Is Newt the best we have? Really?

Granted, my track record after the last election is less than exciting.  In fact, I almost hesitate to post this, lest it guarantee Newt Gingrich's installment as our only alternative to Obama in November 2012.

But I am so tired of people claiming Newt is our best hope for the coming election.  This is a man whose mere name will rile up independents and even former Dems (like myself) and cause them to run screaming away from the polling booth.  They can't stand to imagine looking at That Face and listening to That Voice coming from That Person who will be making Those Policies and Those Excuses for the next four years.

Please.  I've been prepared to vote for "anyone except Obama," but this is asking too much.

I'll let Ann Coulter explain it to you, as only she can.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-12-21.html

Whatcom County Executive race: Ericksen is the Real Choice

I'd like to think I'm not a one-issue voter, yet some things just raise red flags for me.

Maybe some of my more liberal-leaning friends won't think this is a bad thing, but my conservative, pro-life friends should take note of this development in the Whatcom County Executive's race.  

Read more in this copy of  a letter to the editor I've just submitted:

Up until last week, I thought conservative voters had two good choices in the Whatcom County Executive race.  But after one of them warmly accepted the endorsement of a liberal/progressive candidate last week, it's clear there is only one choice:  I'll vote for Doug Ericksen.

Candidate Jack Louws received lots of votes from conservative-leaning Lynden in the primary.  But now he's happily accepted the endorsement of David Stalheim.

Stalheim's website says he was endorsed by Planned Parenthood, Progressive Majority, Sierra Club, and other like-minded groups.  I wonder if that changes things for folks up here?

Electing Doug as County Executive is a win-win for conservatives, overall.   He has the experience, capability, and values that will most benefit Whatcom County.  And as a bonus, his State Senate seat will be filled by someone nominated by the local Republican Party and appointed by the Whatcom County Council.  

This means the 42nd District will continue to benefit from having three conservatives serving in Olympia, while having a conservative in the County Executive's office for the first time in years.

I'm thankful the choice is clear, now.  Doug Ericksen has my vote.

More about Rick Perry

Thanks to the folks who posted these links on my Facebook wall today, because they started the information gathering process for me:

• From the CATO Institute: Rick Perry’s Spending Record
  

• From Bill O'Reilly: Daily Briefing: Rick Perry holds the record on executions. Details: http://bit.ly/qM76tB

• From LifeNews.com:  Perry signs the pro-life pledge opposing Roe, tax-funded abortions, and supporting good judges. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/24/rick-perry-signs-pro-life-pledge-on-abortion-judges/

As you find interesting information about the major candidates, I'd like to hear about it.  What criteria do you go by in choosing your favorite?

Local Republican straw poll picks Perry for President

From the Whatcom Republicans Facebook page August 24, 2011:

A main attraction at the Northwest Washington Fair this year was our Presidential Straw Poll. The official results of our straw poll are as follows: Rick Perry-220, Michelle Bachman-80, Sarah Palin-66, Mitt Romney-50, Ron Paul-49, Herman Cain-28, Newt Gingrich-18, Chris Christie-16, Paul Ryan-12, Rick Santorum-9, Marco Rubio-8, Barack Obama-6.

 Check out their website (whatcomgop.com) for other interesting information, including the latest Whatcom County ballot counts.

Why some Dems now support GOP women

Here's an interesting twist in the talk about the presidential election:   

From Clinton to Palin to Bachmann:  Why Some Dems Now Support GOP Women (from CNN, posted July 19, 2011).

Definitely food for thought. 

After all, such a cross-over was do-able for some of the African-American community (think Colin Powell, and possibly Condaleezza Rice, in the 2008 election of Barack Obama).

Many thanks to the savvy girls at Smart Girl Politics (a new fave site you should check out), whose link took me to this story.

The real story: Obama's fiscal record

From the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget:

A Brief History of President Obama’s Fiscal Record

Setting the Record Straight
July 15, 2011

Despite newfound concern with the debt overhang stifling economic growth, President Obama’s record falls far short of his rhetoric.  Let’s review the decisions made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats over the past couple of years, and the disappointing results of their policy choices . . . .  Read more by clicking here.

An abortion tax: Does it make sense?

A tax on abortions?  Why not?  In a time when we are strapped for revenue, why not levy a tax on a procedure that is infinitely more harmful than soda pop, candy bars, gasoline, or cigarettes?  It's something to think about.

