The Stir By CafeMom: Blogger Lori Ziganto

Hushing Talk of Jeremiah Wright is Racist and Shows Media's Bias

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:29:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

The lapdog media has decided that it will judge for the great "unwashed masses" which stories are relevant or not. It has deemed Jeremiah Wright irrelevant and is toeing the Democrat line by throwing out the race card, claiming that it's racist to discuss President Obama's pastor and spiritual counselor of twenty years.

Sorry, media, but the American people will decide what is relevant or not. And discussing the character of people with which a man surrounds himself is relevant, not racist. More importantly, there are allegations of a hush-money bribe. Exposing bribery is also not racism; it's called journalism.

That doesn't stop the lapdog media from desperately trying to regurgitate talking points of the Left; Wright is totally irrelevant except for when it feels like screeching about how "racist" it is. Politico had an article about "renewed interest" in Jeremiah Wright in which it totally "forgot" to mention the bribery allegations. That doesn't suit the narrative, you see. Pesky old facts!

And The Washington Post is far too busy trying to help other media outlets and the Left (redundant) foment bigotry against Mormonism to do its job. Obama spent twenty years sitting in a pew listening to rants against America and then allegedly tried to bribe the pastor to hush him up? No big whoop! It's more important to try to tie Romney to a Mormon militia massacre...in 1857. That kind of bigotry is hunky-dory, because shut up, racists.

The media is clearly following the talking points of the Left, who is desperately trying to cling to the good old race card as a distraction. The DNC is in panic mode, calling any questioning of the Wright matter "hate-filled and divisive." Oh, look! A shiny distraction! Never mind the actual hate-filled rhetoric of President Obama's pastor of twenty years. He is totally warm and fuzzy what with his “Goddamn America” and “AmeriKKKa” and “chickens coming home to roost” spewing.

Democrat strategist Donna Brazile called it racism, straight up and a "hate fest." She pathetically went so far as to bring up Brown vs. Topeka Board of Ed. Good grief! Race card straw man much, Ms. Brazile?

The Left and the media want to make divisive hay to distract from Obama’s failures and to distract from the fact that he was mentored and/or counseled by Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for decades. So they very transparently try to flip it around to paint those who actually vet Obama as “hate-filled and divisive.” And racist, natch.

What is actually racist is when people see only color. Now even the mere mention of a man who happens to be black results in shrieks of "raaaaacist!!!111" What happened to judging a man on the content of his character and not the color of his skin? Those who only see color are the ones who are, in fact, racist.

See, that is why Jeremiah Wright matters. A good friend of mine has this in his Twitter bio: "You can tell a man’s vices by his friends, and his virtues by his enemies."

Exactly. And Obama's friends show the worst of his character; Tony Rezko, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright. I'll judge them by their characters, not the color of their skin. Unlike the racist media.

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?

Image via NotionsCapital / Flickr

Obama's 'Gutsy Call' on Gay Marriage Was a Cheap, Meaningless Campaign Ploy

Tue, 15 May 2012 15:51:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

Last week, President Obama conveniently "evolved" enough to come out for gay marriage, after a trial balloon was floated by Vice President Biden. President Obama was quick to cash in on his "evolution," immediately sending out a campaign mailer that said he was "asked a direct question and gave a direct answer." In reality, the only question he answered was if he was willing to use people as a fundraising scheme and the answer was a resounding "aww, hell yes."

President Obama does have a "laser-like focus" on one job -- his own.

President Obama continued to try to use gay people for some sweet, sweet campaign cash by calling himself "historic" and tweeting out a photo with a quote that was all about him. As usual. His website put up a section of allegedly "inspirational" stories that were actually all comments stroking President Obama's own severely inflated ego.

I wonder how gay people feel about being totally used for someone else’s end? It’s not about gay marriage, it’s all about The One ™. Even Uterine Forensic Expert Andrew Sullivan admitted as much in his swoon-filled "article" at The Daily Beast.

There was, of course, cold politics behind it. One in six of Obama’s fundraising bundlers is gay, and he needs their money. Wall Street has not backed him financially this year the way it did in 2008. A few Jewish donors have held back over Israel. And when Obama announced recently that he would not issue an executive order barring antigay discrimination for federal contractors, the gay donors all but threatened to leave him high and dry.

The President then doubled-down on the self-congratulatory hubris by co-opting gay pride for himself. No, really. It's no longer "gay pride," it's "Obama pride." Unbelievable. Except, of course, it's not; it's predictable. President Obama has never found a thing that he couldn't somehow make all about himself.

His "evolution" was about nothing other than his own re-election. Using gay people, stirring up division, all is no big whoop to Obama as long as it allows him to cash in and further his own personal goals. His announcement changes nothing; he cannot unilaterally make laws. While pesky bitter clingers are railed at and called "barbarians" and "bigots" and "homophones" (funny how the oh-so-smart, enlightened people can't even figure out the proper false insults to hurl), at least they see through President Obama's super transparent move.

Nothing has changed except that gay people are being used and strung along for someone else's purposes. They are still unemployed. They are still paying higher health insurance premiums and are unable to "keep their plan, if they like their plan." Contrary to the apparent belief of President Obama, gay people aren't pets to be patted on the head and then told to shut up. They don't exist in some magical land separate from us all. They are part of America and are living in the same horrible economy that the rest of us are.

That is what will affect this election. It's "the economy, stupid." It's not meaningless rhetoric spouted only to stroke President Obama. Contrary to his opinion, the world does not, in fact, revolve around him.

Image via BarackObama.com

Questions for Candidates Obama and Romney From a 'Bitter Clinger'

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:12:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

The press never seems to ask the questions that are on the minds of everyday Americans. They have their narratives and they ask questions that will feed those narratives one way or the other. This is detrimental to us all because we have valid and important questions that have nothing to do with silly narratives and everything to do with our real lives. True 'kitchen table' issues that affect us on a day-to-day basis and which will continue to affect us and our children.

The first question I would ask the candidates: Why are women used as pawns as a way to distract and divide? The Democrats have invented a whole "war on women" meme, harmful to us all. It distracts from the real issues and is a clumsy attempt to scare women into voting as a monolithic bloc, as if one's gender is inextricably linked to one's politics.

There are real issues that actually affect women and their families daily; "it's the economy, stupid", as James Carville would say. Why, under President Obama, have the job losses for women grown exponentially? What would the candidates do to change this?

The next area of concern is gas prices. This affects everyone and is adversarial not only to people's daily lives, but to the economy as a whole. When the economy is already sluggish, people having less disposable income to put into the economy is extremely harmful. My second question for the candidates: What would you do to help lower gas prices, including as pertains to the Keystone pipeline?

Finally, as for my third question, I'd ask: How do you plan to address our growing entitlement mentality? While cutting spending is always a rallying call, spending is just a symptom of the real problem. We must address our dependency on entitlements and we must change the dependency mentality and we must stop the government abuse. Will the candidate's address this most important problem or will entitlements continue to be used as a way to buy votes?

Time will tell. And so will the election.

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 Would Like Most to Ask the Presidential Candidates?

Image via Casey Serin / Flickr

George Clooney Is a Cheap Date That Most of the Country Can't Afford

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:23:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

Football coaches Henry Sanders and Vince Lombardi famously said, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." While I'm about to faint, having made a sporty thingies reference, this credo applies in politics as well. That's why you see politicians pulling out all the stops and using their positions to recruit "star power" via celebrity endorsements.

President Obama takes the cake in this regard. Which isn't surprising, being that President Obama relies on a cult of personality since he cannot rely on his abysmal record. More interesting is why he is pulling his latest cash for access stunt: Dinner with him and George Clooney (no word yet if dog meat will be on the menu) for the low, low price of $3. The White House is shamelessly up for sale at the bargain basement price of $3.

George Clooney is prostituting himself for President Obama but, hey, at least he's a cheap date! The Secret Service could have learned something from him in Cartagena. But why so cheap?

