Tuesday's Election: The Best Choices

Our state and our nation are in a precarious state because of years of financial mismanagement, the wrong priorities and a legacy of corruption.  Many are concerned about a creeping socialism that besets us and threatens our way of life.  We need to make some changes.

None of the folks I am recommending for elective office are perfect.  But area residents will benefit from candidates whose lodestar is conservative.  Links to their respective websites are found in the upper right hand corner of this blog page.  My picks:

North Carolina House

District 65-- Bert Jones is running in the eastern part of Rockingham County against the incumbent Nelson Cole, who used to be a close confidante of disgraced and formerly imprisoned Jim Black.  Jones is running an aggressive campaign, and I think Cole is concerned.  The challenger has years of community service, local professional practice as a dentist, and a deserved reputation as a fiscal conservative having previously served as a county commissioner.  He has highlighted Cole's previously stated intention to consider a new vehicle mileage tax; and has otherwise run on economic issues.

District 57-- Jon Hardister, like my friend Bert Jones, is the kind of candidate who benefits because he is exceedingly likeable.  His opponent is the ultraliberal Pricey Harrison.  Hardister's campaign has been extremely focused and disciplined, rarely veering from discussions of economic policy areas like taxes, spending and jobs.  He has said a few things well, over and over again; and has worked very hard.  That can be a very good formula. 

District 59-- I first met Theresa Yon late last winter when she was beginning to plan her campaign.  She was already demonstrating an enviable fund of knowledge and a solid command of the issues.  Since that time, she has impressed a lot of folks and also worked very hard, culminating in the News and Record endorsement this week.  Her opponent is Maggie Jeffus, who is a tool of the education establishment with a very liberal voting record.

North Carolina Senate

District 27-- Jeff Hyde is fighting an uphill battle against incumbent Senator Don Vaughan.  Jeff has done his homework, and is well prepared to be an elected official.  And he genuinely views the issues through a conservative lens.  His opponent tries to masquerade as a conservative, but votes and conducts himself like a liberal Democrat-- which, of course, he is.  Jeff in the Senate would help reverse the awful decline we have seen in our state.

District 28-- Trudy Wade has earned a promotion to the North Carolina Senate.  Her work on the Greensboro City Council has been excellent; and citizens have ample reason to appreciate her service.  Her breadth of knowledge on the issues, and the degree to which she prepares herself for debate, is evident nearly every council session.  She has been right on the issues consistently.  Her opponents include a fellow who owes back taxes; and a woman who was dishonestly pegged to be the Democratic nominee by the incumbent Senator.

Guilford County School Board

At Large-- Lisa Clapp is challenging the incumbent Nancy Routh.  Routh, like the aforementioned Maggie Jeffus, is a standard-bearer of the status quo in our public schools.  Clapp reminds me of Jon Hardister, because she also tends to focus on just a few issues-- for instance, school safety and discipline, budget accountability and neighborhood schools.  Anyone who is paying attention knows what her platform is.  Ms. Clapp would be a breath of fresh air on a school board that has been so wrongheaded for so many years.

District 2 Seat-- Garth Hebert's opponent, Ed Price, arises from the same old High Point/Dot Kearns/Susan Mendenhall establishment that was so destructive of our local school system.  Mr. Hebert, by contrast, initially ran for office in response to the social engineering that former Superintendent Terry Grier was trying to foist upon the High Point community; and actively opposed it.  Hebert deserves another term-- alongside another conservative like Clapp-- so that more good can be done for our local schools.  As an accountant, he can be very helpful from a fiscal standpoint if there are more conservatives on the school board.

United States Congress

13th District-- Bill Randall is running against the incumbent Brad Miller.  I have pointed out previously that Miller is a socialist; and his constituents likely are not aware of that fact.  Miller is quite fortunate because the media covers for him systematically.  Randall offers a refreshing alternative because he is a consistent, principled conservative with many years of military service under his belt.  Brad Miller should not even be permitted to shine Randall's shoes-- let alone serve in the Congress.

The courts: the primary consideration is to elect the candidates least likely to exhibit judicial activism.

