It's been over a week since President Obama won re-election and some Republicans are still unable to accept the win with honor and respect. They're apparently suffering from post election shock and have resorted themselves to unpatriotic, racists tantrums.

Since my candidate won, I thought that I would be spending the following days happy for our victory. While I had moments of joy and excitement at Obama's win, and the progress we can now  make these next four years, I find myself increasingly saddened by what I have witnessed from my fellow Americans.  

Within minutes after President Obama was declared a winner on election night, angry Facebook posts and tweets starting flying through social media streams.  Statements varied from subtly racist to downright racist and then just completely ignorant.  People were fast to react as "friends" unfriended each other and ugly tweets were retweeted by the tens of thousands.   

The ugliness did not limit itself to social media, however. A dispute amongst students broke out at the University of Mississippi that started after students began making racists statements. Where I live in Duval county, a key battle ground county in Florida, the air felt awkward and tense all around me. I heard several remarks here and there but what probably upset me the most was what one of my friends told me on Wednesday evening.  A teacher at our children's school told her elementary grade class Wednesday morning that she was "sad for our country and would pray for America."  While she is free to have her own opinion, she is certainly not free to spread her message to young, impressionable children.  

I truly hope that statements like that of the teacher, and others, do not reflect who we really are as a nation. At a time when we should use this opportunity to focus on working together, some people are choosing to divide us further.  Right now, we should be celebrating that a record number of citizens exercised their right to vote and a victory for a winner was declared. 

To everyone spending this week hating, angry, or upset, I encourage them to take a moment to reflect upon their own actions and upon what Mitt Romney said during his concession speech:

This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the President will be successful in guiding our nation. [...]  At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work. And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion. We look to our teachers and professors, we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery.

Let's stop the bickering and posturing, America, and let's move forward these next four years. 

Image via Becky F/Flickr

President Obama earned my vote in 2007 and continues to earn it today, even more so than four years ago. The reasons for me became clear back then when I saw a candidate that was motivated by helping the majority of Americans, not just a segmented group of voters. I also saw a candidate that was interested in the well-being of the majority of families across the nation; families that faced similar hardships that President Obama’s own family had dealt with before. What stood out to me in 2007 and continues to today is the message that we heard during Mrs. Obama's Democratic National Convention speech in September -- the personal experiences that Mrs. Obama and President Obama experienced in their own lives and within their own families have been the bedrock for the issues and platforms that President Obama has rallied for these last four years.  

In addition to wanting a president that draws on personal experiences to guide his political platform, I also wanted a candidate that stood where I stood on issues that are important for me as a mom and a woman. Most importantly, preserving the rights of women to be free from government and political intrusion on their bodies; the growth of small business and the middle class, and of course, health care reform, among other important issues.  

As I reflect upon these last four years, a few things stand out to me that make me stand firm with the President today in hopes for four more years:

Image via Nadia Jones

Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, whom Mitt Romney has and still endorses, said recently with regard to pregnancy and rape that, "I struggled with it, myself, for a long time, but I came to realize life is a gift from God. And even if life begins in a horrible situation of rape, it is something God intended to happen."

In case there is any question, we already know that such extreme views on abortion are not unique to Mourdock nor Todd Akin. The Republican party's platform includes a ban on abortion. The platform entails an initiative that will attempt to pass a constitutional amendment making abortions unconstitutional.

Let's be clear on what this all means ... Republicans want to overturn Roe vs. Wade -- which currently ensures that a woman can have a safe abortion if she finds herself in the unfortunate situation of an unplanned pregnancy. One that may have been the result of rape or incest.

If Republicans make it to the White House in November, a woman's constitutional right to choose what she should or should not do with her body will be infringed upon. Women can also wave good-bye to federal funding to hospitals or organizations that provide millions of women cervical cancer screenings, mammograms, and other forms of preventative care.  

Thankfully, a recent Gallup poll confirmed that female voters in key swing states believe that their right to choose is the number one most important issue as they decide their candidates. The right to choose ranked 20 percent higher than job growth and the economy.   

Despite the Gallup poll, Republicans try to de-emphasize the importance of social issues by dismissing them as not being important to women. However, this Gallup poll confirms that Republicans just don't get it ... which likely explains why Romney still falls behind when it comes to the female voters -- by almost 10 percent. 

Apparently there are binders full of women that currently believe a candidate's position on social issues -- and how those issues will affect them -- should be used to help them decide how to cast their vote on November 6.  

Image via Fionacci Blue/Flickr

In the infamous hidden video of Mitt Romney that surfaced in September, the world watched as Mitt dismissed 47% of voters as being entitled, non-tax paying citizens that would never vote for Romney. While this video and the now infamous 47% statement has made repeated international headlines, there were a series of other comments that seemed to fly under the radar. Until now, at least.

In the same video, Mitt Romney shared with the audience that his father was born in Mexico and that if his father was "born of Mexican parents, [he'd] have a better shot at winning [the election]." Mitt goes on to say that "being Latino would be helpful" which is followed by a series of laughter in the audience.  

Right, because poking fun of the hardships that Latino-Americans have endured is something to laugh at. 

Wrong. 

Puerto Rican actress, Rosie Perez, has joined forces with ShlepLabs to create a video in response to Romney's wish-I-were-Latino statements. The video that was only released yesterday, has already gained huge traction in social media. And while there is some humor to Rosie's video, we see Rosie put Romney right back in his place.   