It seems the President's own star power has fallen drastically. There weren't enough suckers who wanted to shell out their quickly diminishing dough for a chance at dinner with just Obama. Enter George Clooney! See, as The New York Times reports, big donors are fleeing President Obama. Cash strapped? Pimp out the White House and use the lure of Hollywood to sucker in smaller donors:

With big checks no longer flowing as quickly into his campaign, Mr. Obama is leaning harder on his grass-roots supporters, whose small contributions make up well over half of the money he raised through the end of March, according to reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission.

Feeling the pinch in this horrible economy? Suck it up and hand your money over. The most important thing to President Obama is President Obama. Laser-like focus on jobs? Yeah, on his job:

Mr. Obama has held more than a hundred joint fund-raisers since last spring, far more than President George W. Bush during his 2004 re-election, and has tucked fund-raising stops into many of his official presidential trips.

Now with more Clooney! Star-studded dinners are what's on the mind of most Americans, huh? Talk about out of touch.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read Should Presidential Candidates Use Star Power to Fuel Donations?

Image via U.S. Embassy Jakarta, Indonesia/Flickr

The Buffett Rule Is Pathetic Pablum, Class Warfare at Its Lamest

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:17:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

President Obama's "laser like focus" on jobs seems only to entail pushing for things that will have the exact opposite effect of creating jobs. His latest nonsense? The Buffett Rule. Good grief; Warren Buffett's secretary is omnipresent. Does she even perform her job as, you know, secretary or is she now just a shill for Obama?

Desperate to foment an atmosphere of class warfare, he and his fellow Democrats have even resorted to trying to tie Ronald Reagan, a man whom they usually viciously demonize, to the absurd Buffett Rule. It doesn't pass the smell test, though. Even we oh-so-silly "never worked a day in our lives" moms can see that, as evidenced when the White House shamefully took to Twitter to push the "fair share" Buffett Rule falsehoods. Evidently, some "bitter clingers" know garbage when they see it. Of course, many regular people know what it's like to meet a payroll, unlike our President.

The lie about how Ronald Reagan would totally heart the Buffett Rule was just as egregious -- and false. Ronald Reagan argued for closing loopholes, not creating new ones. He also lowered tax rates on our highest earners, he didn't seek to punish them. But, "fair share" and stuff! How can this be? As Ronald Reagan said, "My friends, history is clear: Lower tax rates mean greater freedom, and whenever we lower the tax rates, our entire nation is better off."

It would be wise for people to remember that, lest we are doomed to repeat history. Remember the last "millionaire's tax"? The Alternative Minimum Tax was created to punitively tax under 200 people. It now harms 27 million taxpayers.

While polls show the public is in favor of the Buffett Rule, the questioning is misleading, plus the press is acting as water boy for the President. Were the Buffett Rule, and it's expected results or lack thereof, explained properly, the public would respond with a hearty "no, thank you."

Economy in the crapper? Stagnant job growth? Out of control spending? Hey, let's punish the risk-takers and the investors! That is what the Buffett Rule would do and it would not even make a dent in the deficit. Great plan there, genius.

Instead of offering pablum like the Buffett Rule all merely in a quest to foment a class warfare mentality, perhaps the President should try doing his job and focus on ways to help the economy, not harm it. But, hey, his election is all that matters, isn't it?

To President Obama, yes. The economy and the good of our nation be damned.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read Do You Support the Buffett Rule?

Image via Medill DC/Flickr

Eric Holder and Opponents of Voter ID Laws Are the New Jim Crow

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:15:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

Here in South Carolina, there is a big kerfuffle over the Voter ID law that Governor Nikki Haley signed last month. Every time such a law is bandied about, out come the tiresome cries of racism. Voter fraud is no longer an issue, you see, if the race card is able to be played. Identity politics trumps all, including facts.

Eric Holder's Justice Department is always at the ready to charge in with cries of racism and it did so here as well. Funny, but Mr. Holder doesn't seem to care about Planned Parenthood's 'racist' policy of requiring a photo ID before one can obtain an abortion. Nor does he seem to care about the fact that voter fraud is rampant, even in his own voting precinct. This video shows how easy it is for anyone to walk in off the street and obtain Eric Holder's ballot. But, hey, those racist RepubliKKKans!

SC Representative James Clyburn predictably jumped in with the old "ZOMG it's the new Jim Crow!" In reality, it is those who oppose Voter ID laws who are the new Jim Crow. Opponents cite a report by the Center for American Progress that claims 25 percent of minorities do not have valid photo identification. If true, and if they care about something besides their own power (fraud works in their favor), then shouldn't they be more concerned with the fact that 25 percent of minorities cannot fully function in modern society? I had to show my driver's license to pay with my debit card at Old Navy last week, for cripes sake. You need a photo ID to board a plane. You cannot enter Eric Holder's own Justice Department without one. You cannot fully function in the modern day without a photo ID.

Which is why the Republicans, when attempting to enact such laws, always make provisions for helping people to obtain a photo ID. They will make arrangements to help you get one -- for free. You can sign an affidavit explaining hardship if you do not qualify for a free photo ID. You can still vote provisionally, regardless. As South Carolina's Attorney General said, "It doesn't disenfranchise anybody ... It treats everyone equally. People could still show up on Election Day and sign a sworn affidavit saying they are who they say they are, and they would be allowed to vote. So there’s a safety net there.”

Eric Holder's Justice Department also plays fast and loose with the numbers. In its objection letter to South Carolina, it claims that the law would have a discriminatory effect on 'non-white' voters. Heritage Foundation proves this claim false. And it's not just false on paper, it's false in practice. Georgia implemented such a law (and South Carolina's is even more lenient) six years ago. Know what happened? Voting by black voters increased from 513,700 in 2006 to 741,000 in 2010. How racist!

Yet, according to opponents of Voter ID laws, we all shouldn't bother renewing our drivers' licenses because our liberty is infringed every time we are asked to show it. Try that excuse next time you are pulled over for speeding. Somehow, I don't think it would fly and the public agrees. In opinion poll after opinion poll, nearly 75 percent of voters agree with Voter ID laws.

The real Jim Crow is the people who care more about politics than people. Instead of incessantly whining about how everyone has the right to 'access' to birth control (when everyone already does), why not make sure that everyone has access to a photo ID so that they can be fully functioning members of a modern day society?

But I guess that makes it harder for dead people to vote in Chicago.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read Do You Support Voter Identification Laws?

Image via RyanJReilly/Flickr

It's Time to End the Abusive Relationship With Our Government for Our Kids' Sake

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:31:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

"This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused, and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship."

So said P.J. O'Rourke about the mid-term elections in 2010. While many talk about spending and the harm we are doing by saddling our children with immense debt, that spending is just a symptom of the real problem. We must break the abusive relationship with Big Daddy Government and not just cover up some of the painful bruises with makeup.

The mid-term elections were a start, but not enough. We need our 'Burning Bed' moment to put an end to the decades of government abuse that has put America on the precipice on which we are precariously balancing on one entitlement saddled foot.

You see, for decades, Democrats have sought to keep people down by making them feel powerless and by making them feel lesser. By encouraging them to shroud themselves in a veil of victim-hood and fomenting an entitlement mentality. By telling us with their sneering contempt that we are too stupid to take care of ourselves and that we are too dumb to handle freedom. They only hit us because they love us; they know what's good for us! They are bullies feasting on power, the same way abusers do. And it has gotten far worse under the Obama administration.

His administration has done nothing but encourage people to believe that they are not good enough and not smart enough. Stupid small town bitter clingers! That we need the government in control of every aspect of our lives and that they are enslaving us because they love us. They are protecting us, from ourselves even. Only they don't; they love the control and the power. There were no unintended consequences, like sky-rocketing insurance premiums of Obamacare. All were intended as they keep the unwashed masses on a short leash, dependent upon the government for everything.

They align with unions to lie and convince people falsely that they are reliant upon them for their very livelihoods. Meanwhile, the best economic stimulus would be the government and its union lackeys getting the heck out of the way.

The GOP, and particularly conservative women or "mama grizzlies," are sort of like the neighbor who will not turn a blind eye to abuse and pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't affect us. We are the ones who will remove the abuser and help the woman and her children meet their full potential. We will boost her up, not hold her down. We will allow her the independence and the freedom to succeed, or even to fail. On her own.

