You know, someone who has proposed a plan to save our planet and has taken action to implement preservation of our natural resources. Someone who has professed his love for Mother Earth, and has not only encouraged Americans to be more Green, but practices what he preaches.
]]>You know, someone who has proposed a plan to save our planet and has taken action to implement preservation of our natural resources. Someone who has professed his love for Mother Earth, and has not only encouraged Americans to be more Green, but practices what he preaches.
I couldn't think of any, and when I did my research I broke my shovel from all the deep digging. Sadly, it appears that not all Republicans are as concerned about our planet as they should be, in fact they've really only begun to adopt pro-environment stances in the last 12 years.
Here are five of the Greenest Republicans (in no particular order) of past and present.
John Saylor
Saylor was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, elected in 1949. He was reelected to the twelve succeeding Congresses and served until his death in 1973. During his time in Congress he was dedicated to a number of environmental causes, such as the Wilderness Act of 1964.
In his home state of Pennsylvania, he opposed the Kinzua Dam Project. Saylor believed the dam would not have a significant impact upon flood protection in the area and that the project would destroy one of the last unspoiled stretches of the Allegheny River. The Kinzua Dam would also violate a treaty made between the Seneca Nation and the United States in 1794. Eventually the dam was built, but Saylor continued his preservation efforts.
One of his greatest achievements was his Scenic Rivers bill which proposed the protection of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and made allowances for other "scenic" rivers to be preserved and protected.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers act was passed in 1968. Saylor received many honors for his work in getting this bill through congress. The John P. Saylor trail at Gallitzin State Forest in Pennsylvania is named after him. The book Green Republican chronicles his life and his personal legacy as an environmental champion.
John Warner
Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia is dedicated to addressing climate change, preserving and restoring our rivers, lakes and oceans, cleaning up hazardous waste and brownfield sites on our land, and improving the quality of the air we breathe. Warner believes these acts are our national responsibility because they directly affect our quality of life and economic health.
Throughout his service in the Senate, Warner has been actively involved in the development of national environmental policies, including the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program, the Freedom to Farm Act, and Brownfields Revitalization. He has also become active about the issue of global warming.
Warner has worked on legislation for energy reform, which strives to expand domestic production, reduce dependence on foreign oil, promote new technology, enhance conservation and efficiency, encourage alternative and renewable fuels, and do these things while continuing to grow the economy.
He was an important player in passing the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This legislation will promote energy efficiency and conservation, and increase fuel economy in cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. While not perfect, the legislation represents an important step forward in reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Currently, Warner and other Republicans are co-sponsoring the America's Climate Security Act, that aims to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.
John McCain
John McCain is another Republican committed to providing clean air and water, and to conserving open space. He has been vocal about global warming, calling the nation to action to address the issue he feels we can no longer afford to ignore.
The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America) believes John McCain is good for the environment based on his Bull Moose Republicanism, a kind of conservative politics that is friendly to the environment, founded by former President Theodore Roosevelt (McCain's hero). Like Roosevelt, McCain believes that we are vested with a sacred duty to be proper stewards of the resources upon which the quality of American life depends.
Since 2003, McCain (along with Senator Joseph Lieberman) has repeatedly introduced bipartisan cap-and-trade legislation that would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He has also introduced the bills the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005 and the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007.
During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, McCain has always supported legislature in favor of protecting the environment, despite what environmental activist organizations like the Sierra Club (of which I am a member) and the League of Conservation Voters have claimed.
Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul may not be a dominant presidential candidate, but he believes the federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
Like Senator John Warner of Virginia, Paul is a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. He is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
The California governor has established laws and policies aimed at helping California achieve energy independence and fight global warming. Last October, the Governor signed AB 1470, the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007, which provides incentives to attain the goal of installing 200,000 solar water heating systems in the state by 2017.
Last year in February, the Governor announced that the University of California Berkeley received a $500 million grant from BP to establish the Energy Biosciences Institute. EBI is the first public-private research lab dedicated to renewable fuels and clean energy.
In January 2007, the Governor announced the world's first Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels that requires fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California. This first-of-its kind standard firmly establishes sustainable demand for lower-carbon fuels without favoring one fuel over another.
Other environmental issues important to Schwarzenegger include the Solar Roof Program, Hydrogen Highway, and Water Management. (Perhaps Governor Schwarzenegger will run for President someday? What? I can dream!)
With Earth Day just around the corner (April 22nd) it's important that our nation takes initiative to protect the world we live in. I'm saddened that my party isn't fully united on Environmental Activism, but I'm hoping the actions of these five Republicans will inspire the rest of the GOP to go Green. Our lives depend on it.
]]>My poor mother is devastated. It was only a year and a half ago that my younger brother Nathan returned from his 17-month deployment in Kuwait. Having two children in the military is the most difficult thing my mother has had to endure. I can't imagine watching my son or daughter going over seas for a year or more to defend whatever it is that our U.S. troops are fighting for.
The Iraq War has been in the news quite often these last few days. Senator Hillary Clinton believes she is the only presidential candidate who can begin a "prompt drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq."
Clinton said McCain is unwilling to withdraw troops, and Obama cannot be trusted to do so. Her comments came one day after the three candidates spent a rare day in the Senate questioning the top U.S. Military commander in Iraq.
"One candidate will continue the war," she told an audience at Hopewell High School, near Pittsburgh. "One candidate only says he'll end the war. And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war."
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell believes that the next President of the United States will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Without taking sides in the race for the White House, Powell said, "Whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 1, 2009, they will face a military force that cannot continue to sustain 140,000 people deployed in Iraq and the 20 (thousand) odd or 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan and our other deployments."
General David Petraeus has recommended the immediate halt of all troop withdrawals from Iraq, and President Bush has backed Petraeus' advisory.
Seven months after telling Congress that he would offer a plan for reducing the troop presence, the general instead recommended a halt in troop withdrawals after roughly 30,000 ''surge'' troops leave this summer, followed by at least 45 days to consider any further pullbacks. The situation, he said, was too tenuous to do more than that.
General Petraeus believes that further pullouts might trigger defeat, but will still complete the withdrawal of troops sent to Iraq last year:
Petraeus wants the U.S. to complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 troops that were sent to Iraq last year to deal with the violence there. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day evaluation period, to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.
Bush said U.S. forces have made major gains since he ordered a buildup of about 30,000 U.S. forces last year. "We have renewed and revived the prospect of success" the president said.
Since my sister revealed the news of her deployment, I've laid awake at night. I keep thinking of the hundreds of thousands of men and women currently serving in the military, stationed thousands of miles from their homes, away from their families. I worry about the many more who will be sent over to Iraq and Afghanistan to serve 12 and 15 month terms.
General Petraeus and President Bush claim that progress is being made in Iraq. Wouldn't it be wise, then, to start bringing some of our troops home? In so many ways, these men and women of the military are almost serving a prison sentence, under the guise of fighting for the freedoms of others.
The complexity of this war is taking a toll not only on Americans who merely watch the news from the comforts of their living rooms, but also on the husbands, wives, children and parents of these soldiers. Our American troops are pushed to the breaking point every day they are stationed in the Middle East. Add to that our failing American economy and I wonder: Are we really making progress, or creating an even bigger problem for ourselves?
Fran from The Sirens Chronicles writes:
I don’t think any of us really believe the dog & pony show, otherwise known as the testimony from Petraeus & Crocker would yield any earth shattering revelations. They are kind of like wooden dummies on the lap of the bushco ventriliquists- they are told what to say & how to say it.
A View From Middle England writes:
[Petraeus'] Capitol Hill showing displayed all the body language of a man trying to please his masters, whilst desperately keeping his intellect in check. John McCain and his 100 Years War psyche were well satisfied. Others were less sure. I'm very much a conservative opposed to this pantomime of trying to suggest that al-Queda is the enemy in Iraq. Thankfully, one senator, Joe Biden, got Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to admit that Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq, was the central front in the battle against al-Qaeda. Is Mr.Crocker spending too much time in a fantasy world?
From Crooks and Liars (regarding Bush's acceptance of Petraeus' recommendations):
The “debate” over the surge has always perplexed me. We can all acknowledge that violence has mainly decreased. One doesn’t need a masters degree in foreign affairs to know that flooding more troops in would help cause that. The real issue is whether (a) the levels are sustainable — they’re not — and (b) whether the “surge” has achieved the intended result of providing the Iraqi government the breathing room needed to make the essential political progress — it hasn’t. By every meaningful measure, the surge has been a failure, providing breathing room only to President Bush so that he can pass along the disaster he started to the next President. Then again, that was probably the goal all along.