So you see, winning the Latino-American has nothing to do with being Latino, rather, it has everything to do with your policies and how they will help turn this economy around for Latino Americans. The Latino vote and being a Latino-American is nothing to laugh at in this election.

Voters have had an opportunity to digest their reactions to the first presidential debate and the fact that Big Bird may have stolen the show.  

As I watched the debate, I'll admit that by the end of the first round I started watching the clock tick with nervousness and anxiety. Time was running out and Mitt Romney had a clear strategy and plan of attack for the night. To win the debate using the "fake it until you make it" and smoke and mirrors approach to try and fool the American people into believing the falsehoods he was saying were true. Romney had great stage presence; he was confident, comfortable, relaxed, was even joking and laughing at times. For the first time in the last 18 months, I found him almost likable.  

As for President Obama, I'm still trying to figure out what his strategy was. Obama did not challenge Romney enough, he didn't dismiss Romney's false claims and at times the President seemed aloof.   

What happened Mr. President? 

Even though Obama missed a number of opportunities to defend his policies, numerous independent, non-partisan sources have reported that Romney's allegations, although eloquently stated, were false. Not just false, but some of them impossible or highly exaggerated. Think Progress, for example, reported that Romney stated 27 myths within 38 minutes. FactCheck.org called Romney a "serial exaggerator" and pointed out issues with statements from both candidates. 

Will voters see through the smoke? I'm not so sure. I'm afraid that not enough voters have or will fact check the statements. But we owe it to ourselves and to the future of this country to check the facts.  

I also think that Obama will recover in a big way in the next two debates giving Obama just the edge he needs to win this election and  save Big Bird and ultimately, Obamacare.      

Image via Donyrelyea/Flickr

This country was founded under the idea that church and state shall remain separate; let’s hold American government to its promise. That promise is that  American values should be left to the individual citizens rather than having laws or government define them for us.

The fabric of this country is made up of vastly different values from household to household.  We are a country rich in diversity in our backgrounds, religious beliefs, and values. Since the values are so different, we should avoid having the state reconcile any differences in the varying definitions that we may have. When the state gets involved in defining moral conduct, it then becomes a decisive stance on which value will be honored.

The obvious example is the debate about  same sex marriage. Same sex marriage debate trickles down to the conversation of adoption, health care, and so much more.  

For example, only 18 states allow same-sex couples to adopt children. Even though many conservatives oppose laws such as these, Romney has stated with regard to gay adoption that “[i]n [his] view that’s something that people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in [his] view, a departure of the real meaning of that word. Obama is also a supporter gay adoption and recently made history when he stated that gay marriage was something he supported. Even though we have both nominees for president supporting gay adoption, many states still have laws in place that prevent the adoption.

By keeping state and church separate, we can have confidence that our constitutional rights will not be infringed upon. Allowing American values to be decided amongst individuals honors and respects the individual beliefs of the diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures of all Americans.

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 "How Do We Best Sustain American Values?"

Image via ProComKelly/Flickr

Now that the Republican and Democratic conventions are behind us, undecided or ambivalent voters should have a clearer picture of which candidate will get their vote. We saw two stark differences between Charlotte and Tampa that went beyond the location of the cities and the palette of the rooms. We heard from the candidates, supporters, and Americans, all whom shared the personal stories behind the political platforms. 

So which party won at their convention?  

I don't think it was about which party "won," but more about what American voters stood to gain from the conventions. 

Voters had the opportunity to digest the information from both conventions and decide for themselves who they will cast their vote for in November. Voters also had the opportunity to distinguish between fact or skewed interpretations of the facts. Hopefully voters researched convention speeches on non-partisan websites and verified the accuracy of the information being touted by both parties and on both stages.  

With the conventions behind us, let's hope that undecided voters have now decided which candidate will receive their vote.  And let's also hope that unregistered voters have decided to register and vote. Either one of those scenarios make us all winners because as President Obama recently told voters in Las Vegas, don't boo, vote. 

From my point of view, I watched both conventions with an open mind. The testimonials and hearing the personal stories of everyday, middle-class Americans that shared personal stories was a nice touch by both sides.

I appreciated Romney's diverse choice of speakers and thought it helped to offset the lack of diversity in the crowd. But I think that Romney and Ryan's speeches did not lay out a clear plan on what changes they will implement if elected into office. I also thought Mitt Romney's decision to leave out the troops in his acceptance speech was something that many voters took notice of and expressed anger about on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere.  

On the other hand, I loved how personal Mrs. Obama's speech was.  I felt energzied after hearing Julian Castro's passion and message.  Finally, former President Bill Clinton reminded many of us what our country was like years ago and how much more work we need to do. 

With less than 60 days remaining until election day, and as the forthcoming debates between the candidates approach, I think that voters will have a clearer picture as to which candidate is the right candidate for them. 

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'?

Photo via DonkeyHotey/Flickr

The First Lady's speech at the Democratic National Convention was the much anticipated speech of opening night. All weekend I watched the news as political pundits talked about what we could anticipate from the speakers. Although much of the talk centered around the rising Democratic star Julian Castro, one thing was for sure, America could not wait to hear Mrs. Obama's speech (or see what she would wear).

At almost 10:40 p.m., Mrs. Obama took the stage and then literally took over the night. Mrs. Obama spoke from the heart as she shared her personal life story, President Obama's story, and how they grew up with challenges and without much, just like many other American families. We heard Mrs. Obama speak of hardships and challenges faced by their own families, and that of many Americans.

