Is our political primary system in need of repair?

In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us.  Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary).  There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire.  But why is that?  I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4.  (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)

This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours.  I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states.  After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election.  Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?

The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes).  Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes.  Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner.  Or will we?  Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race?  Probably, but it would not be impossible.

As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed.  And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.

So without further adieu, here we go.

1. Close the primaries for both parties.  The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats.  I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary).  To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative.  I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election.  Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
2. Political parties should not endorse any candidate.  I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate.  Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate.  Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee.  And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads.  However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
3. Politicians should not endorse any candidate.  Celebrities often make political endorsements.  They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs.  Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office.  This will often hurt them more than it will help them.  For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected.  In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter.  Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all).  So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
4. There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar.  The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months.  That is just too long for an election cycle.  I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses.  There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day.  These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that.  That way, they will not be strung out for months.  Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
5. Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses.  In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes.  This way, the big states would come last.  This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors.  This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates.  This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process.  No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive.  Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process.  (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
6. If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office.  This is a pet peeve of mine.  The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job.  The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do.  If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal.  We  should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do.  If they do not do it, they should not hold that office.  Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office.  If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
7. The political season needs to be shorter.  Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start.  Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care.  But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats.  The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year.  This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates.  This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle.  Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates.  It is time to shorten the election season.

I am sure that if I sat here long enough, I could come up with more areas that need to be fixed in the primary process.  However, I believe that I have encapsulated most of the major problems in the 7 items outlined above.  We need to take steps to fix the process, not tinker with it and actually make it worse.

A Message to Republicans - It's Time to Lead

After the election of President Obama in 2008, the outlook for the Republican Party was not good.  They had just lost the Presidential election.  And to make it worse, they lost seats in both the House and the Senate.  The Democrats had written them off.  The media had written them off.  The Republicans had written themselves off, thinking that they would be a permanent minority party.  All they wanted to do was get along and maintain the seats in Congress that they already had.

Of course, with this attitude, there would be no hope.  The conservatives of the Republican Party were already upset with the out-of-control government spending and lack of leadership that had taken place during the previous Republican majority in Congress.  Because of their disenchantment with the National Republican Party, they either did not show up to vote in the 2008 Presidential election, or they chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate.  The Republicans had lost their base.  The elected Republicans thought it more prudent to compromise on principle rather than take a stand on it.  They had basically compromised their way into a minority.  In other words, they failed to lead.

Then, the President handed them a gift, and that gift was Obamacare.  The President, along with a Democrat-controlled Congress, pushed through a universal health care plan that no one had read, was going to cost the U.S. a lot of money that it did not have, and it would eventually put control of health care into the hands of bureaucrats.  This was not a popular bill, no matter what the media or politicians tried to tell us.  While most people agree that there are aspects of our health care system that need to be addressed and fixed, they knew that a government run system was definitely not the way to go.

Anyway, this bill helped to propel the recrudescence of conservatism in the U.S.  This conservatism was seen most prominently through the Tea Party.  People were finally stepping and saying "We've had enough of this!"  People were tired of the government stepping into their lives.  They were tired of the government spending money they did not have.  They were tired of the arrogance of elected officials telling them what is best for them.  People came to realize once again that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."  They realized that we do not have to accept the status quo.

So the people began to act, and rally, and have their voice heard.  They elected candidates in their primaries that carried the same values that they had.  They elected people that had the same vision for America's future.  They took on many of the incumbents, and they were successful in unseating many of them.  The people were finally getting a chance to see real representation in Washington.  The Republicans won a resounding victory in the House, and they made tremendous gains in the Senate.

Alas, it seems that the Republican leadership has started to fail us again.  I realize that the leaders in the Senate are limited in what they can do, since they are the minority party in that chamber.  However, the leaders in the House have no such excuse.  They have a majority, yet they fail to lead.  Why is that?  Do they not know how to lead?  Are they afraid of confrontation?  Are they afraid that they might upset some people?

