The Stir By CafeMom: Blogger Christine Luhnow

Here's Hoping the Republicans Learned a Lesson About Social Issues

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:42:00 EST

Post by Christine Luhnow

Oh, well. I was hoping for a hanging chad controversy or some other indication that the 2012 election wasn't truly over. Some fluke by which Romney wins the popular vote and the Electoral College is turned on its head. The truth is it was over fairly early. Far earlier than anyone thought it would be. And as close as Mitt Romney got to the White House, at the end of the day, he never got close enough to the voters to oust President Barack Obama.

I don't know what happened.

I do know I was at the bank yesterday talking to a millennial or young woman in her 20s who had voted for Obama and was voting for Romney. Another gal at the coffee shop said the same thing. Then I went to get my hair done and the stylist, who is gay, told me he won't ever vote for a Republican as long as they are anti-civil union. He said he just got engaged and that he and a partner want to have a child using a surrogate or in vitro. My little sister, who lives in Virginia and admitted to me that she knew the economy would get better under Romney, voted for Obama because of women's issues. Folks, if there is a theme here it is that the Republicans are going to have to back off on social issues if they want to stop alienating voters who would otherwise vote for them. I might have voted for Todd Akin because Claire McCaskill was so closely aligned with Obama for much of his tenure but then he made that "legitimate rape" comment and I couldn't vote in that race at all.

We can't ignore what needs to happen and I wish I trusted the Democrats to do it. Our country needs to stop in its tracks financially and reassess. We can't afford the programs we're creating and we can't leave the financial legacy we've created, a 16-trillion-dollar deficit, to our kids. If there was ever a time that voters might have heard that message, I thought it would surely be the year that we all watch the economy limping along. People are seriously hurting and yet, the enormity and importance of our financial future seemed to elude them.

We can do better and we will. Voters ultimately came down on the side of healthcare reform and social issues. But I also think they were kind of ticked off at Congressional Republicans who they blamed for much of the partisan bickering. It's time for moderate Republicans to raise their hands and let their presence be known so that a moderate like the Mitt Romney can get nominated. That Romney would have had a lot of crossover appeal to the socially liberal voters. I don't blame Romney for changing his mind or for having positions that evolved over time. And I do believe the Romney that ran this race is still the same person but the process has made it too difficult for a reasonable Republican to punch through. And that he wasn't as concerned about social issues because he was so committed to reversing our economy.

I watched the returns with an interesting group last night. Some wore blue and voted blue; others were red and voted accordingly.

I voted for Romney but I wore maroon. I think it's where most Americans are and it is going to be in the middle that true progress comes. Now I just hope the Democrats are willing to work with the Republicans and that they don't view last night's victory as a reason to keep spending. And I hope the Republican realize change is afoot and that social issues do not belong on the party's platform. As the stylist said yesterday, no one is going to vote for a party that hates them.

Image via Millicent_Bystander/Flickr

Mitt Romney Is the Best Choice for Women and Children

Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:26:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

It's interesting to revisit this question after blogging over the last year and watching the 2012 election campaigns unfold. Who is going to be the best candidate for women and children? For me, it's Mitt Romney. But that is because I consider the economy our biggest concern this go-around. And I think it's time to give a successful businessman the chance to run things for awhile. And as I've said before, I believe a rising tide lifts all boats.

There were times when I liked the Mitt Romney who ran Massachusetts better than the candidate. Back when it was okay to be a Republican and say you were pro-choice, pro-stem cell, and yeah, you cared if people could get health insurance or not. But I blame the process and not the person. How else does a moderate Republican get the nomination when the social conservatives have gummed up the process?

A lot of moderate moms might not feel good about voting for Romney if they believed he was going to be the guy at the top when abortion rights unraveled. Personally, I'm hoping he's going to be too busy turning the economy around and leave the fight over abortion to Congress and the states. And when the engine starts revving again, and people are busy working, that government intrusion into the bedroom will be relegated to the back burner. That's usually the way it works, isn't it? Hopefully, when jobs open up and the economy improves, women will stop being used as targets. Call me naive, but today's modern woman, as nuanced a thinker, as capable a breadwinner, and as fickle a voter as she is, is not going to stand by while legislators try to unravel rights we earned more than 40 years ago.

Looking back at this year, I think we moms learned a lot. For me, this blog helped me to stay informed and really consider my vote. A single mom, trying to pay the mortgage, trying to find paying work, and having to borrow money, I could relate to what was happening to our country and to a lot of my fellow moms. I realized firsthand, it's about downsizing and reconsidering priorities with a goal to a healthier financial future. I guess I just trust the Republican candidates more to do the same thing on a larger scale.

Once Jon Huntsman went by the wayside, I turned to Mitt Romney, and the more I listened to him talk about turning organizations around, the more I liked what I saw. And once the filter between Romney and the voters was removed, the way it was in the debates, Americans warmed up to him, too.

As a moderate, I was surprised about how my resolve against re-electing Obama really strengthened over the course of the campaign. I just saw the Democrats and the press giving him a free ride when he was playing the very campaign tricks the social conservatives once had a lock on. Like trying to divide and distract women by trotting out social issues. I got mad and I think a lot of other women did, too.

Whoever is elected, let's hope the interest in the Moderate or Independent voice lives on past next Tuesday. Because most moderate moms seem to be saying our top concern is the economy; we want to feel like our government can protect us from threats from abroad, but we need to know we are not making ourselves vulnerable here on the home-front by being in such poor shape financially; we want to take care of our planet, but we need to develop energy independence; we want our kids to have a good education; and we want to feel good about our country again.

I don't have the answers but I think moms can define and tackle almost any problem when it involves their kids. I just hope they turn out in droves to vote next week! And that more of them will consider running for public office. And inspiring those kids, errr, I mean political parties to be nice and work harder to fix this country's problems! And yes, I admit it. I hope they vote for Romney.

Foreign Policy Debate Shows Moderates Will Make or Break the Election

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:19:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

Mitt Romney looked relaxed and confident heading into the Presidential debate on foreign policy, the last debate of the 2012 Presidential Election. And well he should have! With the Gallup poll putting him 9 points ahead of President Barack Obama two weeks out from the elections, and having never been wrong before when a candidate had that big a lead this close to Election Day, Romney was the most confident he's been so far.