Read more at the TaxProf Blog.

Alan Guttmacher institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm) reports this about Washington State's abortion numbers:

In 2008, 24,320 women obtained abortions in Washington, producing a rate of 18.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some Washington residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate increased 5% since 2005, when it was 17.5 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Washington represent 2% of all abortions in the United States.

How much does an abortion cost?  I checked with the Feminist Women's Health Care Center (Tacoma and Renton areas), where I learned that a first trimester abortion costs $500-$1,000, and a second trimester abortion costs $600 to $10,000.  Would the tax revenue be worth it?  Should the tax be based on the potential loss of revenue, since a potential tax-payer is lost in the procedure?

It's something to think about.

How Safe Is This Elective Surgery?

You'd think it would make sense to keep a public record of abortion deaths and complications; but according to this article, such reporting is done on a voluntary basis only:

How Safe Is This Elective Surgery?

By Clarke Forsythe; Donna Harrison

June 14, 2011 4:07 P.M.

In Kansas earlier this year, legislators trying to look into the deaths of five women got quite a shock: They were told in a March 9 hearing that five women had died after the same elective procedure but, astonishingly, the Kansas Public Health Department could neither confirm nor deny the figures.

In fact, across the United States, public-health departments only haphazardly collect information about deaths and complications from this elective procedure, which touches the lives of at least one out of every ten people in the United States. The procedure is abortion.
Abortion advocates commonly claim that “abortion is safer than childbirth.” But is that true? Little published information exists in the United States on deaths and complications resulting from abortion.
In the U.S., there are two sources of data on abortion deaths and complications, both equally unreliable: the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Both rely on voluntary (not mandatory) reporting. Neither has any reliable mechanism for double-checking the accuracy of the submitted information.

Read the rest of the article: How Safe Is This Elective Surgery? - By Clarke Forsythe & Donna Harrison - The Corner - National Review Online


I linked to this article for two reasons:

(1) Deaths and complications related to abortions should be reported, so that women can make fully-informed decisions about their health care; right now the information is being denied them, covered up in favor of "protecting" the abortion industry; and

(2) In response to the comments I received from "Anonymous," who believes Planned Parenthood is a victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, when all it really wants to do is help poor people. You're just not going to convince me, my friend. You're also not going to get posted, if you won't stand behind your "facts" and use your real name. It's nice to know you're reading the blog, though.

The race is on: Check out who is running for office

Here's who wants your vote in Whatcom County this year:

Whatcom County candidates

If more than one person is seeking an office, they'll have a primary election August 16 to determine the top two; the general election is November 8.

Have you ever used the "except in the case of rape" argument? Then read this!

Back in the day, when I was a liberal-feminist type, I remember thinking that I was open-minded and compassionate when I would claim "pro-choice" as my label.  


I was quick to say that I would of course never choose abortion for myself, but it needed to be safe and legal, especially for cases of rape or incest.


I was so wrong, on so many levels.


Instead of going into this issue myself, though, I'd like you to read the compelling story of a woman who was conceived in rape, and almost aborted: 

Rebecca Kiessling: Conceived in Rape, Targeted for Abortion

This article is not only inspiring, it is philosophical.  It is thought-provoking.  She has made careful, reasoned arguments beyond the obvious one of "I wouldn't be here if I'd been aborted."


If you've ever used the "except in the case of rape" statement, this article will challenge your viewpoint and I hope open your mind to a new way of looking at the issues.  Do you have the courage to take another look?

State Legislature benefits Planned Parenthood... again

Some of you may have seen a letter to the editor of The Bellingham Herald blasting State Rep. Jason Overstreet for speaking out against increasing funds for poor women's health services.  As usual with that particular letter writer, the facts were missing or obscured.  Instead of being "shocked" by Overstreet's speech before the Legislature, we ought to be thanking him.

Sadly, the bill expanding this program was passed by the House and Senate late last month.  All we can do now is make sure the record is straight on why it was a bad idea, and who saw through the "gee, let's help the poor" smoke screen put out by Planned Parenthood in its bid to keep its revenue stream high... yes in other words, set ourselves up for an "I told you so" moment.
Here is a letter I submitted to the Herald today:

When a state-subsidized program is supposed to save us money by spending money... well, let's just say I'm doubtful, and very skeptical, especially when Planned Parenthood is involved.

