Why is it ...

that when people who support the Republican party don't like people saying that they are lying, their response is either to blame the liberal media or call the person making the statement rude?  Maybe instead, they should be, at least, misleading, which is what is expected of politicians.

Dear Mr. Romney,

I have been listening to you since you announced your candidacy for President of the United States.  I was concerned during the primary because of your conservative positions.  Now, as you move towards the center, I worry even more.  I understand the shift because no one has won the Presidency while holding extreme right or left-wing positions.  What concerns me is how comfortable you are with changing positions then have those who work with you define your position later.  I would like to hear where you truly stand on some key positions, specifically education, women's issues and the economy.

Education is dearly important to me.  My husband is a high school history teacher.  I hold a teaching certificate but do not teach.  I know that the public school system is crucial to our society.  It is where immigrants have learned to become American.  It has prepared generations of people to work.  There was a time when graduating from high school was enough to get a decent job and prepare you for work.  Now, teachers are seen as free-loading loafers who count the hours until they can collect their paycheck.  Although that description might be true of some people in education, the majority of teachers are trying to do their best to encourage students to rise to their full potential.  Inherently, they understand that their students will be competing with students from all over the world.  Many of the rising countries place a strong emphasis on education and we are undermining our education system with budget cuts and glaring stereotyping of teachers.  You have mentioned that you would cut education funding but you have also mentioned that you will support education for people to find work.  Where is it you truly stand?  Are you willing to make the bold choice to make education, public education, a viable institution which promotes the necessary skills to achieve success in this world?

Education for me is a national issue; women's rights is a personal issue.  I was too young before Roe v. Wade to remember what life was like for women.  I have heard stories from my elders about women who sought back alley abortions and were irreparably harmed.  I have heard stories about women who went on vacation only to return nine months later to whispers behind their backs.  I know that making abortions illegal will not stop them, it will only force women to make even more painful choices than the choices they face now.  I hear you and other pro-life people when they say they are protecting people who have no voice but what about the women carrying the babies?  Are they just walking incubators who do not deserve a voice?  If you want to cut the size of government regulations, why impose a new one on women?  And why does the American government think it has a right to legislate something so personal as a woman's pregnancy?  When I think of this, I am reminded of the Chinese government regulating the number of children a couple can have.  I do not live in China Mr. Romney. Please define your position on this important issue.

Finally, where exactly do you stand on the economy?  I have heard you say loopholes need to be closed; I agree.  But which ones?  Depending on to whom you are speaking, I have heard various answers.  I have heard you say taxes need to be cut.  Historically, the period of highest taxation, right after WWII, Americans recorded the greatest satisfaction in their country.   Taxes also help to pay for essential services like education, emergency responders, and infrastructure.  If we cut them much further, some communities will not have access to necessary services.   Also, anyone who has to work within their means to make a household budget work knows that when the going gets tough you have to cut back expenses AND increase revenue.  By cutting taxes, you might make it easier to make ends meet for the middle class, but you risk bankrupting the government, which in the long run is a disaster in the making.  So where exactly do you stand on the economy?  Will you get serious about working in a be-partisan way with the Congress to solve our economic problems not just for today but for future generations?  Or is this another selling point to the people in Ohio?

I could continue.  I am also concerned about the size of the military, green energy, what it takes to be a true world leader in this new global reality, Israel and immigration.  And I would welcome a conversation about those topics, but I doubt you will respond to my invitation to a discussion.  I know you are busy trying to win an election.  But please remember, for me, this is not about you adding the position "President of the United States" to your resume.  This is about my children's future and my grandchildren's future.  If I understood better what your positions were, I would be in a better position to make the best choice I possibly could.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Romanski

Tax Returns, Birth Certificates, Race and Religion

There has been a lot of talk of tax returns, birth certificates, race and religion in this campaign.  These topics have fueled the fire for both sides and have kept the candidates in the news and the negativity at an all time high.  But, honestly, does it truly matter?  I don't think so and here is why.  Our country is on the verge of a major change.  We are transitioning to being the world's super power to being in the mix somewhere.  This change is inevitable; great societies rise and fall.  We can manage the transition so that we can remain strong yet different from where we are now or we can allow ourselves to go into free fall.  Tax returns, birth certificates, race and religion are not going to help us manage the transition.  What we need are people who are  willing to work with everyone else to ensure that the majority of our citizens can continue to prosper, those who will have difficulty will be taken care of and we are well-positioned for the next 100 years to rely first on the United States then the rest of the world.

What we get when we focus on the petty, i.e. tax returns, birth certificates, etc., is an immature shouting match whose winner is the person who can say the most negative things.  It also proves that no one is willing to work with anyone else or help anyone but themselves.  Once people start helping only themselves and a few select supporters, then the idea of ensuring the majority of citizens will continue to prosper goes out the window.  A few wealthy donors to a campaign fund or a super PAC does not count as the majority of citizens.  Ensuring that those who need a helping hand receive it also goes out the window.  If a person is not willing to help the majority of people and is focused on themselves and their select friends, what hope does the single mom struggling to work two jobs and put her kids through college have?