He also came off knowledgeable and concerned. I appreciate that Obama has overseen some significant change in the Middle East but didn't agree entirely with his assessments. The fact is the Middle East is highly unstable and we do need to get in front of the issues there. The Arab Spring has unfolded. And while it initially appeared that despots across the region who promote, fund, or look the other way when it comes to terrorism would topple and Democratic governments would emerge, the realty has been a little messier than that. Assad is still in power in Syria and Iran could have a nuclear bomb by this spring.

I'm not sure that this debate will have a big impact on the polls. Only 10 percent of voters in battleground states put foreign policy as a higher concern than the economy and the deficit.

Each candidate did well last night. They both had good energy and were in the game. And each of them did a good job of tying foreign policy concerns back to domestic issues. The truth is they agree, in many respects, on the solutions to many of our current problems abroad. Neither one is advocating war. Each is in favor of using influence and credibility and economic sanctions to contain the nuclear threat in Iran and N. Korea.

Obama has a slight advantage on foreign affairs in that he gets to point to events that unfolded while he was in charge like the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and the withdrawal from Iraq. But as Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisor said before the debate, as former CEO, Romney is excellent at managing complex organizations and issues. That's what he does. And in fact, he does poll higher than Obama when the question is phrased, "Who do you trust more to make wise decisions?"

Americans have a big decision two weeks from now and at the end of the day, I believe the economy will be the deciding factor. But we should not be naive about the danger that exists in the Middle East.

I think we can all agree that Bob Schieffer "won" for being the best moderator so far! I love that he wore purple socks, because a lot of voters consider themselves "purple" or "maroon" this time around -- not necessarily "blue" or "red." It's the color of the Moderates who will make or break this election.

Image via Adam Glanzman/Flickr

Candy Crowley Won the Debate for President Obama

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:35:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

When it comes to debates, it really is the zingers that people remember. And it appears they could be a factor again in these 2012 elections. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had some great ones in this second debate. Like when he talked about how if we continue borrowing and spending we are setting this country on "The Road to Greece" and when he turned to President Barack Obama and said, "Have you looked at your pension fund lately? You've got investments in China and the Caymans, too." And oh, yeah, I liked the, "Did he or didn't he call it an Act of Terror in the Rose Garden that day?" Although that one lost a little steam because it is unclear exactly what the Administration did and didn't say those first two weeks. As a fellow blogger said last night, if he did call it an Act of Terror but still kept blaming an anti-Islam movie on YouTube, is that telling the truth or just massaging the release of information?

Of course, the zinger that got the most attention was "binders full of women." But, I think it is really important that we point out that the expression only became an "issue" after the head of a liberal PAC seized on the quote and bought the URL and the Dems hit the switch that sent it viral.

I just have to say that I was part of a CafeMom forum right after the debate with a mix of women who are divided between Obama and Romney and it was barely mentioned. In fact, it didn't come up until ten minutes into the twenty minute conversation and if you watch the conversation, it didn't ignite any interest or controversy on our panel. None.

That's because some of us, like Paul Ryan said on the morning talk shows this morning, took Romney at face value and thought he was talking about how many women's resumes he considered and how many women he actually employed as Governor of Massachussetts. Again, let's not let the spin doctors create issues to divide us, ladies.

As to who won or lost the debate, I thought Candy Crowley won the debate for Obama. Really, Romney, who did sound and look a little tired, unfortunately, was on his game when he was talking about energy, the budget, the deficit and immigration and is only losing points because of the "did he or didn't he call it an Act of Terror" question which the moderator jumped in and answered in a way, that while authoritative, may not have been thorough. Really, without the assist, it was a draw.

Just let's remember that Romney isn't wrong when he says the Administration did blame the movie for two weeks. I thought it was really interesting that Hillary Clinton is taking the blame for that one. And do want to raise the question, knowing what we know about how good the Clintons are at spin, if maybe she was the architect of that initial response and the slow drip of the facts? Maybe that's why she got sent to Peru or wherever she was last night.

See this video on The Stir by CafeMom.

Paul Ryan Is a Fiscal Expert Not a Debate Expert

Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:33:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

I thought the Vice Presidential debate was so interesting because it was really Joe Biden's to lose. After all, he just did this four years ago when he ran against Sarah Palin, he is a much older and more experienced debater and politician than Congressman Paul Ryan, and his personal strength is the warm touch. But something happened last night. It just felt like he was too focused on his performance and that he was overdoing the theatrics. At the end of the day all that finger pointing, the dramatic sighs and harumphs, and the overly confident references to his friend "Bibi" (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) came off as fake.

Congressman Paul Ryan, on the other hand, came off a little nervous but tenacious as all get out. He just wouldn't back down. I was impressed at his knowledge of foreign affairs given that he is known for being a fiscal expert. And I liked when he pointed out that our Ambassador in Paris has 24/7 protection while our Ambassador in Lybia, who reportedly had asked for it, didn't. (We now know Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in a terror attack, not a protest sparked by an Islamic film on youtube, as was initially reported.)

I felt bad for Ryan because I'm not sure the debate format is the best way for him to get his message of fiscal arrest and reform across to the public. He did a great job of refuting some of the misperceptions of his plan, like that it would cost seniors an additional $6,000 each, but the truth is the plan is so complex it might be better understood in a white paper or a lengthy newspaper or magazine article. It's hard to get a sense of the big picture and how it all ties together in 2 minute snippets.

Image via monkeyz_uncle/Flickr

First Presidential Debate Is Like a Boardroom Smackdown

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 23:57:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

I was just laughing with a friend that even though I am a moderate, I never sound like one. But seriously, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney brought it. He needed to and he did. He came off like a CEO dressing down a CFO for not keeping the lid on spending. And that's appropriate because we are electing a CEO for this country who needs to put the lid back on spending.

I thought President Barack Obama had a good line, though, when Romney was going on about tax breaks for oil companies and Obama said, "Okay, yeah, they got them but it's time to end 'em." Even though I have said many times I think Obama is at heart a very decent person, I do think he looked a little shaken at times in this first Presidential Debate. Especially when Romney just kept hitting the numbers. "The proof," he said over and over, "is in the 23 million without jobs, it's in the 1 in 6 in poverty, it's in the 47 million on food stamps."