North Carolina Supreme Court-- Barbara Jackson

North Carolina Court of Appeals-- Steven Walker

North Carolina Court of Appeals-- Dean Poirier

North Carolina Court of Appeals-- Anne Marie Calabria

I am not commenting on all the races on the ballot.  But I have previously referred to the recommendations of Conservatives for Guilford County, with which I agree nearly all the time.  Check it out.

I am going to make a suggestion.  If you are concerned about what will happen on November 2, consider taking the time to send this post by e-mail to your friends and family.  We have an enormous opportunity, in particular, to turn things around in the state of North Carolina. 

I am going to try to refrain from posting again until after the elections, if I can resist.  Will talk with you soon.  

Comments

[bubba]

It's not enough that you and I as individuals make the right choices when we vote. As Joe says, it is imperative that you act as a center of influence among your friends, neighbors, family, people you work with, people you worship with, and any others who are willing to listen to truth and common good sense about the issues that we face.

We need to turn out ALL the center-right American citizen voters, the distinct majority in this nation. We need to counter the obfuscation, deflection, distortion and outright lies of the corrupt and failed philosophy that represents the Dem/"Progressive" politics of thuggery, malaise, oppressive regulation, cronyism, and heavy-handedness we currently suffer through on both a local and a national basis.

We need to effectively countermand the propaganda put forth by those certain people (some of whom comment here, and on their own blogs)in support of their morally and intellectually bankrupt political, social, and economic agenda. And last, but most certainly not least, we need to be extremely vigilant against those who have absolutely no problem in corrupting the actual voting process, as seen in too many places already this election season.

[Stormy]

It is unfortunate that John Hammer endorsed Ed Price in this week's Rhino. This is a bit of a head-scratcher in the manner with which Hammer tried to justify his selection. Hammer twists himself in knots justifying it. This endorsement sounds familiar to times past. Hammer seems to have some affinity to Ed Price, because of his real estate connections. As Joe noted, electing Price to the BOE is tantamount to the return of Dot Kearns. Old High Point politics at its best. Please, if you vote in that district, do not be fooled and vote for Price. Garth Hebert is not a polished, nor smooth politician, but isn't that a compliment, not a criticism?

[Roch101]

Bubba, don't doubt for a minute your effectiveness as an influence on voters.

[Stormy]

Nor yours, Roch.

[bubba]

"Bubba, don't doubt for a minute your effectiveness as an influence on voters".

Actually little buddy, you (and several other of your fellow academic and intellectual basket cases) do more to energize and motivate the conservative vote than I could ever hope to do.

Thanks for your help. Don't ever stop doing what you do best.

[Joseph Guarino]

Thanks, Bubba. I agree wholeheartedly with your first comment.

Stormy, I too was disappointed with the Ed Price endorsement. Price indicates on his Facebook page that he favors limited busing and neighborhood schools. What is that supposed to mean? It is interesting that the conservative weekly chose the less conservative candidate, while the N&R and Yes!Weekly chose the more conservative candidate. Hammer saw a certain degree of energy in Price with regard to cutting construction spending. Price is apparently a very popular guy, and if he wins, we will see what effect he truly has. But I am very leery. The Dot Kearns/ Susan Mendenhall regime was disastrous for our county schools, and we are still feeling the ill effects.

[Stormy]

Joe, I think that Price's limited busing and neighborhood schools is his way of saying a new High Point Choice Plan. That plan was packaged as limited busing and neighborhood schools, and Dot Kearns was one of its engineers. There is no doubt in my mind that if elected Ed Price will run the Dot Kearns playbook, at least for High Point. Price is part of the group that wants to return High Point to its old glory days, and North High Point is not part of that plan. Or at least, it is not other than to the extent that they can bring some of NHP's brighter white students to Central. That was always the objective of the HPCC. And, it should be noted that it was Garth Hebert that found a little loophole that partially unwound that program. Terry Grier got a lot of the blame for implementing the HPCC, but in truth, it was Dot Kearns, with the help of her assistant, Kris Cooke, that drove that program. Old High Point is desperate to turn things around in that city.