Planned Parenthood's latest money-making scheme: Convincing the legislature to expand the "Take Charge" program. At first, it sounds like a good idea: Give free birth control to more poor women, reducing pregnancies covered by State Medicaid.

But it's a foolish time to expand any program, especially based on a dubious notion that it "could" save money; and it's really a revenue booster for Planned Parenthood. Rep. Jason Overstreet saw through this legislation and spoke out boldly. Rep. Vincent Buys and Sen. Doug Ericksen also voted against it.

But now, more people getting this new "free" benefit won't want to let it go. When dreamed-of State savings don't occur, we'll be stuck with it. Pills are cheaper than pregnancies, but the program also covers emergency contraception and sterilization. And there's the abortion factor.

The legislation doesn't fund abortions; but even the National Abortion Federation says half of all women getting abortions report they used contraceptives when they got pregnant.

Sounds like Planned Parenthood did alright for itself. Too bad it's at our expense.

Here are links to my sources.  Maybe you'll find some inspiration for writing your own letter about this issue:

Info on the bill from the Legislature's website


Info on the bill from Washington Votes


National Abortion Federation report

Link to State Senate's fiscal report on the bill

The letter making shocked noises about Overstreet's actions:  http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/02/2042659/opposes-overstreet-on-state-family.html

Here's information from other bloggers and sources about this bill, including statements that the program being expanded was actually losing numbers of people -- in other words, we're increasing a program that wasn't even meeting its capacity in the first place:

DSHS report (undated) saying they had not yet seen the expected decrease in Medicaid expense that they'd hoped for from the "Take Charge" program.

Blog shows Medicaid expenses have increased since "Take Charge" was implemented in 2001.

Bellingham Herald article on April 27, 2011, which stated: "the total amount the state spends on Medicaid-eligible deliveries every year has gone up by about $128 million since the program (referring to "Take Charge") began."

Abortion in Washington says this bill just increases interference in women's lives.

Planned Parenthood: More Funding, More Abortion (by Human Life of Washington)

Rep. Buys gets kudos for not missing votes!

Good reporting from the Bellingham Herald:  Rep. Buys Doesn't Miss a Single Vote

Not only does it give much-deserved recognition to Rep. Vincent Buys, it also shows specifically what others missed; you can follow up for yourself to see if any of them matter to you.

Obama Admin's Big Fat Carbon Footprint

Once again, we see that President Obama and his administration only give lip-service to the idea of energy savings and reducing our carbon footprints.

Fox News reported May 31, 2011: "A new report from a watchdog group shows that the number of limousines owned by the federal government rose by 73 percent during the first two years of President Obama's administration. The State Department was the recipient of most the new luxury vehicles."  Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/31/limousine-liberals-report-shows-government-limo-fleet-swelling/#ixzz1O93Hep4R

I understand that the big guy needs big cars and planes to travel around spreading his message of hope and change and all that jazz.  And yet, all of the travel-- and the means of travel-- hurts the Obama Administration's credibility when it comes to pushing energy savings rules.

The Obama's Administration is all about regulations to reduce carbon emissions, even though these regulations can hurt small business and our competitiveness in the world because these things cost money.  If it's really worth the sacrifice, you'd think Obama would lead by example.

Yeah, right.

Based on the following articles and statements, the large increase in limo purchases is another in a LONG LINE of "do as I say, not as I do" actions on the part of the Obama Administration:

From the Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008:  Obama's Carbon Ultimatum: The Coming Offer You Won't Be Able to Refuse

From U.S. News and World Report, January 15, 2009:  The Obama Inauguration's Carbon Footprint

From The Chicago Tribune, February 27, 2009:  Obama sets strict rules on carbon emissions: Plan to combat global warming proposes limits to be tightened yearly

From the White House website, January 29, 2010:  President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

From the Christian Science Monitor, June 29, 2010:  Obama wants price on carbon emissions: Republicans see tax

From The National Review, July 30, 2010:  Clean Vehicle Tour? The Carbon Footprint of Obama's Detroit Visit

 From The Daily Caller, November 2010:  Obamas Trip to India has a Carbon Footprint Bigger than Many U.S. Cities

 I couldn't find reports on the cost of his recent European tour.  But you get the idea.