Michelle Malkin liveblogged Petraeus giving his testimony in which she includes several charts and graphs.
Max Boot says we should resist the urge to leave Iraq:
The question that opponents of the war effort have to answer is: Will Iraq's problems become better or worse if we pull our troops out? Few who have spent any time in Iraq doubt that an American withdrawal would trigger chaos that would make the recent fighting in Basra look like a picnic. That would be not only a terrible stain on our honor (we might be indirectly responsible for genocide) but a significant strategic setback because it could destabilize the entire region.
Victory -- defined as a democratic state that does not oppress its own people, provide a haven for terrorists, proliferate weapons of mass destruction or threaten its neighbors -- remains eminently achievable if we listen to the best advice of Petraeus and Crocker and resist the urge to pull our troops out too fast. If we ignore their warnings and head for the exits, we are assured of the worst military defeat in U.S. history and a major victory for Shiite and Sunni extremists who will continue to attack us in the future.
After all these years of war, I'm at a loss for words. There really is nothing more I can say. I'm at my own breaking point. How do we know what the next move, the right move, should be? Can we trust Congress? Can we trust our President? Can we trust the candidates? Can we trust General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker? Can we honestly afford this war any longer?
]]>About a month ago, BlogHer's Kim Pearson and I had a brief chat discussion about Middle Eastern history and I was surprised (and somewhat embarrassed) with how little I knew about the territory and it's many crises and religious conflicts.
]]>About a month ago, BlogHer's Kim Pearson and I had a brief chat discussion about Middle Eastern history and I was surprised (and somewhat embarrassed) with how little I knew about the territory and it's many crises and religious conflicts.
In my high school history classes my teachers barely skimmed the surface of the complex histories of the geographical regions of Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. We learned of the many controversies between the lands and the numerous failed attempts to make peace among the people. Any discussion of Iraq consisted mostly of anti-Saddam Hussein rhetoric. Looking back on it now, it's a shame that we didn't delve into the details.
I do remember learning about the Holy Land in catechism class, but only as it pertained to the Roman-Catholic faith, the Bible, or Jesus Christ himself.
I once asked a teacher why there were so many conflicts in the Middle East, why people were always fighting with each other, but I never received an answer that made any sense. My questions were often answered with generalizations or personal assumptions.
One teacher avoided my question altogether and instead suggested I pray for these quarreling nations, "so that they may find God's grace". Even now, eleven years out of school, the conflicts of the Middle East overwhelm and confuse me.
Perhaps my desire to find answers to my questions inspired me to read the book Quo Vadis, Israel?, in which author H. Peter Nennhaus examines the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinian people.
"For Jews and non-Jews alike," Nennhaus writes, "the State of Israel has become the source of disappointment and concern. The world has witnessed the never-ending tragedy that has befallen the Holy Land with its wars, bombings and intifadas, and the United States, in spite of its unmatched influence, has been unable to resolve the crisis."
Nennhaus offers a substantive history of Jewish persecution and constant stigmatization, and the many attempts of eastern Europeans to induce social assimilation and christianization among the Jewish people. He talks about the deep-seeded hatred that is projected toward the Jews and gives a basic explanation of how antisemitism has occurred throughout the world, and still exists today.
"They [the Jews] were seen as an unacceptable infestation, an alien people who had to be either subdued or exorcised from the Motherland. They spoke their own tongue, they had persisted to adhere to an unchristian faith, they believed in absurd superstitions, they were a pathetic people provoking derision and contempt, and to top it off, they were now carrying the banner for the subversive movement of Marxism. In many different ways they were given to understand they were an unwanted and outcast race."
The author believes that peace in Israel cannot be achieved if things stay as they are and always have been, and offers that the solution may lie in relocating the State of Israel to a geographic region where there is no hostility.
I wonder how this would work? Would it solve the many conflicts that arise between Israelis and Palestinians? Where would the State of Israel relocate? Should the United States end the war in Iraq and assist the Israelis instead?
Nennhaus' suggestion is "to follow the recipe, which history employed in Israel and Palestine during the past six decades.... It is not unreasonable to fear that this mountain of loathing and abomination will be an irremovable fact dividing the Israelis and Palestinians and that in the unlikely event that some day in the future permanent peace between them becomes reality, it would still not extinguish the flames of mutual aversion."
Quo Vadis, Israel is a fact-based book and at first glance was rather intimidating to me. Perhaps because of my lack of knowledge, it didn't seem plausible to move an entire country. But, after reading the book I acquired a better understanding of the Jewish people and their history, and I can see why Nennhaus believes it may be in Israel's best interest to be transplanted to more suitable land in eastern Europe.
Nennhaus proposes that purchase of the land called the Kaliningrad Oblast from Russia, would encourage Russian immigrants to return to Russia by means of financial enticements, and the transfer of the Israelis to the Baltic, would prevent anyone from questioning the legitimacy of this new Israeli homeland.
What do you think? Could Israel relocate its entire nation? Could peace finally be achieved?
]]>Our planet is dying a slow and painful death due to global warming, and our gasoline prices are skyrocketing because we live in a society dependent on automobiles. I've never been as invested in politics as I am with the 2008 Election.
BlogHers have been discussing these issues at length for many months. The evidence can be found just by clicking some of these amazing links here in our fabulous community, and reading the magnificent comments and discussions.
With so many problems that need to be addressed, many of which are important to women, I was excited when offered the opportunity to read The New Feminized Majority: How Democrats Can Change America with Women's Values, by Katherine Adam and Charles Derber.
As a lifelong Republican, I have often voted in elections based on my values. I'm Catholic, and my religious morals and values have influenced how I vote on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
In their book, Adam and Derber shed light on the assumption that the Republican party is the "party of values", due to the fact that Christian Conservatives (the right arm of the Republican Party) often define themselves as "moral values voters."
However, Democrats have values, too, but they often avoid any direct claim to morality.
The book begins by explaining the difference between masculinized and feminized values:
Men are socialized into what we call masculinized values that include competitiveness, aggression, individualism and a belief that violence is a necessary tool to solve problems. Feminized values are those in which women are socialized in a given time and place. These values include cooperation, empathy, an appreciation for equality, a preference for nonviolent solutions to conflicts, and community, or the feeling that everyone is a part of something bigger. People with feminized values look at the issues affecting their families and their communities with the goal of "together we can." Those with masculinized values move through their lives with the feeling "alone I will".
This book illustrates why feminized values are fueling the desire for change in America, and explains why Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will have a better chance at winning the presidency in November.
Adam and Derber explain that both Obama and Clinton represent feminized values, which are the same values that many American voters, both women as well as men, hold today.
The authors believe that John McCain and the Republicans are thriving on "hyper-masculinized" values, which might explain why McCain doesn't hesitate to say that American troops could be stationed in Iraq for "hundreds of years." Masculinized "values voters" often believe military force is the only solution to most conflicts in foreign affairs.
Today, the values of American voters are dramatically shifting, and the feminized majority first emerged in the 1960s when ideas about equality, social change and community inspired a new moral viewpoint.
The women's movement of the 1970s also contributed to the shifting of values in America, at a time when the new wave of feminism reshaped and transformed a new generation of women.
My favorite paragraph from the book offers explanation as to why women's values are not capitalist values:
Women's values lead to progressive politics because women are integrated into our social and economic order differently than men. They live in capitalism but are not entirely of it. Women's values generate a moral foundation for progressive opposition because: (1) women are subordinated in the existing order, and(2) their movement against their unequal position expresses values that can benefit all disadvantaged groups and promote equality and peace.
Women's values revolve around family, children, health care, maternal rights, a thriving economy, and a beautiful and well-preserved environment. We want our children to inherit a strong country of opportunity and prosperity, not despair and tragedy.
How can America embrace feminized values? The authors offer three steps for a Democratic victory in 2008, and beyond:
First, Democrats need to run a campaign directed towards feminized morality. Second, Democrats needs to renounce the masculinized morality of the current political atmosphere and present a feminized populist alternative. A majority of Americans want to move away from social Darwinist economic policies and perpetual war. Third, Democrats need to motivate disengaged voters to become part of the movement. The feminized majority includes many non-voters and Independents. They are crucial to Democratic victory.
In the Wisconsin primary, I voted for Barack Obama because I was tired of "politics as usual". I'm desperately seeking change, an end to the war, and to rebuild our flailing economy.
For so many years I've felt as though the Republican party has pandered to me because I'm a woman to win my vote, only to abandon my values for those that are more masculinized.
Adam and Derber pose the idea that Barack Obama is a more feminized candidate than Hillary Clinton because of his "Yes, We Can" campaign slogan.
