Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Who is getting your vote?

Posted in politics by Kathy on September 10, 2012

I agree with this article, “A Response to the ‘No Lesser of Two Evils’ Crowd“. This part is especially thought-provoking:

“What’s so irritating about those pushing a third party is that they never really do it. The presidency is the last political office they should be pursuing. If the no lesser than two evils crowd were really serious, they would be putting up local candidates in elections all across the country. They should have been doing it for 30 years. If you can’t win locally, you’re not going to win nationally. If there is no broad-based national grassroots support and a demonstration of success politically,what do the critics of the ‘Republicrats’ expect to accomplish at the top of the ticket?”

The problem is that too many people who are dissatisfied with the GOP for being not libertarian, Constitutionalist, and/or conservative enough… only really seem to be bothered with it at election time, when it’s too late to do anything except for split the libertarian, Constitutionalist, and/or conservative vote between the GOP candidate and some third party or write-in candidate, allowing the least l/C/c person to win, which moves our country inexorably further away from what the l/C/c folks (and most who vote GOP regardless of label) want.

Fight and argue about it some other time. Get involved in local and state elections — maybe even run for office yourself! — make the changes during the off-years so that it will make a real change during election years. Waiting until 2012 to try to change the 2012 elections is just too little too late. Refusing to vote for Romney because “the lesser of two evils is still evil” — well, news flash! — Jesus isn’t running for President, so ***everybody*** (including Ron Paul) is “the lesser of two evils”.

Romney has faults — no argument here! He was my least favorite GOP candidate in the field. I know his faults, and don’t need to be reminded of them. — And that’s another thing! Why do these folks who are anti-Romney because he’s “too liberal” don’t expend at least as much time, energy, and effort in exposing Obama’s faults, which are even greater than Romney’s? Much like Ron Paul during the debates never criticized Mitt Romney, but went about criticizing everybody else who was closer to his own position than Romney, these folks are criticizing the better candidate while leaving the worst candidate unscathed. And for what? Oh, I understand their stated purpose, but the actual outcome is far different. All they will do is end up getting Obama elected, as the anti-Obama crowd will have their vote split — I don’t know what Romney will do as President, but I can guarantee he will disappoint all of us. And so would any other candidate. I don’t know what Romney will do, but I *DO* know what Obama will do — this past four years has shown some of what he is capable of; if he is reelected, the veil will be taken off and he will go into overdrive — and that is enough reason to vote for the guy who is the only one who can stop him. Work on building grassroots support for third parties and Constitutionalist, libertarian, and/or conservative folks *after* Nov. 6, so that they can win the next election, since they can’t possibly win this year. Live to fight another day.

I’m gonna have to start shopping at Whole Foods now!

Posted in politics by Kathy on August 14, 2009

We live about 90 minutes away from the nearest Whole Foods, so this won’t be easy, but I want to support the company because of this bold and commendable op-ed piece the CEO wrote against ObamaCare. I agree with him, that the current proposals are too expensive and don’t address the root issues; and that his suggestions will go a long way in minimizing the perceived problems in health care. Here are the eight points:

  • Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
  • Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
  • Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
  • Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
  • Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
  • Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
  • Enact Medicare reform.
  • Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

He goes into greater depth in each of these points in the article (except the last one, which is completely self-explanatory — except I wonder how many of these liberals who are so ready to force everyone else to be charitable will be freely charitable themselves); plus has more commentary on reasons why health-care is so expensive today (preventable things like smoking, drinking, eating too much — things the Whole Foods crowd usually laps up).

Unfortunately, there has been the typical knee-jerk reaction from some loyal Whole Food customers who are now calling for a boycott of the company. Yeesh! From what I’ve seen, there hasn’t been a lot of dialogue from them as to why these things are so horrible — just that the author opposes government intrusion into the health care arena, specifically in the area of ObamaCare, and the proponents don’t want to hear alternatives.

If anyone has any reasons why the above won’t work, and ObamaCare will, that’s one thing. But these things seem sound to me. I wanted to get some organic spelt grain anyway!

