Conservapendent

The Good, the Bad (the Missing) and the Ho-Hum

2011-06-14T17:43:00.000-07:00

Having just finished watching the first debate with all of the major candidates I can honestly say I am not as concerned as I was with the group. I like a lot of what I heard, though many times I would have liked to hear it said better. As I expect will happen a few more times I also heard some things that make me concerned with policy heft of the part of certain candidates. Overall it was fine for those of us that actually tuned in.
First, the Bad. Sadly I think Herman Cain really sums up this section. He was widely considered the winner of the hardly attended, and even less viewed, South Carolina debate. I have a little soft spot for him because I like his personal story and appeal. Unfortunately this debate showed how unprepared he is for this endeavor. About the only significant or memorable policy issue he seemed prepared to answer was about privatizing Social Security. He had some examples of how Galveston, Texas and the country of Chile had privatized retirement and found themselves better off that the average Social Security recipient. Unfortunately for him, the Social Security issue isn’t going to be enough to carry him. Considering his light resume, he is going to need to be a rock star of policy in every debate in order to gain traction.
The next, and largest group were the Ho-Hums. Rick Santorum also was not spectacular, but he was certainly able to delve into policy. This should be a given considering his considerable experience in the House and Senate. I found his answers on ending/reducing entitlements and defending the Ryan plan to be forceful and well thought out. He, however, was not personally appealing or charismatic so I doubt he will ever break out of single digits.
Ron Paul will no doubt do what he did for the ’08 race, again in the ’12 race. He will provide a platform for the Libertarians and the most strident of Paleocons. Though there are many times when his “defense of liberty” makes sense to all conservatives, but then he quickly finds himself in the weeds of his monetary policy. His best answer in my opinion was his strident opposition to all subsidies of private industry. He will be another that has his devoted fans, but is not going to come close to the nomination.
Newt Gingrich, suffering a political implosion this past week, participated in the debate in his usual professorial way. He has great knowledge and depth on policy issues. I could listen to him for hours. Unfortunately for him he is his own worst enemy and all but killed his minimal chances with his criticism of Paul Ryan’s plan for entitlement reform. Gingrich had some really solid responses on the benefits of Reagan’s tax policy, NASA’s future and the illegal immigration debate. However these fine answers don’t make up for kidney punching Paul Ryan on a Sunday morning news program and his lack of warmth in front of the camera. This Newt is cooked.
The last, and best, of the Ho-Hums was Tim Pawlenty. The nice guy governor from Minnesota had some fine responses for his 5% growth target and right-to-work, however he fell quite short on challenging Romney on “Obamneycare”. Pawlenty is seen as a strong alternative to Romney, but that he is too nice to confront Romney on the issue that Romneycare is much the same as Obamacare. When given the chance to really challenge Romney on the similarities Pawlenty crawled into a corner and backtracked profusely. Outside of the wimpy image this provides against a foe of the same party, this brings a larger concern in mind… would Pawlenty cave when challenging Obama in a one-on-one debate? This performance gives me zero confidence he would stand his ground. He can recover from this, but it is a BIG blow to him, especially considering he is banking on Iowa and he has a savvy challenger in Iowa with Michele Bachmann.
Speaking of Michele Bachmann, she was fantastic. She came across well informed, warm, articulate and ready to go toe-to-toe with President Obama. She is definitely the talk of the town after the debate (New York Times, National Review and the Washington Post as a few examples). She gave great answers on repealing Obamacare, especially considering its heavy impact on Medicare recipients. She also portrayed the Tea Party in a positive way, defining the groups adherents and why liberal really fear them. She also gave an obviously personal defense of her pro-life stance. She came across and a really prepared candidate, something that most probably did not expect as many are used to her firebrand style. She upped her game, and launched herself into the top tier in Iowa for sure, and maybe nationally. She will need to continue to debate in the same manner to stay there though, because she is fighting fairly low name recognition.
The other top performer was Mitt Romney. He is the proverbial frontrunner in the GOP field. He performed like a frontrunner in the debate. He was well prepared, gave solid answers (especially on weakness subjects like Romneycare) and didn’t make any big mistakes. He looked presidential and acted like he belonged on the stage with Obama rather than his six competitors. That being said, he still needs some work to get the GOP base excited about his candidacy. Without that excitement, he is either going to let Bachmann come in and steal “his” race again, or he is going to invite a strong challenge from a later entry like Gov. Jon Huntsman (who is entering the race) or Gov. Rick Perry (who is toying with, and is likely to enter). Both of those candidates would instantly give Romney’s campaign strategists some late nights.
There is obviously still some concern about the field of candidates. People are still talking about Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan and the aforementioned Rick Perry. These were the missing ones from the debate last night. I believe Chris Christie when he says he will not run. I hope that Sarah Palin does not run. I think Paul Ryan would make a great Vice President (if someone is foolish enough not to make their first call to Marco Rubio). I believe only Rick Perry, of this group, is likely to enter the race and provide any kind of extra heft to the group. All in all it is not a bad group, and only a handful are electable, but any of them are better than Obama.