One thing was clear from Mrs. Obama's speech. The personal experiences that Mrs. Obama and President Obama experienced in their own lives and within their own families have been the bedrock for the issues and platforms that President Obama has rallied for these last four years. As Mrs. Obama said, "[T]he issues are not political, they are personal, because President Obama lived it." 

We did not hear Mrs. Obama mention Mitt Romney by name. Instead, Mrs. Obama spoke about integrity, the truth, and avoiding shortcuts or playing by your own set of rules.  

Mrs. Obama also reflected on the last four years and the issues that President Obama has stood for since he took office. Health care, giving women equal pay for equal work, reducing student loan debt, creating more jobs for America, and protecting America's hopes and dreams. And despite the many challenges that the President has faced, Mrs. Obama reminded us that he has not changed. "Being President doesn't change who you are ... it reveals who you are." 

As we heard the story and struggles of many Americans, we heard one clear message, President Obama is still the man for the job to help keep moving our country forward.

As First Lady, wife, and Chief Mom in Charge, Mrs. Obama's convention speech was just what the Democratic party needed to kick off opening night. It was authentic, honest, and effective.  

Legitimate rape. The first time I heard this phrase I had no idea what Todd Akin could have possibly meant. In fact, I thought I must have misread the quote. But after reading it again, and hearing about it all over the media, I had to find out what Todd Akin could have possibly meant by such a contradictory phrase. Did Akin mean to suggest that there is such a thing as a legitimate or  illegitimate rape?  Is the illegitimate rape the one where the woman said no but really meant yes?  

According to Akin, yes.  As I read the entire context of what Akin stated, I was disturbed. Akin is under the belief that a woman that is “legitimately” or really raped, will not get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Hmm… really? Because in 5th grade health class, I learned that sexual intercourse can result in conception and therefore pregnancy. So why the discrepancy? 

In high school, college, in doctor's offices around the world, women are taught that you can get pregnant if you have unprotected sex.   Never once have I heard that my body could "shut that whole thing down" if I really did not want to have sex.  

Fortunately for all women, Akin is not teaching reproductive health to 5th graders.  His statement suggests he's not qualified to any how.  But what is scary is that Akin, like many other Republicans, seeks to have input in what a woman can or can't do with her own body.  Why should Akin, Republicans, or any public official have a  deciding opinion on a woman's options when it comes to her body and her reproductive health?  Backwards thinking public officials, whether Republicans or Democrats, have no business in the business of deciding the reproductive rights of a woman.    

Before we blame Akin for giving the Republican party a bad name, let's keep in mind that he is not alone when it comes to confusing science with science fiction. There are a few other Republicans that have attempted to use science fiction to support their ideology when it comes to women's reproductive rights. It wasn't too long ago when Republican Foster Friess stated that all women need to do to keep from getting pregnant is to put aspirin between their knees.  

Will Akin’s statements hurt the rest of the Republican party and ultimately the Romney/Ryan agenda? Maybe.  It can't help the Romney/Ryan team.  I think what Akin's statement does is further support the idea that there remains a fundamental issue with a political party deciding what a woman can or can't do with her body.  

Image via Donkeyhotey/Flickr

The Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Medicare plan is bad news for everyone. We are facing the toughest economic times in the history of this country with 23 million Americans out of work, struggling to make ends meet. A plan that increases the rising cost of health care only perpetuates the problems that our country faces and further cripples America. The plan is to cut over $800 billion in Medicare but does not provide a solution as to what seniors are to do with the remaining gap in expenses. What Romney and Ryan propose to do is to replace the current medicare plan with a fixed voucher system. The voucher will decrease over time ultimately shifting the continued increase in rising health care costs to seniors. 

If the Affordable Health Care Act is repealed, your average senior today can expect to experience medical costs to rise even more, on average, by $11,000 per eligible senior. And that is just the beginning.  

The voucher that senior citizens would receive would decrease over time while health care costs would rise. The result? By 2023, future retirees could see an increase in medical expenses by almost $60,000.    

It's not just Democrats that oppose the Romney/Ryan plan. According to a recent Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll, more than half of Republicans would prefer to keep Medicare running as it is than to adopt the Romney/Ryan plan.  Non-partisan organizations also agree this plan is bad news. The Center for American Progress Action Fund states that any way you put it, medicare under the Romney plan will increase for both future and current seniors.  

What really makes the Romney/Ryan plan bad for everyone is how it will affect our children. The plan will not only result in a negative impact to Medicare recipients, but will negatively affect Medicaid and 1/3 of American children that benefit from it. With over 30 million children on some form of Medicaid today, the plan delivers more bad news for yet another segment of America that will risk having their health-care expenses uncovered. 

My final thoughts: The Romney/Ryan Medicare plan threatens to affect two fragile segments of our country, which makes it bad for our health.

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 DonkeyHotey/Flickr

At first glance, Paul Ryan seems like a promising candidate. He claims he has an effective plan in place to balance the budget, improve the economy, and get Americans back to work. The interesting part about his plan is that during his first one-on-one interview with Brit Hume on Tuesday, Ryan admitted, after waffling around the question, that under the Romney/Ryan plan, it would take at least 10 years to balance the budget. He couldn’t provide a clear answer as to what exactly the plan entailed; instead, he chose to attack Obama rather than provide answers.

And there’s more bad news.  