We are an unconditional support system, even for those who refuse to accept our help yet. We do it for our children and their futures. Our children need to know true freedom, which isn't perfect or necessarily 'fair'; it's just free. They need to know that no one is too big to fail -- and no one is too small to succeed, on their own. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results, nor should it. How can our children meet their full potentials if the government enslaves them and sets limits on what they should aspire to? I mean, "sometimes you've made enough money," right?

That is what this election is about in the big picture. Are we going to remain battered victims or will we end the cycle of abuse? For our children.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other bloggers have to say, read Which Issue Is Most Important to Moms in the 2012 Election?

Image via Working Word/Flickr

Obama's Empty Rhetoric on Gas Prices Won't Help Fill Our Tanks or the Ballot Box

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:03:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car," said Peggy Joseph, an Obama supporter, in 2008.

Huh.

I suspect she didn't realize we wouldn't have to worry about it because we wouldn't be able to afford to fill our gas tanks under an Obama administration. The press is busily trying to cover for President Obama; high gas prices are only the fault of a President if his last name is Bush, evidently. Dissent was patriotic when a Republican was president, now it's racist. And gas prices, much much lower at the time, were the fault of the evil BusHitler regime but crushingly high gas prices under President Obama are someone else's fault, natch.

Reality begs to differ, though. When President Obama took office, the average gas price was $1.85 per gallon. It's now up to $3.87 per gallon and the rise shows no signs of stopping.

If you have the stomach for it, take a quick gander at this handy chart that will show you exactly how much you paid to fill your tank in January of 2009 and how much you are paying now. But, then, that was always the plan and Obama's feigned concern today is due to his re-election hopes (and change!) only. His own Secretary of Energy admitted as much when he said in 2008 that gas prices here should be as high as they are in Europe. High gas prices provide an incentive for 'green' energy, supposedly, and that agenda is more important than your financial well-being to the Obama administration. They know what's best for you; being able to afford to get to work be damned!

If President Obama really cared about lowering the crushing cost of gas -- and by extension nearly every other item one must purchase to provide for their family -- and not just his re-election campaign he could, as President, do things to help. Keystone pipeline, anyone? And perhaps stop threatening the energy industry with windfall taxes and creating uncertainty by claiming you can decide how much profit is too much profit?

He could also stop putting forth economy-killing and value of the dollar-destroying policies. The devalued dollar makes the price of everything higher. Never mind the price of arugula, have you seen the price of milk and coffee today?

Mitt Romney has called for President Obama to fire his "gas hike trio." That's a start. Newt Gingrich has offered ideas to lower gas prices, also a start. What has President Obama said? Obama mocked Gingrich's promise, saying:

They start acting like they've got a magic wand and will give you cheap gas forever if you elect us.

Weird.

That magic wand stuff was totally okay when your supporters, like Peggy Joseph, were predicting a magic wand full of "free" gas.

Gas prices rightfully will play a huge role in this next election. People are hurting. They can't afford to fill their gas tanks to get to work, if they are lucky enough to have work in this sky-high unemployment economy under President Obama. The gas prices and devalued dollar are affecting everything, including the groceries they must buy to provide for and nourish their children.

So, my idea for lowering gas prices? I can see November from my car. And it entails a pink slip for President Obama.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other bloggers have to say, read Who's Responsible for Our High Gas Prices?

Image via AgentAkit / Flickr

Obama Can't Run on Record, Falls Back on Lame Blame Game

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:00:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

"The buck stops here." That is, evidently, a teachable moment that President Obama failed to learn at Harvard. He can't be held responsible for anything, you see. It's all somebody else's fault, as evidenced by his latest campaign ad disguised as a "documentary." I'm a little annoyed that the President has stolen my idea; for years I've conveniently deflected personal responsibility for things by saying "I blame cramps." Of course I'm not, you know, the President of the United States. And forgetting to pay the cable bill is a tad different than destroying the economy.

This "documentary" is breathlessly narrated by Tom Hanks. Davis Guggenheim, the director of An Inconvenient Truth, was also involved, which makes sense. He needed to draw from his vast experience as a lie-pusher and spinner of make-believe tales. Like Hollywood, this campaign ad 'documentary' is full of glitz and smoke and mirrors with little truth. Just one example: A blatant lie about GM having paid back the government in full. They have not. That's a real 'inconvenient truth' for you. But, hey, what's a little $25 billion lie?

See, President Obama can't run on his record nor any alleged accomplishments achieved in office. So, he falls back on his 2008 campaign strategy. Because, Bush. And cult of personality. Here's a little tip for Obama from one of the "bitter clingers" -- Bush ain't running. Nor is Sarah Palin, the focus of another campaign ad released recently. No, really. He focuses on Sarah Palin all while neglecting to mention his own term in office for the majority of the ad's time. Way to try to milk 2008, champ!

What President Obama fails to realize is that fewer and fewer people are falling for this nonsense. And more and more people realize that they were better off under President Bush and that the real trouble started when Democrats, including then-Senator Obama, won a majority in both Houses. What President Obama really "inherited" was himself. And America is paying the price.

No amount of glitzy, full of spin "documentaries" will change that. People are hurting more than they were when Obama took office. Grown-ups understand that constant blame games are absurd and at some point one must take responsibility of their own actions. Unemployment is higher. Gas prices keep going up and show no signs of stopping. Huh. Funny how there is no flashback to one aspect of the 2008 campaign wherein Obama said he wanted gas prices to rise.

People are also starting to see the devastating effects of President Obama's one alleged achievement, the passage of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare (although he and his supporters don't care for it being called that. Wonder why they don't want his name associated with it?). Even Politico now admits that it isn't quite like President Obama falsely claimed. Many, many people will not be able to 'keep their plan, if they like their plan' as more and more employers will simply pay the nominal fine and drop their insurance.

Costs are going up, not down. Math is hard to President Obama, but it's not hard to simple rubes like a mom from SC. We understand that the more stuff you mandate be covered, the higher premiums will go. We didn't need to pass the bill, to know what was in the bill. It wasn't, as was claimed, that we did not understand all the nuance-y nuance that was the awesomeness of Obama. We knew it was garbage in theory and in practice and we are being proved correct.

On the plus side, this is all Obama has on which to run; blame games and an attempted repeat of 2008. There is a major difference between now and 2008, though. Obama will be vetted this time. And we, the people, have seen him in action (or inaction). Unlike Hollywood, we live in the real world and we don't like what we see.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, read The Road We've Traveled': What Do You Think of Obama's New Video?

Image via US Embassy Jakarta, Indonesia/Flickr

Obama's Health Care Law Is Great for Government Power Grab, But Devastating to Moms

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:42:00 EDT

Post by Lori Ziganto

Health Care law is actually a misnomer. It's a Government Care law. From the start, Obamacare was never about health, but about government and power. Some seem to be conflating it with European socialized health care or 'universal health care,' but it's not quite that yet. Thank goodness! If it was, we could look forward to six-month waits for doctor's visits and a survival rate for breast cancer that is much lower than here in America. Sadly, Obamacare is moving us in that direction; they've already started by having the FDA de-label the life-extending breast cancer treatment Avastin. Hello, rationing!

We can expect more of this, as Donald Berwick, Obama's appointee as head of Medicare and Medicaid Services, has said as much: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Oh, well, as long as you ration with your eyes open! Tell that to the women who can no longer receive breast cancer treatments.

But, wait -- the GOP has a war on women and wants women to die, right? I mean, that's what the Democrats are telling us in a sickeningly transparent ploy to scare women and win an election. They are using women as pawns and exploiting women for power, as usual. All based on outright lies. Take the absurd birth control 'controversy' of late. This mandate, while super awesome as a way to scare dames into not defecting from Obama, is actually harmful to women and will increase costs of birth control.

Nancy Pelosi once uttered the ridiculous statement that Obamacare means that "being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition." But that is exactly what they are doing; they are saying that a woman's anatomy is a pre-existing condition and one from which a woman must be saved.