Obama's vision for America inspires feelings of community and equality. He sparks a desire for change in our country. In every speech he gives, Barack Obama emphasizes that there is a common good that can and will bring Americans together.
On the contrary, Hillary Clinton faces enormous challenges because she is a woman. It's difficult to walk the gender line in this presidential campaign, and we shouldn't completely disqualify her simply because she doesn't use her gender as a means to win.
I was impressed with this book. I do think there are important lessons to be learned from the ideas the authors present.
I don't know what will happen come November, when Americans have to
choose between the Democrat or the Republican in the 2008 Election. I
believe that feminized values can lead this country to change. Is the Democratic party the only party that can implement this change, or can the
Republicans shift toward feminized values, too? What do you think?
When Suzanne introduced BlogHer's Letter to My Body project I was very excited to participate. Excited but nervous and scared, as well.
For so long I've struggled with body image and my very unrealistic expectations of how I should look and what I should weigh, and I didn't know how I would put my feelings into words.
]]>When Suzanne introduced BlogHer's Letter to My Body project I was very excited to participate. Excited but nervous and scared, as well.
For so long I've struggled with body image and my very unrealistic expectations of how I should look and what I should weigh, and I didn't know how I would put my feelings into words.
So many amazing women have written beautiful letters to their bodies.
I've felt similar feelings about my body as Angella has about hers:
You have never made it easy for me.
For as long as I can remember, I was referred to as a Big Girl. I was bigger than all of my friends. Taller, wider, thicker.
I was a regular kid who liked candy and Pop Shoppe pop. My Mom loved me to a fault. She did not want to deny me anything, for fear that I would choose my Dad over her. Any food, any treat, was mine to be had. I was never denied anything.
I had friends who were skinny. They could eat candy and drink pop and still retain those pencil-thin thighs. I was beyond envious.
My thighs were never pencil-thin. I had that inner thigh that swayed in the breeze and reminded me that I was not in the same class as the Pencils. I would pound my pillow while chanting, "It's NOT FAIR!" and hope that you would hear me. That you would ramp up my metabolism and let me be like the other girls. Candy and pop, and pencil-thin thighs.
You did not listen.
This made me so very, very sad. I would cry myself to sleep and wonder why my body hated me so.
Lady Beams is amazed at how reliable her body is:
Here we are after spending a half a century together, and I figure I know you pretty well. We've pretty much come full circle, the baby with her belly hanging out over her diaper, the little girl who was taller than almost everyone in her class, the blossoming young woman who quickly turned into "full figured", and the older woman who has once again turned into a body with her belly hanging over her underwear. You've taken me from being a kid to having 3, and I must say we got along pretty well thru all of them. We've gone thru menopause together and it was easy. No matter what I've done to you, you have always bounced back and been strong and reliable.
But it's Sepha's letter that moved me to tears (please read it's entirety at her blog, Undone):
I used to revel in my body; it looked pretty fancy without much effort, it brought me pleasure, allowed me to feel good. The breasts came in a little early and I could have done without nasty people pinging my brand new brastraps. But perhaps it's good that they did because it gave me a little more time with a full pair before the mastectomy at age 28.
Didn't you know body, that you weren't supposed to let cancer in? That it was a baddie who you ought to have fought? I know I didn't go in for playing cops and robbers when I was a child, was that what you needed to teach you to fight baddies?
You did bad, you let me down, you're responsible for the lopsided mess that is now my bosom and yet you still didn't learn because you let Mr Cancer come back and set up residence in my bones and lung. How did he sweet-talk his way back in? Was a year's worth of hideous treatments not enough to teach you to attack Mr Cancer?
It's so hard to hate you, body, because you are me and hating you means hating me - but I do. I can't really bear to be with myself a lot of the time. I look away from the bathroom mirror when getting into the bath. I struggle over what to wear that won't show off a non-existent cleavage. You've cheated me - because the world out there thinks that women have *two* breasts - it's in the magazines, on the Television, in films, in fashion, it's instilled into every baby being breast-fed; it's on every woman I see walking down the street. You've turned me into the Non-Woman.
I had over a month to write my own letter to my body, but I hesitated and worried about what I should say. Each time I started writing, I would find something "wrong" with my letter and I'd start over. I thought that my letter had to be perfect. Then I realized my body image issues were carrying over to other aspects of my life, and it was time to end this obsession with perfection. Here's my letter:
Dear Body,
For most of my life I've treated you terribly. For most of my life I've been unhappy with how you look. Growing up I never believed you were pretty. I constantly compared you to other girls. Your hair wasn't long enough. Your eyes weren't blue enough. Your stomach wasn't flat enough. You weren't a size four. You would never be a super model.
I'd like to tell you these feelings of inadequacy began in high school -- junior high even -- but I remember feeling depressed about you, dear body, in fourth grade. I still remember my tenth birthday and calling you fat for the first time.
Do you remember that day? Mother had taken us to a department store to buy a new outfit. I was trying on clothes in the dressing room, looking at your stomach and thighs in the three angled mirrors, and wishing you were skinny. You were the body of a typical ten year old girl, but I thought you were ugly. I didn't know that you weren't fat. I didn't understand that you were still growing. I didn't know you were healthy.
My perceptions were skewed by what I thought you should look like. Looking back now, I truly believe my first dressing room experience affected how I would look you for several years to come.
Every television commercial or magazine ad featured a thin, blond, green-eyed girl with sparkling white teeth. Those models always looked so happy, so confident, so beautiful. I believed it was because they were petite and thin. I thought they had the perfect bodies.
Those ads made me feel worthless. I hated you. You didn't measure up to the bodies of those girls. You were big boned and "hefty," as the school nurse called it. She tried to tell me not to fight genetics. That I should be happy with who I was, not what my body looked like.
Body, what you looked like affected everything in my life. I never went to prom because I didn't think you were thin enough to wear a formal dress. I stopped playing sports because I thought your thighs were huge and I didn't want anyone to seem them jiggle when your legs ran. I wouldn't be caught dead in a two-piece swimming suit because you had large breasts and wide hips and I couldn't risk anyone seeing my less than perfect body.
As I reflect on all of this, I get angry. Not at you, dear body, but at me.
I've spent twenty-nine years insulting you instead of cherishing you. You're the one constant in my life. My relationship with you is the longest I've ever been in and I treat you terribly. If I treated my husband this way, he'd have left me a long time ago.
I constantly insult your breasts, stomach, ass, thighs and arms. For ten years I forced you to smoke cigarettes. For too long I've shoved chocolate and potato chips into your mouth instead of all the healthy foods you need to function properly.
I've neglected you, yet you're still with me. Your heart still beats. Your lungs still breathe. You conceived and carried a beautiful child for nine months. I never thanked you for the wear and tear, and the pain you endured to deliver my precious baby.
I've never treated you with respect and honor. I've done nothing to show you how much I appreciate you. In twenty-nine years I've never told you I love you. Not once. But, I do love you.
I love your eyes. I love your hair. I love the freckles on your knees. I love the scar on your right arm, proof that you were able to heal from my gymnastic clumsiness in kindergarten.
I love your wide feet (even if it is hard to find shoes that fit them), because they've carried me everywhere I need to go.
I love your lips, they've given many kisses. I love your arms, they've given many hugs.
I love your stomach, stretch marks and all, proof that a little person lived there. I love your breasts that nourished my baby.
My deepest regret is not taking the time to tell you how much I love you and appreciate you before now. Thank you for sticking with me. Without you I'm truly nothing.
Love Always,
Me
Writing this letter was therapeutic for me. As I dug through all the layers of my body, I discovered so many emotions have prevented me from loving my body. I had taken my body for granted, always expecting it to just be there without realizing what it does to keep me alive and well. It's empowering to discover how much I do love my body when I think of all it's been through.
I'm challenging you to write your letter to your body. Don't hesitate like I did. Don't worry about what to say. Your body is beautiful, imperfections and all. Won't you share your story with us? Please use Mr Linky to ensure we click to your blog to read your amazing letters.
]]>After hearing this terrible news I was not only shocked, but quickly began to fear the unknown. I entered the workforce at 15 years old. In the last fourteen years, I've never been jobless. The money I made helped pay our bills. I didn't know how to tell my husband I was no longer employed. I didn't know if we could make it with just one income, especially with the economy as it is today.
We have a mortgage, we have utilities, we have student loan payments. We were doing our best to pay our debts and still save money for retirement, our son's college fund and a future dream vacation. No sooner than I entered the ranks of the unemployed I started thinking of luxuries we'd have to cut. Cable television? Gone. Internet access? See ya later. Cell phones? Out the window. The gym membership? Time to cancel. Dinner out a few times a month? Are you kidding me?