Gearing up for 2012

2011-06-08T09:56:00.000-07:00

I am getting ready for the 2012 election cycle. In doing so I have created a Facebook page (www.facebook.com/Conservapendent) and created a domain for my blog. I am also on Twitter (@conservapendent), so be sure to follow me.

Not only will I be putting out informative articles from great information sources, but I will also be commenting on the candidates and their campaigns.

My opinions are my own, and I WILL be giving my opinion. I will be covering a range of topics that are important to this nation. Those topics could be considered my own personal political platform.

Finally, I desire to be a source of information on government, particularly the kind of government the Founding Fathers intended (not what we have today). So when I can I will be posting history/government lessons.

I am looking forward to 2012. It is going to be an election of great impact for this great nation.

What ever happened to "by the people"?

2010-08-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday a single judge threw out the votes of more than half of the California electorate. It is a repeat of the same nonsense that occurred almost a decade ago in California when voters approved another measure of similar purpose. What is that purpose? To recognize that the will of the people is that marriage is to be defined and recognized as a union between one man and one woman. This view of marriage has a long history, and a history rooted in the faiths of many people.

This nation was founded on many principles. One of them is that majority should rule. That is not to say that the minority should have their rights trampled on by the majority. However, the minority doesn't get to have their way just because they are vocal either. When a majority of the electorate desire for their sovereign state to define marriage a certain way, it is absolutely unconscionable that a single, solitary judge would look for some "right" in the U.S. Constitution to thwart the will of the people. This is not how our Founding Fathers intended for our republic to work.

The Tenth Amendment is very clear on this point; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of marriage. This leaves any reasonable person to only one conclusion, that the states have the right to decide how they define marriage. California voters did this nearly 2 years ago when they passed Prop 8.

If we are still a nation "... of the people, by the people, for the people...", then our courts need to recognize this and relent when "the people" speak. Even though I am very much in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, if California voters had approved homosexual marriage in the same way then I would say the very same thing.

Elections have consequences... remember this every time you vote. When the Prop 8 case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court, see how Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan rule on this issue. You will see what kind of judges our current President favors.

Sensible Immigration Reform

2010-05-05T08:48:00.000-07:00

It seems with every Congress of late there has been this "attempt" to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Once that headline makes its way into the public discourse there are demonstrations by the left and right. One side is called racist while the other side is called out as open border advocates. The name calling does nothing to resolve the issue, and only increases the animosity between the respective factions.

Americans are generally right-of-center politically and pragmatic when it comes to policies poised to address major issues. The same goes for the immigration issue. Most Americans are PRO "legal" immigration and strongly against naturalizing (or rewarding) illegal "immigrants". Most Americans, especially in a post 9/11 world, want secure borders. This is most obviously the case with our porous southern border. We also want these big issues to go away, once and for all. To do this our elected representatives need to put down the guns of partisanship (Hatfields and the McCoys), and work together to bring about what Americans desire and not what the respective ideologies seek.
Here is what I see as sensible and comprehensive immigration reform, on a high level.