Well, this has frustrated me for some time now, so I have several suggestions for the Republican leadership to win back the people that voted for them.  If they lose these people again, they may never get them back.

1. You won because of yor agenda.  Now implement that agenda.  The Republicans need to realize that people voted for them because of the agenda that they ran on.  We voted for them because of that agenda.  We expect them implement that agenda when they get into office.
2. Compromise is not something you should want, or expect.  The Democrat idea of compromise is for the Republicans to agree to do things the Democrat way.  They do not expect to meet in the middle.  They want it their way, or nothing at all.  That is how the Republicans should be.  They won the election in an overwhelming manner.  People wanted your agenda, which is why they voted for you.  They did not vote for you so that you could compromise away the agenda.
3. You cannot make everyone happy.  This should be obvious.  There are people that did not vote for Republicans, and they never will vote for one.  So why even try to appease them?  No matter what you do, they will be against it.  So, you need to do what the people put you there to do - implement the agenda.
4. Don't become moderates.  This is what hurt the Republican party from about 1998-2009.  After they took the nation by storm in 1994, they started to stray from their fiscally conservative ways.  They started spending like the Democrats.  They thought they were undefeatable.  And because of that, they lost power.  The Republicans nominated a moderate for President in 2008.  If not for the conservative VP candidate that he picked, the Republicans would have lost by an even greater margin in the election.  For some reason, the establishment Republicans think that the party needs to be more moderate in order to win elections.  However, why would a Democrat vote for a Republican trying to be like a Democrat?  The answer is that they will not do that.  They already have a real Democrat running for their party.
5. Conservatism will win when it is tried.  When Republicans try to be like moderates, they lose elections.  However, when they run as conservatives, they win.  There is not much more to say here.  People want elected Republicans to be conservative.  When they are not, people will not show up to vote them back into office.
6. Continue to listen to the people that voted you into office.  This is something that no politician has been able to do.  The Democrats don't listen to their constituents, either, but that is their problem.  You are an elected official, put there by the people.  You need to listen to them.  You are to be there doing business for the people.
7. The seat belongs to the people, not the elected official.  When Sen. Ted Kennedy passed away, the media wondered what would happen to Kennedy's seat on the Senate.  The man that eventually took Kennedy's place (now Sen. Scott Brown) answered that (it is not Sen. Kennedy's seat.  It is the people's seat.)  Too often, elected officials forget that they are there to serve the people.  The people are not there to serve them.
8. We want leaders.  A leader makes tough decisions.  They take responsibility.  They take a stand on difficult issues.  They risk losing popularity in order to do what is right, not politically expedient.  All too often today, our elected officials make their decisions based on what is politically popular, not what is right.  We want leaders who do what is right, not necessarily what is popular.  One only needs to look at the state of Wisconsin.  The Republican Governor and Legislature made the principled decision and stood tall in the midst of adversity in order to get difficult legislation passed.  The were leaders, and they refused to be beaten down.
9. Democrats want the power that you now have.  Don't give them an excuse to get it back.  The Democrats will stop at nothing to get power back.
10. Don't start to look at the next election.  One of my biggest pet peeves is people that start to run for office the day after the elections.  These people need to leard that we elected you to enact an agenda, to pass bills that benefit the people.  We did not elect you so that you could spend your time running for office again (and youa re getting paid by us to do that).  People will vote for you if you do the right things while in office.  Concentrate on doing what is right, and the elections will turn out fine.

Americans want strong leaders.  They want people who can make the tough decisions, not just the popular ones.  We do not like it when our leaders compromise on principle in order to get along with others.  You were elected into office in order implement an agenda and represent the people.  And we expect you to do just that.