My favorite part of the whole debate was when Romney said he really liked what he did in Massachusetts to create healthcare reform. But he reminded voters, he didn't have to raise taxes to do it, and Massachusetts could afford it. And he also pointed out that he worked with a Democratic legislature in a truly bi-partisan effort to implement reform in that state. That is so important for moderates and Independents to hear. It's just the nuance they need to hear when the Republican message has been so black and white about repealing Obamacare on Day One. Because even though we may need to go back to the drawing board, we do need to reform healthcare. We can't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Americans want to know they won't be punished for being sick by being denied benefits for pre-existing conditions and they need to know their kids can stay on their policies.

I also liked when Romney said his Medicare plan is not as heartless as people want to portray it. Those with the highest income wouldn't get the same benefits as those with less money to spend. And that's appropriate.

Kudos to Romney, too, for pointing out that while he is going to cut taxes, he is also going to eliminate a lot of the deductions or loopholes, not just for the wealthy, but also the middle class. I kept wanting him to invoke "The Gipper" (Ronald Reagan) every time Obama brought up those 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy he says Romney is planning to make. I just needed Romney to stop, laugh and say, "Oh, there you go again!" Because even though he answered the charge in the first question, it came up in almost everyone of Obama's answers after that. Really at some point it was such an obvious tactic, it needed to be mentioned.

Money Issues Are More Important Than Women's Issues at the Polls

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:37:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

I had a conversation with my 14-year-old daughter on the way to school today after she told me she is "voting" for President Barack Obama. Um, "supporting" Obama? (Maybe they do a mock election at school?) She said it's because Mitt Romney is anti-abortion. God love this child that she is bright enough to care and that she has opinions. I laughed because a year ago she told me she was a socialist, then announced that she was moderate Republican, only to tell me this morning she is voting for Obama. Kids! I am finally learning that with teenage girls, it isn't worth a big to-do because by day's end, she will probably change her mind!

I did have to say to her while we wish Presidents shared our views on social issues, you can't vote for a President based on social issues. Legislators, yes. Absolutely. They write the laws. "But even if you were a one-issue female voter in the past," I told her, "this year it's got to be about the economy." It was hard to put it in terms that she would understand, but I really believe that Obama has failed to lead in this arena. Where everything Romney has touched has turned to gold. I also think you vote for a Commander-in-Chief in part because they inspire confidence. That's right, you vote for a CEO because he makes investors feel secure. Same thing with the President. Their job, especially at this time, transcends social issues. And this year, I hope women will realize that a rising tide will lift all boats. Fixing the economy and protecting the nation's fiscal health for the next generation is good for all women.

This week, everybody's stuck on the number 47, as in the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay taxes, according to Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. I think the number we all need to be thinking about is 50, as in less than 50 days until the 2012 Presidential Election. The other numbers I am thinking a lot about these days are 20 and 40. As in a year ago, 20 percent of the electorate identified itself as Moderate or Independent. Today, with just over six weeks to go, it's 40 percent. For anyone who thinks it's over, I would say the sleeping giant hasn't even reared its head. Either they're so fed up they're going to keep sleeping and stay home or they're going to elect Romney. Let's hope it's the latter.

I have to say when I first saw last week's sneak attack video and heard Romney say that he couldn't "worry about those people," referring to the reported 47 percent of Americans who don't pay taxes because they are exempt, I thought he was referring to the people who are constantly trying to paint him with the "give to the rich and steal from the poor" brush. On second viewing, it does sound like he was referring to the veterans and elderly who don't pay their taxes because they get breaks. I don't know what he was thinking because I am not in his head, but I do know he could have meant that he was going to focus on the monies that do come in, and address what changes need to be made and why.

The polls and the media are fanning the fires that the Romney campaign is going up in flames. You wonder why Independents and Republicans no longer trust the media when it is hard to hear any real news against this attempt to drown his campaign in a drumroll of defeat. Americans are not stupid. They are tired. And discouraged. And more cynical than ever about where they solutions lie. But at the end of the day, it will boil down to the economy. At least it should.

Photo via MittRomney.com

American Values Are Rooted in Family, Church and Government

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:04:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

Are American values rooted in family, church or government? I would say all of the above -- just not all at the same time! We seem to have lost our way with all of this and we seem to be confusing how important each is and how important it is to keep them separate. And we seem to be confusing how important the concept of freedom is to how all of these segments of society function.

According to Gallup, 40% of Americans say they go to church regularly. Why do they go? To be inspired, to worship, for community. Not one person said they go to be a better citizen. And hence my point, citizenship and God are separate categories. So, too, family. But what a mash up they've become.

Stephen Jay Gould has a wonderful website called The American History of Religious Freedom with great quotes from Presidents past on this issue of church and state. I particularly like the quote from John F. Kennedy, who said, "No Catholic prelate would tell the President how he should act." (He might be surprised at some of the sermons around stem cell research as of late!)

For someone who would rather listen to an episode of the cable television show Modern Family than listen to a politician preach about traditional family values, I just want our government to get back to governing. I just believe each family should have the freedom to decide whether it is a Mom and a Dad running the show, A Mom and a Mom or a single Mom or Dad.

As far as family, I have to admit I like when I see, whether it's the Obamas or the Romneys a tight family unit. Who doesn't consider a happy, well-functioning family a sign of success? As a single Mom who wonders whether she can govern her own teenagers sometimes (that's a joke), I am proud to say at least we exhibit the very American belief that hard work is the solution to our problems!

DNC vs. RNC: And the Winner Is ...

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:03:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

So, I would say the real winner in terms of the Democratic versus Republican National Conventions was probably the voter, especially if that voter happened to be a minority. Even though I tilt Republican, and I do think the Republicans came on stronger than the Democrats this time around, the truth is if you watched closely, both sides seemed to be responding to some changing forces in the electorate.

If you look at the Republicans, it was practically a rainbow of diversity compared to years past. Condi Rice was featured prominently, Mitt Romney's son gave a speech in Spanish, Marco Rubio talked about the fact that his Dad worked the bar in rooms like the one he was now a headlining speaker in, Mia Love (I love that name!) is a Haitian-American female Republican and Mormon from Utah. ('Nuf said!) Yes, cynics will say it was window dressing but I don't think so. I think it was a sign that change, while moving slowly, is afoot in the Republican Party. I felt reassured that the Republicans can restore our country's fiscal health based on Romney's experience and Paul Ryan passion about reigning in spending. And it is clear from his speech, even though he is young, he is no "Johnny come lately" to the idea of fiscal reform. Now, if we could only get our Republicans to loosen up a little on social issues! That would be a dream convention!