Ryan’s track record promises to take a step backward for women’s reproductive rights -- a right that Obama, Biden, and previous administrations have fought hard to take a stand for. Ryan co-sponsored a bill that could ban in-vitro fertilization for couples trying to conceive. He supports banning many common forms of birth control for women, including the pill. And if that’s not enough, Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which helps women fight for equal pay for equal work. Although the economy is certainly an important issue, protecting the fundamental equal rights of women is paramount. I prefer not to have a man, or the government, decide what my reproductive rights and options are.

Ryan also supports Romney’s plan to provide tax incentives for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Ryan supports a tax plan that would give our wealthiest Americans an after tax income increase by at least 8.7 percent. Under Ryan’s plan, people earning over $1 million per year would receive tax cuts of over $260,000 each year. We can also say good-bye to Medicare with Ryan in office and hello to a voucher system for our seniors.   

Is Ryan a good choice for Romney? Only if you support a track record on radical conservative views on women’s health. Ryan likely helped Romney reconnect with our most conservative voters, but for your average American, Ryan promises to move our country backward not forward. 

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."

Image via Gage Skidmore/Flickr

We should congratulate Missouri and any other states that have taken action to protect our religious freedoms by amending the Missouri Constitution.  The newly passed amendment now makes it permissible for students to  “read a Bible in study hall" or for individuals "to pray briefly before a City Council meeting." 

But here’s the main reason why I think the right to pray amendment is  good law. So long as the right to pray also includes the right not to pray, it does not pose a threat to anyone's religious freedoms or freedom to be free from religion guaranteed in our federal constitution. This amendment will not require anyone to participate in prayer, but at the same time, it won't restrict the right to pray. Furthermore, Missouri’s right to pray amendment will allow students the right to refuse to participate in any school activities that he or she feels is contrary to his religious beliefs. 

From a personal viewpoint, I think we should do more to allow individuals the right to pray, meditate, or do whatever it is that they need to in order to connect with their faith or express their individual beliefs. I think what opponents worry about is that right to pray will result in disruptive, intrusive, or overbearing conduct by those individuals that choose to exercise their right. Fortunately, there are other measures in place to prevent disruption from taking place.

Also, I think we have too many institutions limiting our abilities to express ourselves and our beliefs under the guise of separation of church and state. Same-sex marriage, for example. Amendments like this is one step in the right direction of allowing people to express their own views.  

Prayer in schools has been a hot topic since the early 20th century and most recently in 2000 when individuals filed suits disputing whether "under God" could be said during the pledge of allegiance.  It shouldn't.  Missouri’s right to pray ultimately does not infringe on rights and is not much different than the moment of silence laws permitted in schools passed by some states 20 and 30 years ago.  Most of those laws have survived legal challenges.  Moments of silence in schools and public places, like in front of the White House pictured above, is something we should protect both on the sate and federal level.  

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?

Image via U.S. National Archives/Flickr

Romney's travels abroad last week gave us some insight as to how well Romney would represent America should he become our next president. Could he handle meetings with international leaders? Would he represent the U.S. positively? And what sort of relationships would he be able to foster with foreign leaders and people abroad? 

Well, based on his experiences in London, Israel, and Poland, Romney's ability to connect with people abroad pretty much is consistent with his ability to connect with folks here in the U.S. -- it's terrible.  

Romney stumbled his way through the three countries tripping over each awkward gaffe on his way out. While I can understand his desire to appear to want to have strong foreign policy experience, his multiple gaffes only further supported the fact that he is out of touch with not just most Americans but also, the rest of the world.

As Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican operative stated recently, the trip was "short of a unqualified success" and “Romney abroad is the same as Romney at home.”

Um, yes, I think we can all agree on that one.

Should Romney have gone abroad? I say no. First, our relationships with the United Kingdom or Poland are not top priority for most Americans. It's not what will help American's understand why Romney should be our commander in chief. Voters are concerned with how they will afford a decent education for their children, social security, health care, and of course when this economy will turn around. Not whether we will be invited for tea with the British Prime Minister.

Secondly, does it bother anyone else that a portion of Romeny's internation "tour" included watching his horse compete in the Olympics? Something about that just makes the visit less authentic and genuine.  Actually, maybe awkward is the right word. 

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 DonkeyHotey/Flickr

It's been speculated that in order for Mitt Romney to gain the much needed edge over Obama, he would have to pick a vice presidential running mate that qualifies as diverse. Mitt Romney has had several issues during his campaign trail but among one of his biggest issues is his in ability to relate to the average American. Being raised in a life of privilege and extreme wealth is the story of only 1% of Americans.  

President Obama, on the other hand, has had the benefit of being your average American that was the product of a single-mom home in middle America, yet went on to become a Harvard Law graduate and of course, our President.  

And he's black. 

With racial and ethnic minorities growing at faster rates than Caucasians, the racial divide has been shifting in the last several decades with Latino and African-Americans becoming the majority-minority in this country.  

What’s this mean for Romney? He will need to try and pick up some of the minority vote. Romney needs a woman, African-American, or Latino in his corner in order to try and gain some sort of edge over Obama.

Who are the likely candidates? 

Condi Rice is likely Romney's best bet for two obvious reasons; she's a woman and African-American. She’s also smart as a whip. Still, she's a bit of a risk for Romney. Her association with the Bush administration may be a turn off to voters, and her alleged "liberal" views on abortion would further harm Romney amongst his most conservative supporters. Will she be enough to gain Romney some African-American votes? No. Perhaps wealthier African-Americans who are ready for this economy to shift may believe that a Romney/Rice ticket is the way to strengthen our economy. But your middle-class African-American voter will likely continue to vote for Obama with the understanding that Obama policies and initiatives are likely to benefit them rather than a Romney/Rice administration. 