“I Hope He Fails”

Posted in patriotism, politics by Kathy on January 23, 2009

I saw a bit of a clip from CNN on Rush Limbaugh’s monologue about Barack Obama in which he said, “I hope he fails.” It was preceeded by Rush’s reasoning behind it — because as a conservative he is politically opposed to practically everything Obama has said he stands for. This shouldn’t be news. Yet somehow it is.

The thing that really got me, though, about this is what Rick Sanchez (who was the CNN talking head in the clip) said: “Isn’t hoping Obama fails equivalent to hoping America fails?” EXCUSE ME???

Now, I’m not much on news, not having a TV, but I do generally keep up with things, especially politics, and I have never once, throughout the entire 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, heard anyone but the most right-leaning conservatives (who are instantly brushed aside as unimportant or fatally biased) equate opposing Bush and hoping he failed with opposing our country and hoping it failed. And now we get this idiot blasting Rush for hoping Obama does not succeed in governmentalizing a huge section of the private sector, among other things he mentioned in the clip.

No, Pres. Obama can fail and our country can still succeed, idiot! Being opposed to Obama’s views on abortion, and government intrusion and control, and a host of other things, and hoping that he is not successful in his intentions and desires to bring about those changes which are repugnant to me and a lot of other conservatives, doesn’t mean we hate our country and want our country to fail. In fact, the reverse is true. We see the failures of countries who have gone down the path we’re taking — from capitalism to socialism — and we don’t want to be a part of that. We don’t want our country to fail, which is exactly why we hope that Barack Obama does fail. Because if he is successful in taking America down that path, America will fail. It’s not pesonal; it’s political. We think his politics suck, quite frankly.

I still think that America is the best country on earth. But right now, I feel like I’m on an airplane that’s zooming along in a direction I don’t want to go — it’s headed for Los Angeles when I’m wanting to go to Miami — and I can’t stop it, and I can’t jump off because there’s nowhere else to go, and I’ll get terribly hurt or killed if I try. So, no, I don’t want Obama to successfully steer our airplane to L.A. because I want to end up in Miami. I hope he fails in his attempts to get there, and the airplane veers off-course to Miami. Not because I hate Obama or I hate the airplane (our country), but because it’s going where I don’t want to go.

Sometimes it’s kinder to be cruel

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 13, 2009

I watched a bit of Ann Coulter’s appearance on The View, and noticed that they were harrassing her about her comments in her latest book on single motherhood. Of course, they scarcely let her finish her statements, which undoubtedly would have been interesting and made her points. They denigrated the studies she cited, dismissing them out of hand as having been poorly done or whatever. Ok, fine, so they don’t believe them. Since I don’t know which studies, I can’t comment on the validity of them. They didn’t seem to disagree with her (although maybe it was done in the blanket dismissal of all her studies) when she said that 80% of prison inmates were the children of single mothers. Hmm. She also said that blacks and whites have the prison population rate when single motherhood is factored out. Interesting. Of course, Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg and the other liberal woman (not Starr Jones, right? they’ve replaced her, right?; and not the white chick whatever her name is, because isn’t she conservative? — you can tell I don’t watch The View!) took offense at these thoughts. But what if her statistics are right?

What if choosing to be a single mom has disastrous effects on the lives of the children born to them? Of course, there are extenuating circumstances — men who shouldn’t be fathers, are abusive, cheat on their wives, divorce their wives for no reason, die, etc. — but we have a culture in which single mothers are not merely lauded for doing the difficult task that fell on them through no fault of their own, but are applauded for choosing to raise their children alone when they don’t have to. I have two friends who each had a child many years after a divorce, with the children’s fathers being the boyfriend of the time who they’re no longer with. They both have a child from a previous marriage. Their becoming single mothers may have been an unwelcome occurrence the first time (assuming the divorces were not something they sought after, or were necessitated by the husbands’ bad behavior); but the second time it was freely chosen, though accidental. Another friend of mine became a single mom after her husband of many years left her and their four sons for another woman. It wasn’t her fault. But she recognizes the important role of a father, especially in the lives of boys and young men, and has made sure that she has good male role models for her children to look up to and try to emulate. They have some “adopted fathers” at their church — men with sons the ages of the boys who help them out and do “guy stuff” with them.