I'll put the religious liberty question aside for now, even though it is a horrific affront to the First Amendment and the principles on which this nation was founded. It is ironic that those who incessantly screech "separation of church and state because, Theocracy!!!" are the ones seeking to have The State quash religious liberty to further the religion of Leftism. But, that aside, the part of the law mandating that contraceptives be covered without even a co-pay will be devastating.

If this is meant to help The Poor (tm), then why are 30-year-old Reproductive Rights Activists demanding that it covers all law students at a fancy pants law school? If, as she claims, 40 percent find paying for their own birth control an 'untenable burden,' then why are *all* -- including the 60 percent who find it unproblematic to pay for it on their own -- to be covered? If there is concern from the Obama Administration for 'women's health,' then why is he ending funding for women's health program to instead cater to a favored (and fund-raising) group like Planned Parenthood? Because, lies.

This mandate will increase costs. Maybe President Obama would like to explain to poor, helpless women that this mandate will increase costs of contraceptives. It aids drug companies, not women. The cost of contraceptives will rise as any price incentive is now gone. The working poor will be hardest hit; those who are uninsured and pay out of pocket. For those who are insured, policies will of course increase in price. But, hey, as long as Obama gets some sweet, sweet pharma money for his campaign.

Secretary Sebelius said -- with a straight face! -- "The Obama administration believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss." Oh, really? Then why are you mandating that her boss be involved?

Ladies, don't buy into the hype. This isn't about women's health. It's about using women as a campaign strategy. I plan to vote for those who stand up for all and oppose this harmful law.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers.To see the original question and what the other bloggers have to say, read Does a Candidate's Position on Health Care Affect Your Vote?

Image via Alan Cleaver/Flickr

Super Tuesday's Winners: Ann Romney and American Women

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:22:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

Ah, Super Tuesday! Or Stupor Tuesday, as Joseph Curl at The Washington Times cleverly called it. Nothing really unexpected happened, except that the swing state of Ohio was super close -- Governor Mitt Romney eked out a win by only a razor thin margin. Romney also picked up Virginia (not surprising, as Gingrich and Santorum didn't make it onto the ballot), Vermont, and his home state of Massachusetts. Speaker Gingrich, of course, won his home state of Georgia. Santorum picked up Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

So, this means the 'front-runner' still only has about 300 delegates out of the 1,144 needed to pick up the nomination, which indicates that the primary race will continue into the summer. Over 700 delegates are still up for grabs in May or later. Sigh. Ah, the law of unintended consequences at play.

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, switching from the old "winner take all" system to a proportional delegate system didn't really have the "we'll totally energize the base like the Democrats did in 2008" expected result for a number of reasons and may actually end up hurting our eventual nominee. A drawn-out primary process means more negativity and aids President Obama. Live and learn, GOP.

The GOP can also learn from Ann Romney, the only clear winner last night.

In her speech last night, she actually acknowledged that women are thinking beings who are concerned with more than just their girly bits, as the Democrats would have you believe. And then she said the following: “Do you know what women care about? ... Women care about jobs. Women care about the economy. They care about their children and they care about the debt.”

Amen, sister!

Ann Romney is pushing back against the absurd and exploitative Democrat false narrative, encouraged by President Obama, about a "War on Women." The real war is perpetrated by those who believe that women are the sum of their girly bits only and who seek to keep women victims, feeding them lie after lie (while degrading women who dare stray from their plantation) in order to make them remain dependent and thus easily controlled.

She refuses to submit to the manufactured outrage and outright lies, unlike some of the Presidential candidates. Alas, it's too late to run Ann Romney but her husband's campaign -- and the GOP as a whole -- would be wise to have her speak often.

As for the race itself, it's just a waiting game for me now. I'm with Andrew Breitbart who, during one of his last speeches before his untimely and tragic death, said the following at CPAC: "I will march behind whoever our candidate is because there are two paths. One is America. The other is Occupy." The other is also the path that will continue to use and exploit women for their own political end.

I reject that path. And Super Tuesday was just a little detour leading to that final road that I will choose.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other bloggers have to say read Super Tuesday Results: The Battle Continues.

Image via BU Interactive News/Flickr

Punishing Success: Presidential Candidates' Wealth and Predictable Class Warfare Rhetoric

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:08:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

"How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" This was the very first thing that the ever-biased MSNBC ran as a graphic when Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate. Senator McCain and his wife own several houses, you see. Oh, the horror! Success and wealth are bad, unless it's a Democrat's success and wealth, like John Kerry's. Then it's all hunky-dory and not even a topic of discussion. I guess wealth is no longer considered 'out of touch' if sweet, sweet liberal policy designed to keep the pesky masses feeding at the government teat is involved.

This election cycle is predictably much of the same. Some of the Republican presidential candidates are successful and wealthy, ergo they are 'out of touch' and evil, natch. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, hey, that doesn't stop the media from carrying President Obama's divisive and exploitative class warfare strategy water!

Governor Romney, a very successful businessman, is getting the brunt of it, of course. The media is shamelessly furthering President Obama's own admitted campaign strategy grossly designed to foster resentment between fellow Americans. Some people are more successful than others? That doesn't suit! How dare some aspire to something more than what the Democrats believe you should have? I mean, President Obama said himself that "sometimes you've made enough money." YOUR pay is not above his pay-grade, evidently.

See, success should be punished and vilified and failure is to be encouraged and rewarded, as we've seen with the bail-outs. Because, fair. Or something. I'm not really sure because I don't have the vast experience of a community organizer from which to draw. I do, however, know a little something about life. I know it's hard for the participatory ribbon generations to understand, but equal opportunity does not mean equal results, nor should it. That's freedom, baby! Success and wealth shouldn't be vilified, it should be praised.

Governor Romney's wealth and business successes are pluses to me. Businesses, small and large, are not evil. They are the foundation upon which our economy is built. Governor Romney's successes, like many other businessmen and women across the land, show that he will work hard, as he has all his life. His success shows that he takes action and does what needs to be done. Out of touch? If creating wealth and employing people is out of touch, then I'll take me some of that! As opposed to our current President and his crew who have never worked a day in the private sector in their lives and who have no idea what it even means to make a payroll.

The wealthy are not evil; they are successful and good at what they do. When they are allowed to do so without government interference designed to make the government wealthier and more powerful. The very same government now contemptibly seeking to foster resentment against the wealthy by pursuing a harmful and divisive class warfare strategy.

The wealthy employ people and create jobs, enriching people in ways that the government never, ever could. But that doesn't leave the masses dependent on the government now, does it? And that's all that matters to Nanny State Democrats like the current occupant of the White House. And, boy, am I looking forward to changing "current" to "former."

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Does a Candidate's Personal Wealth Matter?

Image via Dave Delay/Flickr

Using Potential Running Mate and Cabinet Picks to Attract Voters Isn't an Option

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:59:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

Rubio. Ryan. Daniels. Martinez. McConnell. All have been bandied about as potential Vice President picks for the GOP candidates should they win the nomination. Does that matter and can it affect the primaries at all?

Nope.

And not just because the same names are mentioned for all the primary candidates. Nor can any attempts at mind-reading regarding who the eventual nominee will pick as cabinet members or Supreme Court nominees. We never know who their choices will be, even during the general election campaign, much less the primaries. And that's the way it must be.

In fact, in some cases it may be illegal for a candidate to name his proposed cabinet members. Newt Gingrich, for instance, caused a bit of a kerfuffle when he mentioned that he would appoint John Bolton as his Secretary of State.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out that while a case of illegality would be hard to prove (would have to prove that Gingrich was trying to buy Bolton's support rather than trying to attract voters with the idea of a Bolton Secretary of State), it's best for a candidate to avoid even the merest hint of impropriety by offering names of potential cabinet picks.

During the last election cycle, The Volokh Conspiracy laid out all the reasons why this is, and must remain the case. Often, people try to press general election candidates to start naming whom they would appoint as cabinet members. We eventually know their Vice President pick, obviously, and it usually doesn't even make much of a difference even in the general election. People vote for the number one guy or gal, not the second banana. The best one can hope for there is picking up some extra votes in a key state, if it's the Vice Presidential pick's state. An exception to this sort of rule was the Vice Presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin; some Conservatives not really fond of Senator McCain chose to support him once he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. I'm not a gambling dame, but I'd bet cash money that McCain would have lost by a larger margin without her.