The upcoming elections and you - Some things to think about

The 2010 mid-term elections are less than two weeks away. To me, it is not “just another election.” It is much more than that. We have federal government spending that is out of control, and has been for some time now. We are having morals foisted upon us that we do not like. In Pennsylvania, we are getting rid of a governor that has no clue of anything that is going on in the state outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several state officials brought up on charges of corruption. It is time for change both on a national and a state level.


As Abraham Lincoln noted, our government is “...of the people, by the people, and for the people…” Apparently, our officials in government have forgotten this little nugget of information. Over the past year or so, we have seen two elder Democrats in the Senate pass away. And in both instances, the response was the same – “Who is going to take over Senator Kennedy’s seat?” or “Who will take over Sen. Byrd’s seat?” Apparently, the media and party officials forgot that these seats were only filled by these men. The seats actually belong to the people of Massachusetts and West Virginia. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, but apparently she feels that this was an unjust loss, so she is running as a write-in candidate. She believes that the people in her party were wrong for voting her out of office, and she is trying to force herself on the people.

So what do we do with this type of arrogance? What do we do with officials that think we, as the electorate, the people who put them into office, are too stupid to know better? What do we do with officials that are constantly trying to pull the wool over our eyes? How do we make them understand that they do not dictate to us, but that since they work for us, we dictate to them?

The answer is that we vote them out of office. By our votes, we tell them that we need a change in direction. We need to get back to the fundamentals of good government – spend within your means, abide by the Constitution, allow religion to exist and be practiced freely. By our votes, we tell them that we do not agree with the direction that this country is going, that we do not want socialism in our government, that we believe the President is leading us in a direction that we believe is not good for this country.

Unfortunately, there are those who will vote to have the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back into Congress (and since they are in relatively safe districts, they will inevitably win). There are those who are happy with the status quo. They are happy with what the government is doing for them, as individuals. They fail, however, to see the big picture and where this path of destruction is taking us.

So, to that end, I have come up with a list of several different things that we, as voters, need to do on November 2.

1. VOTE. Don’t sit at home and think that your vote does not count or that the outcome is already decided, so your vote is not needed. I believe this is the reason that Steven reed is no longer the Mayor of Harrisburg – his voters became complacent, thinking that his re-election was inevitable. Your vote matters. Voting is a tremendous privilege, and unfortunately too many people do not care. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan face violence when they head to the polls, yet they go out and vote, because they understand its importance. Here in the U.S., they make it very easy for us to vote, yet so many people do not take advantage of the privilege afforded to us to vote for the people who are going to represent us. If you would take the thousands and thousands of people that use this excuse every year, and take them to the polls so that they can cast their vote, the outcomes of the elections might be quite different. I am reminded of a quote - "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote." - William E. Simon. This says it all.

2. If you do not vote, then do not complain about the outcome of the election. If you did not think it was important enough to vote for the people that are going to represent you and make decisions that will affect you, then why did you decide it was important to care about the outcome of the election? Until you participate in the process, you had better not complain about the results of the process.

3. Don’t pay attention to polls. A couple of weeks ago, many pundits had the Republicans overtaking both the House and the Senate. Now, the pundits are showing polls that the Democrats are closing in on the Republicans. Keep in mind that polls are not news – they are a picture of public opinion at a certain point in time. Also, polls are misleading. They rarely reveal the questions that were asked. The pollsters know that if you ask a particular question in a certain way, then you can get a conditioned response. What they are doing is trying to manipulate the news and the election by suggesting to us what they think the public opinion is. Don’t pay attention to them.

4. Don’t pay attention to the media. Most of the media has 1 goal in mind – make sure the Democrats keep both majorities (the House and the Senate) to that the President can do whatever he wants. They have no real interest in minority or women candidates, unless they are running against Republicans. Their goal is to drive a wedge between as many groups as possible; after all, that is what makes good news programming. The media has a bias, and it shows. They will try to discourage you from voting for conservatives, and they will want to embarrass you into voting for a liberal Democrat. Ignore them.