The sick feeling in the pit of my stomach plagued me for days. After crying and wallowing in self-pity, I obsessively scanned the want-ads and found absolutely nothing suitable for me.
There were numerous positions asking for an RN, LPN or CNA with a nursing degree. A lawyer was seeking a legal secretary with a Bachelor's Degree. Unfortunately, I never finished college because I couldn't afford it. There were openings for OTR truck driver's but I don't have a commercial driver's license. I considered working third shift in a factory, until I discovered that experience with a skill saw was required.
When I searched for the jobs that required no professional qualifications, I was quickly disappointed. No wait staff positions, no hotel housekeeping positions, nothing in retail. There were a few part-time openings for a local gas station but it was weekends only, something I couldn't do with a husband who works every weekend and no daycare available on Saturday or Sunday.
I applied for a position as a bank teller, only to discover the competition was overwhelming and the job was filled within seven days. I wasn't even called for an interview, but received a letter stating "at this time we chose a candidate with more experience in the workings of a financial institution."
It's discouraging to realize that I'm somewhat unemployable. I don't have the necessary skills for some jobs and others are not accommodating to my needs as a wife and mother. What's worse is the guilt I felt for not being able to fill even the few minimum wage jobs available.
In a way, I didn't believe I had the right to be picky, and I felt somewhat obligated to take the first job available just to bring home a paycheck. Even if it meant pawning off my son to my parents so that I could work 10 hour days on the weekend, I was prepared to do it. I didn't think I had a choice.
Of course, I filed for unemployment, but that turned out to be a grueling process. When I had to speak to the claims representative on the telephone I felt embarrassed about answering some of his questions.
This man wanted to know why I was out of a job and whether or not I intended to go back to work. He asked if my resume was uploaded onto the various employment websites like Monster.com and CareerBuilder. He informed me of the requirements that I had to meet, such as contacting two employers per week and filing a weekly benefit claim every Sunday. Should I fail to complete one of the requirements, I would no longer be eligible to receive unemployment benefits.
The first payment didn't arrive for two weeks and it was gone before I signed my name on the back of the check. Bills were piling up and my hair was getting grayer with every second I worried about my financial future.
This is what so many Americans go through every single day. Unfortunately, many of these Americans are worse off than I am. Thankfully, I have a husband who still has a job and is able to cover the bulk of our mortgage and utilities. I had to contact our student loan holders to ask for a deferral until I got a job.
I couldn't help but wonder if the loss of jobs is the biggest factor in so many home foreclosures, in addition to the variable interest rate debacle. Then I began to worry if unemployment contributes to families tearing apart because there's no money to pay the bills, and despair has settled into their hearts.
I couldn't stop thinking about the jobless Americans in Michigan and Ohio because industrial jobs are being moved overseas, or because of buyouts and mergers, or the companies can't afford as many workers on their payrolls during a recession.
Just last month in a town near me, 300 jobs were lost because of a factory closure. The company decided to move operations to a country with cheaper labor.
I remember reading the following in The Onion earlier this year:
In what some economists believe to be a sign that the U.S. could be headed for a recession, a job opening last month at the Findlay-area Bob Evans prompted a deluge of more than 3 million job applications from out-of-work Americans, restaurant manager Tom Fields confirmed Tuesday.
Within three days of placing a "Help Wanted" sign at the Bob Evans front entrance, Fields reportedly received more than 800,000 resumés for the part-time hostess job. The newly available position offers no health benefits, minimum-wage pay, and a dress code that mandates both the standard red-and-white Bob Evans kerchief and "a smile," as well as a 15 percent discount on all meals eaten during one's shift.
I know it's intended to be funny, but it's not really that far fetched.
What are our elected politicians doing to combat this growing unemployment crisis? The answer: Next to nothing.
Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times:
The stock markets continue to tumble. The dollar has weakened. The subprime mortgage debacle has morphed into a full-fledged panic. And Joe Stiglitz is telling us the war in Iraq will cost $3 trillion.
Maybe now we can stop listening to the geniuses who insisted that the way to nirvana was to ignore the broad national interest while catering to the desires of those who were already the wealthiest among us.
We have always gotten a distorted picture of how well Americans were doing from politicians and the media. The U.S. has a population of 300 million. Thirty-seven million, many of them children, live in poverty. Close to 60 million are just one notch above the official poverty line. These near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes that range from $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four.
The economic pain and anxiety felt for so long by the poor and the near-poor has been spreading like a stain in the middle class as well. It’s hardly been a secret. But neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have stepped up to this fundamental long-term challenge, and that includes the three remaining candidates for president.
No one will tackle the crucial issue of employment in a serious way. The cornerstone of a middle-class life in America (and that means the cornerstone of the American dream) is a good job. The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.
David Leonhardt writes this, also in the NY Times:
The dismal jobs report released Friday showed overall employment to be lower than it was three months ago. Every time such a slump has occurred since the early 1970s, a recession has followed — or already been under way.
And if the good times have really ended, they were never that good to begin with. Most American households are still not earning as much annually as they did in 1999, once inflation is taken into account.
Employment has risen by 100,000, but even that comes with a caveat: there are also 600,000 more people who are working part time because they could not find full-time work, according to the Labor Department.
“The decline in the unemployment rate,” said Joshua Shapiro, an economist at MFR, a research firm in New York, “should not be viewed as good news.”
Peter S. Goodman writes in yet another NY Times article:
Nicole Flennaugh has a college degree, office experience and the modest expectation that, somewhere in this city on the eastern lip of San Francisco Bay, someone will want to hire her.
But Ms. Flennaugh, 36, a widow, cannot secure steady, decent-paying work to support herself and her two daughters. Nearly two years after she was laid off as a customer service representative at the Educational Testing Service, and even after applying for dozens of full-time jobs, she has been getting by with occasional stints as an office temp.
“You’re used to making $17 an hour with benefits, and now you have to take any job for $8 an hour,” Ms. Flennaugh says. On a recent afternoon, she sat in front of a computer terminal at an employment center in a gritty part of town, scrolling dejectedly through online job listings while sending another batch of applications into the ether.
“I’ve literally sat and cried, but my friends with double degrees are doing worse,” she says. “It’s the economy. It’s really bad.”
From McClatchy:
Bill Clinton's campaign famously defined the 1992 election with the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." Today, "It's the jobs, stupid."
The latest employment figures, released in late January, showed a 52-month streak of job creation ending with a loss of 17,000 jobs in January. The Bush administration acknowledged the contraction, but pointed to the national unemployment rate of 4.9 percent to say that the labor market wasn't a harbinger of recession.
A closer look at unemployment data by McClatchy, however, found that jobless Americans are spending more time looking for work and that those who can't find work now make up a greater share of the unemployed.
Several measures of unemployment, in fact, show that the workforce is under the kind of stress not seen since March 2001, when the U.S. economy entered a nine-month recession, followed by a so-called jobless recovery.
The long-term unemployed amounted to 18.3 percent of all the unemployed in January. That means that while overall unemployment is low, almost one in five unemployed workers has been jobless for six months or more.
So many Americans struggling, but no immediate solutions at hand.
Senator Barack Obama's website doesn't directly address the issue of unemployment, but it does say this:
"There are 37 million poor Americans. Most poor Americans are in the workforce, yet still cannot afford to make ends meet. And too many poor Americans are single mothers who are raising children."
Within his plan to combat poverty, Obama plans to make jobs more accessible by investing $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.
But what if there are no jobs available? Especially when Very Large Corporation receives a tax cut for sending employment to India or another foreign country. Career training and support is great in theory, but how can we make more jobs available to Americans?
Senator Clinton also does not directly address unemployment.
From her website:
Hillary has a plan to restore America's middle class. After six and a half years of Bush administration policies, the middle class is struggling to succeed in an economy that is leaving more and more Americans behind.
Income inequality has risen to the highest levels since 1929, and wages have stagnated. In the meantime, health care premiums and college tuition have skyrocketed, squeezing middle class families who have largely relied on their home equity to make ends meet. The burgeoning problems in the housing market further threaten many middle class families.
Understanding that a vibrant middle class is essential to America's prosperity, Hillary will implement a broad set of policies to once again restore opportunity for all Americans.
She does mention a plan to harness innovation for high wage jobs in the 21st century.
Hillary mentions the reliance on home equity loans. As a recently unemployed American, my husband and I have decided to borrow against the equity in our house to consolidate all of our debt. We feel it's easier to make one payment each month than five or six with a reduced income. It's true that Americans often have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul and it doesn't always work in their favor.
But not every American is a home owner with equity to rely on. And with the mortgage crisis, Americans are not willing to buy into the American Dream of a two-story house with a white picket fence. The risk is just too high.
