Moderate Moment | Moderate Moms

Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

Candidate Clinton?

What an interesting week it has been in politics. First, last week’s stunning defeat of Virginia’s Eric Cantor, who lost to an unknown Tea Party candidate. Then the admission on the heels of the Romney summit in Utah that there is a division within the Republican Party and no clear Presidential candidate in sight for 2016. Today, I read rumblings that some are hoping Gov. Mitt Romney will give it another whirl. That would be interesting, especially if he decides not to be muffled by the extremists and to run on a platform similar to the one he employed in Massachusetts. It’s time for moderate Republicans to organize and he really is a moderate at heart, as evidenced by his leadership as Governor. Speak past the extremists if you do, Mitt!

Now, Hillary Clinton’s “Is She or Isn’t She?” interview on CNN. The interview was ostensibly about her book, “Hard Choices.”  I dialed in late so I don’t know if Christiane Amanpour disclosed at the outset that her husband, James Rubin, had worked on Clinton’s 2007 campaign. Amanpour was clearly a “friendly” as we say in the media but I will not slam CNN or Hillary for that given that this is one woman in politics who has had her share of harsh treatment. Interestingly, harsh was missing from the exchange. She was measured and circumspect.

I will say it was interesting that the speech bubble Amanpour held up with viewers’  impressions of Hillary had only positive messaging on it. The most visible word on there was “President.”

Highlights of the interview include her statements that she is going to move forward on immigration reform, that she would send young children back to the Latin American countries they have fled to enter the U.S. illegally (once a responsible party is identified), that the blame for not arming rebels in Syria lies with Obama, that she is going to let states decide on recreational marijuana but hasn’t smoked herself. She was her most forceful on the issue of background checks, saying polls show Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of them.

Even if she doesn’t run, her interview raised some interesting points about American attitudes towards female candidates. Of course, we should be as comfortable electing a woman as a man. And we should pay her the same as we would pay him. But when someone like Hillary Clinton is asked why she wants to run when she has a grandchild on the way, you seriously have to wonder whether people realize how inherently sexist our assumptions still are. Her answer that a lot of Grandfathers have run for public office was spot on.

I just got back from a week in Texas. I saw three Presidential libraries in a week. First, President Bill Clinton’s in Arkansas, then Lyndon Baines Johnson’s in Johnson City and finally George H.W. Bush’s at Texas A & M in College Station. I told friends my favorite thing about the trip was how each of these Presidents’ libraries allowed them to depict their legacies as they see fit. The truth is there is more room for that than ever. With partisan rancor at its worst, Americans are so unsure of what is news and what is spin, that they are turning away from politics altogether.  That is where the danger lies. Not only when it comes to an informed electorate but also for future generations.

I’m actually beginning to question whether our conventional methods of weaning out the differences between candidates, like press conferences, debates and :30 campaign spots have become obsolete. Maybe each candidate should be given weekly one-on-one, half-hour or hour long, interviews in which they are asked to focus on just one issue like education, the economy, foreign affairs or energy. Americans will at least get to choose without the constant interruptions or one liners that make for exciting television but do little to help Americans decide who is telling the truth, who has the temperament and experience to lead and who inspires them.

I would love to see Mitt Romney in a similar interview to tonight’s interview with Hillary. After all, many people believe, he was treated unfairly by the press at times, in part because he was wealthy and successful.

In the last week, I have had a bright young person tell me she no longer believes in party politics. I listened to an accountant who has voted for Democrats say he’ll vote for whoever can right the ship financially by reforming entitlements, military spending, underfunded pensions and reigning in the interest on our debts. I’ve had a green Republican admit alternative energy has to be part of the energy mix going forward because of EPA mandates to upgrade infrastructure as well as concerns about global warming and sustainability.  I read an article about how handwriting could be phased out after second grade under Common Core because “kids won’t need it.”  I signed a petition urging our Governor to veto a law that creates a 72 hour waiting period for abortion because I am outraged that the one legal provider in our state is under attack … again. (As I’ve said before, “agreeing to disagree” on social issues is fine but dialing back rights isn’t) I wondered who is going to pay for Medicaid expansion in this state, which I was originally opposed to, but am reconsidering, as hospitals lay off employees because of the unfair burden Obamacare has placed on them.

I write this a day after the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to consider whether vicious lies in the midst of political campaigns about a candidate’s criminal convictions and mental state fall under free speech or whether that should be criminal, as it currently is according to Ohio. A law like that, broadly applied, would be a game changing tipping point in politics as we know it.




Is this the Conflict that leads to Change?

It’s an interesting day for any writer who wonders at the role bedroom politics, race politics, partisan standoffs and the politicizing of our planet are having on this generation. There are contradictions breaking out in each of these realms today that should give us all pause. And while on the face of it, each of the following news reports seems inherently at odds, the hope is that out of all this conflict and confusion, could come change. Let’s hope so. 

First, the Treyvon Martin case. Regardless of what you think about the arguments and evidence, the fact is George Zimmerman’s acquittal has left many African Americans feeling vulnerable. A jury ruled that Martin’s death was not racially motivated but whether you believe that or not, there is no doubt it still involved guns and vigilantism. And that Treyvon Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had not come out of his house because he thought the hooded African American teenager looked “suspicious.”  Zimmerman’s acquittal has also left Americans of all backgrounds questioning if the fact that we have an African American President has impacted race relations the way so many hoped it would? We talk a lot about the need for the Republicans to diversify and for the Democrats to move beyond race politics but this begs the question of how far we have to go.

Then there is the filibuster threat against the female Democrat nominated by Obama to head the EPA. Just a few days before the beginning of hearings on how to reform filibusters. A Senator who believes he is serving the needs of the people in his home state and isn’t blinking about the tactics he is willing to deploy to hold up Gina McCarthy’s nomination because he wants answers on a levee project for Missouri. If we demonize US Sen. Roy Blunt for his filibuster, how do we sanctify Texas State Senator Wendy Davis? Can you have it both ways? She was filibustering for women’s access to preventative health care. 

And by the way, that nominee to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, once worked for Republican Governor Mitt Romney. is that another conflict? Or a sign that it’s time to de-politicize our concerns about the climate? 

Then there is Gloria Steinem telling the Wall Street Journal that, even though she isn’t personally supporting him, she doesn’t think Eliot Spitzer’s recent legal challenges involving that prostitution scandal should prevent him from seeking office. “He’s a very intelligent, talented man who made a mistake,” she said. “It’s up to the voters.” In some polls, nearly half of New York women said they thought both Adam Weiner and Eliot Spitzer’s transgressions shouldn’t affect their decision to get back in to politics.  The significance of who is saying this cannot be understated, Ladies. It’s Gloria Steinem. I wouldn’t quite call this the end of gender politics but I would say it is surprising.