20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript

20061029

Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript[1]

Reference: “20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript” and “20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript”

Cross posted on www.kevindayhoff.com here: “20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript”

http://www.kevindayhoff.com/2006/10/20061029-cardin-steele-meet-press_570.html

Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15473528/

© 2006 MSNBC.com

MTP Transcript for Oct. 29

Md. U.S. Senate candidates Rep. Ben Cardin (D), Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R)

Updated: 1:49 p.m. ET Oct 29, 2006

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Only nine days until the midterm elections. The Democrats must gain six seats to take control of the U.S. Senate. This morning, our Senate Debate Series 2006 concludes with another one of the most closely watched races of the year: Maryland, where Democratic Representative Ben Cardin faces off against Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele for this open seat. A new Washington Post poll out this morning shows Cardin with the lead. Democrat Ben Cardin vs. Republican Michael Steele, only on “Meet the Press.”

But first, it’s usually all eyes on Florida or Ohio, but this morning, it is Maryland. Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin, Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, welcome both.

LT. GOV. MICHAEL STEELE (R-MD): Good to be here, Tim.

REP. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): Thank you. Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Voters in Maryland, all across the country, say the big issue for them this year is Iraq.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Steele, let me start with you. I’ve been reading everything you’ve been saying about the issue. Back in July you said, “So for me, staying the course, yes.”

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Two weeks later you said to a group of reporters, “It didn’t work. ... We didn’t prepare for the peace. ... Let’s call it what it is. We thought this was going to be a different kind of engagement.”

And then two weeks after that: “Asked if [he] agreed with the Bush administration’s management of the war in Iraq ... Mr. Steele replied ... ‘By and large, absolutely, yeah.’ Has the Iraq war been successful?

Mr. Steele argues it has.” And then, now this, just about 10 days ago. “The situation is not going well on the ground. ... We are getting deeper and deeper into a mess.”

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are you on Iraq? Do you believe the war in Iraq has been worth the cost in lives and money?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the war in Iraq right now stands with a mess that we need to fix, absolutely. We are at a point right now where there is no clear strategy or clear direction on the ground. You hear it — you hear it from the generals, you hear it from the personnel on the ground, and I think that the focus has to be, going forward, is what, what is the strategy? And for me, it’s very straightforward: Put in place the benchmarks, put the pressure on the Iraqi government to lay out very clearly and very forcefully that they’re committed to the, the democracy and, and the pursuit of, of, of that democracy that they voted for three times.

So this has been an evolutionary process. I mean — and you can see it in the polls, you can see it in the way this, this war has tracked itself. But here we are at this moment, we’re looking at a situation where there’s not a great deal of confidence on the ground that we can get this done. The administration has to step up with the pressure where I believe it belongs — that’s on the Iraqi government — to decide once and for all whether they’re going to go forward with this and pursue it themselves so our footprint can lessen, or, like Senator Warner says, we have to get to the point where we say, “Look, this is not — if this is not what you want to do, we’re not going to commit one more soldier to a cause you don’t believe in.”

MR. RUSSERT: You said it’s a mess. Did the Bush administration help create this mess?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that the Defense Department did not give the president the kind of strategy that he needed to prosecute this war. From the beginning we didn’t have enough troops on the ground, from the beginning there was no clear decision to, to win the peace here. We are right now, Tim, in a situation where we’re putting up conventional forces against a counterinsurgency, and that, in — just, in strategic terms, is a mismatch. So we need to step back and evaluate and make it very clear, what is the strategy going to be on the ground? That’s what frustrates the American people right now. They don’t have a clear sense of that, and we’re looking now to Iraq to say, “Help us finish this. It is on you. You voted for this, you wanted this, we’re here to bear with you, so that now we can begin to move back as you begin to move forward.”

MR. RUSSERT: Should Secretary Rumsfeld resign?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, let’s put it this way: He wouldn’t be my secretary of defense. And ultimately, that’s going to be a decision that the president of the United States makes.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the war has been worth the price we’ve paid in lives and costs?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the war has been worth it to the extent that what we’re trying to establish there is a beachhead of democracy. We want — when we walk out of Iraq, when we — when the last soldier leaves — and this is the question everyone needs to ask themselves — what do we want? Do we want an Iraq that’s an ally of the United States, or do we want an Iraq that is an enemy of the United States? And I think we want an — want an ally, so it’s been worth it to us to establish this beachhead of democracy and, and an allow — ally in an area where we’ve had some trouble in the past.

MR. RUSSERT: Knowing what you know today, that Saddam Hussein did not have the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction we had been told, would you still vote to authorize the war?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, that, you know — that’s “woulda, coulda, shoulda,” that’s kind of past. In my view, that’s looking backwards. I wasn’t a member of Congress, I didn’t have access to the intelligence on all the information that the congressman have and so many others who voted to go into war.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said you would have voted for it.

LT. GOV. STEELE: But I — given what I knew, given what I knew what was supposed to be on the outside...

MR. RUSSERT: But what you — but what you know today, would you vote for it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think — I would think we’d still prosecute the war. And, and — but what I would do, if we’re going to do it, let’s make sure we have the right complement of personnel on the ground and that we are looking forward in this and not looking backwards. And that’s where I am right now: What are we going to do, what is our strategy to begin to move our soldiers home and have Iraqi government and leadership move forward and keeping what they want in Iraq?

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Cardin, in June you said this, you “called on the Bush administration to immediately begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and adopt a plan to pull American combat forces out of the country by the end of 2007.” What if Iraq is still not secure at the end of 2007? Still pull our troops out?

REP. CARDIN: Well, Iraq’s in the middle of a civil war. We need to combine withdrawing our troops with also a political and diplomatic solution. We need to engage the international community and recognize that there’s a civil war going on in Iraq. It’s not in our interests to continue the current policy. Mr. Steele and I have a fundamental disagreement here; I find it still somewhat surprising after everything we know today, Mr. Steele believes we should have pursued this war. I voted against it four years ago and I’ve been an outspoken critic of this war. Mr. Steele has, has presented no plan, I have a plan to change the direction in Iraq. Mr. Steele has on his Web site, buried somewhere in there, a 168-word statement on Iraq. He’s had no speeches or town hall meetings on Iraq, I’ve had both. I’ve been to Iraq. I have a plan that will at least change the direction in Iraq. We need to have a plan brought forward by this administration that starts bringing our troops home and energizes the international community so that we can have a diplomatic and political solution in Iraq.

LT. GOV. STEELE: (Unintelligible)...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask my question again. If, in fact, there was chaos on the ground at the end of 2007, would you still bring all troops home?

REP. CARDIN: I don’t believe in a time schedule. I’ve said that before. And also, I, I...

MR. RUSSERT: No, but you, you called for all troops out by the end of ‘07.

REP. CARDIN: No, what I said was it’s reasonable to expect that if we start redeploying our troops, start bringing our troops home, start engaging the international community, start with a diplomatic and political solution — this is last June — that it’s reasonable to expect that our combat troops could be out by the end of 2007. I stand by that. The tragedy today is we know that the current plans are not working. As long as America gives the impression that we’re going to be an occupation force in Iraq, we’re not going to have a successful program. The Bush administration’s own advisers are telling us the current strategy won’t work.

MR. RUSSERT: But in — you had a chance in ‘05 in July to vote for a resolution offered by the Republicans, and I’ll show it to you. “Iraq commitment: ... [House] members on July 20 [2005] approved a GOP-sponsored amendment declaring that the United States should withdraw its force from Iraq only when it is clear ‘national security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.’ Voting yes: ... Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD).” You now say pull the troops out in ‘07 whether there’s a stable Iraq or not.

REP. CARDIN: No, what I said was we need to start bringing our troops home, yes. I think as long as we continue this same policy, as long as the president doesn’t present a plan that will start to bring our troops home, and as long as we don’t engage the international community, we are going to continue to go down a path that’s going to cause chaos in Iraq. The reports have shown that more terrorists are being encouraged by our policies, that we — the current program shows that we’re not going to be successful. We need a new plan in Iraq. Yes, part of it must be to start bringing our troops home; do we — should we have a time schedule? No. We need to start, but we also at the same time, need to engage the international community for a political solution. This is a civil war, this is not a war on terror in Iraq today, it’s a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. And we need to engage it as a civil war.

LT. GOV. STEELE: But...

MR. RUSSERT: One second, Mr. Steele, then I’m going to — I’ll let you ask a question as well, and we’ll go back and forth here. But I want to follow up one last time with Mr. Cardin.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: From the Baltimore Sun, “‘What I hope would happen is that the leadership of Congress will work on a constructive course in Iraq, recognizing that public opinion is on the side of change,’ said Cardin. ... If that does not work, however, Cardin said he’d be willing to vote to cut off funding for the war. ‘If Democrats could present it in the right way, I would clearly support it.’” You would vote to cut off funding for our troops while the war’s going on?

REP. CARDIN: No. I will never support turning our backs on our troops. And I’ve supported the appropriation bills, in order to make it clear that our troops who are in harm’s way have everything they need to be safe. What, what I think Congress needs to do is consider all options. And Congress needs to use every option they can, so the president presents, presents a plan. My objective is to get a plan from this administration that has its — gives us the best chance to achieve U.S. objectives.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you stand by your comment, you would consider cutting off funding?

REP. CARDIN: There’s a lot of different options that Congress can consider, including contingencies of funds. There’s options that we can consider. And if the Democrats get back control of the United States Senate, then the amendments can be presented in a way that could be constructive in getting the president to submit a new plan.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would consider cutter off — cutting off funding for the war.