Next up is Bobby Jindal whose name has been thrown around by some as a strong candidate for Romney. But Bobby's subpar public speaking skills and upbringing in Hinduism may not serve the conservative voters well. From a diversity standpoint, Jindal is not a strong representation of our minority population in America. I'm going to guess that the Latino and African-Americans will find Jindal equally as relatable as Romney. Jindal will give Romeny the edge he needs. 

Finally there's Marco Rubio. Rubio, who recently received the support of the largest Tea Party group this week is likely what will make a Romney/Rubio ticket unfavorable to the minority vote. Many African-American and Latino voters believe because Rubio's uber conservative platform is bad for middle America and minorities.

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 BobbyJindal2007/Flickr

Sorry Mitt Romney, corporations are not people just like a person is not like a corporation. That’s like saying 30 million uninsured Americans are irrelevant -- oh wait, that was said! Agree, two different topics but both statements are equally startling and outrageous.  

I think what makes Romney’s statement even more outrageous is the context in which it was made. Romney was in Iowa on the campaign trail discussing ways in which the government can help balance the budget.  The topic he was discussing was whether people or corporations should be taxed. Romney’s answer -- people should be taxed.  

Obviously, Romney understands the way corporations work. He has invested, created, and managed so many over the decades that it's hard to know exactly how many.  (The fact that he hasn't disclosed all his tax records doesn't help either.)  

But people that are business savvy, such as Romney, know that corporations have many more rights than does a person. For example, corporations have more tax breaks than we do.  I suppose that’s one reason that Romney created shell corporations and invested so much of his money in tax havens in the first place.    Furthermore, not all corporations are required to follow the same state and federal laws that people are required to, and corporations can donate much more money to political parties and candidates than a person.  The list goes on and on.   

Some things are just better left unsaid, and suggesting that corporations are people is one of them. It’s a scary thought that the presumptive republican nominee is saying this out loud to Americans that have been looking at one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. That statement is just plain insensitive and kind of like putting your dog on the roof of your car. Wait, that also really happened.

If the way Romney treats corporations and his dog is any indication of how he’ll treat the American people, well, I don’t want any part of him. His statement is just more bad news for Romney who has struggled with being able to relate to Americans.  

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 MittRomneys/Flickr

Four pregnant women sit next to each other at a busy airport. Cara, is from Canada, Mary is from Mexico, Anne is from the U.S., and Irene is from Italy. Like most women that have just met, they are able to form an instant bond about their pregnancies. They shared how much weight they have gained, stories about morning sickness, and more. For the most part, their stories are typical. It’s not until the conversation turns to the topic of maternity leave do their stories start to differ.  

Cara shares that she will be at home on a paid leave for almost an entire year after her baby’s birth. She will return to work two weeks before her baby turns one. Mary, who will get 12 weeks of paid leave, looks at Cara with envy. She is worried that 12 weeks of paid leave is not enough time to before she returns to work. Irene is not as worried because she knows that five and half months of paid time off will give her enough time to get the baby on a decent schedule before she returns to work.

But when Anne shares her story, the other ladies realize they don't have it as bad.  Anne will stay home with her baby, not because she can afford to, but because she can’t afford childcare. Although Anne has been working as a paralegal for a small law firm for the last four years, she is not eligible for any paid time off when the baby is born. Like many American women, she used all her vacation and personal days to attend her routine pregnancy exams. By the time the baby arrives, she will not have any more paid time off. Anne will work until the baby is born and she will not return to work. She will quit. It doesn't matter than Anne works for a thriving law practice.  She is the only paralegal on staff and her firm will not be able to sustain the practice without her. A replacement, a male, has already been hired.

Anne was faced with a problem that many American women are faced with she decides to have a child. What to do when the child is born. Anne does not make enough money to afford child care. So she has been left with the only choice available, to quit. 

How is it possible that the leader of the free world, fails when it comes to protecting new moms? There is no reason why the United States is one of only three nations in the world that does not require employers to offer paid leave to new moms.

At the federal level, there is some limited protection for pregnant women through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, The Family and Medical Leave Act, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But not all women are covered under those laws. Those laws apply only if you work for what is called a “covered employer,” or an employer that has either 20, 50, or 15 employees, respectively. Women are left to try and find protection through any available state statutes that may or may not offer protection to more women.  

Some may argue that the U.S. doesn't value family, motherhood, or breastfeeding as do other countries.  Who knows. But it’s time for us to get it together. If 178 other nations can figure it out, so can we. Let’s stand up for new moms in this country and require that employers offer paid time off to all new moms.   

Image Credit via Ficus/Flickr

Money can’t buy you class, but it sure can buy you favoritism by a political candidate. Before we analyze what's right or wrong with current laws, I think it's important to understand the current laws as best we can.  To put it simply, for the 2012 election cycle, individual contributions to federal campaigns, parties and other political committees may not exceed $117,000.  That’s the cap for an individual, not a household, family, or corporations.

Corporations are not permitted to donate to a candidate, however they can contribute to Super PACS, the party, campaign committees and more.

And although we’ve had campaign finance laws in place since 1867, they serve a superficial purpose.  