But some women while they are single choose to adopt a child, or get artificially inseminated, to purposefully become single mothers. There are numerous examples among the Hollywood elite that could be cited. Then there are still others — the vast majority of average women who become pregnant while unmarried for whom motherhood was accidental, or they purposefully created a child without being married to the child’s father. From what Ann Coulter was saying, I gathered that her thesis on this subject was, “This has gotta stop! We can’t go on praising women for becoming intentional single mothers, and acting as if it is just as good as a two-parent home.”

Oh, but the rest of the panel (except the one conservative) pitched a hissy-fit about it. As if Coulter’s saying that children should have two parents was akin to saying that single moms should be burned at the stake for adultery. Then they pulled out the “big guns” — asking her, “Are you married? do you have children? Well, then, you don’t really know what you’re talking about!” As if one has to be killed to say that murder is wrong. Or that one has to die of lung cancer to be able to spread the word that smoking causes cancer. Or that one has to be a single mother in order to say that children need two parents.

If what Ann Coulter said in her book is accurate (which I rather suspect that it is), and if children raised by single mothers have a statistical disadvantage when growing up, being more likely to become juvenile delinquents and prison inmates, among other things, then it does not matter that it hurts the feelings of single moms to say that. Which is more cruel: to let women ignorantly assume that “I don’t need a man, and my child doesn’t either,” so they have one-night stands, get knocked up, don’t know who the daddy is, and the daddy don’t care who his children are; or to let girls know before they get pregnant that if they were to have a baby, and the father doesn’t stick around to help raise the baby, that the baby will suffer. Yeah, it will be “cruel” to the women for whom “the shoe fits”; but it will be kindness to the millions of children who will be born into stable homes with both parents, rather than the unstable lifestyle of far too many unwed mothers — especially those whose children all have different fathers.

We as a society used to frown on unwed motherhood. It was a horrible stigma to be pregnant out of wedlock. Now, it’s almost promoted — with the innocent babies being the victims of such activity. (Also, babies born to unwed mothers are far more likely to be born premature, and to die in the first year of life than babies born to married women.) So, yeah, it’s gonna hurt some people’s feelings, but may save some babies’ lives!

New Palin Interview

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 9, 2009

Click here for the full article, and the nearly 10-minute clip.

Did Sarah Palin help or hurt McCain’s bid?

Posted in politics by Kathy on November 7, 2008

I know that there were many people who did not like his choice for many reasons:

  • she is female, and “women should be keepers at home, so I can’t vote for him”
  • her experience was questionable (although I daresay she gave Obama a run for his money in this category, but of course the media found him eminently qualified with all of his months of experience)
  • while confident in several settings (prepared speeches, especially the RNC), she seemed too nervous or tense in others
  • it was merely a political choice, to try to get more female vote, and “we women are too smart to fall for that, and we’re insulted that you would attempt it” (despite the fact that more than one Hillary supporter tried to rally more women to her cause in the waning days of her bid simply because she also was female)
  • she was too conservative (but who are we fooling? Those who think she is too conservative were probably going to vote Obama anyway)

Perhaps there are others, but these are the ones that spring to mind. So, she may have cost him a few votes. Was it enough to make him lose? Tough question. The thing is, he could have picked far worse.

Had he chosen a white male, the media (and most certainly the Obama campaign) would have made much of the fact that it was just “politics as usual”, that Republicans didn’t offer anything new, yada, yada, yada. So, yes, I agree that his choice of Sarah Palin was more because she was a woman — to “shake things up a bit” perhaps — than because of what she brought to the ticket on other issues. Because he certainly could have found another governor with her qualifications and then some — my Governor, Haley Barbour (from Mississippi — yes, he’s a man, despite that “Haley” is almost always a female name nowadays!), was probably as strong a conservative as she was, and with much more experience, too.