REP. CARDIN: I would consider using the appropriation process, I will not support putting our troops at risk.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I, I, I’m sorry.

MR. RUSSERT: I will allow, I will allow each of you to talk about the war.

LT. GOV. STEELE: That is absolutely amazing to me to have a member of the United States Congress sit here and say that he would vote for — if, if his party gets control of the Congress, that you would vote for cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq; men and women who are putting it on the line every single day. Your own words.

REP. CARDIN: Not what I said.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Your own words. Secondly, to sit here and say you want the Bush administration to put together a plan. Sir, you have been in Congress for over 20 years. You have been a member of Congress from the beginning of this war to this very point. The only plan I’ve heard you put on the table is “We need a plan.” This is not how you go about dealing with complicated, frustrating at times, foreign policy issues. The reality for us at this point, Tim, is that we need to come to this table with a bipartisan approach. What, what you see with Baker-Hamilton, let’s see what their recommendations are. Let’s begin to put the pressure — this is my plan, by the way — let’s begin to put the pressure on the Iraqi government and force them to own up to their responsibility to take control of the situation on the ground, which they should be doing. And we...

MR. RUSSERT: And if they, and if they don’t?

LT. GOV. STEELE: If they don’t, then like Senator Warner says, then we in 60 to 90 days, or 120 days, need to step back, evaluate whether it’s not — worth sacrificing another American life for a cause that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people do not themselves believe in.

MR. RUSSERT: So if, if the situation is unchanged in the next six months, you would consider withdrawal.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I absolute — at that point, if it’s, if, if — look, if the Iraqi people don’t want this, if they’re, if they’re, if they are content to have this internal strife, they want civil war, they want this, this terrorist beachhead to be formed, then we will have to re-evaluate our policy, and our — certainly our foreign policy position with respect to that country. And that would be on the table, absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Getting out.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely.

REP. CARDIN: I would never put our troops at risk. And I think my record in Congress shows that I would never put our troops at risk. I have come forward with a plan. I’ve come forward with a plan that can work. Mr. Steele, if you look at...

LT. GOV. STEELE: What’s the plan?

REP. CARDIN: Well, you — I’ve already expressed it. If you look at what Mr. Steele has done, look on his Web page, try to find his positions on Iraq. A hundred and sixty-eight words, that’s all he devotes, and it’s lost on his Web page. Hasn’t had one major event dealing with foreign policy or the war in Iraq. Keeps changing his position: Stay the course, now not stay the course; supporting the president, still thinks it’s the right thing to do, now pulling out. Doesn’t have a plan, doesn’t even have a consistent position on Iraq. You’re right, Tim, this is a very important issue to the voters of Maryland. And Mr. Steele and I have fundamentally different views. I voted against the war in Iraq, I have been an outspoken critic of the president in the war against Iraq, and I have put forward a plan in which we could bring our troops home without a time schedule.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I, I still, I’m still waiting for the plan, sir. I’m still waiting for the Democrats to lay that plan on the table. I’m still waiting for you to lay that plan on the table. All I have heard for the past year of this campaign is George Bush — anti-George Bush, anti-war — anti-Rumsfeld. And that’s fine, if, if that’s what you believe, and that’s what you feel. So the American people, and the people of Maryland are saying what are your, what are your goals? You have said you want to draw down the troops, 10,000 a month. Now, there are 140,000 troops on the ground, and that’s 14 months, there you go, that’s your timetable. You’re now saying that, you know, you don’t want to fund the war, that when you get control of the Congress, your vote is going to be to de-fund our, our troops on the ground. That — that’s your plan.

MR. RUSSERT: Give one specific of your plan.

REP. CARDIN: My plan is to start redeploying troops, to show the world that we’re not going to be an occupation force; convene the international community so that we can develop a diplomatic and political solution; use the non-governmental organizations to deliver humanitarian assistance; bring in the international community to help train the troops. Mr. Steele does not have a plan, Mr. Bush does not have a plan. I have come forward with a plan.

MR. RUSSERT: Where would you redeploy the troops?

REP. CARDIN: I’d bring them home. I want the troops, basically, home. I want more flexibility. I want to focus on the war against terror. We have serious challenges today, and America’s influence internationally is being compromised because of our commitment in Iraq. It is...

LT. GOV. STEELE: So what do you leave on the ground?

REP. CARDIN: ...counterproductive. It’s counterproductive to focusing on the war against terror. We haven’t completed Afghanistan, we have a crisis developing in North Korea, we have Iran. And this administration, because of its involvement in Iraq, has compromised our national security.

LT. GOV. STEELE: But Mr. Cardin, what does Iraq look like under your plan on the last day the troops are withdrawn? What does Iraq look look like, sir?

REP. CARDIN: It’s going to look a lot better than it looks today, because...

LT. GOV. STEELE: And what is that? What is that? Please tell us what that is. What do you see Iraq looking like?

REP. CARDIN: ...because we will have — it will be...

LT. GOV. STEELE: If you start with your plan to redeploy the troops and to drawn down — I presume this would happen as soon as you take control of the Congress, and that would be what, January? So let’s start from that timetable. What does Iraq look like on the last day when the last soldiers leave?

REP. CARDIN: On the first day that we start bringing our troops home, the international community will know that we’re no longer looking at Iraq as an occupational force, that we want to engage the international community and we want a political and diplomatic solution. On the last day — and I hope there will be a last day in a, in a reasonable period of time — we will have been successful in engaging the international community for a stable Iraq, where Iraq respects the, the differences among the Sunnis and the Shiites and the Kurds...

LT. GOV. STEELE: This is...

REP. CARDIN: ...so that you develop a political solution to end the civil war and you negotiate a cease-fire with the militia.

LT. GOV. STEELE: This is so much inside noise.

MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Steele, I asked you if the status quo was the same six months from now, you said “Get out.” So what would Iraq look like six months from now?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I, I said what, what — and what — and that’s my point. Between now and that point in time, this administration, with the leadership of the Congress and certainly with our State Department and, and Defense Departments, need to put the pressure where it belongs: on the Iraqi government. When you have the prime minister of Iraq starts waffling and saying — that causes me concern. Are you, are you serious about the effort on the ground? Look, our, our soldiers are not police officers. They should not be engaged in a police action. As you, as you sit on the threshold of a civil war, you — as you sit on, on the threshold of the tensions between Shia and, and Sunni, that is the responsibility of the government of Iraq to make sure that their folks are stepping into that breach...(unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: But if you get in six months, the way you said you might if, in fact, status quo remains, what do you leave behind?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, that’s — but that’s the question. I think what we need to make sure we leave behind in Iraq is an ally, not an enemy. And I think what we need to do is make certain that, whether it’s looking at the Biden plan in terms of a trifurcation or looking at a whole Iraq, this is the conversation we need to get into right now that we haven’t. What we have done, ostensibly, for the last three years, is slowly march towards nothing. And that’s been all — that’s always been my concern. What has been the prosecution for the peace? How do we get to a point where we can see demonstrable benchmarks? Now, for example, Tim, a few weeks ago, the Iraqi government took control of its military. That is a notable benchmark. But there are so many others that we need to reach, and so many others that we have to do, that together will move us in a direction towards putting in place a stable Iraq that we can rely on as an ally, and not just sort of, “Well, we withdraw the troops or we don’t fund them.” That is not the strategy. What is your, what is your goal to put the pressure on the Iraqi government?

REP. CARDIN: A systematic plan will give the Iraqis an opportunity to stand up and take responsibility for their own country. A deadline of six months, of withdrawing all of our troops after six months, will leave chaos in Iraq. You have no plan! Read your own Web site: 168 pages.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, sir, you’re referring to a Web site. I mean...

REP. CARDIN: You — have a plan, have a plan! And we need to implement a plan in order that Iraqis have a best chance of stable government.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the issues in this campaign has been George W. Bush.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: And, Mr. Steele, I was interested in reading this in The Washington Post. “The [Steele ads] never mention that Steele is running as a Republican, or that he is the second-highest-ranking member of his party in Maryland. Or that he was once chairman of the Maryland Republican Party. Indeed, the word ‘Republican’ doesn’t appear anywhere on Steele’s Web site, and his official bio omits his tenure as party chairman.” And if you go through your political life, it is quite interesting. At the Republican convention in 2004, here’s Michael Steele.

(Videotape, August 31, 2004):

LT. GOV. STEELE: These are the beliefs of our Republican Party. These are the beliefs and the principles that drew me to this party 28 years ago. And today, the standard-bearer of these convictions is George W. Bush.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: And then you read this in The New York Times Magazine: “Karl Rove called Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland, to sell him on running for the Senate. ... Other top Republicans called. Senator Elizabeth Dole. Ken Mehlman, the party chairman. One day Steele’s cell phone rang, and Vice President Dick Cheney was on the other end.” Told WBAL in July, “I’ve been quoted before as calling the president my homeboy, and that’s how I feel.” If he’s your homeboy, why are you running away from him?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I’m not running away from him. I’m running for the United States Senate. I’ve been outed; OK, everyone, I’m a Republican. I think after four years as lieutenant governor, elected as a Republican, and certainly serving with Governor Ehrlich, a Republican, I think people know who I am. This is the point, Tim, you know, I found it somewhat amusing that I have to put on my material that I’m Republican, but no other candidate running for office has to put their party label on their material. I mean, I’m not running away from George Bush. I’m not running towards George Bush. I’m running for the United States Senate. And one of the things that I, one of the things that I wanted to do differently in this race, to be very straight up about it, was to get away from the polarization, to get away from the labels.