As far as the Democrats, the trotting out of Bill Clinton was a huge acknowledgement that voters want to hear more about the economy than they've been hearing from the current occupant of the White House. Bill Clinton was a true centrist in many ways. And President Barack Obama appeared to be one when he was running for office. It's hard to imagine that Obama would have taken the line Clinton did on welfare, a bold move for a Democrat. (Yes, I know he was motivated by the Republicans. But still, he showed the ability to work with the other party and make tough cuts in programs that are sacred cows for the Democrats.) Unfortunately for Obama, I'm not sure Clinton helped in the long run. He made Obama look even further to the left and less experienced.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Which Convention 'Won'?

Image via Mitt Romney/Flickr

Elizabeth Warren Is Wrong About the System Being 'Rigged'

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:18:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, said she couldn't believe when she was chosen to be the warm-up act to Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. I can!

She reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton. She even referred to Hillary as the "coolest woman" or something like that in her speech. Of course, the real reason for Warren's high profile is that the Democrats are desperate to win back Ted Kennedy's seat. And right now, she and the incumbent Republican Scott Brown are locked in a statistical dead heat. The difference is Brown, a pro-choice fiscal conservative, turned down the Republican party's offer to have him speak at its convention because he is framing himself as an Independent. Warren seized on the chance to stand shoulder to shoulder with her fellow Dems.

As far as her performance, Warren did try to summon those somewhat-subdued-this-time-around-student-voters by hammering home the point that they are drowning in debt that the government should do something about. I would say the best thing the government could do to help those loan strapped graduates is to give them what they need most -- not necessarily debt relief, but a stronger economy that leads to job creation.

Warren also said Americans think our system of government is rigged and "they're right." Which seemed at odds with the host of rags-to-riches businessmen the Democrats trotted out, like the founders or heads of Groupon, Nextel, and Costco. Funny but none of those guys ever said the system is rigged. I wonder if job creators like them agree with Warren's statement that the economy grows from the bottom up? Hmmmm.

Warren is brave to run against Republican Scott Brown. Brown popped on the national level when he was swept into the U.S. Senate by knocking on doors and taking his brand of fiscal conservatism in a liberal state straight to the people. He has been endorsed by former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn as well as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. So far, their race is shaping up to be the costliest Senate campaign in the 2012 election. And one of the two candidates running just got a lot of free exposure for her message. The question is: Is her message what voters are looking for this time around?

Image via IEWforSenatephotostream/Flickr

The Silver Lining to Todd Akin's 'Legitimate Rape' Flub

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 08:52:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

If there is a silver lining to the Todd Akin story in Missouri it is that the Republicans were able to turn a negative into a postive by saying very clearly, "This is not who we are."

Akin, who is running for U.S. Senate in a tightly contested race against a female candidate, famously said that he was only in favor of abortion in the case of a "legitimate rape." He also made the statement that it was his understanding that not many rapes result in pregnancy because of a woman's ability to inhibit procreation in a hostile sexual encounter. The good news is some of the dinosaurs in the Republican Party, some of its most respected and most conservative members said, "Whaaaaaat?" and were willing to take a stand in this situation.

As a moderate Republican woman, that was welcome news. Women do count. And the only reason the Party has agreed to disagree on social issues that affect women is because the economy is such a mess. Still what Akin said crossed a line.

Now comes the news that Akin is in Tampa meeting with conservative Christian groups and seeking their counsel on whether to withdraw from the race. He's already been asked to stay away from the Convention this week and is apparently doing so. Even his co-sponsor on some of the most restrictive anti-abortion legislation in recent years, Vice Presidential pick Paul Ryan, called Akin to say it was time to go for the good of the party. So, why is he in Tampa? Is this some end run to portray himself as a populist Christian firebrand who has to operate outside of the Party a la the Tea Party? I guess we will find out.

I will say kudos to Mitt Romney for taking the stance he did and doing what was right by encouraging Akin to step down. Romney gets labeled and mislabeled because his positions have tightened up but at the end of the day it would serve us to remember that his mother ran for the U.S. Senate on a pro-choice platform. Even his running mate, who is more conservative than he is, has said he will defer to the Boss, who believes in exceptions in cases of rape or incest. I get that Akin is human, and none of us is above making a mistake and asking for forgiveness. But, Akin needs to defer to his Party and recognize how crucial the 2012 election is. And that digging in puts the overall success of the Republicans at risk. As I say over and over, those social conservatives are the slam dunk Republicans but the Moderates and Independents will make or break these elections.

Image via ForwardStl/Flickr

Let's Give Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan a Chance

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:10:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

Medicare is so complicated. It's resisted reform just because most people find it intimidating to understand. But elected officials on both sides of the aisle finally agree there is a problem. Even fans of certain parts of Obamacare -- like laws that prevent insurers from refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions -- acknowledge that Obamacare overall is highly flawed. Further reform is needed because if compensation costs continue to spiral the way they have in recent years, funding will dry up. It really isn't a question of whether Medicare needs to be reformed but how and when.

It's too soon to tell if Paul Ryan's plan to put control in the hands of the patient by issuing vouchers to buy their own coverage will work. But it's the best plan we've seen so far. Right now, hospitals and doctors are paid regardless of the quality of care they provide. Under the Ryan plan, providers wouldn't be turning to Uncle Sam for their bread and butter, but to the actual customers -- their patients.

By putting control in patients' hands, you hopefully force providers to compete for their health care dollars. Under President Barack Obama's Obamacare, compensation to providers is dictated by a panel of experts who would set price controls. Unfortunately, that could lead to providers making up the difference by charging non-Medicare patients more.

We need to take the fear out of the equation that is being promoted by Democrats in one attack ad after the other. Remember the elderly woman in a wheelchair being pushed off a cliff? Yeah, like that. Where are the Republican response ads explaining that the poor and sickly would be allocated more money than other claimants under Ryan's voucher system?

It's also important to point out that the plan is changing and being tweaked leading up to the 2012 election. There is talk of making the voucher system optional. Mitt Romney's pick of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate doesn't necessarily mean he's endorsing Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future." It's just a starting point. So dial in, listen closely, and stay tuned. It's critical.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Medicare Be Replaced by Subsidies?