Had he picked a someone like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, or some other prominent person who was not white, he could have similarly “shaken things up” while choosing someone with more experience than Palin, and perhaps not running into some of the issues that were raised. (Of course, with the media in the tank for Obama, they would’ve found something else to complain about.)

Had McCain chosen some of the people whose names had been kicked around as possible VP candidates — Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Joe Lieberman (it would’ve been fun to have had two Joes for VP candidates — can’t you just imagine the debate? — “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” “No, Joe, I do say it’s so!”), or others who were on the liberal side of certain social issues — he certainly would have lost much of his base. As it was, he had to struggle to hold onto them, with a strong pro-life running mate. I, for one, could not have voted for him if he had picked one of those men.

When is it that Republicans are going to realize that the problem is not that they are too conservative — it’s that they’re not conservative enough?? I voted for McCain, reluctantly, because I was more worried about an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency. But elections are not won on “beating the other guy” — they’re won on “voting for your guy.” This was proven in all of the elections I can remember (from Clinton’s first win on). I especially think about Bob Dole’s unsuccessful bid in ’96 — he never energized his base — those that voted for him primarily did so because he was the only one with a chance to beat Clinton. It’s a case of “Elect me, just because I’m not him,” and it doesn’t work.

One of McCain’s problems was that he was too liberal, and turned off a lot of his base. Part of that was re-energized with Palin’s candidacy — she brought a lot of spirit back to the Republican Party. Yeah, she turned off a few of the base, I’m sure; and with the help of the nonstop barrage from the media drove a few more independents away, but I think she probably helped him more than she hurt him. He hurt himself more than she hurt him, I’ll say that! Conservatives didn’t like the choice between the liberal candidate and the more-liberal candidate, plain and simple.

My hope now is that these next four years won’t be too bad, and at the end of them, a true conservative (following in the footsteps of Reagan) will emerge to run for President and win.

Some excellent posts

Posted in abortion, politics by Kathy on November 5, 2008

Well, we’ve elected the first black President of the United States. I’m not upset about that. I just wish it were a conservative black President — I would’ve voted for a man such as Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts, but could not vote for a man like Obama. It does stick in my craw that he has repudiated his white half. I’ve rarely seen him speak of his biracial status — only “African American”, and with praise for his biological father that left him as a youngster. Yes, he spoke lovingly of his white grandmother… but what of his white mother? He seems to want to be as little “white” as possible, which is not the language of inclusion he mouths so eloquently on other fronts.

I didn’t like John McCain, but I voted for him, because I liked Obama far less. A lot of people I know couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either one of them, so abstained or voted third-party. That’s fine; it’s their choice. We’ve now elected probably the most liberal President of the United States. I hope you people that helped him win like what you get!

Here are some other posts which I’ve enjoyed reading on the post-election aftermath:

Who are you voting for?

Posted in politics by Kathy on November 1, 2008

The election is nearly upon us, folks, and I’m fairly interested in it. Problem is, I don’t particularly like either of the main two candidates. I know a lot of folks in this position — in fact, most people I know are in this position. For some, Obama is not liberal enough, but he’s better than McCain; for others, McCain is not conservative enough, but he’s better than Obama. In general, most of the people I know are “holding their nose” while voting for the guy they dislike less. But there is another option — “none of the above” or one of the third-party candidates. To be honest, I don’t know how many votes any candidate would have to get in order to be considered “newsworthy.” I seem to remember that Ross Perot got a whopping 1% of votes, but I could be wrong. It may be that if all of the dissatisfied people vote for somebody — anybody — other than Obama or McCain that all of their votes will be added up together by somebody to show how dissatisfied they as a group were, even if no single candidate got more than a fraction of a percentage of the total. Nobody I know who is voting 3rd-party expects their candidate to win — they’re making a statement about their dissatisfaction in the main choices. Rather than voting for “the lesser of two evils”, or abstaining altogether, they’re voting for someone who they do agree with, even if s/he has zero chance of actually winning.