But most candidates side-step the cabinet questions altogether. That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be. Status quo, baby! As voters, we can't let cabinet picks or potential Vice President picks affect our decision in the primary as these are unknown quantities. I mean, if you support someone in the primary then surely you are counting on that person to have the ability to make good future decisions anyway?

The only known quantity here is President Obama, Vice President Biden and that administration's cabinet members. And to that I say "No, thank you. Bless your hearts."

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Do Candidates' VP & Cabinet Picks Affect Your Vote?

Image via WhiteHouse.Gov

President Obama, Democrats and the Real 'War On Women'

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:13:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

The hip new thing in Democrat circles these days seems to be demagoguing women; spewing nonsense such as claiming that the GOP has a "war on women." It appears everywhere, from For The Women sites to former Speaker Pelosi. Man, I love saying 'former Speaker Pelosi' -- I'm sure that means I'm waging a war on women, too. Speaker Pelosi went so far as to say that this "war" means that Republicans are "voting to say that women can die on the floor." No, really. She said that. With a straight face! Although, I guess that's the only kind of face she's capable of making.

The reasoning? Because, abortion. You see, to the Left the nebulous "women's rights" is somehow distinct from, you know, individual rights. We super scary women are to remain separate from everyone else. Never mind that every policy that President Obama and his administration has put into place is harmful to all, including women.

Staggering unemployment, a stagnant economy, global threats, fiscal irresponsibility worse than a college student on a binge with daddy's credit card? Whatevs! That stuff is for boys. Republicans hate dames! Except they don't. It's the Left who uses women for their own end. For the Women, my strappy sandal-clad foot! The Left reduces women to the sum of their girly bits only. We aren't to care about fiscal matters (math is hard) nor foreign policy (unless shopping at Chanel). We are only to care about things like 'reproductive rights' as if our rights are somehow separate from a man's and are based solely on a legal ability to kill our unborn children.

Of course, President Obama does think that we are somehow lesser than men. When Iran (IRAN) was pegged for a spot on the United Nation's Commission on the Status of women, his own State Department said that they 'wouldn't stand up and cheer' but it's 'less onerous than the Human Rights Commission.' Hey, at least it's not humans, just pesky old women, am I right, fellas? Vice President Joe Biden said he wouldn't 'second-guess' China's one child policy. It's just millions of females being slaughtered, who are we to judge?!

President Obama, like all his fellow travelers, merely uses women for political gain. From perpetuating the myth of the 'wage gap' to insisting that abortion is a sacred right and women will be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen without it, they are striving to keep women as victims. Victims can be controlled, you see. Victims are dependent.; in this case on The State. Victims are powerless. Gone are the days of charity and feelings of gratitude when one needs and receives help in a time of need. Now, we are to feel entitled. Because, victims.

President Obama also believes that women are not equal to men. He made that quite clear in the statement he issued on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. He said "... And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

How dare he. My daughter's dreams are not predicated on the slaughter of over 50 million unborn children. She is not "empowered" by that. Where is the "equality" if a woman must "choose" to kill her own child so that she can have the same opportunities as a man? How is it empowering women to declare motherhood a burden and a child a punishment?

Years ago, an actual feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Huh. You've come a long way, baby!

Any of the Republican candidates, even my last choices, are better for everyone, including women, than Barack Obama. Respect for women and life, individual liberty and true freedom? Now THAT is empowering.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: How Will the Next President Affect Women's Rights?

Image via din!/Flickr

The Department of Education Is About Government Not Education

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:02:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

The Department of Education was established as a cabinet department in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. For the Children! Except, only it wasn't. It was basically a pay-off to the teachers' union as well as a way to further enshrine The State's control. Once huge albatrosses of departments and programs are created, we can never sever the ties from around our necks. The surest way to ensure control and power is to create a bureaucracy for life. Leave it to Jimmy Carter to use our children for such an end.

Ah, President Carter. When the high point of one's presidency is 'malaise', you're totally doing it wrong. The only thing he did right was to attempt to hide his brother Billy. And he even failed at that; he couldn't even stop him from foisting off "Billy Beer" on an unsuspecting public. Still, some really bad beer was nothing compared to the huge keg of waste and fail that is the Department of Education.

When Republicans dare to point out this inescapable fact, however, predictable screeching occurs. "Why do Republicans hate education?! And children?! And science or something?!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans are actually for the children, rather than just giving lip service to the same. Republicans understand that regulations and government bureaucracies do not educate; good teachers and parents do. In fact, abolishing the Department of Education used to be part of the GOP platform. But, alas, as always once a government program becomes part of the collective mindset, it's almost impossible to roll-back, never mind abolish completely,

Plus, the unions and the party that rely on the same for power and control will never allow it. The best that we can hope for, sadly, is the reform that presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is striving for. He said, "You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations." People of all political ideology should agree with this. I mean, there comes a point when even the most enamored of a government program must see that it has reached a point of diminishing returns. The Department of Education has the smallest staff of all cabinet agencies, yet has the third largest budget. A budget that has accomplished what, exactly?

Nothing. When first established, the Department of Education had a budget of $13.1 billion and now has a budget of $77.8 billion (in 2011). Pouring good money after bad accomplishes nothing. Reams and reams of paperwork to meet arbitrary regulations does nothing but take time away from, you know, the actual educating of our children. Test scores have either gone down or remained absolutely stagnant, regardless of the money thrown at the problems. Of course, most of the money is thrown towards the unions. For the Children!

Mamas understand this. We get rid of stuff that costs us money, yet does us absolutely no good. Mamas are also smart enough and capable enough to be in control of their own children's education. It needs to go back into local hands, away from a vastly wasteful bureaucracy-filled entity centered in the way out-of-touch Washington, DC.

I'm pro-choice, when it comes to the education of our children. The Department of Education gives us little to no choice and needs to get the boot, or at least have the boot removed from the necks of parents and local teachers. Contrary to popular opinion, federal government, mamas really do know best.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?

Image via Svadilfari/Flickr

Newt Gingrich's Rise Is Not a Surprise

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:07:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

Recent polling shows that Speaker Gingrich is leading Mitt Romney among Republican voters in the race for the GOP Presidential nomination. This is not a surprise to many of us 'bitter clingers' and silly little rubes who live outside the beltway bubble. The most hilarious thing thus far this election cycle was when Speaker Gingrich won the South Carolina primary and all the 'experts' fell all over themselves trying to explain to us here in South Carolina why we voted for Newt Gingrich. I had many a mad giggling fit listening to people tell me -- a woman living in South Carolina -- that Newt Gingrich could not possibly win female votes. And that it must be racism, or something. Joan Walsh went on MSNBC and proclaimed that Newt was merely the face of racism and "angry white male rage." I was surprised to learn that I was racist, rage-y, and, oh yeah, male. Just call me Lou from now on!

The other alleged rationales given were that we silly little rubes were either emotional fan boys and girls ready to toss our panties on stage or that we were suffering from stompy foot petulance and voted for Newt Gingrich as a way of flipping the bird at The Establishment. Sigh. What hubris on the part of the Beltway Bubble Boys! A little hint for you, fellas: Most average Americans do not care one whit about daft peeing contests involving the nebulous Establishment. Mitt Romney is not very personable nor does he appear to have any strong convictions. Lots of people simply don't care for him all on their own. There is a simple way to explain why Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina and why we are seeing a rise in the polling: "We can't spare this man, he fights."

See, we understand that we are not going to beat President Obama by simply being the Not Obama candidate. In case the 'experts' haven't noticed, people often vote with their emotions and not their Thinkies. How in the heck do y'all think we got saddled with President Obama in the first place? "Oh, he's so historic! We are super awesome, voting for the unprecedented, historic candidate!" Do you really think people are going to admit that they were wrong and give Mr. Historic the boot before term two without a good 'out' to do so? Mitt Romney, he of no ideas nor ideals, is not that 'out'.