Sites for Candidate Research

Here are some places to go for some general information on 2012 Presidential Candidates.  I'm researching a few more and will post them as I find them (or as you recommend them):

OpenSecrets.org  has a list of candidates, and promises to eventually tell you about finances, spending and background.


The Federal Election Commission (FEC), which tracks campaign financing (includes a schedule of when candidates' reports are due, and a way to search through the ones already filed) and public funding of presidential candidates.


Another one to explore is OpenCongress.  Includes a blog on current issues.  Also lists votes, issues, and the money trail.  Interesting stuff.

GovTrack.us has information on elected officials and bills before Congress.

Watchdog.net  Looks to be a good site with biological info, earmarks, voting analysis, bills, contributors, and even tracks how votes line up with contributions, by date.  It appears to be out of date but if the info is fresh, it will be a great research tool.

Politicks offers up a site comparing all potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.  This site keeps popping up on searches for info on Republican presidential candidates.  However, I am a little leery of it because I can't see who sponsors it, so I don't now their motivation.  I'll keep looking, but I'd like your feedback on this if you can find anything.

Conservative News Sites

I'm trying to gather a list of places to fuel up on the latest news of interest to conservatives (and containing some stories the mainstream media ignore).  Here's what I've come up with:

The Weekly Standard

Newsmax.com

Redstate.com

HumanEvents.com

www.conservativenews.org


Any other suggestions?

Another Black Conservative

Here's a blog I'm enjoying, where you'll find thoughtful writing about some of the presidential candidates (check the archive):

Another Black Conservative, written by Clifton B.

The Republican Candidate "In" Crowd

Now that I've put together a wish list for a presidential candidate qualifications, let's talk about who we have to choose from, to this point.  More people may pop into the race at a later date.  In fact, some predict that a last-minute candidate will excite the public and defeat Obama, but we won't know if that's true until the last minute, will we?

A May 23 Wall Street Journal by Patrick O'Connor and Jonathan Weisman ("Election Picture Sharpens for GOP") lists the field of Republican candidates as follows:

 


Thoughts on candidates listed as "in":

Newt "oh BABY I love my country" Gingrich fails in pretty much every category.  I hope to be hearing about his departure from the field very soon.  He's already on the defensive for making stupid comments, he's embarrassing, and his personal life is too much of a distraction.


Herman Cain intrigues me and I'm glad to see him enter the race.  Cain is folksy, but smart; accomplished, and conservative; he has a way with words and an awesome voice.   Picture the Reagan-Carter debates, and Reagan's effective "There you go again" tactic: Cain could also deliver a line like that and make it work.  My politically-savvy son is not a Cain fan, but I remind him (and you) that we are not seeking perfection: we are seeking a candidate capable of defeating Obama.




Mitt Romney is an awesome speaker (I heard him at the Washington State Republican Convention last year) and I wish-wish-wish he wouldn't have given up so early in the last presidential race.  I enjoy listening to him and his credentials are strong.  But can he overcome the Romneycare thing?  That remains to be seen.


Ron Paul is not on my fave list, but I'd vote for him over Obama, and be moderately satisfied.  I just can't get in to the whole libertarian scene.   Too much government is a bad thing, but I'm not ready for the hands-off approach libertarians dream about.  On the plus side: he sells cool t-shirts on his website.


Tim Pawlenty seems promising.  I like him, and his record looks pretty good.  However, someone has advised him that calm and quiet (especially on hot-button issues like the mosque at Ground Zero) is a good thing; I don't agree.  The media is trying to label him as "boring" and consign him to be relatively unknown to most voters.  He's got to get his name out there-- in a good way.  Here's an LA Times article with a YouTube link to introduce you to him.


Rick Santorum seems like a decent guy, and I love the big family (seven kids!).  He would be an thoughtful, conservative president, but could he beat Obama?  I need convincing.  Here's an overview of his candidacy and qualifications from Fox News that ran in April.


Jon Huntsman seems to get two reactions from conservatives I know: "Who?" and "Oh, him."  Unfortunately for him, he may not have worked in the Obama White House, but he did serve as his ambassador to China, which seems a little bizarre.  His resume is impressive, but I wonder if he'll disappoint by being too liberal.  Check out this link to the Washington Post, "New Hampshire, Meet Jon Huntsman."



Gary Johnson is not at the top of my list because he's too liberal for my taste.  However,  he would be better than Obama.  Here's a link to an article and video from Salon.com to help you make up your mind.