Image via Mitt Romney/Flickr

Paul Ryan Is a Rock Star in the Making

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:38:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

So, it's Paul Ryan! No, he isn't pro-choice. And no, he isn't a woman. But in a year when we need to put social issues on the back burner to get our economy's engine revving again, he is the right pick. Talk about warming up the ticket. After all, when was the last time a potential VP broke down in tears because he was so moved at being back home. You gotta love this quote from the New York Daily News on Ryan's reaction to being back in Wisconsin, "My veins run with cheese, bratwurst, a little Spotted Cow, Leiney's, and some Miller." There's something charming about a Vice Presidential pick who admits he's a cheesehead!

Of course, Ryan is a great pick for Republican candidate Mitt Romney for some strictly practical reasons as well. For all the emotion, Ryan is at his core a dollars and sense guy who makes a lot of sense. He is determined to stop the "just raise taxes" mentality in Washington to focus on long term spending. He wisely sees the way to reform health care isn't through harsh penalties or profligate spending by the federal government, it is to put the patient first by forcing the industry to compete for our health care dollars. The way he would do that is by having states pool together to increase their purchasing power. He's compassionate in ways that might surprise you. He wants to give economically depressed areas special income tax credits.

The reason he is a surprise pick is that no one really knows much about him. Only 17 percent of voters said they are more likely to vote for Mitt Romney because he has chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate. More than half of all Americans don't know if he was a Senator, a Congressman, Governor of his State, or just another Department head out of Washington. For the record he was a Representative in the House, Chairman of the House Budget committee, and a Senior member on Ways and Means.

It's just a wild guess but I think Americans are going to fall for Paul Ryan and that he really is a rock star in the making. He is young and passionate about putting our economy back on the rails. He is a bit of a policy wonk, but given that Mitt Romney has been criticized for not being specific enough, Ryan is the guy who can literally point to his "A Roadmap for America's Future" to show where the cuts will be made. To highlight a few, Social Security as we know it would remain the same for those 55 and over. For those under 55, you would have control over your own individual savings accounts that could be passed on to your survivors. Americans would have flexibility with taxes, opting to choose one of two rates for example depending on your willingness to forgo deductions, too.

Romney has been criticized for being vague on where he would make cuts, but Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" could not be any clearer. If you can assume that Romney's choice of Paul Ryan is an endorsement of his ideas, then the message Romney seems to be sending is that fiscal arrest and rehabilitation will be his top priorities when he gets to Washington.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see "Romney Picks Paul Ryan as VP."

Photo via Mitt Romney

The Politics of Prayer

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:41:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

One thing I've never understood is the controversy religion inspires. After all, when you look at the biggies -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam -- don't all three share the same core values of a belief in a deity that is bigger than what we see in front of us every day? Of goodness and good works that come from caring for our fellow man? And isn't it people, not the religion itself, that always seems to get in the way?

Here in Missouri, an amendment to protect the rights of Christians to pray in public passed overwhelmingly. Apparently, some felt they were under attack because they can no longer open public meetings with a Christian prayer. It's an interesting argument given that 80% of Missourians are Christians.

Our school (a private school) had a similar concern. And a traditional grace that was said before lunch was changed to a non sectarian one. And here's the key. They did it without involving all of the parents. At first, that rubbed me the wrong way but then I thought about the controversy a move like that might have inspired. The basic purpose remains the same. The children still pause for reflection and offer gratitude. There is still a moment of silence when an individual can say a traditional prayer to himself. But no one is forced to pray to a God that isn't their own.

Maybe that's the way to change the world. Start at the kids' level. Let's teach them that religion is a private matter. Separation of church and state is one of our country's founding principles. No one can ever take our right to pray away. Nor should they.

Of course, any time a vote like this comes up in a tightly contested election year like the 2012 Election promises to be, I immediately think "wedge issue!" This could galvanize the base and likely will. And upon closer "reflection," isn't that what it is ultimately about? Religious freedom is already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Which begs the question of what is really going on here? As I've said before, maybe we all need to pray that we can get the religion out of politics!

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Do States Need Right to Pray Amendments?

Mitt Romney's Trip Abroad Was a Good Idea Despite His Gaffes

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:57:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

So, my take on whether Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney should be "campaigning" in Europe is that we all need to take a collective breath here. Who can blame the guy for taking a side trip to London, Israel and Poland after spending the last two years on a bus visiting places like Peducah and Scranton? That's a joke, obviously. He didn't go there to vacation.

My initial reaction is that it was not a tourism trip, or even an attempt to shore up Romney's foreign policy credentials but probably a fundraising trip combined with a little image building. Romney raised $1,000,000 in Israel alone. And going to London right before the Olympics might have been a not-so-bad idea since Romney is credited with doing such a great job rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from financial ruin.

The gaffes were unfortunate, but also a little overblown, in my opinion. Why is it a gaffe to say that Israel's culture is responsible in part for its' economic strength? I don't think he was comparing Israeli Jews to Arabs when he was talking about "culture." I think he was talking about the success of a start-up country when it comes to high-tech start-ups and venture capital. And come on, let's face it, both of those things are the result of self-determination.

I don't think Romney went to Poland to get the votes of Polish-Americans. He's trying to inspire us that it is going to take hard work, but if we look at the kind of work they did in Poland, whose economy grew 4% while the economies of other European countries around it were imploding, the U.S. can turn its own economy around. If he went to nick away at Obama's stronghold of Chicago, a photo-op with Lech Walesa goes a long way in that city. Chicago is, after all, "the city that works."

Romney put it best when he told the Washington Post:

I realize there will be some in the fourth estate or in whichever estate who are far more interested in finding something to write about that is unrelated to the economy, geo-politics and the threat of war.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Mitt Romney Be Campaigning Abroad?

Image via Mitt Romney's photostream/Flickr

Guns Aren't the Bad Guys

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:38:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

It would have been incredibly crass for either Presidential candidate to talk politics with respect to the movie theatre shootings in Aurora, Colorado, last week. Thank goodness they both took the tone they did and realized that American hearts are hurting. The measured pause in the current stage of the 2012 elections, where polls show the race tightening up, should be commended.