From CNN Money:
Mortgage application volume fell 2.9% during the week ending March 14, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association's weekly application survey. The MBA's application index fell to 652 from 671.7 the previous week. Refinance volume fell 4.6%, while purchase volume declined 1% during the week. Refinance applications accounted for 49.7% of total applications, the first time all year that purchase application volume was larger than refinance volume.
Senator McCain's website offers a plan to assist unemployed Americans:
John McCain will overhaul unemployment insurance and make it a program for retraining, relocating and assisting workers who have lost a job. The unemployment insurance system needs to be modernized to meet the goals of helping displaced workers make ends meet between jobs and moving people quickly on to the next opportunity. John McCain will reform the half-dozen training programs to approaches that can be used to meet the bills, pay for training, and get back to work. John McCain believes that we can strengthen community colleges and technical training, and give displaced workers more choices to find their way back to productive and prosperous lives.
McCain suggests assistance in relocating jobless Americans, but why should workers have to make these kinds of sacrifices?
In my job hunt, I found several positions open in other cities over 50 miles away. This would require a relocation, something that isn't feasible, especially when my husband has over 20 years in at his job. We'd spend more money just to sell our house and move. Not only that, we'd be moving away from our support network of family and friends to start over, and there's no guarantee that we'd be any better off.
Our economy needs an overhaul. Several bloggers have written about unemployment, their own recent job losses, their frustrations and the struggles they face.
Savvy Frugality writes:
According to the Labor Department, 63,000 jobs disappeared in the U.S. in February. Although more people left the workforce, unemployment filings were down slightly, but many analysts point to the loss of jobs as yet another sign that the U.S. is either headed for recession, or is already in one.
Losing a job in a recession is rough. I speak from experience. I lost my job during a recession and didn't find full time work for six months. It's not that I wasn't employable. I had a lot of experience in my field. There just weren't as many jobs to be had because during a recession, not only are employers not hiring, but they are cutting back on the number of people they keep on the payroll.
Recently, I lost my job, or my job lost me. I’m still not sure which description is more accurate. In any case, it’s my first experience with unemployment. I’m blessed with very supportive family and friends. But it’s still been a trying time.
People want to say and do the right things. Their attempts at compassion are sincere. While I am learning to receive gratefully their underlying intentions, some of their expressions make me wince. And make me muse about what helps, and what doesn’t work so well, in offering sympathy to people in crisis.
Consider these words which have been said to me, in one form or another, quite a few times in recent weeks: “When God closes one door, He always opens another.” When I first heard this one from one of my parishioners, right after my employment imploded, I was taken aback. What about the people in Baghdad? I thought. When their doors are kicked in by men with machine guns, does God magically open another door for them to exit gracefully? All too often, the answer is no. Lots of people lose their jobs and go bankrupt. Do we worship a God who washes away the front door of your nice house in New Orleans with a devastating flood, and then opens a trailer door for you in a bleak vacant lot, months later? Are we expecting divine intervention to solve our personal or social problems, or are we taking action to make sure that when a door is closed, another one will open to something good?
Molly Elizabeth writes:
Yesterday, on my 25th Birthday, I lost my job. I
havehad two jobs. I lost the one that makes me smile. The Wine Bar, a family-owned company, had not been in the best straits. The business started as a deli, and while sandwiches thrived during the day, the business was lacking during the evening hours. The Owner, who was personally guaranteed for the five-year lease, was desperate to find an alternative money-making option. As The Owner’s nephew was trained (and talented) in the fine-dining culinary world, The Wine Bar began. The double-sided business would have closed without evening revenue. We lost money every month. With only fifteen tables and a Minnesotan dinner-at-6:00 mentality, we were never going to make an excessive profit. And although The Owner never lost as much as he would if The Wine Bar wasn’t open, he didn’t rationalize the potential or opportunity costs in that way.
Even small business owners are struggling. With a government that offers tax cuts to the big corporations, the little guy takes a beating, closes his doors and more Americans are jobless. The cycle never ends.
What can our government do to save the millions of desperate, job-seeking Americans?
]]>How do we always get duped into voting for these types, the ones who proclaim they will crack down on drug rings, prostitution rings and other criminal activity, only to be involved in it themselves?
The blogosphere has been on fire about the Spitzer scandal, offering varying points of view.
The KC Blue Blog writes:
We would laugh at this, as it is borderline tabloid journalism, but now that the media has even gone so far as to track down the escort in the Spitzer case, it has become a little frightening. Look, we are not defending Spitzer at all, as we feel especially bad for his family. However, we find it very concerning that in today's media the well-being of someone who can't defend themself isn't even a concern. We aren't defending the escort either (whom we will leave nameless) as she chose a terrible career; but how fair is wrecklessly placing her life in danger?
Rich Noyes of NewsBusters writes:
My colleague Brent Baker has painstakingly documented how the big three broadcast networks have gone out of their way to avoid labeling scandal-scarred New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as a “Democrat.” An examination of the fifteen ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows through Wednesday night finds Spitzer was called a Democrat just 20% of the time — twice on CBS, once on ABC, and never on NBC. So how do the networks treat Republicans involved in sex scandals? Always, always as Republicans, and as problems for their party.
Right Wing Vitriol writes:
It's always disheartening to see an elected official with such a worthwhile track record dig himself into a fiery, fiery pit of his own hypocrisy. We Republicans speak from experience.
From Outside the Beltway:
Aside from a general sense that chief executive officers ought to obey the laws they’re charged with enforcing and that married men ought to be faithful to their wives, I really don’t care much about this story. The interesting angle, really, is the hypocrisy bit.
Rabbi Michael Lerner writes:
The cross-the-political-spectrum attacks on Elliot Spitzer and the intensity of the demands that he resign his office show just how far the Right-wing sexual moralizing has been able to trump any other kind of ethical reasoning in American society.
Going to a prostitute is legal in some states and some countries around the world, and is often the very arrangement that saves families from splitting up whose sexual energies have diminished but whose love is intact. It’s not uncommon for men (and now increasingly women as well) who have achieved great power in our society by adopting an outer show of ruthless pursuit of power and influence (even, as in Spitzer’s case, if the power is aimed at pursuing laudable ends) to feel a deep emptiness and loneliness that is not addressed by friends or spouse, and hence to seek some kind of outside connection no matter how superficial that is not bound by previous rules and roles.
The media has been having a field day (or three) dishing up headlines about Spitzer's behavior, and the coverage has increased with the recent discovery of "Kristen", a prostitute involved, known as Ashley Alexandra Dupre on her MySpace page. When I visited this site, I couldn't understand how this beautiful girl with such great musical talent and ambition ended up in a prostitution ring. Then I read her description of herself and her upbringing.
From Ashley's MySpace profile:
I am all about my music, and my music is all about me… It flows from what I’ve been through, what I’ve seen and how I feel. I live in New York and am on top of the world. Been here since 2004 and I love this city, I love my life here. But, my path has not been easy. When I was 17, I left home. It was my decision and I’ve never looked back. Left my hometown. Left a broken family. Left abuse. Left an older brother who had already split. Left and learned what it was like to have everything, and lose it, again and again.
This is a young woman from a broken home, who set out for the life of fame and fortune in a music career. Can her dream come true after her involvement in this scandal was revealed?
From Billboard.com:
Before Dupré’s MySpace page was deleted today (March 13), it had received 4,612,397 views and her song “What We Want” touted 711,334 plays. According to the New York Times, two tracks Dupré released to AmieStreet.com this week received thousands of listens and their prices rocketed from free to the maximum price of 98 cents on the priced-by-demand site today. The number of blog posts mentioning Dupré also rose over 750% in the last 48 hours according to Nielsen BuzzMetrics.
One label executive told Billboard.com:
"I think her song is absolutely terrible. If people are interested in signing her, then they shouldn't be in the music business. It'd be a shame to exploit her talent based on the unacceptable reality that she was involved in. Most importantly, it destroyed multiple families. I don't think the scandal will help her at all. In fact, I think the public is a bit smarter than we think they are. Even though she's had over a million hits on her MySpace, I think people are just going there to see her pictures and laugh at her attempt to pursue a music career."
Christina Lang of Pop Eater asks:
Should we expect a reality show from Ashley Alexandra Dupre, the woman identified as a prostitute alleged procured by Eliot Spitzer? Remember when Myspace diva Tila Tequila went from online sensation to musician to starring in her very own reality television show to find "true love." Ms. "Dupre" -- born Ashley Youmans -- is already an aspiring singer with her own Myspace page and is now infamously in the public eye after being referred to as one of the ladies the disgraced ex-governor if New York purportedly had an encounter with.