America will be attacked in the coming year

Posted in politics by Kathy on October 22, 2008

Anybody who has two brain cells to rub together should be able to see that. Seven years ago (let’s see, I woulda been about 24), when our country was attacked on Sept. 11, I quickly realized that the attack would have happened regardless of whether Bush or Gore had been elected in 2000. Not only was the attack planned for years, but the necessary training for the bastards terrorists who flew the planes took place over the course of more than a few months. Then I thought back to the two previous Presidents (I was only 4 when Reagan took office, but was 12 when George HW Bush took office, so remember the Gulf War clearly), and realized that both Bush and Clinton had also been tested — but not so spectacularly as W.

The first Pres. Bush had to deal with Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked take-over of Kuwait. Under Bill Clinton’s administration, the United States was attacked repeatedly — two attacks on the World Trade Center, an Embassy got bombed, as was the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton’s response was… well… let’s just say that it was about as effective as a harried mother telling her recalcitrant teenager for the umpteenth time, “Your curfew is midnight, so please try to make an effort to be in before then.” Which is why there were so many attacks, and why the attackers were emboldened to plot their successful take-down of the World Trade Center, as well as an attack on the Pentagon, murdering some 3,000 innocent people on the way.

There is no doubt in my mind that America will face another attack — and it didn’t take Joe Biden’s speech to help me figure that out. It was in some ways a refreshing piece of honesty for him to tell their backers that they know that Obama will be tested… but it was a little sickening to realize that they know he has little experience, and he will quite possibly be at the helm when the next attack comes. Of what value then will be Obama’s high and lofty promises about health care, tax cuts (or tax raises on a few individuals and most corportations… who will then have to raise costs for their goods or services and/or cut pay and benefits to continue to be profitable, or go out of business, which will then leave their workers with no pay nor benefits), or anything else he is currently saying? It’s already fiscally impossible for the majority of his socialistic plans to be put into action — the idiotic bail-out plan sucked out what money might have gone to that — but people are still voting for him because… why? I guess he’s more “positive” than McCain? Obviously, many people are left-leaning liberals who dislike John McCain, but they wouldn’t have voted for any Republican quasi-conservative anyway, so this isn’t talking about them. (The reverse is also true about conservatives.) This is about the undecided folks, or those that are leaning one way but may still be swayed another way.

America will be attacked in the coming year. Our enemies are real, and they’re out there, and they won’t be appeased by electing Barack Obama. They are not mad at us because of George Bush (HW or W). They attacked us when we had a liberal Democrat in office. They are mad at us because we are. We are Americans and freedom-loving people, and most these folks are Muslims, who if they are true to their Muslim faith despise democracy, and want Sharia law. There are a lot of American enemies who are not Muslim (China, for instance), and they hate democracy just as much, but for different reasons.

The one glimmer of hope from Biden’s speech is that it hinted that when America is attacked, that Obama will do something that will irritate the leftist liberals that were then in the room. I can only hope that that means he will respond like George Bush and go kick somebody’s butt (remember “Shock and Awe”?). Somehow I doubt that will be the response — he’ll probably be like Clinton, “Tut, tut, children, play nice, now.” Or send the police to round up terrorists. Remember when he refused to take Osama bin Laden into custody when it was offered? Somehow the folks that berate George Bush for not ferreting that rat out of his cave somewhere out in the middle of nowhere, we’re not really sure where, but we should be able to find that needle in a haystack because Bush is in office, forget that the rat was handed to Clinton on a silver platter and he declined. Which set us up for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Oh, yeah, America will be attacked in the next year or so, and who do you want to be Commander in Chief, charged with defending our sovereign land from those who wish us ill?