Look, since 2000, we’ve watched our country divide itself along red and blue lines — Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative — and what have we got to show for it? All we’ve got is a lot of noise. Now, you know, you know, everybody in the world knows I’m a Republican, so that’s part one. But part two is, what are you going to do as a senator? And part of what I’ve seen in Washington is exactly what’s represented here today. Old Washington, old ways, an old mind-set that polarizes, that wants to say, you know, “When we take control.” You know, how about the country? How about the interest of the country? How about we creating a bipartisan — what I did not hear on the Iraq subject, for example, is a move towards a bipartisan consensus. You’ve got a commission out there with, with Baker and Hamilton that are looking at a strategy to help us resolve some important difficulties in Iraq on a bipartisan consensus. This is about taking control of the Congress and not so much about solving the problem. So when I look at this race, and when I looked at it, I wanted to do something a little bit differently, and I wanted to label it a little bit differently. I’m not running away from my party. And you know what? It has not been the easiest thing in the world to run in this cycle.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you running as a proud Bush Republican?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I’m a proud Republican.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not proud Bush Republican?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I’m a proud — I’m a proud Republican. I mean, because my orientation is the Republican Party, it’s not just one individual in the party. And so, you know, President Bush is the president of our party — of the United States, he’s the leader of our party. Ronald Reagan, I’m a Lincolnite. If anything, I consider myself a Lincoln Republican. And so my reality is, you know, we can talk about and try to get me boxed in on, you know, he’s this type of Republican or that type of Republican. What I’m trying to show the people of Maryland was what kind of senator I’m going to be, and that I’m going to have the ability to reach across the aisle and, and work with those who are on the other side.

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s the one thing that did confuse me.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Uh-oh.

MR. RUSSERT: Someone — this bumper sticker, paid for by your campaign.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Right, right.

MR. RUSSERT: And I’ll put it on the screen. “Steele Democrat.”

LT. GOV. STEELE: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: That’s not truth in advertising.

LT. GOV. STEELE: You’ve never heard of “Reagan Democrats”? Have you ever heard of the term “Reagan Democrats”?

MR. RUSSERT: It doesn’t say “I’m a Steele Democrat.” It says “Steele Democrat.”

LT. GOV. STEELE: Did it say “I’m a Reagan Democrat”? It said “Reagan” — it always referred to Reagan Democrats, right?

MR. RUSSERT: So you’re not passing yourself off as a Democrat?

LT. GOV. STEELE: No, I’m not. I — look, I am Michael Steele. I am, I am, you know, Maybelle’s son and — who was raised in Washington, D.C., and became a Republican, worked in the party, and is now Lieutenant Governor running for the U.S. Senate. I have a lot of Democrat friends in my state who support me, and what I thought was cute about that was they could put that on their bumper sticker and

when you said it, they’re still Democrats, but they’re Steele Democrats.

MR. RUSSERT: What about Steele Republican? Do you have a sticker like that?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Yeah, well, we don’t have that sticker because...

MR. RUSSERT: Because you said the R on — is a...

LT. GOV. STEELE: That’s not a bad idea, actually. Maybe we should get some of those made up.

That’s not a bad idea. I didn’t think of that.

MR. RUSSERT: You said, you said the R is a scarlet letter and that if this is a choice between

Democrats and Republicans, you lose.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely, Tim.

TEXT: “I’ve got an ‘R’ here, a scarlet letter. ... If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose.”

-- Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R-MD)
Washington Post
July 25, 2006

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely, absolutely. And that’s exactly what Ben Cardin wants this race to be about. That’s exactly what the Democrats want this race to be about. Because when this race is about Democrats and Republicans in a state like Maryland, which is two to one, all they have to say is “The boogeyman’s Republican and all you guys remember, you’ve got to vote for us D’s.” What I’m trying to do is break through that noise and say I represent something different. I represent, represent, I think, a different challenge for my state and for my country.

MR. RUSSERT: But you will organize with the Republicans if you won. You would vote for a Republican majority leader?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Yeah, yeah, I guess, yeah. That would make sense, wouldn’t it?

MR. RUSSERT: And would you — and would you be...

LT. GOV. STEELE: I wouldn’t vote for Ben.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be a reliable vote for President Bush?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I would be a reliable vote for the people of Maryland because, at the end of the day, I’m going to evaluate every issue as it comes to me and where my party is wrong, I’m not standing with it, I’m not voting with it. And I’ve been clear on that. I’ve disagreed with my party on the minimum wage. I’ve called for an increase in the minimum wage. I disagreed with my party on No Child Left Behind.

MR. RUSSERT: You endorsed No Child Left Behind at the convention in ‘04.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I sure did. And, and since that time, I sat down and I’ve talked to a thousand teachers in, in my state, and I’ve listened to them tell me what the problem is. This is the problem with Ben Washington — Ben Cardin’s world, his Washington, Ben’s Washington. I like that. This is the problem with it. They don’t listen to people. They pass policy. They implement reforms, so they say. But then they don’t go back and see if they’re working. And I want to be one of those leaders who actually goes back and follows up on the bills and on the laws and make sure that they’re having the impact that we intended.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Cardin, you vote against President Bush 70 percent of the time and you said to MSNBC’s “Hardball” back in September, “I think we need to investigate this president. I’m very disappointed that this Congress has not instituted any investigations of this president.” What does that mean?

REP. CARDIN: Well, first I’m trying to figure out the 30 percent where I agreed with President Bush, so I’ll try to figure those out. Let me first correct the record, state of the record.

MR. RUSSERT: You don’t think you should ever vote with the president?

REP. CARDIN: Oh, I do. I absolutely do. I’m just mak — look, I’ve, for the record, I have — my literature has Democrat on it. Just want to correct Mr. Steele on that. And for the record, I’m one of those Democrats who’s been able to work across party lines to get things done. I’ve been able to get major bills passed in a very partisan environment, because I know how to work with Republicans to bring about results for the people of Maryland. I’ve done that in health care, I’ve done that in pension changes, I’ve done that in tax code. So I know how to get things done. And I’ll stand by my record in that regard. Mr. Steele was recruited by the Bush administration. You look at what he’s, what he’s done. I’m concerned about what he will bring to Washington. He supported the president in the war in Iraq, and still supports that decision today. I think that causes pause for the voters of Maryland. I oppose that. He supported George Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security. Marylanders do not want Social Security privatized.

LT. GOV. STEELE: You, you, you...

MR. RUSSERT: You’ve also talked about privatizing Social Security repeatedly.

REP. CARDIN: No, I didn’t.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Yes, you have.

REP. CARDIN: What I said, what I said was — what I said was, and what I did was to set up separate accounts outside of Social Security. And in fact, Portman-Cardin, our legislation has done that. I have never supported taking any money out of the Social Security system. I made that clear from day one.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you again about the investigations. “I think we need to investigate the president.” About what?

REP. CARDIN: What I — what I’ve said is, Congress needs to exercise its oversight function. It needs to do — act as a check and balance on the executive branch. Yes, we need to look at what the facts are, without any predetermined...

MR. RUSSERT: On what issue?

REP. CARDIN: On several issues. On the NSA wiretaps that the president did, that I believe was done without lawful authority. And the information we knew before we went to Iraq and the way that that information was presented to the American people. There’s a list of issues. It’s interesting, when Bill Clinton was president and the Republicans controlled Congress, at anything they would have at least an investigation to figure out what the facts are. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to oversight the executive branch of government. It shouldn’t be partisan. It should be bipartisan. This is a responsibility of the legislative branch of government.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we consider impeachment of the president?

REP. CARDIN: Should not consider any options, should just consider an investigation.

MR. RUSSERT: But aren’t you concerned the American people listening will say, “If the Democrats win, it’ll be one big investigation”?

REP. CARDIN: No, not at all, not at all. I want — it’s oversight. Yes, part of the responsibility of the Congress is oversighting the executive branch of government. And this Congress has not done that. It’s failed in that regard.

LT. GOV. STEELE: This, this...

REP. CARDIN: And when you look at that, as you look at what this Congress has done, and allowed the president to do things unilaterally without the oversight that was — that’s envisioned in our Constitution, this Congress did not carry out its constitutional responsibility.

LT. GOV. STEELE: So where was your resolution in the House calling for an investigation? So where was your resolution calling for all these things that you’re now talking about? That’s number one. Number two...

REP. CARDIN: Can I answer that?

LT. GOV. STEELE: ...we should not — we should not be in a — I’ll let you in a second.

REP. CARDIN: OK.

LT. GOV. STEELE: You — we should not be in a position during a time of war running up the flagpole all these investigations and, and, and you — members of your own party — I assume you’re stepping away from them now — calling for impeachment.

REP. CARDIN: Wait a minute. I never said impeachment. I mean, just use the right words here.

LT. GOV. STEELE: No, I’m saying — I’m saying — no, no, I’m saying — I’m saying you are stepping away from the members of your call — your party who are calling for the impeachment of the president.

REP. CARDIN: I have not seen — each, each individual member may express their views. But let me say when the NSA wirecept...

LT. GOV. STEELE: So you’re distancing yourself from that.