The most important part of the conversation though, in my mind, is how to position ourselves for the next 100 years.  We know some of the challenges we will face: climate change, the cost of entitlements, conservation of our resources.  There are challenges around the corner we do not know about yet.  But if we  carefully consider what we know is coming, what the best options for handling these challenges without showing preference and start implementing them now, we will be in a better position for the unexpected storms.  To do this is going to require bold stands, the courage of conviction, a broad focus on a bigger picture and the maturity to put others first.

Nowhere did I mention tax returns, birth certificates, race or religion.

Thank The Republicans for the High Gas

I might be going out on a limb here because I have no hard evidence to back up what I am about to say. This is purely conjecture and probably not totally correct. But I am willing to think that I have hit the target, not the bulls-eye, with this. Republicans are to blame for the higher gas prices.

Okay, I know that they do not control gas prices and the reasons given is the uncertainty over Iran. Have you ever noticed that is always the reason? Uncertainty over Iran or unrest in the Middle East is always the reason. But this makes little sense to me. We are producing more domestic crude now than we have in very long time. Demand is down. So, according to the economic principles that I learned, prices should also be dropping. But prices are based on futures, so "they" say that the future in the Middle East looks grim. It has always looked grim, and prices dropped so, what has changed?

I think the change is because the Republicans are concerned about their chances in the fall. The economy is strengthening. Companies are actually bringing jobs back to our country. The President has pushed through some of his economic agenda and it seems to be working. The Republicans are losing ground in the approval ratings and most people blame the Congress for holding our government hostage. So what can they do? They have tried to create trouble with various reforms, like the squawk over the contraception and abortion legislation last week, but he is diffusing it soundly. The only thing they have left is to put the economy in a tailspin. And what better way to do that than to raise gas prices. Now, you may remind me that the Republicans do not set gas prices and I agree. But I do know that many Republicans are in the pockets of the big oil lobbyists and I would not put it past a few of them to ask for a few favors. Now, this is just a theory and I have no proof. But I have watched the Republicans risk our entire financial system before for their own gain and I would not put it past them to risk it again to gain the White House.

Consider this as you complain about the gas prices and listen to the talking heads tell you what to think. I might be a crazy conspiracy theorist, but we will never know what is really occurring in Washington and desperate people do desperate things.

Time to Finally Get Christianity Out of Politics

I have been listening to the Republican campaign speeches, to my dismay. I keep hearing about topics like abortion and gay marriage and Muslims and I wonder what is happening to the ideals on which our country was founded. Many Republicans would agree with that statement but that is where the agreement ends. I thought I lived in a country which was founded on individual freedoms, not a theocracy.

I'll give you an example of my confusion. The thirteen colonies did not have a single religion. The Roman Catholics landed in Maryland, the Puritans landed in Massachusetts, and the Shakers lived where they wanted. Although each denomination had differences with each other, they fundamentally understood what is was like to be persecuted for their religious beliefs, which drove them to our great land. As our government was founded, no one said that we all had to abide by one religion; I doubt anyone would have been able on which religion to agree. So why is it now a problem that we have people in our government who might or might not be Muslim? Our country, founded on religious freedom, used to embrace everyone. Shouldn't we still? Who cares what religion our President, Vice President or Speaker of the House might be? We have had Roman Catholic presidents and the Pope did not come to invade us, although many feared he would. We have had Evangelical presidents and the Rev. Billy Graham did not raise an army against us. Why do we make this an issue?

Another source of confusion is abortion. Many believe that it is the killing of a child and I can understand from where they are coming. But choice is another principle on which our country was founded. This is not a dictatorial country that determines who can procreate and who can't. Our government does not limit the number of children we can have or decide that boy babies are superior to girl babies. Communist China does that. Our country gives us a choice. But many want to restrict that choice because choice means that a murder has occurred. A few religions have come out against abortion for moral reasons. Others, my own faith included, has determined that there is not specific text in the Bible that speaks expressly to abortion but advocate respect for the woman and child. If a person, after prayerfully considering all their options, chooses to have an abortion and God is displeased with that choice, God offers forgiveness. But some people on the campaign trail are for the elimination of abortion on moral grounds. To me, that sounds like a religion taking over the government and not the principles on which our country was founded. It also is narrow-minded and not representative of the people of this country.

Finally, I hear a lot about gay marriage, especially with the California Supreme court decision yesterday. Many people advocate strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman and there is biblical support for that. In fact, yesterday, some pundit went so far as to say the reason for marriage is for procreation. If that is the case, people who marry later in life would not be covered by the Constitution. But there is also biblical support for loving your neighbors as you love yourself and not judging others. More and more, there is evidence that gays and lesbians are created that way and, no matter what, are a creation of the same God who offers forgiveness. But again, our country is not founded on religion, and all people are protected under the same Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it stipulate that gays are not covered by the laws of this country. The Supreme Court will eventually decide what the Constitution says about gay marriage. But the important point here is that we, as a country, were not founded on the principle of excluding people because of their sexual orientation. We were not founded on any exclusionary principles, unless you were a slave, but we have corrected that issue supposedly.