Obviously, wealthy families can find easy loopholes through these campaign finance laws and pay well above the individual cap to support their candidate. In 2011, for example,  a mystery corporation donated 1 million to a political committee backing Mitt Romney five weeks after the company was formed.  Only two weeks after the contribution was made, the company was dissolved.  In the last two years, Super PACs raised approximately $181 million with roughly half of that money coming from fewer than 200 of the super-wealthy. 

Why worry about who can donate and how much?  Well, politicians know who their big donors are.  They know who is paying their bills and they know there is an expectation for these “donations.”  What ends up happening is that favoritism is bought.  Favoritism for your industry or your political agenda(s). 

When you consider how much uncapped money is donated by corporations and unions, it’s hard to argue that favoritism is not purchased.  We have seen political campaign scandals rear their ugly heads in state and federal campaigns all over America. Behind every scandal is someone that stood to profit from it in some way.       

In 2010, after some reform was written, the Supreme Court ruled to remove limits from corporate spending on political advertising that John McCain helped to rewrite.  

Today, it’s not clear how we can fix the laws but something should be done to help level the playing field  between parties and candidates and eliminate favoritism that occurs amongst all political parties. 

Opponents of limits on campaign contributions may argue that contributing to a political candidate or party is infringing upon their fundamental right to exercise free speech.  The government may, however, place reasonable limits on your protected rights based on several different factors that will take much too long to discuss in just one post.   

So what can be done? 

I’m not sure what the right solution is but something else should be done.  Maybe we revisit the influence of Super PACs again and then put a limit on how much a candidate can raise each year?   Seems like the easiest solution to a conundrum of issues.    

Image via DonkeyHotey/Flickr

I came to this country at the age of 3. My family lived in a two-bedroom apartment in a multi-unit brownstone in Jamaica, Queens. My Dad had just graduated from medical school but he drove school buses to make extra money. Like many immigrant parents, my parents saw this country as a land of opportunity for my brother and me.  

With hard work, we could grow up to become whatever we wanted to. As children, we had our dreams set on the simple things. When I was 16, that dream was to get a job as a cashier at my local discount store. When I was 18, all I wanted was to go to college, live in a dorm, and attend division one football games to cheer my team on. I had all these dreams and did all of these things not fully understanding how lucky I was that if I wanted them, I had an opportunity to go for it because I could produce a valid Social Security card.

But 10 million young people in this country are not so lucky. They were brought into this country illegally as children. It's not until they grow up and attempt to apply for their first job, or try to enroll in a higher education program, or serve in our armed forces, that they realize that they are in this country without documentation. Not by choice, but by the actions of their parents. Their dreams are shattered and the door to opportunity has closed. The only choice they are given is self-deportation.    

As of last week, however, one million of these young people will be eligible for a chance at their dreams. And they have the President to thank for that.  

For years, President Obama tried to get the DREAM Act passed. Rather than come up with an alternative solution, Republicans in congress have gridlocked the efforts of the DREAM ACT, which was drafted with bipartisan support. Like many other presidents have in the past, President Obama took action when no action was being taken.

President Obama did what George W. Bush did 291 times -- he exercised his presidential right to issue an executive order to protect these undocumented young people. President Reagan issued 381 and President Clinton issued 364.

As a result of the executive order, approximately one million young people have been been given a “one in a million” opportunity to pursue their dreams. Appropriate limits were placed on the order. To qualify for relief, applicants must have been brought into this country under the age of 15, they must have been here for at least five years, and they must be law abiding.  

The executive order is not a temporary solution, but provides temporary relief until a permanent solution can be passed. The relief does not make these individuals eligible for citizenship nor will they receive a resident alien card. 

The one million people that can qualify for this temporary status have rightfully been called "Dreamers." By issuing the order, the President Obama has opened the door for these Dreamers so that they can dream as big as they want.  

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?

Image via USAG-Humphreys/Flickr

It goes without saying that supporters of Mitt Romney and President Obama have very different views of which candidate is best suited to fix the economy. Many Democrats, if not more Democrats than Republicans, are in a dire state of financial emergency. These last five years have been a financial struggle for everyone and, yes, even Democrats want to see it turnaround.  

According to recent reports, Mitt Romney’s solution to strengthen the economy is not to create more jobs but to implement a plan that includes firing teachers, firefighters, and policemen.  

Does that make sense to anyone? 

When the economy crashed in 2008, our nation faced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression in 1929. When I voted for Obama in 2008, I voted for him knowing that it would take more than one term to fix the economy that had been in an economic decline for years before Obama took office. When George W. Bush took office in 2000, he inherited a stable and strong economy. By the time he left in 2008, however, Republican policies and initiatives crashed our economy, leaving President Obama and his new administration to pick up the pieces. 

And since then, I've experienced personal losses and been a witness to many friends suffering as well. Just last month, my father-in-law, a commercial real estate developer, lost ownership to the biggest source of income in the family business. This source of income was the foundation of the family business for the last 15 years and the source that guaranteed my husband’s salary for the last eight.

Thankfully, we were as prepared as we could be for what was to come. After making many changes to our lifestyle in the last few years, this year we faced our biggest decision yet. Deciding what to do about our two biggest expenses, the mortgage and school tuition. Selling our home would mean selling it at a loss leaving us with no equity and, therefore, no down payment for a new home. The other option was getting rid of private school.  

Since selling the house was really no option, we did not re-enroll two of our three children into the private school that we have been in for the last seven years. Our oldest son will be the only one to remain in the school only because he is nearing middle school, putting his education at a more critical turning point than the younger two children. 