5. Encourage others to participate. Our vote alone cannot get people elected. It takes a concerted effort by large group of people to get someone elected. Encourage others to vote. Go with them to the polls and give them moral support. Explain to them why their vote matters. Explain to them the importance of the elections and how it will affect them.

6. Do your homework. Don’t pay attention to political ads. They all contain some element of truth, but that element is probably taken out of context. This is done by all candidates, regardless of party. The internet is a wonderful thing. Look up the facts for yourself. Don’t take the ads at face value. Political voting guides are a good tool, but they can also be skewed, depending on what group distributes them and what that group’s goal happens to be. Don’t go to the voting booth, and tell yourself that you will make up your mind when you get there. Prepare in advance and know who you are going to vote for.

7. Pray for wisdom. This would apply to only those of you who would pray for guidance and wisdom. Elections are not a matter to take lightly. If you are struggling with who you think is the right candidate, pray about it.

8. Pray for our leaders, regardless of who wins. We need to pray for our leaders, that they make good, wise decisions. We are to do this whether or not ‘our candidate’ wins the election. Just because we are not happy with the results does not mean that we should forsake this duty that we have been given. After all, everyone needs wisdom, but many people are not praying for it. They are relying on themselves or people close to them for the necessary wisdom.

It is important that we vote, not just in this election, but in all elections. It is our responsibility to be a part of the political process. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot, or should not, take part in the political process. The elites may not like Christians to participate in the process, but we have just as much right to do so as they do. Let your voice be heard. Go out and vote!

What do the PA primary results tell us?

I always find it quite humorous to watch the political pundits try to explain election results. They fall over each other trying to explain why things happened the way they did. They attempt to give the Washington view of the results instead of the Main Street view of the results. These pundits have no clue as to what those of us on Main Street are thinking, and it shows. They dismiss Tea Party protesters as a fringe, right-wing minority, full of bigots and homophobes. They do not understand why we, as citizens, would vote out long-time Washington insiders and replace them with fresh faces who care more about the people they represent instead of the office that they serve in.


This can be seen in the results of the primary elections from this past Tuesday, May 18. As I have watched pundits try to explain what happened, I decided that I would try to set the record straight and explain the results in a much more accurate way than the pundits ever could.

1. Conservatism still matters. In a race to determine who will get to fill out the term of long-time corrupt Congressman Jack Murtha, Mark Critz (D) defeated Tim Burns (R). And Critz should have won the race, given the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in that district by close to a 2:1 ratio. However, the race was much closer than that. In fact, it was so close that Critz did not want the President anywhere near the race. He even identified himself as pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-health care bill. In fact, he made himself sound conservative. Why? He needed to do this in order to win (once in the House, he will not continue to hold these views – he will not be allowed to). He knew he could not be liberal (like Murtha) and win the race. In a day and age where the pundits tell Republicans that they have to move to the middle in order to win elections, we see that the opposite is indeed true. Conservatives should stay where they are to win. Democrats need to move toward the conservatives in order to keep seats. Conservatism wins elections. We just need to stick to conservative values.

2. Some people still do not get it. Why do I say this? Because 2 Pennsylvania officials won their primary elections while under indictment for using their offices for political gain. The law states that you are not allowed to use your state offices or state resources for re-election purposes. PA has several officials under indictment now for this very thing. Yet the people in the districts of Bill DeWeese and John Perzel voted for them and passed them through to run in the general election. Why? Because these guys bring home the bacon. They bring money back into the district. Basically, they buy the votes of their constituents. And as long as that happens, the people in their district could care less if the law is being broken, as long as they are bringing money back to the voters of the district.

3. We want our elected officials to believe in something. Sen. Arlen Specter lost in the primary to Joe Sestak. Several months ago, Specter changed parties in order to win his way back to the Senate for another term. He knew he had irritated too many Republicans to even stand a chance of winning the nomination. He changed his views on some key issues so as to agree with the Democrats and increase his chances of re-election. What is boiled down to was the Democrats did not trust him enough to vote for him. If he was willing to change parties so that he could be re-elected, what else would he do in order to save his political career? People want politicians that have the courage of their convictions, not politicians who go wherever the political headwinds blow them. The Democrats did not trust Specter and the Republicans knew better.

