Monthly Archives: November 2010

Commentary

Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann: who has the best voting record?

2 Comments

You may have heard that two qualified conservatives are running for the 4th highest position in the House of Representatives, Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann. I was reading an article that assessed the relative strengths of each, and I thought it might be fun to see how you can leverage the work of other groups to assess candidates. (This is the way I do it)

Here’s the background:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has the support of many Tea Party supporters for a Republican leadership post, but most leaders of the newly-elected House majority are backing conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

Bachmann and Hensarling appear headed for a showdown over the number four spot in the Republican leadership – that of chairman of the House Republican Conference.

And here’s the assessment:

Both candidates have high ratings from conservative organizations.

Hensarling voted 100 percent of the time with the interests of the American Conservative Union in 2009, the same rating earned by Bachmann.

Hensarling has an 89 percent composite conservative rating in the assessment carried out by the National Journal, and a 12 composite liberal score.

National Journal reports he voted more conservative on economic issues than 96 percent of the House and more conservative on social issues than 93 percent of the House. He voted more conservative than 68 percent of the House on foreign policy.

Bachmann does marginally better with conservative votes, according to National Journal, with a 90 percent composite conservative rating and 10 percent liberal composite rating. She has voted more conservative than 92 percent of her colleagues on economic policy, more conservative than 89 percent of colleagues on social policy and more conservative than 75 percent of other House members on foreign policy.

Both get a 0 rating from Americans for Democratic Action for 2009.

The National Right to Life Committee gave both a 100 percent rating for 2010, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gave both a score of 0.

The Family Research Council, a social conservative group that advocates socially conservative policies, such as pro-life policies and opposition to same-sex marriage, gave both Bachmann and Hensarling a score of 100.

Taxpayer advocacy groups also give the two high marks as well. The National Taxpayers Union gave Bachmann an 89 percent rating for 2009. Hensarling upped her by a few points with a 95 percent NTU rating for 2009.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayer watchdog group focusing on earmarks and other wasteful spending issues, gave Hensarling a 100 percent rating for 2009 (96 percent lifetime rating), slightly surpassing Bachmann’s 99 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime rating) with the group that same year.

Evaluated in 2009 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest pro-business lobby. Bachmann scored 81 percent and Hensarling 83 percent.

Both received A-ratings from the Gun Owners of America in its 2010 candidates’ rating guide.

Although the House in the 111th Congress “almost entirely avoided the issue of immigration,” according to the pro-border enforcement group Federation for American Immigration Reform, it did rate lawmakers for their votes on two immigration-related measures. Bachmann and Hensarling both earned a positive rating.

And on national security issues for 2009-2010, Hensarling earned a 100 percent rating from the Center for Security Policy, a defense and national security think tank, while Bachmann received 87 percent.

Did you know that all those groups analyzed voting records and graded politicians? There are actually even more groups that give ratings based on voter records. I think that this is a much better way to assess candidates, because their voting record is a much more reliable indicator of what they intend to do than their campaign speeches.

So when you are deciding who to vote for, you can always use these ratings to see where people stand, as long as they have a voting record. For example, if you are concerned about government spending and waste, and the choices are Barack Obama and John McCain, you should know that Obama had a rating of 5 and McCain had a rating of 85 in 2008. That’s how you could know what Obama would do as President.

Regarding the Hensarling vs. Bachmann contest, I think either one would be great. They are equally good. Naturally, I prefer Bachmann because of her personal background. Specifically, her decision to quit her job and homeschool her own 5 children, and to welcome 23 foster children into her home. In my opinion, that is decisive.

News

Should convicted murderer Steven Hayes get the death penalty?

32 Comments

WARNING: This story has graphic descriptions of evil and despicable acts.

Story from the Hartford Courant.

Excerpt:

A Superior Court jury today sentenced Steven Hayes to death for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley and Michaela, during a seven-hour home invasion, robbery and arson at their Cheshire home in July 2007.

Outside the courthouse after the verdicts, Hawke-Petit’s father, the Rev. Richard Hawke, said “There are some people who do not deserve to live in God’s world.”

Asked what he had in his heart, Dr. William Petit Jr. struggled with his answer. “….Probably many of you have kids,” he said, pausing to choke back tears. “Michaela was an 11-year-old little girl…tortured and killed in her own bedroom, surrounded by her stuffed animals….”

Petit then talked about his daughter Hayley’s bright future and her strength and the children that his wife, Jennifer, helped.

“So, I was really thinking of the tremendous loss” during the verdict, Petit said, adding that he was pleased with it, but “mostly I was sad for the loss we have all suffered.”

Asked if he thought there’d be closure now, Petit said, “There’s never closure. There’s a hole…. with jagged edges…that may smooth out with time, but the hole in your heart and the hole in your soul” remains.

“This isn’t about revenge,” Petit said. “Vengeance belongs to the Lord. This is about justice.”

[…]The jury sentenced Hayes to death on six counts: killing Hawke-Petit and Michaela and Hayley in the course of a single action; killing a child under the age of 16; killing Hawke-Petit in the course of a kidnapping; killing Hayley in the course of a kidnapping; killing Michaela in the course of a kidnapping; and killing Hawke-Petit in the course of a sexual assault.