REP. CARDIN: ...when the NSA wirecept occurred, I sent a letter to the speaker asking for a House inquiry as to the use of that power. That’s the right role for a congressman to do. I was joined by other members who did similar things. Congress did not exercise its appropriate responsibility in looking at what this president has done.

MR. RUSSERT: We have to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with a lot more of Ben Cardin and Michael Steele. The debate for the U.S. Senate seat from Maryland, right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: All on eyes on Maryland. Big differences on the big issues. The U.S. Senate Debate continues right after this.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we’re back with the two candidates for the U.S. Senate from Maryland: Democrat Ben Cardin, Republican Michael Steele. Stem cells has emerged as an issue in this campaign. You each have a commercial on the air talking about that issue. Let’s watch them both and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, Cardin campaign ad):

REP. CARDIN: I’m Ben Cardin and I approved this message.

MR. MICHAEL J. FOX: Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. But George Bush and Michael Steele will put limits on the most promising stem cell research. Fortunately, Marylanders have a chance to vote for Ben Cardin. Cardin fully supports life-saving stem cell research. It’s why I support Ben Cardin. And with so much at stake, I respectfully ask you to do the same.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Steele campaign ad):

LT. GOV. STEELE: I’m Michael Steele and I approved this message.

DR. MONICA TURNER: I’m Dr. Monica Turner. Congressman Ben Cardin is attacking Michael Steele with deceptive, tasteless ads. He is using the victim of a terrible disease to frighten people, all for his own political gain. Mr. Cardin should be ashamed. There’s something you should know about Michael Steele: he does support stem cell research, and he cares deeply for those who suffer from disease. How do I know? I’m Michael Steele’s little sister. I have MS, and I know he cares about me.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Cardin, is there any difference in your positions?

REP. CARDIN: There’s a major difference, Tim. I support the expansion of embryonic stem cell research, Mr. Steele opposes that. I voted to override the president’s veto, a bill that was bipartisan, worked out so that we could advance embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Steele supported the president’s veto in that regard. So there’s a major difference between the two of us on embryonic stem cell research.

MR. RUSSERT: Your sister said that the Michael J. Fox ad was deceptive and tasteless. Why?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, because it said that I don’t support stem cell research, and I do support stem cell research. Where I have drawn the line is federal funding for research that destroys the embryo. And, and I’ve been very much an advocate and supporter of advancing research that will allow us to do the — do what we need to do without destroying that, that embryo. There’s only one person at this table who’s voted against stem cell research, and that’s Ben Cardin. When there was a bill presented that was passed 100 to one--100 to zero, in the United States Senate, both, both Maryland Democrat senators voted for this, this bill that would allow for stem cell research that did not destroy the embryo. So we had Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski support that. He voted against it the in the House. So this, you know, so this — I don’t...

MR. RUSSERT: We’ll let him respond to that.

LT. GOV. STEELE: You know.

REP. CARDIN: That bill was a — was put up by the opponents of embryonic stem cell research. The two House sponsors of the bill that, by the way, deals with embryos that would otherwise be discarded, Congresswoman DeGette and Congresswoman — Congressman Castle both voted against it. The advocates for the stem cell research urged us that this would do absolutely nothing to advance embryonic stem cell research. The reason is, quite frankly, that the technique just doesn’t exist. It will advance embryonic stem cell research. It was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Santorum. I don’t think I need to say more than that.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Wait, that, that — first off, Senate — Congressman, that’s rude to say that. Number two, what, what, what...

REP. CARDIN: Senator Santorum has been opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

LT. GOV. STEELE: ...what, what does, what does, what does Senator Sarbanes and Senator, Senator Mikulski not know that you know, that caused them to vote for it, and you against it?

REP. CARDIN: The, the...

LT. GOV. STEELE: What, what do they, what do they know that you don’t, that you don’t know?

REP. CARDIN: Let me answer. In the United States Senate, that was the way in which they were able to get a clean vote on the embryonic stem cell compromise bill.

LT. GOV. STEELE: So you said they...

REP. CARDIN: They did that in order to accommodate the vote in the United States Senate.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Oh, so they have, they have no convictions on this issue. They have no beliefs.

REP. CARDIN: No, they, they certainly do. They certainly do. This bill would do nothing at all to advance embryonic stem cell research. The critical vote in the United States Congress was on the bipartisan bill, the bill that was worked out, that dealt with embryos that otherwise were going to be discarded. It was a compromise bill that allows our scientists to move forward. Listen to the scientists. They’ll tell you that that was the vote, that was the key vote. You support the president, you supported the veto. We have a fundamental difference on this issue.

LT. GOV. STEELE: You know, you...

MR. RUSSERT: I went up on the Web site for the National Institute of Health, Mr. Steele, frequently asked questions. And let me share those with you and our viewers.

Question: “Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?”

National Institute of Health: “Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells.” That’s the issue. And...

LT. GOV. STEELE: That’s the, that’s the issue.

MR. RUSSERT: ...you’re opposed to using something that has more promise than adult stem cells.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, but, but, there’s — that’s — that’s not exactly the case here. What we’re talking about is — you’re talking about a research that is in its infancy. There’s a great — you also have people at the NIH and around the country, other scientists, that will tell you that embryonic stem cells research right now is not the most stable — it’s less stable than, than adult — because when you start to extract those cells, that, that, that, that line becomes less stable the more you extract. So there’s still — my point is this, Tim, there’s still a lot of work that we need to do. This is an emerging research, and my hope and my prayer is that we can get to the point where we can extract those lines without destroying, destroying that, that embryo.

MR. RUSSERT: Why are you opposed to using embryonic stem cells? Taking of a life?

LT. GOV. STEELE: It’s taking — yes, I see that as a life, and I, and I don’t think that we should use federal funds to do that. And that’s, and that’s the difference to me.

MR. RUSSERT: Here — here’s, here’s a question that I have to pose: There are fertility clinics all across the country, several in Maryland — Shady Grove, Baltimore...

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...where they take embryonic stem cells and discard them because they’re not used in pregnancies — embryos. What — will you close down those fertility clinics?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I won’t close down the fertility clinics. We have options there. We could, we could set up adoptions for those, for those embryos. There are so many other options that we can pursue that we don’t. And, and the key thing to keep in here — keep in mind here, and for me, and I think for — hopefully for Ben, too, and I — because he’s a good man on this, on this subject: Science moves us in a

certain direction, and it pushes the envelope, as it should. But as a society, we also must, must consider the, the, the religious, the moral, and the ethical values of that society, and that needs to be a part of this as well. So we cannot just because it’s in a bill, we cannot just because a scientist or a group of scientists say, “Yeah, let’s do this,” that we don’t step back and, and assess for ourselves is this the moral, ethical and, and, and appropriate thing to do?

MR. RUSSERT: But I’m trying to, I’m trying to understand the logic. If, in fact, these embryos are being discarded by fertility clinics, and you think that’s the taking of a life, how can you tolerate or allow it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: But my point is that we need to look at exactly how, how we store them, we have 400,000, I think, across the country. I, I would pursue options that would allow us to look at adoption of some of those embryos and, and to the extent that they — they’re no longer viable, that they have expired or whatever, then you have to look at what you do there. My only point is, let’s step back and evaluate what our options are before we go headlong into a sear — into a science or a research that is not fully developed.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you forbid fertility clinics from destroying embryos?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Would I forbid them from destroying embryos? Probably would like to look at that a little bit more closely. I don’t, I don’t know exactly how that mechanism is set up right now with respect to each, each clinic.

MR. RUSSERT: What about people who are concerned about harvesting embryos, even near-cloning? Are you afraid that your position is going to put us on a track to that?

REP. CARDIN: I think we do have a responsibility to make sure there is no cloning. And Congress has passed some bills that I have supported that deal with human cloning. That’s not acceptable. That goes beyond the range. But when you’re talking about embryos that are otherwise going to be discarded, the bill that was worked out in Congress, there’s no financial reward to the donors. These are embryos that otherwise are going to be discarded. These are the stem cells that we’re talking about. The difference between Michael Steele and myself, and that is, is, is the difference between moving forward with embryonic stem cell research or not. In my state of Maryland, we have great research facilities: Johns Hopkins University, the NIH is involved, University of Maryland Medical Center. They’re — they are making great advancements. But we’re going to lose these scientists. They’re going to go to other countries if we don’t allow responsible embryonic stem-cell research.

MR. RUSSERT: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here’s the latest headline. “Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate ‘values voters’ by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. ... National Right to Life’s political action committee plans to run radio commercials on Steele’s behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail.” The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think...

MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.

MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?

LT. GOV. STEELE: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that

should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Cardin, you support abortion rights, also late-term abortions, or partial-birth abortions. Also, you voted against parental consent for abortion. Why shouldn’t a parent know that his or her daughter is having an abortion?

REP. CARDIN: First let me say that I am in favor of what is commonly known as pro-choice, to give a woman a right of choice and for government not interfering and there’s a — I don’t get comfort in listening to Mr. Steele’s response. And let me also point out, when he was asked specifically about the abortion issue, he said, “What does that have anything to do with the United States Senate? We don’t take that issue up.” And there have been many votes in the United States Senate that deal with a woman’s right of choice. Parental notification, to me, is something that should be — parents should be involved in their children. Absolutely. The problem is, you don’t want it to become an obstacle, particularly where there has been family abuse issues or where there’s been neglect in a family. You don’t want it used as a way of preventing a child from getting the necessary medical attention.

MR. RUSSERT: So a parent should not be notified?