Deciding between which of our three children would receive the better education was a low point for us. But despite our situation, I know how lucky we are compared to other families that have lost their homes, their cars, or their jobs. Still, I am hopeful that things will get better for us but I know that it will take more more time. There is still more work to do but ultimately, and I know that Obama is the best candidate to help move my family and this nation forward.

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  Eric Constantineau/Flickr

How do two sides with such different opinions come together to sing the political version of Kumbaya? Watching candidates and supporters of either side of the coin name call, finger point, or worse, spew verbal attacks about what should physically be done to another candidate is nothing new. It’s as old as the political process itself. So can anything really be done to close the gap and allow both sides to at least see eye-to-eye on the important issues?

Maybe.

That maybe depends on a few things, like going back to those basic, fundamental rules that we learned in kindergarten. Everything we learned about getting along with others, we learned in kindergarten. And if we implement those rules, then maybe we can begin to focus on the important issues and work together to achieve a common interest -- like better education and health care for our children.

So let’s review some of the rules.

Play fair. The first rule seems the most obvious but then again, it isn’t. A relevant issue is fair game for discussion and debate and, therefore, bringing it up is playing fair. For example, how a candidate voted in the past on important issues, or decisions they support, and positions he previously held, can impact how the candidate may serve our economic interest. Therefore, all those concerns are fair game. But going on fishing expedition to find President Obama's birth certificate, or questioning whether a candidate is Christian or not, is not playing fair.

Don't hit people. We can also include don’t threaten to hit people, suggest to a group of people to have someone else injured, or attacked, or throw acid on a women like Republican Jay Townsend, suggested just recently. Violence against someone because you disagree with their thoughts or opinions is a lack of control over your emotions. At this age, let’s hope that we manage to do that.  

Clean up your own mess. John Edwards is a good example of needing to clean up his own mess rather than subject the public, his deceased wife, and family to humiliation and disgrace. Although his issue was certainly a private matter, it reflects poorly on the party.  

Flush. Sometimes the parties should flush, or disassociate, themselves from certain individuals that don’t just straddle the line but cross the line. Rush Limbaugh is who comes to mind. As someone who often speaks on behalf of conservatives in ways that are inflammatory and divisive, he is certainly someone that the Republican Party should flush out of their system.

Keeping these rules in mind will help ensure that we can all reasonably get along so that we can focus on what is important instead of getting sidetracked on the irrelevant matters.  

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 KTVee/Flickr

Raising Jeremiah Wright is a desperate attempt by Mitt Romney supporters and SuperPacs to try and win additional votes by using emotion and fear to get those votes. This desperate attempt includes an elaborate $10 million ad campaign intended to “draw attention to racially provocative sermons Wright delivered at a church Obama attended in Chicago.”

Jeremiah Wright is nothing but old news. In 2008, the conservative media tried to elevate Jeremiah Wright as a legitimate issue, however, we know now that the strategy failed. Even Senator McCain refused to stoop to these tactics during the 2008 election. As Obama for America Campaign Manager Jim Messina recently stated in The New York Times:

The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics.

Romney’s SuperPACs should not take all the credit for raising Wright again. During a radio interview on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Romney stated that he was not sure which was worse, Obama “listening to Reverend Wright.” Romney stated:

I think again that the President takes his philosophical leanings in this regard, not from those who are ardent believers in various faiths but instead from those who would like America to be more secular. And I’m not sure which is worse, him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation.

Not surprisingly, Romney now appears to be somewhat faltering after his statements on the show. He can’t seem to remember what he said, but is quoted as saying that he stands by it.

I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said whatever it was.

Quite frankly, suggesting that someone supports racist views is something that he should remember. 

As a voter, I see this as nothing more than a baseless smear campaign. We have had the opportunity to experience three and half years of Obama thus far and I have yet to see any of Wright’s independent beliefs resurrect or influence Obama’s leadership. Hopefully the dust on Wright will settle once and for all so that we can get back to voting on a candidate for important issues that they stand on such as health care-reform, education, and the economy.

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 donkeyhotey/Flickr

President Obama's announcement in support of marriage equality last week was a brave and courageous one. One that demonstrated the President's support for gay and lesbian Americans who unfortunately aren't guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the rest of their American neighbors are entitled to.  

But even though President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage was a step in the right direction towards marriage equality, I don’t think his announcement will help him win or lose the election this November. Although marriage equality is an important issue, the segment of the population that considers this issue a game changer would have never voted for Romney anyway. Issues that will decide this election include those that relate to the economy, health care, and immigration.

Not gay rights.  

For those few voters that may have been undecided, Obama’s recent announcement would likely be a wash for that group. Reports indicate that the small segment that continues to be undecided include religious leaders and Independents. As for the religious leaders, CBS reports that Obama has likely lost the support of only those leaders that may have remained “on the fence” about voting for Obama. With regard to the Independent voters, those voters probably knew that Obama was likely a supporter of gay rights even without his explicit announcement last week. So it appears that the bottom line result of Obama’s announcement is that if gay rights is an important issue to you, then the presumptive nominee was certainly not going to advocate for you on that issue. 

While I admire Obama’s announcement, what does it really change? At the moment, nothing. Obama stated that he has "concluded that ... same-sex couples should be able to get married." Obama has not indicated any plans to propose new legislation. Even with all the immediate press and buzz his announcement generated on traditional media channels and in social media, it was all very anticlimactic. What happens next? Well, most likely it will be up to the states to decide how this story will end. Until then, I hope that gay Americans know that at least in the White House, they have someone that will rally in support of their rights.   