For so many families, movies are a great escape, especially in an economy where voters may be opting for staycations over vacations or during a summer with as many 100 degree days as we've had so far. How can anyone escape the feelings of vulnerability Americans feel after what appeared to be a promotional stunt at a showing of Dark Knight Rises ended in a horrific massacre? It transcends politics. And thank goodness that both President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney realized that.

When it's the right time, they may want to address gun control. At least that's what New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would like. What would be wrong with Romney saying it's up to individual states to decide? And why can't he get elected President if he acknowledges that, as governor of Massachusetts, he signed a ban on assault weapons? I don't see that as a contradiction of his support for the N.R.A. After all, their basic fight is for the right for Americans to keep and bear arms, isn't it?

No one is questioning the right to bear arms and no one I know is talking about taking guns and bullets away from hunters who buy their weapons and ammo legally. We're talking about stopping rogue killers or plugging the holes in the underground market where sellers purposely thwart regulations. James Holmes was intelligent enough to buy two handguns in two separate locations because he knew the Deptartment of Justice would have to be notified if he bought both in the same place.

A lot of Republicans are afraid to talk about guns. To be honest, I used to see the gun as the enemy instead of the person holding it. I now live in a place where some of the state's most upstanding citizens love their guns. They buy them legally, keep them locked up and use them for recreation. It has given me pause. And I no longer see guns themselves as the bad guys. Well, not all guns anyway. As a Mom, though, it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to like an assault weapon.

I just read a great article in Newsday about whether you can even identify a killer like James Holmes before he strikes? It says the FBI has done a better job profiling and halting Al Queda than to identify loners turned mass murderers before they strike. That does seem to confirm we don't need new laws, we need to talk about and understand how to enforce the laws we have and to close the holes in the net that a troubled person like James Holmes can so easily slip through. Even the WOR interviewer asked Bloomberg whether the issue isn't gun laws but a breakdown of community within our society.

I think it would be helpful to consider this issue in light of immigration. Immigration is a problem that was too hot to handle for a long time. Only now are both sides really sitting down to talk about how nuanced an issue it really is. And it is only when the discussions start that progress will be made.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Where Do You Stand on the Gun Control Debate?

Image via Svaldifari/Flickr

Mitt Romney Should Pick a California Girl for VP

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:15:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

So, it just occurred to me, with the latest polls showing Obama leading Romney in the state of California by a margin of 17 points, that Romney needs to choose a California girl for his running mate. There are two great choices out west right now -- former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. Maybe we could move the needle even farther by letting them job share?

That's a joke.

But seriously, each of these women could do a lot for a party that one of its biggest supporters just said is too "fat, white, and male."

Condi reportedly isn't interested. But if I were chatting with her one-on-one, which I assume Romney has done lately, I would appeal to her sense of loyalty to the Republican party. On top of that, I would vote for you if you were running, Condoleezza, if for no other reason than you like "policy but not politics." If there was ever a timely phrase to resonate with a disillusioned electorate, that would be it.

And even though you couch your pro-choice views by calling yourself "mildly pro-choice," we'll take it. You also represent a modern Republican view of the world by acknowledging the rights of gays to form civil unions. And have we ever had a Secretary of State rock a pair of black high heeled boots like you did? You could be the bridge to get all of those moderate Republican women back over the raging waters that pushed them into the Obama camp in 2008. We think you need to go for it!

The second great choice from California is Meg Whitman. She is pro-choice, pro-civil union, and pro-business. She might appeal to all the young tech savvy types who went viral for Obama in 2008. After all, it's pretty cool to say you ran eBay. She's an American success story and one of the wealthiest businesswomen in California. She gets Democrats and has even given money to Democrats that she deemed reasonable. That kind of cross appeal is going to be critical for the Republicans this election year. The electorate is tired of the haters and wants to see people who can work across the aisle. She also endorsed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in California, something getting a lot of attention in the Presidential race right now.

Can you imagine what it feels like to be Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney this week? Who he picks to be his running mate could represent a critical turn in the 2012 elections. Just look at what happened with John McCain's candidacy after he chose Sarah Palin. It could also speak volumes about how far the Party will go to appease social conservatives. Speaking of social conservatives, it is so interesting to see that they are badgering Romney to pick a Tea Party candidate as his running mate. My advice (not that anyone at Romney, Inc. is asking!) is to assume the social conservatives aren't going to vote for Obama and appeal to the swing voters who could make or break this election by choosing someone who represents diversity within the party.

I do like that Ann Romney is playing a role in all this. This is an excerpt from an article by William Kristol in the Weekly Standard:

Ann Romney, for her part, took issue with the Obama team's strategy, telling her interviewer that Democrats will "do everything they can to destroy Mitt."

"Early on we heard what their strategy was. It was kill Romney," she said, adding a message to Obama: "Not when I'm next to him you better not."

She also sketched out her own requirements for what she'd like to see in a running mate, saying the person should be "someone that obviously can do the job but will be able to carry through with some of the other responsibilities." She said the person should be someone who will have her husband's back and who he will enjoy being around and have "the same personality type." She added: "Competent, capable and willing to serve this country. I think there's lots of good people out there that fill that bill right now."

There are other competent people out there right now. Kelly Ayotte and Marco Rubio are two other possibilities but neither one is going to balance out the ticket on social issues the way Meg Whitman and Condoleezza Rice would.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Who Is Your Republican VP Pick?

Image via Justin Bugsy Sailors/Flickr

Corporations Can Be Good People

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:31:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

I had a great conversation with a high school friend of mine in the car on the New Jersey Turnpike the other day. She is a Democrat who is consulting for a well-known business school and is a female business owner herself. I am a Republican who is trying to build up a moderate voice. She asked why I am supporting Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 election when I voted for President Barack Obama in 2008. I said because Romney will run our country like a business.

That's when she went into a Milton Friedman-esque explanation of how businesses and government cannot be run the same way because their core goals are different. The bottom line for a business is delivering a profit, she said, not inaccurately.

In my opinion, too many voters today think of big business as the bogeyman in this economy. They could not have it more upside down. The perception is that business is doing well (I admit they are sitting on a lot of cash!) because of all the breaks they get from the Federal government. It's true businesses do get tax breaks. It's also true some corporations saw their profits soar in the last several years. The hope is that businesses will lead the recovery by using these breaks to create jobs. And I agree they should.