REP. CARDIN: Oh, absolutely. Parents should be involved in the decisions of their children. Absolutely. But there are some families where there has been abuse, there are some families where there’s been neglect, and we shouldn’t feel...

MR. RUSSERT: But you can have a judicial bypass for that.

LT. GOV. STEELE: (Unintelligible)

REP. CARDIN: Well, there’s — if there is proper protection in the law, then let’s take a look at it. That’s not what — the bill that we were involved with.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Steele, is there anybody who’s on the Supreme Court — and one of the most important votes you cast is to confirm Supreme Court nominees — is there anybody on the Court that you would’ve voted against?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Is there anyone on the Court that I would vote against?

MR. RUSSERT: Would’ve voted against. As a United States Senator, would you have voted against any of them?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Tim, that, that’s a “gotcha” question, and I...

MR. RUSSERT: Hardly.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, no...

MR. RUSSERT: It’s one of the most important tasks of a U.S. Senator.

LT. GOV. STEELE: But I think — it is, but that’s living in the past, and what does that change? And what- my approach to a Senate nomination by the president for the United States — U.S. Supreme Court is to listen to them and to hear them out and to evaluate their jurisprudence, their, their judicial temperament. I don’t have a litmus test on any issue. I want to be able to take down, take down their words, to listen and engage them. I have not had that privilege with the, the nine justices, to sit down and actually grill them on issues that I would think would be important, to see if I, as a senator, at that time, would vote for them. So I’m not going to, I’m not going to go into that, you know, “woulda, shoulda, coulda,” because I don’t — I didn’t have the privilege of that conversation. Going forward, as a United States senator, I will look them in the eye and get an assessment from them whether or not they have the temperament to be a judge, not a legislator but a judge.

MR. RUSSERT: If you had that chance with the nine sitting justices, would you have opposed any of them?

REP. CARDIN: Tim, it’s amazing. Mr. Steele uses my record in Congress, my background, to project what I will do in the future, but it’s not fair to ask him what he would’ve done if he was faced with the confirmation issue.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Because you have a record, sir. You have a vote.

REP. CARDIN: Well, the Judge Alito issue came up when both of us were U.S. Senate candidates. I came out with a position against the confirmation of Judge Alito. I said that the standards that I would’ve used — and I’d laid out the standards. I was willing to take a position on it because I think the voters of Maryland are entitled to know what standards we will use to evaluate judicial appointments. And the Judge Alito issue came up during our candidacy for the United States Senate. I took a position. I was willing to stand up. Mr. Steele was not.

LT. GOV. STEELE: But it...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you have voted for Clarence Thomas?

REP. CARDIN: I’m going to be frank. I probably would’ve voted against Clarence Thomas, but I was — I think the confirmation process, I didn’t focus on it as a voting — to be a voting member of the United States Senate at that time. We did when Judge Alito, because that was during our Senate campaign. I think, at the time, I expressed that I would’ve voted against Judge Thomas.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Steele, you...

LT. GOV. STEELE: Why?

REP. CARDIN: Because of his, the standards that I would’ve used. The standards that I would’ve used, yes, judicial temperament and experience, but a person also who wants to become a judge on the federal court has to have an understanding of the Constitution and its protections against abuses of government. To me, that is an important standard for anyone who wants to become a federal judge. I want to make sure that they’re going to protect the consumers. I want to make sure they’re going to protect civil rights. I want to make sure that they’re going to protect the, the people of Maryland against the abuses of government.

MR. RUSSERT: You had said that Clarence Thomas is a hero. You still feel that way?

LT. GOV. STEELE: In this sense, that, as an African-American, and the only African-American on the bench. You know, I’ve disagreed with Clarence Thomas on a number of issues.

MR. RUSSERT: Which ones?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Affirmative action, for one. I, I strongly support affirmative action and, and believe...

MR. RUSSERT: You haven’t always supported it.

LT. GOV. STEELE: No, I’ve always supported affirmative action.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if we go back in 1991, we’ve got a program here called “Affirmative Action that Doesn’t Work,” “Affirmative Action’s Become A Race-Based Quota Formula.”

LT. GOV. STEELE: That’s — but that’s not the same as saying “I don’t support it.” What I was outlining in that quote was the problem of affirmative action. Art Fletcher, who’s the founder, the, the, the, the father of affirmative action, was a mentor to me, and I spent many hours talking to him about affirmative action, and his concern had always been that affirmative action had moved away from the economic empowerment tool that it was designed to be and had, had fallen on race — racial lines. And his goal, and he thought for future leaders, the goal should be to move it back towards economic empowerment to help those. And so what I was pointing out there was the problem with affirmative action in the modern times is that we’ve lost sight of the economic tool that it’s supposed to be, and we’ve gotten caught up in this, in this racial tension that — it skews that opportunity for those who are disadvantaged economically.

MR. RUSSERT: But you support the current system?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I support, I support the current system and I support improvements to the current system, keeping in mind that while we have done very well in affirmative action at our universities across this country, I look at our boardrooms across the country, I look at this — you know, NBC, CNBC, Fox, all these stations, all the corporate, corporate companies — and I don’t see affirmative action necessarily being practiced there when I look at the management, when I look at the leadership, when I look at those who have a decision-making role. So we still have a lot of work to do to make sure that that ladder is available to all to climb.

MR. RUSSERT: Affirmative action?

REP. CARDIN: Well, I agree we’ve made progress, we have a long way to go. When you take a look at where we are, and we’ve see now one million minority owned businesses in this country, $80 billion in revenues, but we still have a long way to go. We need to have policies that will try to make the opportunities of this nation available to all of our citizens. So yes, I support affirmative action. I support programs that will help minority businesses. I support programs that will help in the employment of minorities and opportunities. I think it’s very important.

MR. RUSSERT: Your Web site, Mr. Steele, says you want to control runaway federal spending.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: What programs would you cut?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, what I would like to do is something that we did in Maryland. We — Governor Ehrlich and I came into office, we had a $2.2 billion deficit staring us in the face and a bloated government to contend with. And so we stepped back and evaluated exactly what the priorities of our government should be. Seventy-eight percent of our spending is in two areas: education and health care.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s the same in the federal government.

LT. GOV. STEELE: It’s the same. And my point...

MR. RUSSERT: Seventy percent is Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you touch those?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Abso — Tim, everything has...

MR. RUSSERT: Everything’s on the table.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Everything has to be on the table, my friend. We are living in a time — we have to — government has to act like the rest of, the rest of the world and sit back and look at your budget. If you don’t have enough money in any given month, what do you do? You’ve got to reprioritize. You’ve got to take care of the business at hand. So what I want to do is a couple of things. One, I want to take a closer look at what we’re spending. The last five, seven, eight years, Congress has lost its mind when it’s come to spending. You couple that...

MR. RUSSERT: Controlled by the Republicans.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Absolutely. It doesn’t matter, Republican or Democrat, I just put it out there. That’s the reality of it. It’s...

MR. RUSSERT: Would everything be on the table?

REP. CARDIN: Well, I’ve come out with specific proposals to get the budget back into balance. I — look, I voted against the Bush budgets. I thought they were reckless at the time.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s 70 percent is Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

REP. CARDIN: So Medicare...

MR. RUSSERT: Would everything be on the table?

REP. CARDIN: Well, Medicare, we can save a lot of money by just taking on the prescription drug issue. Let’s have a fair price for prescription medicines in this country. We pay three times what we should.

MR. RUSSERT: But.

REP. CARDIN: I’ve introduced a bill to do that. To take on that cost.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Is everything on the table?

REP. CARDIN: Well, I have specific proposals to do it. I can give you Medicare cuts that can bring us into balance. I can give you changes in foreign policy.

LT. GOV. STEELE: And you’ll also give us tax increases because you voted 66 times to tax increases.

REP. CARDIN: And I favor — I — no, I’m, I’m not.

MR. RUSSERT: You know what? We are out of time.

LT. GOV. STEELE: We’re out of time?

MR. RUSSERT: I wish we had another hour.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Look...

MR. RUSSERT: Michael Steele, Ben Cardin, thank you very much.

LT. GOV. STEELE: Thank you so much.

MR. RUSSERT: We’ll be watching very carefully.

REP. CARDIN: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Watch MSNBC all next week, non-stop coverage “Decision 2006,” plus broadcasts of the Florida gubernatorial and Senate debates Monday and Wednesday night on MSNBC. We’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week, a special pre-election show, an exclusive joint interview: the chairs of the Senate Campaign Committee, Republican Elizabeth Dole, Democrat Chuck Schumer; Counterparts in the House: Democrat Rahm Emanuel, Republican Tom Reynolds. All here, a pre-election exclusive only on “Meet the Press”. And, hey, Buffalo Sabers, nice job, 10 in a row. Make me proud. If it’s Sunday, it’s “Meet the Press.”

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15473528/

---

© 2006 MSNBC.com

---

[1] 20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript

20061029 Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript

Cardin Steele Meet the Press Transcript

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15473528/

MTP Transcript for Oct. 29

Md. U.S. Senate candidates Rep. Ben Cardin (D), Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R)

Updated: 1:49 p.m. ET Oct 29, 2006

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Only nine days until the midterm elections. The Democrats must gain six seats to take control of the U.S. Senate. This morning, our Senate Debate Series 2006 concludes with another one of the most closely watched races of the year: Maryland, where Democratic Representative Ben Cardin faces off against Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele for this open seat. A new Washington Post poll out this morning shows Cardin with the lead. Democrat Ben Cardin vs. Republican Michael Steele, only on “Meet the Press.”