For some reason, John Hammer has always been a public fan of Ed Price. The only obvious reason to me is that real estate advertising is an important revenue producer for the Rhino, and Ed Price is big in read estate in this country. Make of that what you will.

[Stormy]

Oh, I forgot to mention Susan Mendenhall. She represented Southwest High, but was a partner in crime with Dot Kearns and part of the plan to sacrifice SWGH in the HPCC. That program wasted millions of school dollars, and it really did nothing to improve education in High Point. You are right that Kearns/Mendendhall/Cooke set this school system back years, along with Terry Grier. Voters should not allow a new regime to make it worse.

[Stormy]

I might also add that federal grants from the DOE have also been part of the problem in GCS. Terry Grier was an expert in developing worthless programs and submitting requests for federal grants to fund those programs. They would get those grants which were good for 2-3 years, then, when federal dollars ended, the programs eventually dried up and blew away. The lesson here is that the availability of federal dollars enabled poor decisions and programs. This is one reason why defunding and dismantling the DOE is a good place to start in reducing the deficit. Federal grants enable local schools to conduct experiments that they would not do with their own funds. As someone once said, public schools need to do less with more, not more with less.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, this is all very disturbing about Price. It appears, if he wins, that the school board will take a step backward-- as if that were even possible.

[jo]

Dr, Joe,
Why waste all the words with your endorsements... just tell your Ditto heads ... like Nancy Reagan used to to say about drugs... just vote "NO."

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Joe: I still disagree with you on Jackson and Walker. I believe Hunter and Elmore are much more qualified as jurists for both those important seats.

But guess what? You're still my friend and maybe we can meet up sometime soon for lunch.

[Joe Guarino]

Jeff, let's do that.

Were you aware that there are two Bob Hunter's? This is not the Bob Hunter from Guilford County.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Yes. Hunter is from Marion I believe, which is another reason I like him. Looking at the voter guide, most judges list their residence as "Raleigh" or "Wake County" and I believe that the capitol mentality is a big problem across all levels of government. I have deep-seated admiration for the historical Piedmont and foothills culture in this state. Bob served 18 years in the legislature before joining the court and has been a judge for 12 years.

Courts are based on philosophy and ultimately should transcend politics. Jackson may be a fine judge, I am just not familiar with her. I may gladly support her in the future as she matures as a jurist. Right now I believe Judge Hunter is the better choice for the state supreme court.

See you.

[Roch101]

Is that the Bob Hunter who is famous for his efforts to stand up for the Constitution? The one who, for example, challenged the constitutionality of the lottery?

[Joe Guarino]

Jeff, I look at some of Hunter's endorsements on his website, and they arouse concern. I also consider his non-response to the NC Family Policy Questionnaire.

[polifrog]

I'm curious as to how much impact you guys feel these various newspapers have with their endorsements.

I've always felt that those news outlets that value the perception of unbiased reporting do more damage to that image when they invariably endorse liberal/democrat/socialist candidates than they gain in influencing voters to vote democrat. It seems to me that the only positive thing to come from these paper's endorsements is that endorsements put the lie to their unbiased reporting myth.

Alternatively, a news outlet that reports from a known bias, such as Creative Loafing or Rhinoceros Times, generally yield endorsements that are foregone conclusions.

Do these news outlets feel that they are more influential than they are or am I missing something?

john

[Joe Guarino]

Hi, John, and thanks for commenting. I think you have a point. I think many local Republicans and conservatives have looked to the Rhino Times for its endorsements. The traditional MSM daily, like the News and Record, is losing readership in major numbers, and is less influential than it was in the past. The availability of alternative media and means of communication has also diminished the impact of their endorsements somewhat. When they endorse Republicans, it is often when it is a safe incumbent in a lop-sided Republican district; or when the Democratic incumbent is severaly flawed and faces a solid challenger. I can't speak as much for the other major dailies around the state.

[tea for two-bagger peckinpah]

i found a way to vote twice last year.

one vote was cancelled by a dead person.

the other vote was cancelled by my step-daughter's liberal shackrat boyfriend.

any of you geniuses got any ideas?