4. The myth of the Presidential coattails. It is said that a popular President should have coattails, that due to his election, many people running for lesser offices in that same party should be able to ride his coattails into office. And while that did happen in 2008, it does not look like it will happen in 2010. The President was highly popular when running for office in 2008, and still remains quite popular as a person now. However, trying to make that translate into electoral victories for the party is not that easy (and this has happened to many Presidents over the years, not just the current President). He has campaigned so far for 4 highly touted elections, and all of the candidates that he has supported have lost. Is that a reflection on the President? Or a reflection on a less-than-stellar candidate? Or is it backlash for policies that are not very popular? Or is it anti-incumbent sentiment? I would say it is a mix of all 4 of these factors. I am not a fan of political endorsements for primary elections. Let the people decide and the parties and elected officials need to stay out of the way. We are smart enough to make our own decisions. We do not need the President (or any other elected official) to tell us how to vote.

5. Presidential popularity does not necessarily benefit the entire party come election time. The President is still a fairly popular person in public opinion polls. Many do not like his policies, but like Clinton, he is viewed as a likeable person. However, this does not help his party’s candidates win. We can look back over history and see that many Presidents were popular but that they lost seats in Congress in the mid-term elections. The race for Murtha’s seat is an example of this. Critz did not want Obama campaigning for him because he knew it would hurt his chances. Usually, someone running for office would love the chance to have the President campaign for him. But given the President’s declining approval ratings and some unpopular legislation that he recently signed into law, there are some in his party who do not want to be associated with him (or the Democratic leadership in Congress) while they are running for office.

6. Stop putting so much stock in political pundits. The punditry exists because people allow them to exist. We put stock in what they say. We want to have that ‘spin’ put on events. We want them to think for us. However, pundits only see what they want to see. They only tell you the things that conform to their worldview. They never see themselves as being wrong on anything. I urge you to do your own research. I urge you to study things as they are, not how you would like them to be. You need to form your own opinions and stop repeating someone else’s opinion as though it were fact. We need to know more than what we believe. We need to know why we believe the way we do. No one can do that for you. If we all had a firmer grasp of what we believe, then we would not need to rely on other people to tell us what we should think and how to interpret the news of the day.

The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Arlen Specter: It's about time you admitted your true allegiance

Well, the inevitable happened today. Sen. Arlen Specter came out and said he was going to change over to the Democrat Party. Is this news? He has been in their camp for years. He has voted with them more than he has voted with his own party. The Democrats could rely on his vote more often than some in their own party. So no, this is not really news, as this is something we have known anyway.

Sen. Specter knew that this is what he needed to do in order to be re-elected next year. Basically, all of the polls had him running behind Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination. And given his recent voting record, he knew he had no chance of catching up to Toomey. So, instead of going through the Republican primary having a debate on ideas, he chose to take the cowardly way out.

He does not want to have the debate, because he knows he will lose on the issues. He has lost touch with those who voted for him and put him in office. He has been in the Senate for several terms, and what does he have to show for it? Nothing. How has he represented those of us in his state who have voted for him in the past? Only according to his own interests and not on the interests of those who voted for him.

Does he have a good chance of winning the Democrat primary? Yes, he does. Does he have a good chance of winning a general election? Yes, he does. Pennsylvania has a high liberal population in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Since most of these people are Democrats, they would not have been able to vote for him in the primary, which is why he would have lost.

I am happy to see him go. He does not stand for anything that the Republican base (i.e. Conservatives) stands for. He has thrown us under the bus too many times. After George Bush and Rick Santorum stuck their necks out to support him in 2004, he basically stabbed them in the back. For him, it is all about notoriety, re-election, and a legacy (that he is still searching for). It has nothing to do with principles and doing what is right.

