one California, I am actually holding Indiana in a higher light politically because they actually managed to vote blue for once.