1) Secure our southern border with a physical barrier where the terrain allows for it, and virtual barriers where terrain is an issue. The fact is that good, strong and tall fences work. They aren't pretty, but this is the small price we need to pay to put this behind us.
2) Create a temporary worker program. This program would acknowledge this nation's dependence on foreign workers to do certain work vital to our economy, especially in agriculture. Key to this program working is that anyone in the program would only be in the country for up to a certain number of years before being required to go back to their home country. There should be NO path to citizenship through this program (hence the name "temporary").
3) Hardest of the work is what to do with the current group of some 10-20 million illegals already in this country. I would propose that there be a tiered system of dealing with this group. For those that wish to be a part of the Temporary Worker Program, they would need to pay a fine that is commensurate with how long they have been in the United States (the longer the violation the higher the fine). Also, if there have been any criminal offenses committed (any felony, violent misdemeanors) by any in this country illegally, they would NOT be eligible for the program and should be expeditiously sent back to their country of origin. They will be allowed to stay in this country from the time they have applied for the program until they have exhausted their stay as a Temporary Worker.
For those that do not want to be temporary workers, but want to be U.S. citizens they will need to go back to their home countries and apply for legal entry into the U.S. In fairness to all of the legal immigrants in this nation it would not be appropriate to give those that have broken our laws any reward for their behavior. As a kindness from this nation, those destined for their home country will be allowed to stay in the U.S. for up to 1 year from the passing of the legislation in order to make proper arrangements to go to their home country.
4) Those who are facing punishment, persecution or violence in their home countries can petition exception with the payment of the same kind of fine as the Temporary Worker Program, and cannot gain naturalized citizenship in no sooner than 10 years from the date of their application for exception.
5) Finally, it should be made very clear in the law that if children are born in the United States to parents that have entered this country illegally, they are of the same citizenship as their parents, not the United States.

I think this sets forth a simple and sensible plan to handle our illegal immigration issues. I know not everyone would like this plan, extremes on both sides of the issue. But I do believe that most people would find this reasonable. If only our elected officials could see their way past political bickering to actually do something for this nation, we would all be a lot better off for it.

Doing my patriotic duty today

2009-11-18T09:13:00.000-08:00

Today I contacted the following Senators and urged them to vote against cloture to open debate on Obamacare (Bayh, Bennett, Dorgan, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Specter). Will you join me?

Here is what I sent, trying to be respectful but also letting them know the consequences of their actions.

"Senator ,
I would like to take a moment of your time and ask you to not vote for cloture to open debate on the healthcare reform bills before the Senate. It is vitally important to the continued success and innovation found in the American medical system that the federal government do not get any more involved than it already is. Private companies cannot compete with the federal government. Our economic system is a private, free-market system and needs to remain that way.

Each Representative and Senator that votes to pursue this will be on referendum come November 2010. I can assure you that myself and millions of other Americans will work hard for the defeat of any Senator that votes for cloture to open debate on these bills, unless there is no inkling of a government intrusion into the American healthcare system.

Healthcare costs can be addressed through free-market solutions (including tort reform and interstate competition, among others). I hope that you will spearhead a redress of this process, start from the beginning and include both sides of the debate for a real bipartisan solution.

Thank you for your time."

American Health Care Reform

2009-07-06T12:37:00.000-07:00

A lot is being bantered about right now regarding health care reform. What will that mean? Will it include a government option (or “public option” as the Obama administration is calling it)? As Americans we have to ask (and answer for) ourselves some very important questions before this issue gets a vote before the Congress. What do WE want the American health care system to look like? Do we want a free-market system, or one that the federal government administrates? Do we guarantee coverage for everyone, no one, or somewhere in between? If we have a government plan, do we model it after another system in another country, or do we create our own bureaucracy?