* I am amused listening to and reading the commentary of the media and other politicians.
President Obama was glad to see him join the party and promises to campaign for him.
* Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that “Sen. Specter did not leave the Republican Party. The party left Sen. Specter.”
* I have read message boards where people said that this is another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party.
* Some have said that the Republican Party has no business saying it is a ‘big tent’ party after running Specter out.
* Others have derided the party for ‘caving in’ to the right-wing of the party.
* Moderates have applauded him for standing up to the right-wingers.
* Sen. Specter has said that the Republicans are no longer the Party of Reagan that he belonged to in the 80’s.

Let me see if I can answer these.
* Is it any surprise that President Obama would campaign for him? My question is this: Is this even a news story?
* Why would one of the most liberal Democrat senators make such a stupid statement? Specter was never on board with his core constituents in the party. He was always a loose cannon. He has been testing the Democrat waters for a long time.
* This is not a nail in the coffin for the Republicans. Rather, this is what needed to happen in order for them to have a recrudescence in the political world. In fact, there are several other senators and congressman that I would like to see go along with Specter. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. We need look no further than Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, as well as the congressional elections of 1994. When conservatism runs, it wins.
* Where is it written that the Republican Party must be a big tent? When did someone ever say that the Democrat Party needs to have a big tent? The left wingers would not allow conservatives or Bible-believers or pro-national security types to be in their party (and I have no idea why those people would want to take part in the Democrat Party). In order to have a big tent, you must compromise on core principles. This is not something that you can do and survive.
* These people that are labeled as right-wingers are the core constituents in the party. We are the normal, ordinary people that go to work every day and pay our taxes (on time). We love America and the freedom we have as Americans. We cherish the rights granted to Americans under the Constitution. We are not embarrassed by the greatness and power of America. We love God (we actually believe in Him). We are not a group that is going to hurt America, as this administration would like to think.
* What are moderates? They are people who are too gutless to take a tough stand on anything. They would rather see what decision the majority makes, and then they will side with the majority. Who cares what moderates think? I certainly do not. I want people on my side who are principled, not like the chaff, driven with the wind and tossed to and fro.
* The problem with the party is that we are no longer a party that embraces the ideals of Ronald Reagan. We do need to be careful not to worship the man, but stand up for the ideals and principles that he held dear. The problem with the Republican Party is that we got rid of those principles and ideals and started to cater to people like Specter. That is why we are not a strong party right now. We let people like Specter in charge and they ran the party into the ground. So it is not the ‘right-wingers’ that hurt the party. It is the wishy-washy people like Specter that hurt the party.

I say ‘Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.’ Once we regain our footing and stand firm on the conservative principles that the party once stood for, then we will become a great party again.

Why Arlen Specter must lose in 2010

As Sen. Arlen Specter is getting ready to run for the U.S. Senate (again), I can tell he is very nervous. The election is in November, 2010, yet he is already running ads in PA telling voters why they ought to vote for him and not for his opponents. This is not the sign of a confident candidate.

He is telling the Republican voter that they ought to nominate him (instead of one of the opponents) because he has a better chance of winning in a general election. He says that he can draw democrat votes. I will agree with him on this. He will draw an abundance of democrat votes, and he does stand a good chance of winning the general election if he makes it through the primary. He tells us that he has a better chance of keeping the democrats from winning a supermajority of the seats in the Senate (which would be 60 seats). This could be a very distinct possibility.

However, what Specter fails to realize is that the core conservative Republican is a principled person. He is not necessarily looking to vote simply for a political party so that the party can stay in power. This core conservative voter is looking to place his vote based on principle, based on those values that he holds dear. This is the very thing that has hurt the Republican Party over the last several elections. We became complacent and voted for people because of party affiliation and popularity, not based on what they stood for and what they were going to do once in office.