[Stormy]

polifrog,

The News & Record's endorsements are foregone conclusions as well.

[Roch101]

"The News & Record's endorsements are foregone conclusions as well."

So we should vote against them?

[polifrog]

My comment above was written from a national perspective as my thoughts drifted that direction while reading the comments. Your post was very local, though.

When I swing my thoughts back toward the majority of the candidates mentioned on your post, I believe that newspaper endorsements are quite valuable to little known local candidates.

I tend not to think locally enough, I suppose.

john

[Joe Guarino]

John, I agree that the endorsements can still be quite valuable. In some cases, however, they can backfire for some voters. If the editorial page is known to be liberal, more conservative voters will often tend reflexively to support the candidate NOT endorsed.

Papers have a right to their editorial opinion and to endorse the candidates they favor. But conservatives rightly have concern when they see bias drifting into the news section, for instance in AP articles, even while the MSM dailies pose as being objective and even-handed.

[Stormy]

"The News & Record's endorsements are foregone conclusions as well."

So we should vote against them?

Roch, I really do not think that they will have any influence at all on how people vote in this election. You can vote with them or against them as you please. The probability that various media's recommendations are foregone conclusions is not a reason to vote for or against them. They are just what they are, a reflection of their political worldview.

Joe, I disagree that in this election that endorsements by the media will be quite valuable. This election presents a definite difference. If anyone is confused about who represents their interests, they probably should just stay home.

[Roch101]

"They are just what they are, a reflection of their political worldview." -- Stormy

They've endorsed Burr, Coble and Yon. What "wordlview" are you talking about? (Or are you just stuck?)

[Stormy]

You know, Roch, as I see the scandals emerging about how the media has actually inserted itself in attempts to try to influence the outcomes of elections (Ex: Alaska, Delaware, to name just a few of the most recent), I do not trust any of their endorsements. A media that didn't do its job of vetting a presidential candidate in 2008, and the same media plying itself to sway voters is just not worthy of having their recommendations seriously considered.

Oh, the word is "worldview", not "wordlview". I spelled it correctly. No, I am not stuck, and I am not any of the other pejoratives that you like to throw around toward other people here. Get ready, Roch, for the house cleaning that is coming.

[Roch101]

I can see you're perplexed. Never mind.

[bubba]

Consider this, Stormy.....

Although throughly bizarre, Roch's alternate reality "wordlview", like his buddy Cone's, is NEVER wrong.

[bubba]

Regarding the endorsement of Burr and Coble, those are safe no-brainers for the N&R, but consider this: "No-brainer" is a pretty good description of the N&R in general.

[Ayn L Retentive]

Roch really tears into these discussions, doesn't he?

[MB]

So...Let's support huge cuts in unnecessary spending by supporting canidates who promote deep cuts in military spending. With ~50% of every tax dollar going to military spending why not make cuts there? The US already spends as much on it's military each year as nearly ALL other nations combined...What a waste! Anyway, if true fiscal conservatives want to cut the budget put your money where your mouth is and advocate for drastically reduced military spending.

[bubba]

"With ~50% of every tax dollar going to military spending......"

Really? "~50%"?

In what alternate reality do you exist? Roch Smith Jr.'s?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

We see a great example of Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" Voodoo Math at work: "~50%" turns out to be 14% the real world.

On the other hand, it could be the poor MB is a victim of never being able to rise above his/her/its Government School education, or perhaps believes everything the lefty blahgs and news sources say is gospel.

Here's a proposal, MB: We'll support a 50% cut in Defense, if you and your pals support a 50% cut in each of the other four nearly equal categories listed....Government Pensions, Government Health Care, Government Education, Government Welfare.

Do we have a deal?

[MB]

Ok...I can post a link too. But mine references actual government figures. It actually comes out to about 53%. http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-orlando/tax-day-2010-most-of-every-dollar-you-pay-federal-taxes-is-spent-on It's not not too hard ... use google and look at sites that are willing to honestly consider all forms of spending

As to your personal attacks and slurs. I'll pass and wont bother trying to best you in any back and forth. I concede you are the winner on the ad hominem attack front.