But first, it’s usually all eyes on Florida or Ohio, but this morning, it is Maryland. Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin, Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, welcome both.

Read the rest here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15473528/

I'd put the entire transcript up, but it would go on forever and I'd lose a lot of face page - unfortunately I have not been able to figure out how to put jumps in the blog. I've asked a colleague if she would put it on her blog as she has jumps (and a well-engineered site...)

Posted by Kevin Dayhoff at 10/29/2006 02:10:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post

20061029 Update on the Cardin Steele Meet the Press debate

Update on the Cardin Steele Meet the Press debate

October 29^th, 2006

Good news on the Meet the Press debate that occurred earlier today. (See my earlier post here.)

Ms. Stephanie Dray of Jousting for Justice has kindly put up the transcript for all of us to review.

She has also provided a link for those who like to watch.

Please find her post of the transcript here: “MD-Sen Debate Transcript: Cardin v. Steele.”

She has “jumps” in her blog which allows the reader to go to a separate “page,” or “node,” if you will, and read the transcript in its entirety – continuously, which is a great service for all of us.

And while you’re there, check out her awesome site and excellent commentary on the issues.

Thank you Ms. Dray!

####

PS: Another example of the great collaboration and cooperation within the Maryland Blogger Alliance which have individually have come together under the leadership of our fearless leader, Attila of the Pillage Idiot, to provide a greater service to the constituents we serve. A point of which has been noticed locally and nationally. Check out: “Steele tries to defy history in Maryland contest” on MSNBC.

In the box titled: “POLITICAL BLOGS: MARYLAND,” check out the number of blogs that belong to the Maryland Blogger Alliance (**):

Read what bloggers are saying about key races.

• Maryland Moment

• Maryland Politics Watch

• Maryland Politics Now

• **Crablaw’s Maryland Weekly

• **monoblogue

• Olliver Willis: Like Kryptonite to Stupid

• **Free State Politics

• Political Yak

• The League Reassembled

• **Jousting for Justice

Hat Tip: Jousting for Justice. Read her post about it here. Here.

20061026 Blogospheric recognition from George Washington’s IPDI

Blogospheric recognition from George Washington’s IPDI

Blogospheric recognition from George Washington University’s “Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet”

» WHO'S BLOGGING THE 2006 MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA ELECTIONS?

October 26th, 2006

THANKS! IPDI!

Grazing through my fellow Maryland Blogger Alliance member’s web sites yesterday, I noticed a post by my colleague Bruce Godfrey at Crablaw’s Maryland Weekly that caught my attention.

He wrote in a post titled “Congratulations to Maryland Blogger Alliance Member Kevin Dayhoff” :

“Maryland Blogger Alliance member Kevin Dayhoff was recognized by the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet for his coverage of the Maryland elections as a "must read" - I concur totally. Congrats, Kevin! posted by Bruce Godfrey at 10/24/2006 03:08:00 AM PERMALINK”

Holy Cow! That’s me.

Thanks a bunch Mr. Godfrey for calling it to my attention.

What an honor, especially since I look up to my colleagues with the Maryland Bloggers Alliance for what a great job they all do.

And it was not lost on me; after I followed the links graciously provided by Crablaw, that another MBA member, Free State Politics was also recognized. Congratulations.

So I humbly accept the recognition on behalf of all my colleagues with the Maryland Blogger Alliance and all the bloggers out there who slave away for long hours trying to make a difference and a contribution to our greater community by promoting facts and information, discussion and dialogue.

I am well aware of Dave Wissing’s excellent work at the Hedgehog Report. For all political junkies who appreciate numbers and commentary, there is no one better. And the work that the “Gang of Four” are doing with the elections in Howard County is cutting edge.

I finally had a chance this afternoon to take a cruise of all the sites and it is an impressive compendium of work. I got lots of value going through the Virginia bloggers’ sites and I recommend that you also find the time for that virtual cruise.

Congratulations to everyone who made the list.

Anyway, Here’s the skinny:

George Washington University’s “Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet” top 12 Maryland and Virginia political blogs.

» WHO'S BLOGGING THE 2006 MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA ELECTIONS?

Labor Day marks the official start of the political season, and the Institute has turned its attention to local and state races. This month, we look at who's blogging about Maryland and Virginia politics.

Below is our shortlist of six must-read blogs in Maryland and six in Virginia:

Maryland

Free State Politics – http://freestatepolitics.blogspot.com/Montgomery Public Schools – http://montgomerypublicschools.blogspot.com/Maryland Politics Now – http://www.mdpoliticsnow.com/?cat=1The Hedgehog Report – http://www.hedgehogreport.com/Blog Arundel – http://arundel.blogspot.com/Kevin Dayhoff – http://www.kevindayhoff.com/

Virginia

Not Larry Sabato – http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/Raising Kaine – http://www.raisingkaine.com/frontPage.doCommonwealth Conservative – http://www.vaconservative.com/The Virginia Progressive – http://vaprogressive.com/Two Conservatives – http://twoconservatives.blogspot.com/Skeptical Observer – http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/

LEARN MORE and view our complete list HERE.

Whoa. Okay, talk with ya later. I’ve now gotta take out the trash, get dinner ready for my wife and do the dishes.

PS: Also please see:
Thanks to George Washington University’s Institute for Politics,…
Internet Accolade

“Soundtrack” Labels: Blogosphere, Elections 2006 MD, Erratum, Maryland Bloggers Alliance, Personal, Recognition, Virginia Issues

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20061015 Who was Oriana Fallaci?

Who was Oriana Fallaci?

October 15, 2006

Author’s note: I finally had a chance to clean-up earlier “versions” and re-write the piece with no word limitations…

For my earlier posts about Ms. Fallaci, please see: “20060915 Italian lioness of letters Oriana Fallaci had died;” “20060917 Oriana Fallaci buried today Sun Sept 17 2006;” “20061003 Who was Oriana Fallaci?;” and here in The Tentacle: “Oriana Fallaci, a refreshing approach.”

_____

October 15, 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff (1370 words)

On September 15, Oriana Fallaci, the Italian lioness of letters, died of cancer.

Although Ms. Fallaci was one of the world’s greatest artists of letters; she is today, relatively unknown in the United States.

A prolific – quite controversial - journalist and existential writer with an aggressive and indefatigable approach to life, she had been shot several times and left for dead, had torrid affairs and put on trial.

She never skipped a beat.

Born in Italy on June 29, 1929 Ms. Fallaci served in the fascist resistance during World War II. She began her journalistic career in 1950 as a teenager and went on to be a war correspondent in Vietnam, the Middle East, South America and the Indo-Pakistani Wars.

According to published accounts, “During the 1968 Tlatelolco massacre prior to the 1968 Summer Olympics, Fallaci was shot three times, dragged down stairs by her hair, and left for dead by Mexican armed forces.”

She continued her career by interviewing many of the world leaders of our time and consistently took no prisoners. Her journalistic style is the stuff of mythology and legend.

Ms. Fallaci would often wax philosophical about existentialism and then abruptly switch to calmly delivered, aggressive questioning that disarmed the greatest men of words. The many world leaders she interviewed included Henry Kissinger, the Shah of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, Lech Wałęsa, Willy Brandt, Walter Cronkite, Omar Khadafi, Yasir Arafat, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, and Sean Connery.

In later years she penned a series of books and articles in which she was critical of the Muslim religion and culture.

It was only by a cruel coincidence that she passed away three days after Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech on Sept. 12, at the University of Regensburg in Germany, recited the words of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus; which reflect a view that the religion of Islam is spread by the sword.

Militant and extremist Muslims throughout the Middle East objected to that characterization by violently demonstrating, burning churches and killing innocent folks.

Hmmm. Okay, moving on,

Ms. Fallaci, an existentialist and an atheist publicly stated on August 27, 2005, her respect and admiration of Pope Benedict, specifically citing his 2004 essay entitled "If Europe Hates Itself,” after she met with the Pope in a private audience.

“Fallaci, who made her name interviewing statesmen (and not a few tyrants), believes that ours is "an age without leaders. We stopped having leaders at the end of the 20th century".”(Varadarajan, Telegraph, Apr. 9, 2005)

Ms. Fallaci, the subject of radical Islamists’ death threats, was diagnosed with cancer several years ago.

She was living in New York; in part, to avoid prosecution in her native Italy “under provisions of the Italian penal code for "vilipendio", or "vilification", of "any religion admitted by the state,” according to an article by Tunku Varadarajan in the Telegraph in Great Britain on April 9, 2005. (She quietly returned to Italy just days before her death, so that she could die in her native country.)

"When I was given the news, I laughed," Fallaci says of her indictment.

"Bitterly, of course, but I laughed. No amusement, no surprise, because the trial is nothing else but a demonstration that everything I've written is true." (Varadarajan, Telegraph, Apr. 9, 2005)

The article had the long descriptive title: “The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.”

When Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ms. Fallaci for the Telegraph article, shortly after an Italian judge had indicted her, she was in “her mid-seventies and stricken with a cancer that, for the moment, permits only the consumption of liquids - so yes, we drank champagne in the course of a three-hour interview.”

“She pauses to light a slim black cigarillo and take a sip of champagne…

She professes to "cry, sometimes, because I'm not 20 years younger, and I'm not healthy. But if I were, I would even sacrifice my writing to enter politics somehow." (Varadarajan, Telegraph, Apr. 9, 2005)

(This writer certainly understands “I would even sacrifice my writing to enter politics somehow.")