Republican Ranting writes:
Well, the moment a lot of people had been waiting for happened yesterday - the prostitute that got New York Governor and Former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (Client 9) (Democrat) in all of his troubles revealed her identity. She came from a broken home, leaving home at 17 and falling into drugs and homelessness, but “rebounded” to become a nightclub singer, and eventually a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club. She called her mother right before the story broke, and her mother has told the media that she does not think that Ashley knew who Spitzer was before she actually met him. Her mother told the media, “She is a very bright girl who can handle someone like the governor. But she also is a 22-year-old not a 32-year-old or a 42-year-old and she obviously got involved in something much larger than her.”
Ashley has over 1700 friends on MySpace and they seem to offer nothing but support and advice. "You're going through very rough times right now, but remember, this too shall pass," one friend writes. "I believe you will come out stronger & wiser for it. My personal motto: Adversity reveals character. Stay strong & God bless.."
Another posted this comment, "I guess one good thing came out of this. You became an overnight star. Now run with it."
Other bloggers believe Ashley is using the scandal to boost her music career. From Backstage Pass:
Ashley Alexandra Dupre (a.k.a. Kristen a.k.a. The High-Priced Escort Who Brought Down Gov. Spitzer) is no dummy. This morning, as her musical collaborators made the rounds of the morning talk shows telling people that she was trying to be a singer and not, you know, that other thing, her MySpace page came down and she added a song for sale to her Amie Street page. Why give it away when you can get paid, right?
I admit that I feel some compassion toward Ashley Dupre. Despite the fact that she was involved in an illegal operation, I don't fully believe she knew what she was getting into, given her upbringing. This is not to say she's excused of any wrong doing, but certain men in power will do anything to get what they want. Was Ashley coerced into prostitution? Was she promised fame, fortune and a record deal in exchange for her "services"?
I can't imagine what Silda, Eliot Spitzer's wife is feeling at this moment.
From Reuters:
Silda Wall Spitzer stood beside her husband, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, as he resigned on Wednesday amid a scandal over a $1,000-an-hour prostitute. The mother of the governor’s three daughters also stood by her husband’s side at a news conference on Monday where he admitted he had violated his obligations to his family and his “sense of right and wrong.”
Eliot Spitzer exploited women for sex and betrayed the woman he vowed to love and honor. His hypocrisy doesn't make it any easier for Americans to trust the persons we elect into office. This scandal is more than wrong, it's downright shameful.
]]>Now that the Arizona senator has all but officially won the GOP nomination, he can count on George W. Bush as one of his many supporters. The President gave his endorsement to McCain at what the Chicago Tribune calls "a carefully choreographed Rose Garden event". The two embraced each other for a handshake and stood side by side for the media photo-op.
What Tami Said had this to say:
Why are these men hugging? I mean it is rumored that President George Bush and John McCain loathe each other. Despite McCain's recent pandering to conservatives, he was a vocal critic of many of Bush's policies. McCain can cozy up to Bush because that's how politics works. That's how power works. Bush and McCain have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Many Republican voters are still not certain that McCain is the right candidate to hold the highest office of the land.
Judy Aron writes:
John McCain and the rest of the Republican "leadership" keep saying how everyone in the Conservative base is rallying around McCain and that all is forgiven and that everyone is "coming home", and that John McCain really is a Conservative worthy of the Republican nomination. The media is more than happy to report that as well. If they say it long enough perhaps it'll convince everyone that it is true, or that they should follow suit. Truth is if you put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig.
Wisco writes:
He kind of won his nomination by default. His only real competition was awful -- Mitt Romney's votes were almost entirely votes purchased, Rudy Giuliani basically threw his lead away with a boneheaded single-state strategy, and Fred Thompson couldn't be roused from his nap long enough to meet expectations. Huckabee was never a serious challenger and his only real claim to fame was that he won Iowa, so long ago. In retrospect, McCain had to win, being the only GOP candidate who wasn't a clown. He may have been down earlier, but the other candidates -- driven mostly by ego -- couldn't possibly have continued without screwing up. The vain believe their decisions are brilliant, even when they're not.
Huckabee supporters are saddened by the former Arkansas governor's withdrawal from the race.
Stacy Harp writes:
Tonight my favorite candidate for President, Mike Huckabee, graciously stepped out after John McCain won enough delegates to become the nominee. Like many other social conservatives, I am not crazy about McCain as the candidate of choice at this point. And prior to the primaries I had been a registered Independent. I had to register again as a Republican so I could vote for Huckabee, which I did. Now I have to make a choice. Should I remain a Republican and put my support behind McCain or should I register again as an Independent.
Some Hucksters believe John McCain should consider Mike Huckabee as his runningmate, still others think he's not the best choice..
Webutante writes:
McCain needs to seriously consider the only real, viable VP candidate to run with him in November and that's Mike Huckabee. Huckabee has dropped out of the presidential race and now should be McCain's running mate. He's up for the race, has name and media recognition and will carry and deliver the Southern and Evangelical vote. He also appeals to anyone who wants to transform the tax system, which is almost everyone. He is a master communicator with a great sense of humor and the ability to laugh at himself. That plays well in this insufferably serious, polarized political climate. One last very superficial thing. Mike, like Mitt, has brown hair, is younger and generally would be a good pick to complement McCain at 71.
Nashville's The City Paper speculates:
Mike Huckabee’s southern appeal may not win him the Republican nomination, but it could get him on the ticket. While success in southern states on ‘Super Tuesday’ helped Huckabee’s own presidential bid, it also may have improved his chances of becoming Sen. John McCain’s running mate.
From the blog My Observations:
Could Huckabee be Robin to McCain’s Batman? He is from the south, a strong pro-lifer, and a “Christian” - all qualities that McCain might be looking for. Then again Huckabee is a real flake and when pressed about his views, he changes them quicker than Dolly Patron changes wigs. So Huckabee is out.
From Reach Upward:
The main role a VP candidate plays during the campaign is to shore up the party base. They are sort of a cheer leader for the base. Wise candidates select running mates that provide the appearance to the base of balancing out the candidate’s perceived shortcomings. Reagan picked Bush I to reassure the moderate wing of the GOP, which had been strong prior to Nixon’s demise. As a moderate, Bush I picked conservative Quayle. That didn’t work out so well, because Quayle was not known for his conservative leadership. As a moderate Democrat, Clinton selected Gore, a solid liberal. Compassionate conservative Bush II partnered with Cheney, a defense hawk. In each case, the candidate selected a running mate that was to help energize the registered party members. The question then is whether Huckabee can energize the GOP base in ways that McCain cannot. On this point we must say that the answer is no.
Nicole Belle writes:
Now that John McCain has locked up the Republican nomination, the focus moves to who he will choose as his running mate. Will he choose someone who offsets his age, his lack of appeal to the Religious Right faction of the party (what, Hagee isn’t good enough for you people?), his perceived lesser conservatism (because wanting to be in Iraq for a 100 years doesn’t quite cut it, you have to want to fence the US off from Mexico too, apparently) or perhaps a minority or woman to counteract the Democratic ticket? McCain has set up a committee to look into different methodologies of picking that running mate.
"I understand the responsibilities I incur with this nomination, and I give you my word I will not evade or slight a single one," McCain said in his victory speech to cheering supporters in Dallas. "Our campaign must be and will be more than another tired debate of false promises, empty sound bites or useless arguments from the past that address not a single American's concerns for their family's security."
Only time will tell if John McCain will make good on his Republican promises. At least we have the close race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to keep us occupied until then!
]]>Needless to say I only caught bits and pieces of the debate from my laptop, as the connection was very slow, but it certainly wasn't boring. I managed to see Tim Russert repeatedly question Barack Obama regarding his endorsement by controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, and this exchange drove me mad.
]]>Needless to say I only caught bits and pieces of the debate from my laptop, as the connection was very slow, but it certainly wasn't boring. I managed to see Tim Russert repeatedly question Barack Obama regarding his endorsement by controversial minister Louis Farrakhan, and this exchange drove me mad.
The day before the debate, Obama said in a speech that he is a "consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan" and that he finds the minister's comments to be "unacceptable and reprehensible".
Yet Russert carried on and continued to ask what seemed like the same question, only worded differently, in hopes of forcing Obama to say something he would regret later.
Further, NBC News political director Chuck Todd criticized Obama's answers in response to Russert's questions. While liveblogging the debate, he asked, "Why didn't Obama simply say he rejected Farrakhan's support? That's an answer he's going to wish he had over."
Neither Russert nor Todd noted that Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments before and during the debate.