The basis of President Obama's campaign will once again come down to class warfare and 'I'm awesome and historic,' and if you don't think so, it must be because racism. To the Left, one is not to be judged on the content of his character, but only on the color of his skin. Mitt Romney, like John McCain before him, cannot and will not push back against such nonsense. Mitt Romney will especially fail to combat the insidious class warfare stuff; he's like a caricature of an out-of-touch, big business man. Speaker Gingrich can and will push back. We can't spare him, he fights. We need big ideas and someone who can articulate conservative ideals and who will champion the same.

Conventional wisdom, which is often not actually very wise, says that Governor Romney is the 'most electable'. Because, polling or something. Huh. I seem to remember polling showing that John Kerry would beat President George W. Bush. How'd that 'conventional wisdom' work out for y'all? That seems to be the only response I receive when I ask just how is Mitt Romney more electable: "But ... but ... polling!" And then basically 'Oh, sweetie. It's okay. Smart people are talking now, dear."

Well, smart people are talking. Smart, everyday Americans who want to fight with someone, not for someone.

And they are talking about Speaker Gingrich.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: What If Newt Gingrich Wins the Republican Nomination?

Image via AmericanSolutions/Flickr

President Obama's State of the Union Was Full of Lies and Delusions

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:19:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

President Obama continued his legacy of being Campaigner-In-Chief last night with a State of the Union address that was full of campaign rhetoric and meaningless platitudes and not much else (shout out, swing state-y Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Raleigh!) Well, except for lies and delusions, natch. He's good like that. And truth, like math, is hard.

It was an awesome speech, if one takes delight in hearing what they want to hear, regardless of the veracity thereof, and prefers to see the world as they want it to be, rather than how it actually is. Otherwise, not so much.

Oh, warm and fuzzies! He's totally For the Women and unicorns and fairy dust! The real world and the real state of the Union are quite different, however. Thankfully, since the America that President Obama tried to portray is not one we should seek to achieve; where success is punished and government reliance is encouraged. Hope and change? In Obama's world, hope floats -- on a sea of lies and enslavement.

Despite all the lofty rhetoric, President Obama doesn't understand the most basic of concepts. American Exceptionalism is due to freedom and individual liberty, not government reliance. Government doesn't make us; we make the government. But what else could we expect from one so out of touch with reality that he uses Detroit as an example to emulate? Detroit. To most, Detroit is sadly an American tragedy. A devastating example of what happens when a Liberal agenda and Nanny State policies are left to run amok.

President Obama didn't discuss the alleged crowning achievement of his administration. He spent less than fifty words, out of seven thousand, on Obamacare. We were told that for our own good we must pass that bill and then find out what's in it. Guess he found out at the same time -- Wow. Really proud of it, huh? Gee, I wonder why it was neglected? Perhaps because it is an abysmal flop of a failure?

Instead, he uttered delusion after delusion and lie after lie. Governor Romney summed it up by saying that President Obama is "detached from his own reality." He further went on to say "This is a president who talks about deregulation, even as he regulates. He talks about lowering taxes, even as raises them. He talks about developing all of our energy resources, even as he tries to shut them down." Keystone pipeline, anyone?

Exactly so, mixed in with the oh-so-typical and tiresome class warfare. The omnipresent Warren Buffet Secretary made yet another appearance. I want to know who is stopping Warren Buffet from mailing in an extra check to the IRS? And who is stopping him from, you know, paying the evidently poor and suffering secretary more? That makes too much sense, I suppose. Far better to just whine and veil people in cloaks of victim-hood.

Feel good-y nonsense about forcing school districts and states to make dropping out of high school illegal was mixed in with tales of how you can rely on the government to send your child to college. And rely on the government to plan your retirement. Evidently, those are the only two things to which we should aspire and if we dare to dream higher than that, you will be punished. I mean, President Obama thinks that at some point y'all have made enough money. Your pay, you see, is not 'above his paygrade'. Fairness and stuff! Or something. And, of course, to President Obama and the Left, the government never makes enough money.

It's the most damaging legacy of the participatory ribbon generation. Equal opportunity is not enough, to the deluded. Magical pixie dust -- and the iron, liberty-crushing hand of The State -- is meant to ensure equal results. Well, that's not how life nor freedom works. Freedom isn't meant to be some weird version of 'fair'; it's just free. Equal opportunity does not nor should not ensure equal results. Success should not be punished. Failure should not be rewarded, even if we are told that something is 'too big to fail'.

The only things that are actually too big to fail are America and freedom. But that requires talking and acting like grown-ups. That's why I'll file away President Obama's State of the Union address as the meaningless -- and interminably long -- campaign speech that it was. Instead, I hope we all take Mitch Daniels' response to heart: "We will advance our positive suggestions with confidence, because we know that Americans are still a people born to liberty. There is nothing wrong with the state of our Union that the American people, addressed as free-born, mature citizens, cannot set right."

It's time to take off the government's bossy pants and put on our collective big boy pants. Or, preferably, big girl skirts.

Image via Whitehouse.gov

Presidential Candidates, Their Spouses and Persuasive Pillow Talk

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:18:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

It has become a sort of unspoken rule that we are not supposed to care about nor question the spouse of a Presidential candidate. While I do believe they shouldn't be demonized nor raked over the coals due to the choices of their husbands, they can't totally be discounted no matter how politically correct it is to pretend to do so. To completely discount them flies in the face of basic human nature.

Acting as if a spouse is completely irrelevant? It's as if everyone forgets how marriage works! Sure, sometimes one may want to forget how marriage works on a Sunday when your husband is passing his fourth hour laying on the couch watching some sporty thingy, but still. Basic human nature as well as the nature of marriage tells us something: We should assume that a candidate's spouse, a potential future First Lady, has her husband's ears more than his political advisers. Because they usually do.

As such, her beliefs and opinions matter as she will be offering said opinions and beliefs to her husband on a regular -- and sometimes nagging, bless our hearts -- basis. Hello, pillow talk! That's a thing for a reason and it's something of which we should be aware. My personal like or dislike of a candidate's spouse isn't a deal breaker by any means, of course, but it isn't out of the realm of reason to make it at least a secondary consideration.

Evidently, however, we are only allowed to question Republican candidate's spouses. The Left, including Amanda Marcotte writing at Slate, is currently trying to demonize Mrs. Santorum by having a fit of the vapors over the fact that in her 20s, she -- gasp -- lived with a man out of wedlock. Wait, what? Someone was different in their 20s than they are today? Inconceivable! Dear Amanda Marcotte: it's a little something called personal growth, which is an attribute to most sane people. I know you know nothing about that, being stuck frozen in time as a 15-year-old, but most people actually change and grow with age and wisdom.

See, I'd rather have someone who has grown as a person and who will offer her husband loving, but not paranoid delusional, support. I prefer someone unlike Michelle Obama, who is only proud of America when they think her husband is super awesome. And who, according even to the very Liberal Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, believes in only one kind of American Exceptionalism: "their own."

Nancy Reagan was incessantly demonized, yet she was exactly what a First Lady should be. She was a wonderfully protective and supportive wife who loved her husband with all her heart, and he her. This partnership and unwavering support helped make President Ronald Reagan the amazing leader, and man, that he was. She loves America, and it showed. She believed her husband was serving his country, and not the other way around.

Callista Gingrich seems to have similar qualities and a similar effect on her husband. Whatever one feels for her personally, by all accounts and by every indication, she strengthens Speaker Gingrich. He has been tempered with age and wisdom, but also by her love and support.

That is the role a candidate's spouse should play. And, if she does, she makes her husband stronger and a better leader. See a great, strong man? There's an even greater and an even stronger woman pillow talking in his ear.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: In a Presidential Election, Do Spouses Matter?

Image via Classic Film Scans/Flickr

50 Years After JFK, the Left Still Persecutes Presidential Candidates for Religious Beliefs

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:03:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

More than fifty-one years ago, then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a speech discussing his religion. You see, he was a Catholic and that was unheard of; at the time, we'd never had a Catholic president. How could we have been so bigoted, a mere fifty-odd years ago, right? Sadly, such bigotry exists to this day -- on the Left.

