Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Who would I vote for (GOP nominee) today?

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 29, 2012

My top choice was Herman Cain, but sadly, he is not running any more. Of the remaining candidates, Rick Santorum is at the top of my list. If he weren’t running, I’d have to go Ron Paul, even though his foreign policy scares me. If Paul had a different foreign policy, he would be my top choice, or very close to it (although I do disagree with him on some other issues as well).

I don’t trust Romney — he was a liberal for far too many years, and (imo) became “conservative” only when it was politically expedient to do so — and that about sums up his character, imo — political expedience, rather than character and backbone. Besides, I think he is least likely to win against Obama, because he’ll be like McCain, only worse — even less likeable, and also bland. He won’t get conservatives fired up and lining up to go to the ballot boxes.

Newt… he’s an excellent debater, but I think he is too much of a “say what I need to get elected” kinda guy (like Romney, but not quite as bad, because Newt does at least have a conservative background and record). But he seems to be pandering to get elected. I think he would be the most effective President, because he knows how Washington works and can get things done… but I’m not sure if I’d always like what he could get done. Plus, he has character issues, and I don’t fully trust him. If he can’t be trusted to take his marriage vows seriously, why should I trust him to take his Oath of Office seriously?

Any of them would be better than Obama, but here’s how I rank them:

Who I’d vote for — Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Romney

Who would be most effective as President — Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul (although perhaps I should bump Paul up a bit, because he’d veto probably 90% of legislation Congress passed, and that’s probably a good thing, and can be a measure of effectiveness)

Most likely to beat Obama in a general election — Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Romney

  • Paul gets much of the youth vote, as well as brings in the most liberals, libertarians, and independents, without losing too many conservatives — his anti-government, pro-small government, cut-spending message will resonate with many of us, and hopefully his libertarianism on social matters and his isolationist foreign policy won’t turn off too many (if the choice was between Obama, Paul, and a handful of 3rd-party people).
  • Gingrich is a good campaigner and speaker, and he can get the conservative base fired up (even if it is somewhat empty words), and it’s votes that count, so getting voters fired up is key.
  • Santorum is a rock-solid conservative, so may lose a few independents and centrists, but he’s somewhat small-government (but who isn’t, compared to Obama?), so may keep some libertarians; but the biggest thing he has going for him, is his ability to keep and solidify the conservative base, more so than Paul, probably more so than Gingrich, and certainly more so than Romney. His biggest problem is that he doesn’t generate much enthusiasm from his manner and mannerisms. If he could change that (add a dose of Herman Cain, for instance), he’d probably be better even than Gingrich in this matter.
  • Romney is bland — he can’t get people fired up to vote for him (he’s even struggling in the primary, when he’s outspending his opponents right and left — how much worse will he do when he’s being outspent by the Obama machine?), and that’s a huge problem. McCain’s problem in 2008 was that he induced a yawn in the conservatives, and they didn’t so much vote *for him* as *against Obama*. That doesn’t win elections. From my understanding (and mostly memory) of past elections, the winner is the one who generates the most positive — the most people voting *for* him; and the nominee whose best selling point is, “Vote for me, I’m not the other guy”, loses every time. It happened in every election in my memory, but particularly Dole, Kerry, and McCain.

Rick Perry scares me

Posted in politics by Kathy on August 18, 2011

Quite frankly, Rick Perry scares me. Yes, the Gardasil decision was horrible, but rather than downplay it as “just one misstep… and besides, he apologized!” I look at it as a serious, very serious character issue. As Michelle Malkin pointed out, it is just one example of many that indicate that what Perry says he is for (small govt), and what he actually does are quite different.

Additionally, in 2010, Rick Perry vowed to finish his term as TX governor and as recently as May of this year he affirmed he would NOT run for President. He has broken that pledge.

I have heard of Alex Jones (libertarian political commentator/reporter), but haven’t watched much of him; yet there was this video he made just the other day (also posted below this paragraph), and if Alex Jones is right, then Gardasil wasn’t included in the federal protection for vaccines until Perry, as the first US governor, mandated it, and then federal protection kicked in, insulating Merck from any lawsuits stemming from Gardasil injuries or deaths. Even though the mandate was overturned, the federal protection remains, and that is a HUGE protection of profits for Merck — worth billions — even though it technically “did nothing” because the mandate didn’t kick in. And despite what Perry said this week about “going along with the legislators” and quietly accepting and backing off when they tried to curtail his power grab, he actually was quite defiant at the time. So he sounds even more like someone I couldn’t trust.