My point being that if you are honest about getting outrageous spending under control then the wasteful military spending would need to top the list. In addition to the funding received by the military there is an addition 2 Trillion $ the pentagon can not accout for. Lot's of misused money there.

[jaycee]

Defense spending is 23% of the budget.
But apparently you think the military is not necessary for the protection of our freedom and way of life, so the facts probably won't make much difference to you anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

[bubba]

Your Examiner guy is an paid-by-the-piece, unvetted local writer of no particular expertise. He doesn't provide any source, and Examiner doesn't fact check it's local people. It's an opinion, and it's flat out WRONG.

He could write absolute gibberish, and Examiner wouldn't know, nor would they care, as long as it got enough pageloads. He bought into someone else's work without doing the research that easily shows the "~53%" is bogus.

How do I know this? I happen to be an Examiner free lancer. I know how these local guys work. Examiner doesn't care what these guys write. They're only looking to produce ad revenue.

You think the ~53% is easily supportable?

Think again:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qYnJgLxojtoJ:thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/sr0078.pdf+Federal+spending+by+category&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg5qB3vYP-AMiGduCrdGbkSuEptpDcwRDqXCMdOuFO-TqhPIhzYq-ulfKbhSti_6wtpo0-bTqV4Ikqh-qfLP9Falb9mGAnqoFRJP5677v4RvCLqDa0YInTpcCG6FJZFZtfyqDo6&sig=AHIEtbR_eXUSrRkGe5q6pMNOG_bgykqJvw

....using OMB calculations, at the bottom of pages 4-5 in the document, pages 9-10 in the PDF.

Maybe you want to argue that OMB is wrong.....be my guest.

If you want to be honest about getting outrageous spending under control, then obviously you need to look at other categories than Defense first. But if you had done your homework before making your original post, you would have known that, too.

[Stormy]

Ayn L Retentive,

Blog trolls tend not to have a very big vocabulary.

[bubba]

'Defense spending is 23% of the budget."

....of the Federal budget. However, our "expert" was talking about "~50% of every tax dollar going to military spending". My definition of "tax dollars" included state and local tax dollars; hence the 14% number in the link in my first post.

From the same source, here's a further breakdown.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget

[Ugg Boots]

If you doubt yourself, then indeed you stand on shaky ground.

[MB]

Sure! We can use OBM numbers and I'll help you do the math.

1. The white house's web site puts the department of defense's share of the budget at $708 billion, about 24 cents on the tax dollar. So this 24% is our starting point. There is additional military spending beyond this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_defense/

2. Add war appropriations bills to supplementally finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. An additional $106 billion. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/24/Obama-signs-106B-war-spending-bill/UPI-34501245893250/
All supplemental war spending based on what was spent last year brings the defense portion of the check to $814 billion. http://www.costofwar.com/

3. The 2011 defense budget also does not include: spending on veterans affairs - that means VA hospitals, benefits, etc., for any ex-military personnel that are no longer on active or reserve status. The bill for that is $60 billion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_veterans/

4. Homeland security, judging by the title, can be added to the defense part of the check for approximately another $4.3 billion, bringing the bill to approximately $878.3 billion. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_homeland/

5. So can NASA, for another $19 billion, since their primary function is deploying military satellites. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

6. And the National Intelligence Program for another (classified) amount, estimated at about $75 billion. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_intelligence/
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/07-1

7. Even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gets billed separately at about $5 billion. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_corps/

8. Like all government spending, of course, the defense portion has to be financed, so when money is borrowed from whomever or wherever to pay for the $900+ billion tab, add more interest to the approximately $250-400 billion in interest already owed through debt created by defense spending.

9. It gets even more complicated when you have to consider that Social Security expenditures are included in the overall budget, even though it is a trust that is raised and spent seperately from income taxes. So looking at the federal funds portion of the budget easily puts the figure at about 53 percent.

So there you go. Military spending totals about 53% of each tax dollar. Glad I could help you better understand.

OBM numbers as you requested.