I am tired of prominent Republicans telling me that I should vote for someone simply due to party affiliation. I am tired of them telling me that we need Republicans willing to work with the other side. In other words, we need people in power who are willing to compromise on principle in order to remain in office. We are told by the leadership of our party, by the media, and by the other party that this is what we need to do in order to win elections.

But look where this line of thinking has taken the party. We ran a man for President in 2008 that shared very few conservative principles with those that he wanted to represent. He was more than willing to compromise principle for power. And he lost overwhelmingly. We have leaders in the House and Senate that have compromised their principles for some reason or another. And look where they are now. They are in a minority with no power to steer policy discussions away from the hard left.

Compromise of principles has not worked for our party. It never has, and it never will. It cannot change until we stand up and say that we have had enough. The leadership of the party is feckless. We need a recrudescence of conservative people, of conservative values, of American pride to lift this party out of the doldrums that we currently find ourselves sitting in.

Don’t listen to the media when they say conservatism cannot win. It has in the past, and it will win again. Look at Ronald Reagan. He had a very optimistic view of America with less government intervention in people’s lives. He won in a landslide. The Contract With America led to a conservative Republican revolution in the mid-90’s. Conservatism can win and will win, provided we send people out to run on those principles.

This is why Senator Specter must lose. He does not stand on conservative values. He does not cherish the right to life. He voted for the government overreach that we now call the bank bailouts. He will throw conservatives under the bus in order to advance his own progressive agenda. If he will not stand up for us, why should we vote for him?

First-time voter

This past Presidential election saw many vote for the first time in their life. Many of these first-time voters were young people, getting involved in the political process. Even though I feel many were misguided by the campaign of the President-elect, they still involved themselves in the political process, which I believe is a good thing.

However, in reading the Harrisburg Patriot News yesterday (Monday, 11/17), I came across this article about a woman, 81 years of age, who voted for the first time. This is not newsworthy. To me, this is completely unacceptable. Simply put, this is a story of complacency. This woman should not be celebrated. She should be put in front of others as an example of what not to do.

Also, as I read the article, it was not about the stance that the man took on issues that inspired her to vote. It was not due to his views, his platform, or his character. Rather, she voted for him because of his color. She was not enthusiastic over his agenda and what he wants to do as President. Rather, he is someone 'like her.' This is not a reason to vote for someone. It is the content of the person's character that matters, not the color of his skin. Yet so many think this is the realization of the dream that MLK Jr. spoke so adamantly about (and I do agree with, by the way).

Is it any wonder why people today do not care about the political process? With examples like this, I can now see why younger people have the attitude towards politics that we see expressed in their thoughts and actions.

I turned 18 in 1991, just a couple of weeks before the PA election primaries. I was registered to vote in that election, and I have not missed one since then. I am not patting myself on the back because of this. Rather, I saw this as an opportunity to have my voice heard. I hope to instill this same dedication to voting in my own kids. We talk to them about elections and why we believe the things we do and why we are voting for certain people.

I maintain that voting is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, we would not have to go out of our way to register. Instead, we have the freedom to choose to vote or not to vote. It is a privilege that many, to their own detriment, do not take advantage of. Voting is an opportunity that we have to take a stand for something/someone. Yet many choose not to do this. If you do not vote, I do not want to hear you complain about the results of an election or the people in office. If you were too complacent to get out and lend a voice to your cause, then you should be just as complacent in your attitude to the outcome of the election.

The change we need????

I have been surprised by the number of people that I run into that are disappointed (almost to the point of depression) with the results of the Presidential election. I thought that people were overwhelmingly for President-elect Obama. However, in my slice of the world, that is not necessarily the case. Case-in-point is this letter to the editor from one of my co-workers, Mr. James Barry. It appeared in the Friday edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News.

Obviously, there is more he could have added to the list, but they only allow a limited amount of space. Anyway, his point gets across rather easily.