But, nothing illustrates the concept that "businesses are people" better than the fact that at the top of those businesses are real people making decisions about where to invest and when and whether to roll out new products or build a job creating factory, using the most human of instincts of all -- a gut feeling. And right now, those people don't feel confident enough about the guy in the White House to be doing any of those things.

I think it is really brilliant that Romney, in spite of what his advisors may be telling him, keeps saying, "Corporations are people." It's a way to humanize the "demon in the room." It's also a brilliant way to say, "Corporations are doing well because they're run by people like me. Just think what I can do for the economy as President."

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Are Corporations People?

Image via Mitt Romney/Flickr

Maternity Leave Is for Bosses to Decide

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:27:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

I really try so hard not to be cynical, but could paid maternity leave be the latest issue in the 2012 elections that the Democrats are using to paint all Republicans as anti-women? Because this is part of an 2012 Election year forum, I hope no one will mind if I talk about Bain for a moment.

I tapped into Working Mother's website. And guess what was one of the top companies listed for working moms? Bain. That's right. The company that the Republican candidate for President Mitt Romney gets maligned for being associated with. It turns out that Bain Capital treats working mothers really, really well. Two-month sabbaticals, flex time, paid leave.

According to WorkingMother.com, more than a third of Bain's managers and executives are women. Of the top earners at the firm, 20 percent are women, almost half of the hires in recent years were women, the average number of weeks of full paid maternity leave was 12, and this is a biggie, 87 percent of employees at the firm are working flexible hours.

A lot of women say it's time for the United States to pass a new Family Medical Leave Act that mandates PAID leave. It is a black eye on our country that we lag so far behind in this area. California has already passed its own state law mandating paid leave. California is funded by the employees themselves in a system that costs the average recipient of the benefits $47 annually. According to MSNBC, "One bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), calls for eight weeks of paid family leave within a one-year period. Benefits would be paid out on a tiered system depending on salary. The program, which would not affect companies with 50 employees or fewer, would be funded by employee, employer and the federal government." I don't know if the Feds have the money to pay for much of anything right now, but I think most employees would be willing to pay the state $47 a year to get paid leave.

There was also a great study done out of Northwestern University last year that questioned whether stay-at-home moms who have decided to stay at home are really driving that decision or whether the decision is being made for them because of a dearth of female managers and a lack of flexibility in the workplace. This is complicated stuff that we don't want to oversimplify. But it is safe to say companies with more women at the top get it in a way that others don't.

I was talking to a friend's mother the other day about feminism and her work in the '70s ushering in the women's movement. It was really poignant. "Yes, women have more credibility and opportunities in the workplace but when you look at the cost to family life, we're not there yet, are we?" she asked. She said she wasn't sure the early feminists were after the kind of pressure and stress a lot of moms feel trying to juggle careers and kids. Then her daughter turned around and said she would happily give up Mother's Day to know that women finally got equal pay. How about both? I think we're entitled, don't you?

It does seem we are on the brink of change. The question isn't if but when. Women have so much to contribute to the economy. We need to respect all parents and make it easier for them to work around their family commitments like they do at Bain. I think it should be up to the states, but businesses also have a great opportunity to lead the charge and show that doing good can lead to doing well! And the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has a unique opportunity to reframe the discussion about his time at Bain!

Image via tinyspark/Flickr

Obama's Immigration Reform Was a Ploy for Votes He Probably Won't Get

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:11:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

At first I thought the recent announcement by President Barack Obama that the U.S. would try to open up a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants landed with a thud. Actually, it was more like a feather. Because on the scale of weighty issues on immigration reform, this is fairly soft stuff. Why? Because it practically has bi-partisan support. I would say the issue has been out there so long that it is like a feather that lands and just as the Hispanic population embraces it, it floats off and eludes them once again.

I think it is really important that voters realize both parties are working on opening up opportunities for children who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents. And that the Democrats don't have a lock on recognizing the need for some kind of reform. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who touted an amnesty program to ease problems along the US/Mexico border. And Florida's Republican Sen. Marco Rubio who proposed his own version of the Dream Act back in April. Rubio wants to create a system where these kids could earn work papers by taking college classes or through military service.

The timing of Obama's announcement seems designed to court Hispanics in key states in these 2012 elections - Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. But Obama should take note that Hispanics are the fastest growing segment in the social conservative bucket of the Republican Party. Some have estimated that within the next 30 years, minorities will be the majority in this country and neither party will be able to take them for granted.To assume this latest political checkmate leads directly to votes for Obama may be naive. First, it has turned off some in the Latino community who wonder why more wasn't done earlier in his first term as President. And second, as we've said, not all Hispanics vote Democrat.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read What Do You Think of President Obama's Immigration Decision?

Photo via ModerateMoms

How the Economy Affects One Mom

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:32:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

We all feel the pinch in different ways, don't we? Whether it's at the gas pump when prices are jumping or whether it's the reality that our houses didn't turn out to be the investments we hoped they would be.

When Obama said, "The private sector is doing fine," I thought of a very bright cousin's bleak job prospects in a market with few job openings and a glut of educated graduates. That cousin is going to spend one more year at Wake, an extra year, taking classes to increase his chances of getting a job. And yes, he already has a college degree.

I know I am trying to stay out of a favorite gourmet market and hit the Shop and Save instead. For me, the biggest reality check is that buying an old home and fixing it up isn't going to result in the payoff it looked like it might just a few years ago. Having said all of this, I want to make sure it doesn't sound like I personally am complaining. At the end of the day, I still feel quite fortunate.

But when you have more than half of Americans polled saying the attacks on Mitt Romney and Bain were unfair, it feels like most of us are trending toward a private sector fix. Because it is a little upside down when you talk about borrowing money to create public sector jobs while saddling businesses with 46 billion dollars in regulations and the rest of us with 15 trillion dollars in debt.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read How Has the Economy Affected You?

Image via Moderate Moms

Can we stop "Hurling Acid?"

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:50:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

A friend and I like to say that you could take six women, put them around a table and ask them what issues matter to them the most in this 2012 Election year and you would find more consensus than conflict, whether they identify as moderate Republicans or conservative Democrats. Women are born negotiators. We negotiate carpool, dinner and sibling rivalry everyday. The question is why we see this ability to agree to disagree so clearly in each other but not in our elected leaders or in the media? The solution is going to have to come from the ground up. Or maybe more accurately, it's going to have to start one kitchen at a time.