[…]Hayes, 47, of Winsted, was convicted Oct. 5 of breaking into the Petit home, beating Petit, tying up and torturing the family as Hayes and another man ransacked the home for cash and valuables and tortured the family for seven hours. Testimony during Hayes’ trial showed that at one point in the break-in, Hayes forced Hawke-Petit to go to the bank to withdraw money. During that time, according to testimony, Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted Michaela Petit, 11.

When Hawke-Petit and Hayes returned from the bank, Hayes raped and strangled Hawke-Petit. The house was doused with gasoline and set on fire as the intruders fled, testimony showed. Hayley, 17, and Michaela died of smoke inhalation.

[…]Prosecutors used the words of Hayes’ younger brother Matthew to counter testimony that home-invasion crime was an aberration in Hayes otherwise troubled but basically nonviolent life.

Matthew Hayes portrayed his brother as a conniving, sadistic, violent thief who saw Matthew take countless beatings from his brutal father for Steven Hayes’ misdeeds. At one point, Steven Hayes held a gun to Matthew’s head, according to the statement, which was given to state police after the home invasion.

Examples of Hayes’ sadistic behavior toward his brother included hooking Matthew to the garage door by his belt and raising the door up and down, and holding Matthew’s hand to a red-hot burner. Matthew said his brother’s life of crime was not a result of bad parenting or poor childhood. He said Hayes never learned to take responsibility for his actions.

“Steven is what Steven is because he’s a coward,” Matthew Hayes wrote.

I know that some people are very pro-life and yet don’t support the death penalty, and then there are leftists who favor killing innocent babies, while letting guilty murderers live. I am just curious about whether any of my readers is willing to come out and explain why Hayes should not get the death penalty. I think he should.

Related posts

News

Redistricting and the census will create more Republican House seats

Leave a comment

First, consider this AP article which explains the redistricting advantage that Republicans have from the mid-term elections.

Excerpt:

Republicans don’t just control much of the electoral map. In some cases, they now have the power to redraw it.

Overwhelming victories in statehouses and governors’ races across the country this week have placed the GOP in command of redrawing both congressional and legislative districts to conform with Census results. It’s a grueling and politically charged process that typically gives the party in power an inherent advantage for a decade, allowing them to preserve current strongholds or to put others in play.

Along with gains in governorships this week, Republicans picked up about 680 legislative seats _ twice the number Democrats gained in their wave two years ago. For the GOP, it’s a surge that comes at the most opportune time.

“Regardless of what happens in Washington, the Democrats will not soon recover from what happened to them on a state level on Tuesday,” said Chris Jankowski, executive director of the Republican State Leadership Committee’s REDMAP project. “It was significant. It was devastating in some areas. It will take years to recover.”

Tim Storey, a redistricting expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures, estimates that Republicans will have unilateral control over the redrawing of 195 congressional districts. Democrats have just 45. The remainder are in states where either both parties have a chance to influence redistricting or where decisions will be made by independent commissions.

That doesn’t mean there will be another surge of Republicans two years from now. After all, parties still must adhere to a substantial series of legal limitations governing the composition of the districts, such as making sure districts have a similar number of voters and are compact and contiguous.

That’s good news, but there’s more good news. And this one is even better.

ECM sent this article from the leftist Washington Post, which another problem facing the Democrats in 2012: population shifting from blue states to red states.

Excerpt:

There’s really no gentle way to say this, so I’m just going to be blunt: In some ways, the political situation post-Nov. 2 is even worse for the Democrats than it may appear. And I am not just referring to the colossal losses they experienced in state legislatures — a 650+ seat swing in favor of the GOP that has left the Dems in control of the fewest state legislatures since 1928. The resulting pro-GOP gerrymandering may lastingly blunt the demographic advantage Democrats could otherwise expect to reap from population trends such as the growth of Hispanic America.

No, what’s really bad for President Obama and his party is the likely impact of the 2010 Census and ensuing House of Representatives reapportionment on the distribution of votes in the 2012 Electoral College. We can talk all day about whether a majority of voters would support Obama for re-election or not, but what really counts in presidential elections is the Electoral College. Each state’s electoral vote equals its number of representatives in the House plus two, for its Senate delegation. And since the U.S. population continues to flow South and West, reapportionment will probably add House seats in red states and subtract them in blue states. Thus, the Census looks like a setback for Democratic chances to win the 270 electoral votes necessary to become president.

Texas, which has voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 elections will gain 4 electoral votes, according to projections from preliminary Census data by Polidata.com. The other gainers — one vote each — include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah. All of these states have voted for the GOP candidate in at least 7 of the last 10 elections.

To be sure, Florida and Nevada have been more up for grabs of late: Obama carried both in 2008. But the only reliably blue state that looks like gaining an electoral vote is Washington, which backed the Democrat in 6 of the last 10 elections. Only one reliably red state — Louisiana — is losing an electoral vote.

Ohio, the perennial swing state — it backed the GOP in six of the last 10 elections — is losing two.

Meanwhile, eight states that usually go blue in presidential elections — Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Minnesota — are projected to lose one electoral vote each.

Good news! See everyone says that I am always gloomy. There are feedback mechanisms so that people can realize what is happening and fix the problem. I am not sure how we are going to fix the people-not-marrying problem, but I’m sure there must be a way.