Some of Perry’s closest friends and advisors are current, and/or former Merck lobbyists (were current lobbyists at the time of the mandate). So, basically, Rick Perry gave Merck a “get out of lawsuit free” card with his mandate; and quite frankly, vaccine manufacturers **need to be held accountable** when they make dangerous vaccines that injure and kill.

Right now, vaccine manufacturers enjoy immunity from lawsuits from any vaccine damage (including death), PLUS they get all the profits from the sales PLUS they have multiple vaccines mandated/required for things like school and/or day-care attendance — it’s a vaccine manufacturer’s dream!! If you could make a product that you would a) make money from; b) force other people to buy; and c) have freedom from any lawsuits, why WOULDN’T you make such a product, and do everything you could — including buying off politicians — to try to get more people to have to buy your product. That isn’t freedom! — it’s government coercion and crony capitalism!! It’s the antithesis of the Tea Party movement, and stands in stark contrast to everything those of us for small government and parental rights stand for.

Finally, one of my Texas friends was asked for her opinion of Rick Perry, and she said the following (quoted in full):

For what it’s worth (in my opinion) Rick Perry is a golden boy. What I mean by that is regardless of what happens he always seems to come out shining. He always seems to be in the right place at the right time. Texas was once a weak governor government with the lieutenant governor, house and senate having the most power. In 8 years he (Perry) single-handedly took power away from those institutions and made himself a very strong governor. He has the brutish ability to push things through the house and senate. However, I am not aware of a single thing he is actually responsible for -yet he gets all of the credit for it. Somehow he’s managed to become the longest seated governor in the history of the United States. He has the uncanny ability to be likable, yet perhaps more importantly it’s almost impossible to not like him. On occasion he has come across bullish on certain policies (i.e. Remember the HPV vaccine he mandated for all girls under the age of 16) but at the slightest hint of public disapproval he manages to flip-flop and reverse course. I’m not convinced he’s qualified to lead the U.S., but strangely, based on the past 8 years of Texas politics, he may be the best qualified candidate in the race.

Quite frankly, this assessment scares me more than anything else I’ve read. Do we really want a recent “convert” (or possibly, just political posturing, since conservatism gets the votes these days!) who bullies people into submission “leading” this country? He’d get things done, but WHAT might he do? He now claims to be for small government, but he mandated a vaccine for little girls — how much more government intrusion can you get? And he stuck by that decision as recently as last year, and it’s only been since he joined the race that he has disavowed it. Sounds like pandering to me, and I simply don’t trust him to give him the job of President for four years.

MS 2011 Legislature Candidates

Posted in politics by Kathy on June 11, 2011

I was a little perturbed at how difficult it was to find who was running for the MS House and Senate this year. Eventually, I found the two parties’ pages (GOP, Dem) with the information for their own qualifying candidates, and put them together into a spreadsheet. Ahh, finally in one place, who’s running in which district in the 2011 MS elections. [I haven’t found any independent or 3rd-party candidates running, but if you know of any, lemme know and I’ll add them.] And as an added bonus, those qualifying for state races (governor, lieutenant governor, etc.).

Do you remember “Mama’s Family”?

Posted in politics by Kathy on February 15, 2009

You know — the TV show starring Vicki Lawrence as the hick matriarch of the Harper family. There was one episode in which “Mama” became fed up with the status quo of her town, and particularly the inept or ineffective mayor, so she ran against him in the election. She won, and soon realized she was in over her head. She did not know what she was doing, nor how anything in the town was done. By the end of the episode (and only a few days or a week or two after her inauguration as mayor), she resigned and turned the mayorship back over to the former mayor.

Sometimes a job is harder than it looks.