At the opening of that speech, President Kennedy described the real issues that our country was facing at that time and then he went on to say the following: "But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this." Wait, what? Deliberately you say?! It's like he somehow also foresaw the liberally-biased moderators at every single GOP presidential candidate debate this election cycle. Unless history really does repeat itself, especially by those 'less responsible.'

We are facing many of the same issues that President Kennedy described today, in one form or another. And worse. But now, like then, those real issues are being drowned out by the frantic screeches of bigots. Like Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who sputtered madly about candidate Santorum and how he'd let his religion "trump the Constitution" and wants a ZOMG Theocracy! Because, Catholic. And the Pope (The. Pope - cue scary music!) or something. I can't really be certain without my paranoid bigot to sane person translation dictionary.

Hey, you know who isn't screeching about the super scary danger of Catholics? Evangelical conservative leaders, the supposedly most bigot-y and intolerant people of all, right? In fact, they just endorsed Santorum for President. The person who came in second? Speaker Gingrich, another Catholic.

Governor Romney has to deal with such bigotry as well. Last election cycle, the oh-so-enlightened Robert Redford made some "oh, those people" remarks regarding Mormons. And recent polling shows that while icky old, evil Republicans are quite fine with a Mormon president, Democrats are not. While 76% of Republicans polled would be comfortable with a Mormon president, only 46% of Democrats said they would be. Huh. So much for that 'intolerant' GOP spin.

Besides the bigotry, we also have the addition of zealots. These zealots worship secularism which has become, ironically, a religion in and of itself. This is why we see the liberal media being obsessed with painting anyone who dares to admit freely that he is a person of faith as some nut-job cuckoo pants. It's like they have some twisted view of actual faith, like it's a caricature-riddled version of Footloose running through their heads.

Cue George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer as moderators of a GOP debate this month. Instead of discussing real issues, they obsessed over banning contraception, as if that is even a thing. "So, that Strait of Hormuz? Wacky, right? But more importantly ... condoms? Why do you want to ban them!!?"

It seems as if the "tolerant" and "diversity embracing" amongst us will only tolerate and include faithful people if they remain closeted. And shaddup. Faith is super scary, you see, because it's personal and individual. Sitting in a pew listening to someone say "G_d Damn America" is hunky-dory. But profess a deep faith in God and Jesus and -- the horror -- values and beliefs that are consistent with American ideals? In fact the very ideals upon which this country was founded? That doesn't suit.

President Kennedy was again prescient when he said this: "For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist." Unfortunately, it seems to be all religions now.

A candidate's religion does not and should not matter. What matters is that their beliefs and values are consistent with American ideals. And I don't believe that being afraid and intolerant of a love of God and Jesus is one of them.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Does a Candidate's Religion Matter?

Image via US Embassy New Delhi/Flickr

When Super PACS Attack: Fight Like a Girl or Die, Candidates

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:32:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

Politics ain't beanbag, as writer Finley Peter Dunne famously, and correctly, said. But you'd be led to believe otherwise by the constant pearl clutching, even by some candidates, over Super PACs and negative ads this election cycle. Egads! People band together in support of one candidate to run negative ads against an opposing candidate -- and they often contain half-truths or outright lies? Get me to my fainting couch!

Super PACs are so prevalent and dominate campaigns nowadays due to a plethora of absurd campaign finance reform laws. If you don't like them, you can blame campaign finance reform and limits being put on individual contributions to candidates and their campaigns. But, until the laws change or the Supreme Court revisits cases like Buckley v. Valeo, get used to them. And for cripes sake, candidates, quit whining about them.

The proper response to a Super PACs negative ad blitz is not to cry 'unfair', it's to fight back. If you don't, you might as well hang it up. Negative ads work; they are highly effective. You must counteract them offensively or you are doomed. I mean, we've seen how well not fighting back worked for Newt Gingrich in Iowa. By "well" I of course mean horribly. The Super PAC 'Restore Our Future', which supports Mitt Romney, went all out in their attack ads aimed at Speaker Gingrich. His response? To have lawyers send letters demanding television stations not air them. Then complained to Mitt Romney, basically asking him to tell the PAC to stop being so meany pants.

This is not the Newt I know nor want. First, Romney cannot, by law, tell the PAC anything. Look, I am not a fan of Governor Romney and, if the Super PAC is any indication, then I'm also not a fan of the company he keeps, another criterion on which I judge a man. But the laws are set up so that he cannot admit to having any communication with the PAC. Which is why people should be able to contribute as much as they want to a candidate, giving him full accountability and no Super PAC cover of anonymity for 'negative' jackassery.

Second, the answer to speech you don't like is not to seek to quash it. Nor to seek further regulations; that's how we were saddled with Super PACs to begin with, for cripes sake! You counteract 'negativity' and speech that you don't like with more speech, your own speech. The GOP candidates need to grow a set of ovaries. They refuse to attack Governor Romney during the debates and now they are even refusing to respond to negative ads, which work no matter how much people feebly protest them, with their own.

The candidates are harming themselves. Also harmed are those people who are wilfully uninformed and purposely remain so by refusing to research anything on their own, instead choosing to believe whatever they see on television. Which is why negative ads are so effective in the first place!

The candidates harmed the most are those who will not or can not fight back. Either because they are pulling the absurd 'above it all', "I'm super positive and negative stuff is nasty, even though this is politics' cards or because their campaign organization stinks.

Fight like a girl or lose, candidates!

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Who Do Negative Campaign Ads Hurt Most?

Image via WEBN-TV/Flickr

Barack Obama Might Be a Good Parent But He's a Really Bad President

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:44:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

Becoming a parent changes a person in many ways, and not just by the addition of crinkly eye lines and gray hairs. Parenthood can better a person in every aspect of their lives. Improving one's leadership skills, teaching one patience -- and more patience -- and even more patience when the child enters their teen years (terrible twos? HA!), and making one realize that the world does not, in fact, revolve around himself or herself.

While it's impossible to tell what kind of parent our potential leaders are, we do know that with parenthood should come wisdom, maturity, and the resistance of stompy foot temper tantrums of one's own -- who has the time for such self-indulgence when far too busy dealing with the temper tantrums of actual children? It also usually provides the ability to temper the rashness of one's youth and hopefully the quashing of one's own ego. Of course, this isn't always the case.

Nor is good parenting indivisibly linked to good leadership. Just look at the current occupant of The White House, he of the overwhelming and unwarranted hubris, President Obama! As far as we can tell, and we really can't ever truly tell, President Obama seems like a good parent. I know he loves his daughters; that much is clear. But in his case, good parenting and good leadership are not linked at all; he is woefully incompetent and an abysmal failure of a leader. Of course, he'd never admit that. He never outgrew his unwarranted hubris. In fact, I think it's fermenting and getting more pungent with age.

It's near impossible to gauge if a Presidential candidate is a good parent or a not-so-good parent. We aren't privy to all their private family business, nor should we be. Plus, a child can seem perfectly fine, yet his or her parents may have been dreadful. Other times, a child may have some 'issues,' yet his parents may have been very fine parents. I mean, some people whine and moan about "awful childhoods" as an excuse to claim perpetual victim-hood, even as adults, just because mommy didn't let them lick the cake bowl.

What we can see is how candidates have grown and learned from parenthood and developed that knowledge into leadership strengths. In this regard, President Obama is clearly a huge failure. Newt Gingrich by some accounts seems to have grown and tempered with age and wisdom and grand-fatherhood. If that helps to diminish his greatest flaw, his ego, then that bodes well for his leadership strengths.

We can see that Governor Perry is a strong, loving husband and father, who met his wife at the age of 8 and loves her to this day. It's apparent to anyone who has seen them together. He's also a loving and watchful father, even on the campaign trail. At an event in Iowa, he stopped during a speech to pass his jacket to his daughter, who was cold. Of course, that was spun as sexism by the liberal media, but in reality, it was a daddy watching out for his little girl -- even if she is all grown up. A loving marriage and fatherhood have clearly strengthened Governor Perry and made him the man, and the great leader of the State of Texas, that he is today.