To add some punctuation to his article, Tunka Varadarajan then emphasized: "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder," the historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, and these words could certainly be Fallaci's. She is in a black gloom about Europe and its future: "The increased presence of Muslims in Italy, and in Europe, is directly proportional to our loss of freedom."

Tunka Varadarajan elaborated:

There is about her a touch of Oswald Spengler, the German philosopher and prophet of decline, as well as a flavour of Samuel Huntington and his clash of civilisations. But above all there is pessimism, pure and unashamed. When I ask what "solution" there might be to prevent the European collapse of which she speaks, she flares up like a lit match.

"How do you dare to ask me for a solution? It's like asking Seneca for a solution. You remember what he did?" She then gestures at slashing her wrists. "He committed suicide!" Seneca was accused of being involved in a plot to murder the emperor Nero. Without a trial, he was ordered by Nero to kill himself. One senses that Fallaci sees in Islam the shadow of Nero.

"What could Seneca do?" she asks, with a discernible shudder. "He knew it would end that way - with the fall of the Roman Empire. But he could do nothing."

The cause of her most recent problems surfaced in a book that she wrote in 2004, called: “The Force of Reason,” which has reportedly sold over a million copies worldwide.

Part of the problem is a particularly indelicate passage in which she said, Muslims "multiply like rats" and said "the children of Allah spend their time with their bottoms in the air, praying five times a day;" according to an Associated Press article written by Alessandra Rizzo and published the day she passed away.

This just threw salt in a wounded relationship Ms. Fallaci had maintained since she published another best-seller, days after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001: “The Rage and the Pride.” This book also drew condemnation by the militant Muslim world.

There was an unsuccessful effort in France in 2003, to ban the book. This effort in France came on the heels of a Swiss arrest warrant for Ms. Fallaci when Italy was asked to either extradite her or put her on trial themselves.

Part of what annoyed folks in Switzerland and France was Ms. Fallaci referring to Europe in “The Rage and the Pride,” as “Eurabia.” She describes latest wave of suicidal appeasement and pacifism sweeping “Eurabia” and calls it a continent that has collectively “sold itself and sells itself to the enemy like a prostitute… "Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam…”

Tunka Varadarajan quotes Ms. Fallaci: “You cannot survive if you do not know the past. We know why all the other civilizations have collapsed - from an excess of welfare, of richness, and from lack of morality, of spirituality.”

As much as I’m not sure that I agree with Ms. Fallaci’s strident views on the Muslim religion, or that the Pope’s remarks were productive towards a meaningful dialogue with the Muslim world community; the approach of the late Ms. Fallaci and the Pope towards the extremists and terrorists is never-the-less thought provoking - - a hallmark of Ms. Fallaci’s brilliant work, whether one agrees with her or disagrees. (This writer takes no position on her politics. I respect her First Amendment rights and admire her “genius;” her “life of letters” and her joie de vie.)

It is only an existential, if not quixotic, perversion of reality that a child of the persecution of World War II, for which she became a legendary member of the resistance, a veteran war correspondent who often wrote from first-hand knowledge in the combat theatre – and a celebrated woman of letters and words in her seventies and stricken with cancer is persecuted for uttering words, while the world’s community of pandering appeasers apologize for extremist folks who want to kill women and children and you.

Oriana Fallaci will be greatly missed on the world stage.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####

20061003 Who was Oriana Fallaci?

Who was Oriana Fallaci?

My latest column is up on the Tentacle: “Oriana Fallaci, a refreshing approach.”

On September 15, Oriana Fallaci, the Italian lioness of letters, died of cancer. Although Ms. Fallaci was one of the world's greatest conservative artists of letters; she is - to this day - relatively unknown in the United States.

Born in Italy on June 29, 1929, Ms. Fallaci served in the resistance during World War II. She began her journalistic career in 1950 as a teenager and went on to be a war correspondent in Vietnam, the Middle East, South America and the Indo-Pakistani Wars.

She continued her career by interviewing many of the world leaders of our time and consistently took no prisoners. Her aggressive journalistic style is the stuff of myth and legend.

Ms. Fallaci would often wax philosophical about existentialism and then abruptly switch to calmly delivered, aggressive questioning that disarmed the greatest men of words. The many world leaders she interviewed included Henry Kissinger, the Shah of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, Lech Walesa, Willy Brandt, Walter Cronkite, Omar Khadafi, Yasser Arafat, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, and Sean Connery.

In later years she penned a series of books and articles in which she was critical of the Muslim religion and culture.

It was only by a cruel coincidence that she passed away three days after Pope Benedict XVI recited the words of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos at the University of Regensburg in Germany, which reflect a view that the religion of Islam is spread by the sword.

Read the rest of the column here.

For my previous posts about this legendary journalist, go here and here.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com

www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20061001 Election Websites

20061001 Election Websites

October 1, 2006

Beard - Dennis Beard, candidate for Carroll County Commissioner

Brinkley Re-Elect David Brinkley, Dist.4 Frederick and Carroll Cos. Sen. David Brinkley

Cardin - Ben Cardin, candidate for US Senate from Maryland

Carroll County Board of Elections

Carroll County Republican Candidates And Contact Information

Carroll County Times 2006 Election Website

Craig - David Craig for Harford Co. Executive

Gouge - Re-Elect Carroll Co. Commissioner Julia Walsh Gouge

Haines - Re-Elect Dist.5 Carroll and Balto. Cos. Sen. Larry Haines

Hogan, Patrick N, (R) Re-elect for Frederick Co. Dist 3A

Kittleman - Elect Dist.9 Howard and Carroll Cos. Sen. Allan Kittleman

League of Women Voters in Carroll County MD

Minnich - Re-Elect Carroll Co. Commissioner Dean Minnich

O'Malley for Maryland Governor election web site

Shewell - Elect Dist.5A Carroll Co. Del. Tanya Shewell

Steele - Elect Michael Steele for Maryland U.S.Senate web site

Stocksdale - Re-elect Dist.5A Carroll Co. Del. Nancy Stocksdale

Vote on Nov. 7, 2006. If you want an absentee ballot, click here

Webb, James - Democratic Candidate for US Senator from Virginia

Zimmer - Mike Zimmer, candidate for Carroll County Commissioner

20060928 New Bedford Herald

New Bedford Herald

THIS BLOG IS BEST VIEWED IN MOZILLA FIREFOX

September 28, 2006

New Bedford Herald - Other columns and articles by Kevin Dayhoff:

www.kevindayhoff.net or http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/index.html

The Tentacle: http://www.thetentacle.com/

Westminster Eagle (click on "Opinion"): http://news.mywebpal.com/index.cfm?pnpid=978

Westminster Eagle pieces on "Soundtrack": http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/search/label/Westminster%20Eagle

Winchester Report: http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?NPV2Datasource=mywebpal&pnpid=978&show=newscast&CategoryID=18298

Winchester Report Archives: http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?NPV2Datasource=mywebpal&pnpid=978&show=newscast&CategoryID=18298

art literature of the absurd

Sugarshoot

Existentialism

New Bedford Herald

Linkin Park - Numb

Andrew Bird - "Imitosis"

Andrew Bird - "Imitosis".

From the 2007 release "Armchair Apocrypha"

Directed by Britta Johnson

Produced by Xan Aranda

For more: Andrew Bird

20060927 KDDC Winchester Report on Local News in Spanish

My latest post on the Westminster Eagle blog, The Winchester Report, is up. It is: “Local news coverage, in Spanish, of the tragic accident in Westminster.”

09/23/06 By Kevin Dayhoff

Last Tuesday night there was a tragic accident in Westminster in which a bicyclist, a native of Mexico, was killed on Route 140.

The Carroll County Times published an article week by Ari Natter and Tomas Pagan-Motta in the print edition which referred the reader to the story – in Spanish – online.

The Times is to be congratulated for including an article in the language of the victim.

I only wish that the paper had been able to find the space to publish the Spanish version in the print edition. Better yet, I wish I had thought of it first.

[I added the hyperlinks…]

Read the rest of it here.

For pervious posts:

20060921 KDDC Spanish language coverage of the tragic traffic ...

22 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

In regards to the local news coverage of the tragic accident in Westminster in which a bicyclist was killed on Rte 140, the Carroll County Times published an article today by Ari Natter and Tomas Pagan-Motta in the print edition which ...

20060919 KDDC Bicyclist killed in late night accident on Rte 140 ...

20 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

A dark stretch of eastbound Rte 140 between the Rte 27 overpass and Center St . in Westminster was the scene of a fatal accident involving a bicyclist and a Carroll County Sheriff’s Deputy late Tuesday evening. ...

####

20060926 KDDC Krauthammer’s Law

Krauthammer's Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise

Posted by Kevin Dayhoff Sept. 27^th, 2006

If you have not had a chance to read Charles Krauthammer’s latest column: “Krauthammer's Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise,” it is a keeper.

Is it me, or does it seem that the senatorial contest in Virginia just keep getting curiouser and cuiouser?

Can anyone explain to me just what the fact that Governor-Senator Allen has Jewish ancestors have to do with the price of tea in China – or the Senate contest, for that matter? A glick hot dir getrofen.

“Krauthammer's Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise”

By Charles Krauthammer

Jewish World Review Sept. 25, 2006 / 3 Tishrei, 5766

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com Strange doings in Virginia. George Allen, former governor, one-term senator, son of a famous football coach and in the midst of a heated battle for reelection, has just been outed as a Jew. An odd turn of events, given that his having Jewish origins has nothing to do with anything in the campaign and that Allen himself was oblivious to the fact until his 83-year-old mother revealed to him last month the secret she had kept concealed for 60 years.