I honestly did a double-take when I read the Jay Townsend story the other day, when he allegedly said the Republicans needed to "hurl acid" at their female opponents. To me it is a sign that it is going to be up to women to dial down the rhetoric and show areas where we can come together to create progress.

Step 1 is to make it okay to talk about disagreements.

Step 2 is to make it okay to be optimistic about the future of our government and the possibility that we can effect change.

Step 3 is to take a concrete step toward creating change by organizing a lunch group, a reading group or a regular discussion group.

A lot of Moms don't have time to work on a campaign or to actively engage. But, they are that soft lever that is more powerful than anyone realizes in terms of changing the tone of the conversation. And even if we fail to convince anyone in our own generation, changing the tone is critical for our children. Rather than hearing us react to the Townsend story with the kind of cynicism that is so common in our generation, I hope they hear us dialing down the divisiveness. And instead of blasting Townsend and returning the fire, maybe they can hear us saying things like, "this is why we need more women to run for public office."

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and see what all the bloggers had to say, read Can Moms Set a Higher Standard When It Comes to Talking Politics?

Image via Donkey Hotey/Flickr

The Story About the Jeremiah Wright Story

Thu, 24 May 2012 19:52:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

What a mess the Jeremiah Wright story was. And part of me is marveling at all of the pressure inside politics and the media last week that led to the reporting of what was, in effect, a non-story. It was slightly Shakespeare-esque. First, you have all of the elements of a uniquely American drama and a political raw nerve -- race, God, PAC money and baseball.

The Jeremiah Wright story that ran in last week's New York Times is political posturing at its finest. It was a story about a story that was never told. Seriously, folks!

The Times reported that Obama fundraiser Jim Messina tried to make political hay out of a supposed attempt by Mitt Romney's supporters to rehash the connection between President Barack Obama and his former Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Wright you will remember is Obama's former Pastor from Chicago who got in a lot of trouble for making anti-Semitic remarks, among other incendiary comments. Not only did Obama leave the church, he held a major speech on race just to clarify that he didn't share Wright's views.

What I love about the New York Times story is that Mitt Romney was never interested in running those ads. But that didn't stop Messina from fanning the flames and feigning a major offensive. Apparently, Joe Ricketts, whose family is part of the group that owns the Chicago Cubs, took a pass on funding them, too.

Of course, we all know where there is smoke there is fire. And it is conceivable that somebody other than Ricketts and Romney actually thought it could help Romney to dredge up the Jeremiah Wright controversy. But the good news is Ricketts was never going to pay for those ads and even if he wanted to, Romney wouldn't have let him.

I just don't know which is worse -- wasting valuable time on issues that aren't issues at all in an election year or the reality that most Americans may be too busy or too tired to realize that the story wasn't really a story in the long run.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read Does Jeremiah Wright Matter in This Election?

Obama's Stance on Marriage Equality Wasn't Worthy of an Announcement

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:57:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

Gay marriage is a hot button issue this 2012 election year ... or is it? An ABC News poll in March of 2011 showed a majority of Americans support gay marriage. But when asked in a political context, as they were after President Barack Obama's recent announcement in support of same-sex marriage, Americans appear to divide up along party lines -- as if they think their party expects a certain answer from them.

I'm in favor of marriage equality, which might not be the answer my party expects. For many reasons, but mostly because of my general aversion to bedroom politics. I'm also concerned about the inherent discrimination a ban on gay marriage represents.

While it was once the social conservatives in the Republican party who we could count on to turn a social issue into a wedge issue, it now seems to be President Barack Obama's campaign managers turning up the rhetoric, if for no other reason than to bait the Republicans in an election year. First it was birth control; now it is same sex unions. It really bothers me that our leaders are introducing these social issues into the equation and stirring people up who just a year ago did not consider gay marriage or birth control to be the critical issues in these elections. It has given us an unvarnished look at how wedge issues are deployed in tightly contested races.

I just got back from North Carolina where the Republican Speaker of the House told reporters the ban they just passed would eventually be overturned as attitudes on gay marriage open up in that state. They are changing but not soon enough for North Carolina. Remember late last year when the young Barbara Bush went on television to support same sex unions in the state of New York?

In Obama's case, I don't know that it helped him to come out in favor of gay marriage. I think his core constituency assumed he was already in favor of it and the timing and temerity of his announcement just irritated some in the gay community. As Chad Griffin, a major Democratic fundraiser who is set to take over in June as head of Human Rights Campaign (a leading organization lobbying for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights), said:

No one knows how [the political implications of Obama's announcement] will play out. I expect this issue to really die down, and we'll be back to the issues of jobs and the economy.

I just wonder what it must feel like to be a gay couple in these United States when our candidates are trying to unite us around the politics of hate. And to see your lifestyle and life at home used as political bait? We really do need to move beyond that. We need to fix our economy and our schools.

The Private Sector Needs to Start Helping Students With College Tuition

Wed, 09 May 2012 09:57:00 EDT

Post by Christine Luhnow

If the current student loan interest rate is allowed to expire, interest rates on student loans will double to more than 6 percent. I feel the same way about this issue that I do about the payroll tax. Something needs to be done but maybe not with the 2012 election right around the corner!

Both sides need to be aware of how pinched the middle class feels right now and wary because middle class moderates could define these elections.

Rates are locked in for life so a vote against the extension won't impact current loan holders. But the perception that the Republicans are messing with the step an education represents could be catastrophic during an election year. The Republican strategy has been to demand that the money to continue subsidizing student loans at a low rate should come from cutting parts of Obamacare. What a crafty move that was. If the Democrats don't agree, it looks like they voted to double the rate on student loans. It could be political tit for tat, though, since the Democrats refused to agree to the debt ceiling limit unless the plan included new taxes.

It's important to consider that Americans are carrying a trillion dollars in student loan debt. And that colleges and universities may not feel the pressure to rein in costs because they know Uncle Sam practically guarantees a loan to any student whose family makes less than $50,000 a year. There's also the reality that the unemployment rate for recent grads is more than 8 percent.

The solution lies within the private sector. Private scholarships from potential employers will help companies find graduates who have the skills they need. And students will have less anxiety about taking on student loans if they can see a job in front of them. It works for the Army, why wouldn't it work for the rest of us?

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read What Do You Think About the Student Loan Interest Rate?

Image via rrunaway/Flickr