I’ve been thinking about that episode in conjunction with the current failed Obama presidency. Maybe it’s a little too early and a little too harsh to use the f-word, but I’m not sure what is a better word to describe a President who has had so many high-level appointees having to step down because of tax evasion… er, I mean, tax “problems”… which shows that the vetting process is not very good nor thorough. And this does not mention all the campaign promises he’s broken in just three short weeks — especially this horrible “stimulus” plan that will probably plunge us deeper into a recession. He made much of the fact that he’s chosen three Republicans as Cabinet-level appointees (although one politely declined because he couldn’t support the President in so many areas), and I wonder if it was because he couldn’t find qualified Democrats that could pass scrutiny, so chose honest Republicans, and then whitewashed it to make it look like he was being “bipartisan.” Ha!

Some of the campaign promises he broke were good ones to break. He promised certain things that sounded good, until he learned how much President Bush knew and had to take into account in formulating policies. Apparently, things look and sound different when you’re in the Oval Office!

You know, when Thelma Harper found out that she was way in over her head, she had the guts to admit it and step down. I wonder what Barack Obama will do.

Personal Opinion vs. Political Action

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 28, 2009

I listened to a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s radio show yesterday or Monday, and he talked about Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and several other liberal politicians who claim to be Catholic yet politically support abortion, which is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He had on some guy who was also of that same opinion — pro-choice-to-kill and also Catholic — to discuss and defend the point of view of Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.

Basically, the guy said, “As a Catholic, I personally am against abortion — I don’t have abortions, and I don’t participate in abortions — but I don’t want to push my religious views on anyone else, so I think abortion should be legal.” And he said that was how Kennedy as a Senator acted — he was personally opposed to abortion, but would not vote against it, because it was a religious viewpoint.


That’s like Bill Clinton saying, “I smoked, but I didn’t inhale.” Um, yeah. “I’m against the murder of the unborn innocents… but I won’t try to stop you from killing them.”

It’s sort of like the Treasury Secretary who is to be put in charge of making sure WE all pay OUR taxes having dodged paying HIS taxes for years. “I believe that paying taxes is everyone’s duty, I just don’t want to do it myself.”

I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

What next, Ted Bundy as the security guard for a sorority? John Wayne Gacy as a Boys’ Camp Counselor? Jack Kevorkian as a nursing home administrator? Lorena Bobbitt as the head of security of a male sex-offender prison? (Oh, wait, maybe that one is a good idea.)

We’ve already got Hillary No Experience Clinton as Secretary of State; and a tax evader in charge of the Treasury! I’m holding my breath to see what other foxes will be in charge of the various henhouses in this wonderful, hopeful, transparent administration of change that is the Barack Hussein Obama presidency.

“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.

New Palin Interview

Posted in politics by Kathy on January 9, 2009

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

Case in Point

Posted in politics by Kathy on December 10, 2008

Recently, I blogged about something and mentioned that when Democrats are involved in political scandals, their party affiliation is barely mentioned — sometimes, at most it is Politician’s Name (D-NY). Having lived in the Chicago area for a couple of years, I knew that Rod Blagojevich was of course a Democrat. Yesterday, I saw a bit of TV while getting my tire fixed about him being arrested. I saw such little of it that I wasn’t 100% certain what the corruption was about, but I sure didn’t remember them saying his political party. In reading more about it, I discovered what the corruption was about, but still didn’t remember them saying that he was a Democrat. Maybe I skipped over it. So, today, I decided to look specifically at it.

Here’s one story about it — no “D” or “Democrat” in it at all! But it was so short, maybe there wasn’t room for his political affiliation. (snicker, giggle, snort — yeah right!). So I did a Yahoo! news search of “blagojevich” to see what came up.

Washington Post — it says one time, halfway down the third paragraph, that he is “…the Democratic governor…”, and that’s it.

Another from the Washington Post — it says it twice — once at the start of the fourth paragraph that Blagojevich was “The Democratic governor”; and then towards the end of the article, in a bit of “history”, it says that Blagojevich was elected to Congress after Democrat Dan Rostenkowski was convicted of embezzlement.

The 3rd story, again from the Washington Post, has it part-way down the article that Blagojevich and Obama are “fellow Democrat[s]”. That’s it.

The next story, surprisingly from CNN, was a little refreshing. Not only does it identify him as a Democrat right underneath the headshot of him at the top of the article, but it also said he’s a Democrat in the second sentence. Later references to “Democrat” include other politicians who are trying to figure out this mess.