Apart from its political irrelevance, it seems improbable in the extreme that the cowboy-boots-wearing football scion of Southern manner and speech should turn out to be, at least by origins, a son of Israel. For Allen, as he quipped to me, it's the explanation for a lifelong affinity for Hebrew National hot dogs. For me, it is the ultimate confirmation of something I have been regaling friends with for 20 years and now, for the advancement of social science, feel compelled to publish.

Krauthammer's Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise. I've had a fairly good run with this one…

Read the rest here.

####

20060926 KDDC Kelsey Volkmann on the Hoff Barn

Kelsey Volkmann on the Hoff Barn

Posted by Kevin Dayhoff September 26th, 2006

Last Friday I missed a nice piece by Kelsey Volkmann in the Baltimore Examiner on the Hoff Barn.

If you missed it: “Historic barn to be rebuilt at museum,” is yet another in a series community newspaper work by Kelsey Volkmann that is worth going out of your way to check out. I periodically do a search on “Volkmann” in the Examiner web site to be sure that I have not missed any of her work.

She begins her article: “Westminster - For more than two centuries, the Hoff barn withstood thunderstorms, blizzards and even a fad in the late 1800s to demolish structures like it because they were considered old-fashioned.

Now, the barn on a New Windsor dairy farm has survived long enough to become one of the oldest log barns in Maryland and earn a spot at the Carroll County Farm Museum, an architectural historian said.

“It’s a large part of what the county was and who the people were who came here. It’s like looking back in time,” said Ken Short, a former historian with the county who is writing a report for the museum on the barn.”

Be sure to read the rest of her piece here.

For past posts by me on the Hoff Barn go:

20060913 KDDC Hoff Memorial Barn ceremonial groundbreaking on ...

13 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

In the earlier KDDC piece on May 6th, 2006, titled “Historic Hoff Barn Relocation and ... Contributions can be mailed to “The Hoff Barn Project,” PO Box 124 ... Put the words, “The Hoff Barn Project” in the subject line. ...

20060506 Historic Hoff Barn Relocation and Restoration Solicitors ...

7 May 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

Contributions can be mailed to “The Hoff Barn Project,” PO Box 124, Westminster, MD 21158. ... Put the words, “The Hoff Barn Project” in the subject line. ... Marlin K. Hoff ran Coldsprings Farms, the largest dairy operation in the ...

####

20060925 KDDC Cartoon on Carroll County primary elections

“A little group of lit’l green people have landed in my soup”

© Kevin Dayhoff Sept. 13th, 2006

Of schadenfreude and irony

September 25^th, 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

Perhaps the cartoon above will explain the results of the Carroll County primary elections. It is as if a group of little green people have landed in Carroll County to provide us with the proverbial “fly in the ointment” to our quality of life.

I’m not really sure if this past Carroll County primary election is a few clowns short of a circus or an experiment in artificial stupidity.

To repeat a wonderful observation by the Washington Post some time ago – that I sure wish I had written: “The numbing repetition of uncorrected falsehoods creates a phony atmosphere of uncertainty around key questions... Eventually voters throw up their hands and accept the fact that they’ll never know for sure what the truth is, and confusion ensues.”

Confusion as to what is real and what is nefarious mythology reigns in Carroll County today and there is plenty of blame for everyone.

Hopefully soon, our community leaders will take heed to the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a January 8th, 1940 speech, in which he said: “The future lies with those wise politicians who realize that the great public is interested more in government that in politics.”

We would all like to think that misrepresentations about the issues or the legacy and performance of a particular candidate or candidates is foreign to what we hold dear as Carroll County values.

That said; our history is replete with examples to the contrary. But that doesn’t mean that in the past such misrepresentations prevailed to sway the outcome of the election or that such negative campaigning represents our values.

To be sure there have been many pivotal elections in Carroll County’s history. Only history will decide if this is one. But looking back 150 years ago to the Carroll County of 1856 is worthy of note.

When Carroll County was formed in 1837, the nation was dealing with the “Panic of 1837,” one of the worst recessions in our nations history.

The late 1840s and early 1850s witnessed many new folks move into Carroll County and roads and infrastructure, jobs creation and access to markets became hotly contested political issues. The new folks agitated aggressively for changes.

It was in this time period that the “Know-Nothing Party” reared its ugly head against immigrants; the scope, size and role of government; local decision making versus federal or centralized state decisions; and just a generalized anger about anything that moved or wanted to move.

The challenge for the elected leadership was the lack of revenue to execute the changes for which many clamored. As the revenue picture brightened, everyone wanted everything for which they had waited for so many years.

The 1837 recession lasted well into the 1840s. In 1851, the form of government in Carroll County was changed from nine commissioners appointed by the governor to three commissioners elected locally to two year terms.

But the acrimony and turmoil of the cry for changes continued, fueled by what some historians call the great Carroll County newspaper war, in which the warring camps fought it out in the newspaper, that is, when they weren’t verbally and physically assaulting each other. And the newspapers certainly threw gasoline on the fire…

Fast-forwarding to the present; my definition of negative campaigning is either a concerted whisper campaign to distort the performance of a candidate or the outright publication of such distortions, either by political ads and literature or by an advocacy oriented newspaper(s).

Selective quotation and trivialities trumping substance in an obvious attempt to distort the facts seem to be the rule of the day. It is always the source of amazement to observe folks who, in the same utterance, plead for understanding and tolerance for their views and then demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

A rule among classier community leaders prohibits promoting oneself by personally sniping at someone who holds a different point of view than yours. It is not only bad form but smacks of bullying and could wind up hurting your own cause, as you only look like someone with the warmth and humanity of a water moccasin.

However, it is fascinating to now see folks who have in the past participated in negative campaigning now write columns suggesting the horror of it all in righteous indignation.

In the scalding criticism and politics of personal destruction that passes for contemporary political realism and the social commentary of the day, it is important that we take out a moment to appreciate what a great county we live in and all the positive things for which we have to be thankful.

Not a day passes when we don’t read scathing criticism of someone who has taken time away from his or her family to try and make our community, municipality, county or country a better place. One can be sure that this certainly doesn’t encourage other good folks to step forward and volunteer time for their community.

Any community leader, whether we agree or disagree with his or her ideas, needs to be respected for sticking their head above the crowd to try and make a difference and contribution. It is important to confine our disagreement to their ideas and leave the person, their chosen profession and their family out of it. Remember, you can’t get to heaven based on the sins of others.

The sea change on the part of Carroll County citizens against residential growth in Carroll County has long-since taken a turn for the ugly – and this didn’t take place over-night.

The seeds for the unpleasantness of this past primary election were sown in the 2002 elections when good folks were simplistically demonized in a smear campaign to promote another approach to managing growth in our county.

As much as I continue to have no interest in any hardly any new housing development in Carroll County - - you can’t take away a person’s property rights by plebiscite or an angry mob.

I have grown exhausted with the erosion of our quality of life. Not only the traffic, mind you – but the pollution that pervades the public discourse about residential growth.

Folks seem to feel indemnified to be painfully unpleasant because of their righteous outrage over any new development in the county. Often, but not always, they are the very same folks, who travel to the public hearing from their half-a-million dollar home in what was once a beautiful farm.

However demonizing developers and real estate professionals is a non-starter. Personally attaching an elected official because they have a different point of view about growth, taxation or the size and scope of government, should also be off the table.

The fascinating thing about the primary election for the Carroll County Commissioners is that the one commissioner that was most respectful to those with a different point of view was Commissioner Perry Jones – the only commissioner to not make it through the primary. Go figure.

The worst thing that can happen to a community is that everybody thinks the same way all the time.

But it will be catastrophic if potential leaders are unwilling to step out of the comfortable cocoon of their lives to assume a leadership role or proffer a different point of view for fear of the politics of personal destruction.

If you have the negative energy and the time, anything or anyone can be criticized. It takes only a little misplaced imagination.

Saint Francis of Assisi, who lived back in the 13th Century, said where there is hatred you have to send love; where there is doubt you have to send faith; where there is injury you have to send pardon...

The answer to the problems we face personally and as a society is in being able to bring a higher, more loving, more spiritual energy to whatever it is we confront. When we do, slowly, inch-by-inch, we will become a better society, a better people, and a better world.

A community cannot prosper if individuals fail and we don't rediscover some sense of civility and practice daily acts of kindness to one another.

The answer lies in the ability to listen with respect to those with whom we deeply disagree, in an attempt to catch in their remarks some truth we may have missed, in order to find a meaningful compromise.

Misrepresenting history, comparing our neighbors to nefarious folks from the past and calling folks names is not a good place to begin the healing process for Carroll County. Such righteous indignation, often by the very same folks who have participated in negative campaigning in the past, only perpetuates a negative climate and atmosphere in our community.

Participatory grass roots democracy, open and transparent dialogue is not for the weak of heart. However, if we have learned anything from history, hopefully we have learned that name-calling, pointing fingers, rumor mongering and being impolite, loud, bizarre and disagreeable is not the best way of solving problems.

It is extremely important that we explore alternative ways of peace, positive conflict resolution and nonviolence. It is not necessarily the challenge that counts nearly as much as the thoughtful and well considered response to the challenge.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com www.kevindayhoff.com