 

Problem with Polls

Posted in politics by Kathy on October 21, 2008

I’m signed up to do online polls, and usually they’re about different companies (do I have a positive or negative opinion of companies like T.J. Maxx or Budweiser; have I heard something positive or negative in the last week about FedEx or Starbucks; that sort of thing), but recently they’ve mostly been about politics.

One thing that bothers me about some of these questions — and it’s bothered me when I’ve heard poll results given in the past — is that there just aren’t enough choices given — there just isn’t enough information gleaned from the questions, usually.

There can be loaded questions like, “Is Barack Obama’s campaign more positive than most Presidential campaigns or about the same?” Well, what if you think it’s more negative?

Or, “Should abortion be completely illegal, or should there be some allowances?” Most if not all people think that there should be allowances to save the mother’s life (if the baby is too young to survive), and many other people think that there should be exceptions for pregnancies due to rape or incest, so to choose between the two would lead most if not all people to say that abortion should be legal. Of course, that doesn’t answer whether or not these people think it should be legal without any restrictions, such as the Freedom of Choice Act would guarantee, without any exceptions for parental consent, or viability, which Barack Obama has promised to sign should he become President.

If the question were asked, “Should abortion be legal without any restrictions?”, undoubtedly some people would agree with that statement, but most people think that there should be restrictions, for instance, laws concerning minors, or crossing state lines, or statutory rape, or viability. That’s why there should be plenty of options in these polls, otherwise they’re meaningless.

Also, sometimes the results are presented in a way that is confusing at best and down-right deceptive at worst. I remember reading that some advertising campaign (Levi’s 501 Jeans, back in the ’80s) said that “80% of college kids say that Levi’s 501 jeans are ‘the thing to wear’ on campus.” Well, the only options they had were 501 jeans and something like “skirts” or some other generic term. Another ad campaign said that “most people said that [X] beer was as good as or better than [Y] beer.” The deception? 50% of people said that the two beers were equal; 20% said that X was better; and 30% said that Y was better. The company combined the “as good as” as well as the “better” to come up with 70%; but actually, more people preferred Y to X.

Frequently — but more frequently during election times — there will be polls presented to the public that ask and answer the question, “Do you agree with the direction the country is taking?” or sometimes it’s more specifically about Congress or the President or whatever. That question is just simply too vague. I say that most people will answer “no” to that, but their reasoning will be vastly different. I’m on a few different email lists, and keep up with lots of people’s blogs. While most of the people I know in real life range from conservative to very conservative, my computer friends range from very conservative to very liberal, so I get to see a wide range of views this way. I don’t know a single person who thinks this country is heading in the right direction. Many people think it’s becoming too liberal, while many other people think it’s not becoming liberal enough. To hear the pro-abortion people talk, they won’t be happy until FOCA is signed; while to hear the pro-life people talk, they won’t be happy until Roe is overturned. So, if things remain as they are, as long as abortion is a vital issue to them, they will probably answer the question (is the country heading in the right direction?) in the negative. Other people may answer the question primarily on the economy, or terrorism, or the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how “green” we are, or this, or that, or the other.

So, no, I don’t think the country is heading in the right direction — I wish it were more like it was in my childhood (under Reagan), or in the 50s (except for the racism). When I think of how much child porn there is and other forms of porn and sexual deviancy that is not just tolerated but promoted, I can’t think this country is heading in the right direction. But that doesn’t mean that I think Obama is going to be the savior of the country! — far from it! I think he’ll take us even further from my desire. I just read the Dr. Seuss story And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street to my kids, and it starts off with the little boy (Marco) walking “all the long way to school and the long way back” by himself. I wish we could go back to the time where we could send our kids out to play all day, or walk to school by themselves, without worry that something might happen. I hear stories of children who left their homes in the morning, and didn’t come back until supper or nightfall, and their parents never worried about them. I know that kidnapping is rare, as is pedophilia, and most of those happen in familial situations (ex-husbands taking the kids, or Uncle Joe touching his nieces), but I can’t take that chance.