Fifth, this time a commentary, again from CNN, fails to indentify Blagojevich as a Democrat until almost the end of the article.

Next, again from CNN, it mentions that he’s a Democrat in the first line, but never uses the term in the remainder of the article — and the title of the story is, “Blagojevich made name as a friend of the common man.” Aw, don’t that make you just feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Seventh seems to be almost a rehash of #4, except it doesn’t identify him as a Democrat under the picture.

Eighth, this time from Yahoo! News, with an AP byline, the term is used one time, at the end of the 4th paragraph.

Ninth, again from Yahoo! News, his political party affiliation is not mentioned, except in passing, at the end of the story, in which they distance Obama and Blagojevich as being merely “fellow Democrats.” Although many politicians are quoted, and are identified as being Democrats, the man at the center of the corruption scandal was not identified as a Democrat.

Finally, #10, again from CNN, the first word is “Democratic”, and it’s never mentioned again.

It’s not in a single headline. Not one. Contrast this to when any Republican gets caught in any sort of scandal — his party affiliation is shouted from the rooftops! I remember when the Larry Craig sex scandal broke, his being a Republican was in just about every headline I saw (and I didn’t read much beyond the headlines). I even remember thinking, because a Democrat was in a scandal not too long before or after that, and I wondered about the political affiliation of that person, because it wasn’t in the headline — but Craig’s was. It was then that I realized that most newspapers go out of their way to announce when Republicans get caught with their pants down (literally or figuratively), and go out of their way to keep from announcing it when Democrats get caught up in scandal.

Stem Cells save woman’s leg

Posted in politics, Uncategorized by Kathy on November 24, 2008

Let me rephrase that:

Adult stem cells save woman’s leg

With all the furor over embryonic stem cells — which requires the destruction of a genetically unique human life — but with little or nothing to show for it, it makes one wonder why the media has downplayed the great advances made in adult stem cell research, such as the above, and saving a woman’s trachea, which I blogged about a few days ago.

Unfortunately, I know the reason why.

It’s the same reason that whenever a Republican has the slightest hiccup of ethical proportions (and some pretty darn major ones too, I grant), it is published far and wide, and every headline (and quite a few times within the article), the editors trumpet, “Republican Governor…” or “Republican Senator…” or whatever. But whenever a Democrat screws up the same or many times even worse, his political party or affiliation is mentioned only briefly, and almost never in the headline. Usually, you’ll see it buried deep in the article, one time after his or her name (D), and that’s about it.

The mainstream media doesn’t want people to realize that embryonic stem cell research is barking up the wrong tree, so when stem-cell therapy is successful (which happens with adult stem cells, and not so much if at all with stem cells taken from embryos), they will minimize the story, or similarly bury in the details of the story that those stem cells were taken from adults, without killing them. But when Michael J. Fox or the late Christopher Reeve get in front of Congress or give interviews or make commercials promoting embryonic stem cell research, it is heavily promoted. That leaves the impression that embryonic stem cell research is the only kind of stem cell research underway; and that stem cells can only be taken from embryos by killing them. Just the same way that shouting “Republican Congressman Mr. So-and-so” from the headlines while whispering “Gov. Spitzer (D-NY)” somewhere in the small print gives the impression that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. By the laws of fairness or odds, about half the time a story breaks that some politician is involved in some scandal, the headlines should equally shout or be silent about the political affiliation of said politician. When the headlines are silent about the the political affiliation of said scandalous politician, someone who only reads the headlines or skims the article may be apprised of the fact that the politician is scum deserving to be thrown out of office, but may not realize the political affiliation, and could easily presume that it’s 50/50. But if 100% of all headlines that don’t say the political affiliation of the scandalous politician are about a Democrat, and 100% of all headlines that do day the affiliation of the Republican, then the balance is skewed. Even if Republicans and Democrats are equally scummy, immoral, unethical, etc., if the Republicans take the rap for 100% of their own faults plus half of the faults of the Democrats, then the Democrats only get 25% of the “scandal points,” leading people to believe that they have the moral high ground. Which is bull.

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.