There is no easy answer to the health care conundrum this country finds itself in. In general Americans like the free market. However, Americans are also a compassionate people that don’t want to see people without food, clothing, shelter, or in poor health. We have now a couple of decades old programs, Medicare and Medicaid, for our seniors and the poor and disabled. We have SCHIP to help cover children in poor families not covered by Medicaid. We have become so generous that these programs now take up a fairly large amount of the federal and state budgets. As a nation we spend roughly 16% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care.

I believe a few things need to be fought for, and fought for strongly. America can have the compassion we prefer, without destroying the free market health care system that has brought the world so many innovations. A government plan will destroy the American health care system we know today, and the Democrats know it. Our system isn’t perfect, but it is the best in the world in quality and innovation. What we need to do is harness innovation to make our existing free market system more efficient. We need tort reform… and badly. Recent estimates put annual savings in the neighborhood of $60 - 80 billion annually, without limiting access to care.

Much is spoken of the estimated 47 million people in America that do not have health insurance. This number sounds horrendous, but it is disingenuously thrown around as though it represents all of the chronically uninsured, and that 100% of the 47 million are uninsured due to cost. Here is how that number breaks down (per U.S. Census Bureau, the Employment Policies Institute and The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation):
Nearly 20 million people likely can afford insurance but do not purchase it, including over 9 million that earn more than $75,000 per year
At least 9 million are non-U.S. citizens (legal and illegal)
12 million are eligible for public medical benefits but do not take advantage of them
11 million decline insurance through their employer
So what can we surmise from these numbers? Approximately 41 million people either choose to be uninsured, are eligible for existing public aid and don’t take advantage of it, or are not citizens. By my estimates this leaves around 6 million fellow citizens that are involuntarily uninsured. This is the group of people that we should be addressing. Instead of scaring people into believing that nearly 16% of Americans are without health care of any kind, it is more like 2-3% of Americans have fallen into the cracks of our system. This is a much more easily tackled number. Something that I am certain we can do without compromising our free-market system. We can also do a better job of getting those 12 million citizens into one of the public benefits programs.

At the core of my beliefs is that: the nation’s future is dependent upon the next generation; therefore all minors should have access to quality healthcare, government funded if necessary. Likewise, in a show of gratitude for the nation we have inherited, all seniors should have access to quality healthcare, government funded if necessary. All able-bodied adults should have access to competitive, affordable private healthcare insurance. It is the right of every American to pursue their own happiness, and the government should only be providing the security and infrastructure to make this possible… not attempt to define and pursue it for us.

Additional Articles for Consideration:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/26/health-cares-big-secret/
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2993946.html
http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/15553542.html http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/health-care.cfm

Condi Rice setting the record straight!

2009-05-04T08:10:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the Aftermath

2008-11-05T08:17:00.000-08:00

Last night I went to sleep with the ill feeling of knowing that the most liberal and under-qualified person to run for the office of the President, was elected by the people of this great country to be our next President. I take some solace in knowing that the damage was mitigated in the House and likely the Senate too. I am still hopeful that we can limit some of the most extreme elements of the Obama agenda with Senatorial filibusters. I am also hopeful that only the most liberal of Supreme Court Justices will retire before the Republicans can retake the Senate and White House.

That being said, I am already hearing sniping and back-stabbing of Gov. Sarah Palin by some of the McCain campaign. This is just disgusting. Senator McCain lost this election (or you could say Obama won it). To blame Gov. Palin as a “drag” on the ticket is appalling. Those staffers should be ashamed of themselves and the job they did during this campaign. This is a time for introspection, not external blame games. Republicans voted for McCain in the primary. That is the first place the Party needs to look. Each Republican that pulled the lever for McCain this past winter and spring needs to ask themselves if they voted for the best person to represent the Party.