(BlogHer's Morra Aarons has more about this, here. )
Yesterday, another controversial pastor, John Hagee, announced his endorsement of Republican candidate John McCain and the media has barely batted an eyelash on the matter. This reeks of a "double standard", don't you think?
Thank goodness we have reliable bloggers to bring us up to speed on what's wrong with this picture.
Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo writes:
Barack Obama was questioned at Tuesday night's debate by Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton about repudiating Louis Farrakhan's endorsement — which Obama said was unsolicited — in the strongest terms possible. He was repeatedly badgered by Russert, and was forced to disown Farrakhan over and over again. The very next day, John McCain appeared onstage in Texas with Pastor John Hagee, an influential activist in the Christian Zionist movement. Hagee's comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves.
From The Caucus:
Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.
From Crooks and Liars:
A highly controversial San Antonio evangelical pastor has endorsed John McCain. Notice in Elisabeth Bumiller’s piece—she fails to bring up anything about Hagee’s core beliefs. I guess they are all the same to her. McCain is happy as a clam. Looks like the pastor had a bit of a problem with the IRS and Hagee’s not too fond of the Catholic church either. From his book Jerusalem Countdown:
"Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea’…. In all of his [Hitler’s] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it’s an electric chair."
This is the kind of hate that permeates the extreme wing of the religious right.
The Catholic Knight writes:
Last December Mike Huckabee's speech at Pastor John Hagee's Cornerstone Church caused quite an uproar in Catholic circles. Hagee is known for his venomous anti-Catholic rhetoric. Many Catholics called upon Huckabee to renounce Hagee's anti-Catholicism, which he did. Still more were convinced that any association with an anti-Catholic like Hagee would tarnish a candidate too much. 'The Catholic Knight' protested by defending Huckabee, pointing out that guilt by association is unfair. Now I wonder if those same Huckabee critics will complain about John McCain in a similar way. Where is the "Catholic League" now? Where are the calls by Catholic media sources to abandon support of John McCain? Well, I'm waiting...
News from the Underground writes:
...there's been no press uproar over John McCain's accepting the endorsement of John Hagee, a highly influential crackpot cleric who has long pushed hard for war against Iran. Such a move, he openly exults, will bring on the End Times. Hagee is in tight with AIPAC (whose members quietly laugh off Hagee's apocalyptic view of Israel and history in general) and George W. Bush (who doesn't laugh off that apocalyptic view). The press is therefore duty-bound to ask McCain about it, especially considering Bomb-Bomb's former stance against such theocratic pastors as John Hagee--and also, of course, because of Bomb-Bomb's own overt desire to drop a lot of huge explosives on Teheran.
Kate Stone writes:
According to the Dallas Morning News McCain said “All I can tell you is I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” You bet he is “proud.” He needs the radical right arm of the GOP to support his bid for the Presidency. We won’t see McCain rejecting or denouncing this hater.
Susan G writes at The Daily Kos:
So as of yesterday we have a new slogan for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: John McCain, the official candidate of the people who believe in governing according to Ezekiel 38-39.
With the news that Rev. John Hagee is expected to endorse John McCain, many Catholic Huckabee supporters are breathing a huge sigh of relief, only regretful, after thousands of lost Catholic votes, that this had not happened sooner.
A large, bellicose man with a booming voice, sometimes referred to as the Rush Limbaugh of evangelicals, Hagee is not shy about promoting his noxious anti-Catholic views. Among other anti-Catholic diatribes, he is fond of claiming that the early Catholic Church invented anti-Semitism; that the medieval Catholic Church instituted the Crusades and the Inquisition to "punish the Jews"; that the Catholic Church instructed Adolph Hitler with anti-Semitism; and that the Catholic Church never opposed the Nazi Third Reich.
I'm Catholic. According to Hagee, this makes me the closest thing to the anit-Christ. Unlike Obama, John McCain hasn't denounced Hagee or deemed his comments unacceptable and reprehensible. He's proud to have the pastor's support. It makes me sick. And it's just another reason I'm thankful I didn't (and most likely will not) vote for John McCain.
]]>I was raised Republican by devout Catholic parents, who were originally Democrats in the late 60's through 1979, when I was born. My father, a Reagan Conservative, instilled his political values in me at the ripe age of five years old. I could barely read or write, but I knew the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. One of my earliest memories is when my father quoted Ronald Reagan, saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."
My father admitted he disliked Ronald Reagan when he ran for President in 1976 against incumbent, Gerald Ford. His dismay over Ford's alleged involvement in the Watergate scandal, and his disgust with the pardoning of Richard Nixon by Ford, led my father to vote for Jimmy Carter.
But it was during Carter's administration that the economy suffered double-digit inflation, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth; which prompted my father to give Ronald Reagan a second chance in 1980. Out went the party of JFK, in came the Reagan Revolution.
Through the years since 1980, my parents discussed important conservative values with me and my siblings. One of those values was upholding the sanctity of human life. As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. While my father discussed the economy and the Cold War at the dinner table, it was my mother who taught us the importance of waiting until marriage before bringing children into this world. I think it was the fear of God, and what my mother (and father) would do to me (and a boyfriend) if I became pregnant out of wedlock, that kept me virtuous.
Knowing my upbringing I'm certain you can understand my loyalty to my party. I've been a Republican all my life. It's what I know.
It's fair to say that my parents sheltered me from things they felt I couldn't handle. I was in junior high when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke out and my mother turned the channel each time "the stained dress" was discussed on the news. Later in high school, my father demanded to know what I was learning in civics and history classes. If the lessons seemed biased, he sent me back to class with a list of counter arguments and questions for my teachers to explain and answer. He wanted to be certain I was hearing both sides of the story.
If I didn't understand a political issue, my father would pass the newspaper and tell me to read every article on the subject. We watched the news every evening. I read every Rush Limbaugh book my father recommended. We subscribed to conservative magazines and newspapers. I read the biographies of past presidents starting with the current office holder and working my way backwards, because of my father's influence. (I got to Franklin Roosevelt and then I needed a break.)
But the most valuable lesson my father taught me was to think for myself. "Gather the facts," he'd say. "Do your research. Then, make your decision, and stand by your choice." And more importantly, "You better be able to back it up."
What does this have to do with voting, you ask? Everything.
In order for me to choose which candidate I thought was best, I had to reflect on who I was. I had to make a list of which issues were important to me. I had to think of my future, my husband's future, my son's future.
Three weeks ago I wrote the following here at BlogHer:
"The first election I was legally able to vote in was 2000. I voted for George W. Bush because I let my disgust for Bill Clinton taint my image of Al Gore. In 2004, I re-elected Bush because I had given birth to my son two months prior and couldn't elect John Kerry. He didn't seem concerned with ending abortion. But in the past four years, the Republican party has failed me, and I feel pulled toward the Democratic party instead."
Little did I know then, that I would vote for Barack Obama on February 19th, but I did. And I've got plenty of reasons to back it up.
I've matured a lot in eight years. I became employed full-time. I married the love of my life. I purchased a house and wept the first time I paid property taxes. I had a child. I have lost a job. When I look back on the choices I've made, I discovered that politics played a part in every step I've taken to get where I am today. In the last eight years, I've become angry at the Republican party and I'm not going to take what they give me any longer.
I'm tired of the same politicians, both Democrat and Republican, making the same promises they can't keep.
I'm sick of reading about another member of our military dying in Iraq. These men and women have given their lives, but for whom? For me? Or for the people of Iraq? It isn't about fighting terrorism anymore. It's about feeding the ego of the Big Guy in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue.
I tired of turning on the evening news to see college students crying and grieving, because another maniac with a gun has opened fired in a lecture hall. I'm angry at this government and the lobbyists and all the broken promises to pass stricter laws on gun control, while still allowing for the right to bear arms, which doesn't even seem plausible -- only to read that a crazy person in Missouri tried to assassinate his town's mayor and members of the local government. When will these tragedies end? When I have to wear a bullet-proof vest to leave the house each day? When I have to accompany my child to college because I'm afraid someone will steal his life?
I'm tired of paying overpriced health care premiums, only to find out the insurance doesn't cover this or that, or the deductible is astronomical, or that prescription is too expensive so I'll just have to go without it, because the same Big Guy in the White House won't allow me to mail order from Canada.
I'm infuriated at how this country treats women and mothers. Women are paid less than men even if they perform the same jobs. New mothers have very little support after childbirth. Government paid maternity leave and support for postpartum depression rank lowest on our government's list of priorities. This government claims to care about our children, but they do nothing to prevent toxic toys from popping up on store shelves across the nation.
Then there's Education. American students rank lower than several other countries on standardized testing. Teachers are underpaid, and the good ones leave the profession because they can't make ends meet.