Image via NotionsCapital.com/Flickr

The cost of higher education in this country is more than alarming. As someone who graduated with more than $70,000.00 in student loans for my out-of-state tuition, I sometimes want to slap myself silly for borrowing so much money.

When I was in college in the 90s, I borrowed tens of thousands of dollars each year despite having no credit history. Getting my loan money each semester was easier than opening a credit card with Macy’s.  I couldn't buy a pair of shoes on credit but I was able to borrow an almost unlimited amount of money with no idea or plan in place as to how I would pay it back four years later.  

Fifteen years later, I now understand that something is fundamentally wrong with a system that allows a student to accumulate so much debt by the age of 22. Most student loan borrowers have never had a chance to earn an income or manage debt and a budget, yet the total number of student loans outstanding in the U.S. is $750 billion dollars. With our economy failing in so many different other areas, almost 70% of lenders anticipate that student borrows will be delinquent in their payments. While some of these students may “bank” on filing bankruptcy, they will be disappointed to find out that neither federal or private student loans are discharge-able in bankruptcy unless a student demonstrates extraordinary circumstances.  

The solution is not to just to lower loan rates, instead we need to make higher education in this country affordable. Until college and graduate programs are more affordable, we must be able to provide American students with other ways to pay for college.  Enacting laws that change the way students borrow money and how that money will be paid back must be part of the solution. We also need to provide our students with more resources to avoid borrowing money. 

Currently there is hope for mothers like myself worried about how she will pay for college for three children. President Obama has doubled his investment in scholarships and financial aid so that students from working- and middle-class families can have access to higher education without the fear of owing so much upon graduation. This new law give me peace of mind. I have invested so much time and resources to give my children the best education possible during their kindergarten through high school years. My goal is to have my children qualify for academic scholarships so that after college, they are focused on finding or starting their new jobs rather than worrying about how they will pay back an impossible debt.  If my children do not qualify or receive scholarships, President Obama has also enacted law that makes it easier for students to pay back their federal college loans. These changes demonstrate a commitment by our current administration to ensure that higher education is still a feasible option for American students and families like mine.  

 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 BarackObama.com 

As a lawyer, I was trained to ask all the right questions. But normally we are not limited to just three so narrowing my questions down to such a small number was tough. There are just too many important issues to address.  Then I remembered something I learned in law school.  One good question can help initiate an entire conversation.

To narrow down my questions, I thought about the purpose behind my questions. My hope is that if one of my questions gets selected, it will open the door to help create the changes we need for issues that are important not just to me, but to my community.  

Those issues are raising healthy children with healthy eating habits and lifestyles, health care, and education. With that said, here are the three questions that I hope would help spark a conversation about how we can see some of these important issues addressed.  

Question #1: What plans do you have to help eliminate the food deserts found in many poor, urban or rural communities across America so that every American neighborhood has access to affordable and fresh food? 

Last year, First Lady Michelle Obama began one important conversation.   The fact that millions of Americans live in communities called “food deserts,” or, neighborhoods that  have no access to stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables.  To help effectuate a change, Mrs. Obama made it part of her platform to help give poor, urban and rural neighborhoods access to affordable healthy food.   She has worked with several major retailers, foundations, and small businesses to help bring healthful food to neighborhoods where a supermarket is rare or non-existent.  

Question #2: If you had to pick one country to serve as a model for health care reform in the country, what country and what model would that be? 

As I wrote previously, our current health care system needs some major revitalization.  Not only have I had at least one experience in a country that offers universal health care, but I have also researched what other countries have done.  Health care reform remains an important issue this election so naturally I would to hear more about this topic.   

2.     Question #3: What are your immediate plans to provide equal access to good, public education for all American children? 

Romney says that global competitiveness begins in the classroom and I couldn't agree more.  But what about the competition our current educational system has created within our own communities?   Why do some children rely on the luck of a lottery number to get into a good school while other children get left with no adequate choice?  The educational system in our country is failing so many children, we can no longer afford to wait.  I would like to hear what the immediate and long term goals are to improve the system. 

Those are my three questions, so let's get the conversation going! 

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 White House

The proposed Buffett Rule requiring households that earn more than a million in income to pay a higher tax rate would have been a small step in the right direction towards fairness and getting our country back on the economic track. A tax system that allows Warren Buffett, the third wealthiest man in the world, to pay a smaller percentage of taxes than his secretary just doesn't make sense.

President Obama hoped to do something about that. 

Opponents of the rule call it a hoax and argue that it will do nothing to really fix our economy. I haven't heard Obama or any of the rule's supporters suggest that if the legislation had passed, it would erase our deficit or fix our current financial crisis. Of course it wouldn't. If it passed, approximately 433,000 U.S. households, or, about 0.3 percent of all taxpayers would pay more taxes. And by taxing this .03 percent, only $47 billion would be raised between 2012 through 2022.  

While the rule wouldn't have been a total fix, at least it was a step in the right direction.The funds raised could be used to create more jobs and strengthen our already weak economy. 

Seems to me, we should probably lower the threshold of the Americans that would be impacted by this rule to require that more Americans pay a higher tax rate. At the very least, let's aim for increasing taxes to a full percent of Americans.  

Is the Buffett Rule a good thing for Americans? While the current plan doesn't raise enough money in my opinion, it's at least some help. For me the answer is yes. Like the 60 percent of Americans that support this rule, I wish the bill had passed.   

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 White House