Moderate Moment | Moderate Moms

Posts Tagged ‘Gov. Mitt Romney’

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 Medicare the elephant in the middle of the room?

Is Medicare the elephant in the middle of the room?

There’s a word that has become the proverbial elephant in the middle of the room for Democrats.  Medicare.  The only time it is mentioned is when President Obama uses it to scare the elderly into thinking the Republicans are going to leave them high and dry by eliminating benefits without a safety net.  With reports that the current Medicare fund will only last another 13 years, the current Medicare system needs to be reformed.  The question is not “if” but “how” and “when.”   It will be interesting to see how big a role Medicare plays in tonight’s Republican Presidential debates.  I like this article from the Washington Times for a preview of how the candidates may respond when asked about Medicare reform.  

Despite a national debt just shy of $15 trillion, President Obama refuses to put forth a substantive proposal tackling the single largest source of red ink: Medicare. Democrats prefer to use this program as a political club to scare the elderly and keep hold on power. Luckily, the potential future occupants of the White House in the GOP have shown political courage. They’ve rallied behind a common set of principles that would shore up the health care program for seniors.

Most Americans understand the problem. According to a Rasmussen poll released on Tuesday, only 33 percent are confident that they will ever see the benefits they’ve been promised. The worry is well founded, as the program’s own trustees have said that it will be totally bankrupt in 13 years. To address the imminent crisis, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced Friday that he would introduce private-sector competition. His idea is similar to, but less audacious than, the House Republican plan drafted by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Mr. Ryan would slowly move those under 55 years old into a premium-support system so that they could pick their own insurance plans. Mr. Romney would offer the same choices to future seniors, but he would also add an option of buying into the existing, government-run system. Seniors would receive a set amount (determined by means) to spend on health insurance premiums. Mr. Romney is looking to blunt the predictable Democratic Mediscare attack. He realizes that market forces would likely make the bureaucratic government option more costly, driving most to private plans to save money. Mr. Romney would also gradually raise the eligibility age to shore up the program.

Newt Gingrich had already put forth virtually the same plan of optional premium support. The former House speaker is so confident that Americans would opt for Ryan plan that he said in a debate on Saturday with Herman Cain he would be “happy to try it out next year.” The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO added that Mr. Ryan’s plan mirrors the private-sector transition from defined benefit to defined contribution plans and that “ownership of those dollars will cause people to spend it more responsibly.”

Rick Perry is less specific, offering support for some type of private option though premium-support payments or a credit. The Texas governor also backs increasing the eligibility age and means testing. The moderate in the field, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, endorsed the Ryan plan in the spring. While Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann voted for the House budget, she seemed to back off support of the Medicare reform proposals in later statements. Texas Rep. Ron Paul voted against the Ryan budget, saying it did not go far enough.

House Republicans laid the foundation by boldly proclaiming the need to fix Medicare. This paved the way for the Republican presidential candidates to publicly support the concept. This is a remarkable achievement. The winner of the November 2012 election needs to be the leader who understands this crisis must be addressed now.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.