Our environment is dying a slow and painful death with every icecap that melts or animal species that becomes extinct. And this government expects us to smile politely, bat our eyelashes and say, "Why, yes sir, you can certainly drill for oil in Alaska! We don't mind at all. We, the fat and lazy Americans suffering an obesity epidemic, would rather destroy the elk and moose populations than give up our beloved gas guzzling SUV's! Bicycle? What is this bicycle you speak of?"
It all drives me mad. I'm fed up. I want Change.
The Republican that I was in the years 2000 and 2004 would never support a candidate that supports abortion. I wanted so badly to vote for a pro-life candidate, but I dislike John McCain and I knew that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul stood no chance against him.
The leadership of the national, state and local Republican Party has said that true conservatives will "hold their noses" and support John McCain for president. But McCain is not a true conservative. He's given the Republicans a record of limited speech and open borders. He voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. Only when he decided to run for President did he stress the importance of secure borders and lower taxes for middle class Americans. I've learned that a foul smell often leads to rotten, decaying matter.
The feminist within me wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton, but only because she is a woman. Aside from disliking her health care policy and the "Bill Baggage" she would bring to the White House, I didn't believe she deserved my vote.
With each loss to Barack Obama, Hillary's true colors appeared. When listening to her speak, her tone and demeanor gave me the feeling that she felt she deserved to win just because she had more experience. The negative campaign ads she ran in Wisconsin attacking Obama made me feel like she would participate in the same dirty politics of the first Clinton Administration and I wanted nothing to do with that.
The night before I voted, I stayed up for hours reading and re-reading everything on Senator Obama's website. I brought out every newspaper and magazine article and made a list of pros and cons. His plans for health care and education appealed to me. But it was his ability to inspire Americans, both Democrat and Republican, that sealed the deal.
When Obama won the Wisconsin primary, I listened to his victory speech and I knew I made the right decision for me. At first I thought I would feel guilty, but instead I felt relieved.
Even though I voted for a candidate that supports abortion rights, I will not give up the fight to end needless abortions. I had to make the most difficult political decision of my life, but I made my choice based on more than one issue. I'm proud of that, and I believe that Barack Obama can bridge the gap between the Left and Right.
While some of my Republican counterparts are shaking their heads and uttering words like "betrayal", or labeling me as "just another angry mommyblogger", I take pride in knowing that I followed my head and my heart.
Thankfully, I'm not the only (traitorous?) Republican to cross the party lines. I encourage everyone to read the full posts of the links below. It is definitely worth your time.
From the blog, A Time and Place:
I’ve worked in politics professionally for over a decade, much of that in the House of Representatives in D.C. where I saw the animosity between parties build up day after day after day. Between that and becoming less and less enamored of the policies of Bush (who I voted for twice), I started looking for someone else — and I didn’t see that the GOP was offering anyone who could get the job done. A year ago, I would have wholeheartedly supported Giuliani or Thompson, but they handled their campaigns so badly that even they fell off. I go to visit friends on the Hill now, and I can feel “it” hanging in the air — I don’t know what it is, but it’s just there, and I think working in it for so long insulated me from the feeling until after I had left.
And then came Obama. The older of my two sisters told my father that she was shocked to hear me say that I was considering supporting a Democrat for president — to which he (also a lifelong Democrat) responded, “Well, I voted for a Democrat once - Jack Kennedy. You have to consider that perhaps your brother feels that this is his generation’s Jack Kennedy.”
From Ground Report:
It’s kinda hard to put my finger on what made me switch from Hillary to Obama. Color was not it and that’s evident of my initial support of Hillary. I didn’t change because it’s Black History Month or the fact that Obama and I have names that start with an O. Peer and family pressure didn’t move me, and it diffidently was not my good friend and debate buddy who is a Professor at Morehouse College. I didn’t have a fallout with Hillary’s policies or get (too) offended with Bill’s borderline racial comments. I changed for change. I changed my support to Obama because I can’t vote twice and still want real change. I want to start replacing our weak Democrat leadership from the top down. I want Obama’s candidacy to inspire newcomers and let them know that if the represent real change, we will support them. I want my party back and I think Barack Obama can get it back for me. That’s the reason I changed my support to Obama.
Chris Reich writes:
Today, [my friend] Sam sent me an email urging me to support Barrack Obama for President. I responded politely with the same words many conservative Republicans are using these days. I like the man but he's too liberal for me. Of course, McCain is too liberal for me as well. Romney? Like most of the Republican establishment, I just don't like him. To be honest, Mitt Romney gives me the creeps. I don't trust him. And that brings me to the point. After composing a long list of policy objections I have with Obama, I concluded by telling Sam that my choice will be based on the integrity of the candidate because, as a true conservative, I cannot find policy agreement with any of the contenders. And when it comes to integrity, John McCain has it. And so does Barrack Obama. So it really comes down to integrity and trust. McCain is a liberal running as a conservative. Obama is a liberal running as such. He's not changing stripes to attract votes. His message hasn't changed since he started his campaign. Integrity? Well, that's the characteristic real Reagan Republicans admire above all others. That's what the press never understood about why we Reaganites loved Ronnie. We didn't always agree with him but we trusted him. So as I finished my note to Sam I decided that I like the man more than I like some of his policies. But I trust him more than I disagree with him.
From BrooWaha (I encourage you to read his entire post. It's right on the money):
My secret shame as a Navy Republican…
It is with a heavy heart and great and crushing sorrow that I admit to you, dear reader, that I am, in fact, going to vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States. And before you go on shouting at me that the race hasn’t even yet been decided because the primaries and caucuses are still going… let’s be real for a moment.
...as if being a registered Republican since I was eighteen isn’t enough grounds for betrayal, I’m also a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, which makes me a Benedict Arnold two times over. The idea that we would have had two Presidents from our little “boat school” in Maryland, fills me with pride for my alma mater. But I can’t. I can’t vote for John McCain… not for President. He can run for anything else and I’ll vote for him; early and often. But not this, not now. There is too much to fix, too much change needed, too many things to overlook.
I’m mostly just tired; tired of trying to defend a war that we’ve been bungling for years, tired of failed global policy, tired of the shamelessness of an administration. I’m the kind of Republican that would reanimate Ronald Reagan and put him in office tomorrow if we had the technology – there will never be another president as great as him (I bet that will stir up some comments, woo hoo!).
Naturally, my father is upset that I voted for Barack Obama, but I think he's secretly proud that he raised me to think for myself. As I blog this, I can hear him grumbling, "It took a Carter to get us Reagan, and a Clinton to get us back the House. Ford and Nixon brought shame and liberalism, and a Bush gave us another useless war."
Yes, but an Obama gives us hope, and that's just what this country needs.
]]>I don't remember where my father parked the car, or what I wore that day, but I can still feel the cold air as it stung my cheeks. The excitement was intense. Thousands of people gathered in the large square outside the depot, waiting for the train to arrive. I was only nine years old and rather short, so my father hoisted me onto his shoulders to witness the moment the future president stepped off the train car.
Once the speech began I became distracted by other things. I was still too young to understand the issues this presidential candidate was speaking about. When it was all over my father said to me, "You're a very lucky girl. I don't know many third-graders who got to hear the next president speak."
In a mock election at school a few weeks later, I voted for Michael Dukakis because I thought it was fun to say his last name. My father lectured me when I told him. He said, "Dana, you have to research the issues. If everyone else made choices based on the sound of one's name, Elvis Presley could have served four terms."
The following January, George Herbert Walker Bush was inaugurated and I was amazed that my father correctly predicted who our next president would be. Even more magical was the fact that I got to witness a bit of history. I still hold fond memories of that autumn day. Perhaps it was that I cherish the time I spent with my dad, and also because he felt it was important to share his passion for politics with me. Twenty years later, that passion is alive within me.
Wisconsin's primary is this Tuesday, February 19th, and the campaign spotlight is shining brightly on my state.
From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel online:
When you're the 38th state to vote, your presidential primary is not supposed to matter. But the same frantic calendar that threatened to marginalize Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest now may inflate it beyond anything the state has seen in decades.
"Many people believed months and months ago that this race would be over on February 5," said Robert Gibbs, spokesman for Democrat Barack Obama. "But it looks much more like a continued slog for delegates, which puts Wisconsin in a unique situation."
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are preparing for battle in the Cheese State this week.
Chelsea Clinton has visited Milwaukee:
Chelsea Clinton urged students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to vote in next week's Wisconsin presidential primary, hopefully for her mother. Her mother, Senator Hillary Clinton, is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. More than 150 people attended Chelsea's appearance on Monday, from a