On the national level as a whole, the Republicans did not learn any discernable lessons from 2006 and paid the price for those same issues again. The Republican Party needs new, younger, more conservative leadership. It needs leaders with new ideas and a new image. The Republican Party needs to focus on the things that all Americans agree on. Newt Gingrich, and his American Solutions PAC, has put together an agenda that is pro-American and, for lack of a better word, populist. Americans are tired of the bitter political rancor and want solutions to real problems. America is a center-right nation, and the Republican Party is going to make the most sense to most Americans in the end. If we can get our bearings straight, look past the old tired lines of “smaller government” and “lower taxes”, and actually present ideas that display those beliefs rather than just spouting them as talking points, I wholeheartedly believe that we can retake the White House in 2012.

Over the next several months I will dedicate this blog to advocating ideas based upon my core center-right (conservapendent) beliefs. It is my hope that these core beliefs and ideas will be shared by the Republican leadership in Washington D.C.

A vote for Obama is a vote for crisis...

2008-10-25T09:36:00.000-07:00

Senator Barack Obama's running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, said the other day at a Democratic fundraiser that the world will test Barack Obama within the first 6 months of his term as President. Biden said it would be a generated crisis to test the mettle of Obama, and that Obama would look like he didn't make the right decision.

This is unreal, the running mate of the most unqualified person to run for President on a major party ticket is telling us that Obama will be tested and it will look like he mishandled it! How could anyone vote for this guy?

The McCain campaign has put out a very smart add addressing this. Hopefully they can get it out there in the swing states for people to see.

Biden and other Democrats don't believe Obama is ready!

2008-09-15T09:44:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama, his campaign, and his surrogates try to convince the American people that Gov. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be "a heartbeat away from the Presidency". Yet what they don't want the American people to realize is that he is no more qualified to be the actual President. Barack Obama spent 8 years in the the Illinois State Senate and has been a U.S. Senator since 2005. That might sound like decent experience, but considering that Obama has been campaigning for President since February of 2007, he essentially has only been a Senator for 2 years. On the other hand, Sarah Palin was a two term city councilmember in Wasilla, the fifth largest city in Alaska, a two term Mayor of the same city, and Governor of the state since 2006. Serving in legislative and executive capacities in these rolls. She would be presented with much more experience in running a government in these rolls than Obama would have garnered as a legislator.

What has Barack Obama done in the last nineteen months (since his campaign began) that would suddenly make him qualified to be the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces. I submit that he has done nothing but campaign for that privilege. Over the past year several prominent Democrats have questioned Obama's readiness, including his own choice for Vice President. Click the link below to see a YouTube clip containing interviews with Joseph Biden, Hillary Clintion, John Edwards and for President Bill Clinton all questioning Barack Obama's credentials. It is stunning to think that the American people, if they saw these clips, would support the most unqualified person to ever run for President under any major political party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Re0Z5xOC6w

Phony Outrage on a Bridge to Nowhere

2008-09-13T10:25:00.001-07:00

Barack Obama, his campaign and the liberal mainstream media are creating a little bit of phony outrage of their own. Yet again Obama and his surrogates are trying to nail the Bridge to Nowhere to Gov. Palin. Saying that she flip-flopped on the issue. That first she was for the worthless bridge, then against it. This may be a fine argument to make, there is some evidence to their claim. However, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, as Senators, voted for the Bridge to Nowhere funding. If that vote wasn't bad enough, they did it in spite of a request by Republican Senator Tom Coburn to dump the funding for the Bridge to Nowhere and use the money instead to rebuild a Katrina damaged bridge.

Yet another example of PDS for the Democrats. They just should not bring up earmarks in regards to Palin, they are just going to be shown as the hypocrites they are.