That's the kind of daddy, and leader, I'd like in the White House.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Do a Candidate's Parenting Skills Have Anything to Do With Their Effectiveness as a Leader?

Image via pipitdapo/Flickr

Candidates' Children are 'Off Limits' Unless Campaigning for Conservative Mother

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:02:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

During Presidential election cycles, much is written about the candidates' children on the campaign trail. The general consensus is often feigned indignation that children are even being mentioned, with hand-wringing and calls of "children are off-limits; keep the families out of it!" Unless, of course, the candidate is a Conservative, particularly a Conservative woman.

Shattering the glass ceiling? Not in their cases. As punishment for being icky old conservative dames not molding to the caricature of conservatives, which seems to be some sort of combination of Footloose and barefoot and pregnant Stepford Wives, they will be vilified -- along with their children. The most blatant and reprehensible example of this is, of course, Sarah Palin.

For many, For The Children (tm) and For The Women (tm) is just words. You see, it's totally cool to demonize and demean 'the wrong kind' of woman. It's even no big whoop at all to make fun of her children, as long as you think their mom has cooties. Sarah Palin is just a girl and not even the right kind of girl! She doesn't hyphenate her name and does not limit herself to caring about topics the left has assigned as 'woman' topics. Egads!

The garbage spewed at Sarah Palin's family was particularly egregious. Her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, was the focus of revolting attacks. MSNBC did a "Top Ten" bit listing reasons why America is obsessed with Sarah Palin. Reason number one was 'family drama that makes you feel better about your own.' Get it? You are totally better than they are, those rubes! Oh, the holier-than-thou hilarity!

Her uterus and the uterus of her teenage daughter were the focus of not only inappropriate and insane questions, but were the focus of investigations by Forensic Uterine Expert Andrew Sullivan and his new side-kick, author Joe McGinniss. From the moment she was announced as John McCain's running mate, the media fell all over themselves to prove that she couldn't be a Vice-President while having a fancy womb and being a mommy. Gee, I don't recall anyone asking Joe Biden if he would have time to parent his children what with all the hair plug maintenance, Amtrak train riding and researching speeches to plagiarize. I also don't recall anyone berating the Obamas for making campaign appearances with their daughters, nor should they have.

But, for Palin, it continues to this day. Even the latest fluff piece this election cycle about the children of candidates hitting the campaign trail included the Palins. And had to snarkily add 'even after news broke that teenage Bristol was pregnant' to the snippet about Palin's children on the trail. Hint y'all: Sarah Palin is not running.

Look, women can do it all. We can be mommies and run for office at the same time. We are good like that. It's called multi-tasking and it's second nature to us. Our children can, and should, hit the campaign trail with us; why on earth would we want to leave them behind? I would not (don't worry; I've no plans to run. Whew!) All women should demand that women of every political stripe be able to campaign with their children without fear of being attacked. Shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Candidates' Kids on the Campaign Trail: Good Idea or Bad?

Image via tgaume/Flickr

Rick Perry vs. Newt Gingrich: Which Candidate Will Kill 'Big Daddy' Government?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:22:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

The South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary is on January 21, 2012. I live in South Carolina, so the Republican Presidential candidates have just about a month to convince me of one thing: that he or she will help cure the disease and not just the symptoms.

I already know that it's imperative that President Obama not win a second term, and not just to save me from more gray hairs and so-not-cute wrinkles due to constant scowling at the nightly news. But, just as important and too often forgotten is the need for a President who will have the strength and the convictions to push America back from the precipice on which it is balancing on one entitlement-ridden foot. Who won't just treat our painful symptoms like high unemployment, economic disasters, and unsustainable spending, but will also cure the source of the disease itself: Big Daddy Government and the entitlement, dependence, economic ruin, and Statism that it causes?

The front-runners are Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I have not and will not support Mitt Romney in the primaries no matter how many times I am told "he's the most electable!" I think that supporting someone based upon whom you think can win is a sure-fire way to lose. Plus, while this election will rightly be framed as 'it's the economy, stupid,' the economic downturns are merely a result of the main problems we face. We must cure the relationship between we, the people, and the Big Daddy State. If we don't do it now, it will be too late. Obamacare was the "Hail Mary" from the Democrats in accomplishing this; Obamacare was not about health care or people, it was about government and increasing our dependence on the state. Romney has neither the fortitude nor the desire to combat that.

But, in the cases of Speaker Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry, I can wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support either one of them, albeit one maybe more so than the other.

Newt Gingrich showed that he can accomplish some of what we need when he was Speaker. It took six decades to get some sort of welfare reform -- and Speaker Gingrich was the one who did it. But does he have the ability and the desire to recognize that sometimes a temporary cure, even if a fundamentally super smarty pants one, only prolongs the disease?

See, one of my biggest problems with the Tea Party movement is its tunnel-visioned focus on cutting spending alone. While that does need to happen, it's merely a symptom of the disease. It's like if a dentist treated an abscessed tooth with just pain killers and antibiotics. Sure, he'd take away your pain and maybe even the immediate infection. But unless he actually extracts that diseased tooth, the problem will just come back -- and could be fatal.

So, I'm leaning toward Governor Perry as the person who has the best track record of being willing and able to perform the extraction, even if painful, to provide a cure. With smaller government, the courage of his conservative convictions and common sense. He doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. He may not talk purty sometimes, but his walk is extraordinary. And may be just what this country needs.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with each of our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Which Republican Candidate Deserves the Nomination?

Image via TexasMilitaryForces/Flickr

Conservatism and Motherhood: A Mommy State, Not a Nanny State

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:31:00 EST

Post by Lori Ziganto

On my Sweet Sixteen birthday, my daddy bought me the super fancy hard-cover of George Will's book The Morning After. My mother, endearingly dubbed Daft Scottish Mom, listened to Rush Limbaugh daily and often proclaimed, "Och, my wee Rush! He's nae daft, that one." Suffice it to say, I've been a Conservative for quite a spell. But it wasn't until I became a mama that I fully grasped the importance of Conservatism and what it truly means, in practice not just in theory.

I realized that not only are Conservative ideals best for the country, but they are particularly good for women and their children. We need less Nanny State and more Mommy State (without the incessant laundry. Someone needs to hurry up and invent laundry that folds and puts itself away. Kindly arrange.). Mamas nurture not with the intention of taking care of you forever, but in a way that teaches you and enables you to succeed, or fail, on your own.

A Nanny is paid for by someone else to make you feel protected and policed, often protecting you from yourself. A mommy fights for you and protects you, but she does it by teaching you how to protect and take care of yourself. You need a mommy, not a nanny, to teach you personal responsibility and how to solve problems on your own for a lifetime.

This is why we are seeing more Conservative women moving to the forefront. Not as perpetual victims railing against The Patriarchy (tm), but as fighters and leaders who embody my personal motto -- walk softly, but carry a big lipstick. See, we dames have learned by living, often in our awesome small towns, none of which are bitter in my experience. We manage budgets that are often super tight. We make it work by cutting out things that aren't cost-efficient, sacrificing non-necessities, and by using the free market to shop at Costco or Walmart and not fancy pants Whole Foods. We do not do it by whining about needing more nor by coveting the earnings of others.

Conservatism also enables women to embrace motherhood, not regard it as a punishment. Conservatives know that motherhood does not diminish a woman and it is not detrimental to her career or aspirations. Rather, it strengthens her and is an attribute in and of itself. After becoming a mother, my pro-life convictions were further strengthened and it is Conservatives who value life. Because of this, they value women. The real 'War on Women' is perpetrated by the pro-abortion Left. See, if you devalue and diminish the life of unborn children, then you also devalue the life bearers.

I do not want my daughter to grow up sneered at as a gender traitor for not toeing the faux feminist line because she dares to be pro-life. I don't want my own President to teach my daughter that her value and her rights are predicated on her legal ability to kill her own unborn children. And I don't want her growing up to be taught that women are perpetual victims in need of a Nanny State Government to save them.

I want to teach her to love freedom and how to hold onto it tightly. There! Mommy made it all better.