The Democrats have a severe case of PDS

2008-09-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

The Democratic ticket for the White House must be suffering from some serious PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome), which is a new virus that has mutated from the original BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters are running full speed off the edge of a political cliff. Since John McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the left wingers have lost their minds and started trashing Gov. Palin. I can't think of a time in my life when a Presidential candidate has decided to abandon his party's fight against the other party's candidate and instead decided to go after the Vice Presidential candidate of the other party. I guess it must be that Obama knows that McCain is way too experienced to challenge him, so he has to go after someone he deems to be more 'his size' politically. Unfortunately for Obama, Palin is more experienced for an executive office. Obama is a big talker, that's why he has always been in the legislative branch... that' what they do. Palin just plain gets things done, and that's what an executive does.

Obama isn't much of an attack dog, and when he does do it, it is very elitist and condescending (anyone remember his 'sweetie' remark?). Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has a bit of the 'hoof in mouth' disease as evidenced over the last week. Senator Biden, while trying to play the ticket's attack dog, came after Gov. Palin on stem cell research. On this topic Sen. Biden, knowing good and well that Palin's youngest son has Down Syndrome, said "If you care about it, why don't you support stem-cell research?". What a jerk! So now because Senators Obama and Biden support embryonic stem cell research, they care more about Palin's son, and others, than she does. That is the inference here. It shows his callousness, and his ignorance. Stem cell research may hold great promise for lots of ailments, but down syndrome is not one of them. In fact, most birth defects could not be prevented or treated with stem cell therapies currently known or being researched.

The derangement, I fear, is a hopeless condition for so many left-minded Americans. Nonetheless, let's stand up for what is inspiring... a mother's unconditional love for her special needs son, who wants to serve her family, the families of other special needs kids, and our great nation.

The value of children

2008-09-01T20:02:00.000-07:00

Today the McCain/Palin campaign released a statement to the press about Gov. Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant. This release came because some nasty left-wing bloggers were starting rumors that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy, and that her son born this last April was really the child of her 17 year old daughter. The Obama supporters have hit a new low because of their fear of a strong and intelligent Republican woman being on the ticket. The response by the Palin family was nothing short of classy.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.
Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. (emphasis added)"

The Palin family, faced with a tough decision last year (their son had down syndrome), sided with the value and dignity of human life. Though they, I am sure, did not want to see their young daughter having a baby now, they have shown their support for her and we see the love for life that has been instilled in their daughter by her choosing to bring her very own baby into this world.

Let's compare that with Barack Obama's own words from just this past March...

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. (emphasis added)"

I think we can see clearly what Obama thinks about unplanned pregnancies in young girls, and where Gov Palin stands. This is what we are faced with in the election this year.

As a footnote in this issue, I was reminded of a verse in the Bible...

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;" (Deuteronomy 30:19)

A quick post about the GOP VP selection

2008-08-30T19:49:00.000-07:00

Not once in the last 5 months have I been able to say that I am excited about the McCain nomination. Then yesterday morning I wake up thinking, 'oh yeah, today McCain announces his VP. I wonder if it will be Romney or Pawlenty.' To my glorious surprise it was Gov. Sarah Palin from Alaska. She was always in my top 3 for VP, including Condi Rice and JC Watts. I am extremely excited about this selection, so much so that I am going to be ordering my McCain/Palin yard sign in the next couple days. I know that there is not much known about her, unless you are a politics nut like myself. She is a strong social and fiscal conservative with a compelling life story. She is willing to stand up for what is right, even against her own party (now that's Conservapendence!). Take a few moments and read these articles to get a lttle more info for yourself. I think you will find her to be an excellent pick too.

http://townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2008/08/29/victory_and_energy_for_the_second_american_century_cheering_the_palin_pick?page=full

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODNhOTk2YTU0NWY4ZjY5ODNhZTgyOWZkNjY5YjFlMmY=

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/8/29/palin-will-be-welcomed-by-social-and-economic-conservatives.html?s_cid=rss:barone:palin-will-be-welcomed-by-social-and-economic-conservatives

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMwMzA5YmY3ODU1NGNlZGJjMmNlYjEwZmU0NGU0NTU=