So the question I ask is this. Why do we continue to allow people with exclusionary, religious agendas preach to us about returning to the founding principles of our country when they are no where close to what the founding principles are? Isn't it time to get the religion out of our politics and stick to the issues that "belong to Caesar?" Shouldn't we allow people their individual freedoms instead of allowing someone's religion to dictate our rights?

Did you know that the Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words "under God" until after World War 2?

What I Really Learned from Newt Gingrich

I am learning a few very important lessons during this campaign for the Republican nomination. I had been aware of these different strategies before but never have I seen them used as well as I have this time around. The first is called deflection. If you don't like the question, deflect it to something that makes you look good. The second is to baffle with bull instead of succeed with substance. Both of these lessons came from Newt Gingrich at last night's debate. But I learned a much more meaningful lesson and that one will influence how I vote.

The initial question of the debate from moderator John King was to Newt Gingrich regarding his second wife's accusation of an open marriage. She claims that he wanted her to stay married to him while he was having an affair with his now third wife. His response was that the accusation was false and he is tired of the media attacking Republicans. He then went on to blast the media. Well, of course he has to claim that the accusation is false. He would go down in flames if he actually admitted the truth. But, in the interest of being innocent until proven guilty, perhaps this accusation is false. But this isn't the first time he has behaved in this manner. Marianne Gingrich is Newt's second wife and was his mistress while he was married the first time. She is now claiming that he left her for another woman. Amazingly, his pattern of behavior is consistent. Is this accusation true? Considering his past behavior and his response, I believe it is true. But, since he had no room to maneuver in the topic, he deflected to something that he knew would bring him a standing ovation. Let's attack the media! The media is an easy target. No one likes the 24-hour news cycle. Everyone thinks that they frequently overstep their limits. Let's bash them as trying to take a candidate down because that is sure to bring a positive response. Amazing deflection and something for me to remember.

The other lesson from last night's debate was to see how well Speaker Gingrich confused the issue so that people forgot what was actually being said. He blamed the media for keeping decent people from running for president. His response implies that he is a decent person. But what is his definition of decency? A person with the taint of cheating on wives is not what the average person would call decent. So does that mean that decent people don't run, therefore we are forced to choose between indecent candidates including Newt Gingrich? In the end, people are wondering if Newt is delusional or if he realizes that he is also not decent but it doesn't matter because we can all agree that the media is the cause of our problems, I think. I'm not sure. He sounded good, maybe. Whatever.

But at the heart of the matter, Newt Gingrich has a shady past in regards to his personal matters. Yet he has said that he is the best conservative candidate out there. In fact, when Rick Perry finally stepped out of the race he said that he thinks Newt has the heart of a conservative reformer. Newt and Rick Santorum have been vying for the social conservatives from the beginning. Newt claims he is reformed because of his strong Roman Catholic faith and the love of his third wife, Calista. I, on the other hand, believe that Newt is attempting to dodge a bullet by baffling the people with bull and assuming that we will accept it. I learned from a master last night how to dodge difficult situations. But I also learned exactly what Newt must think of all us. He thinks we are all so ignorant that he can bob and weave and we will all be so dazzled by his prowess that we will forget just what kind of person he is. I do not want a president leading this country who assumes I am that ignorant.

A little humor regarding Newt Gingrich from Jay Leno:

"Newt Gingrich said he's afraid America will become an atheist country dominated by radical Islamists. Right. Our big problem could be religious atheists, almost as bad as pacifist warmongers. If they hook up with the communist capitalists we're screwed." —Jay Leno

My thoughts on the Keystone XL Pipeline

President Obama's decision yesterday to block the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) has upset many people. The Canadians are mad at us because they want to ship their oil across the United States to the Gulf, a more central shipping location. The IBEW is mad because they wanted their union members to go to work. The oil companies are mad because they want the profits from the oil. The only two groups of people who do not seem disappointed are the environmentalists, for good reason, and the Republicans, who see this as an opportunity to oust the President in the elections. On the other hand, I am also thrilled but for very different reasons. I think the whole thing has been misrepresented from the beginning and I think this could be a path to energy independence that the Republicans and the oil companies would love us to avoid.

The KXL is designed to carry Canadian oil to the Gulf where it can be sold. That statement alone should raise some questions. Although Canada is the leading provider right now for U.S oil, we should not assume that all the Canadian oil going through the pipeline would be used by us. The Canadians would like to sell their oil to other countries also, and the Gulf of Mexico is a great way of doing that. We have been told that we would get this oil, but reason says we would not get all of it. Therefore, a great deal of the selling points for the KXL have been based on assumption.

Next, we have been told that is a "shovel-ready" project. It probably is. But that does not mean that we have to take advantage of it or be labeled a job killer. Fixing the nations highways is also "shovel-ready" and one that few state governments are embracing and the national government is reluctant to fund. But once the pipeline is built, are the jobs still going to be available? Probably not and definitely not in the numbers that are needed for construction. Wouldn't we be better off looking for jobs that would be sustained? I think so.

Which leads me to why I think this presents a great opportunity for us. We need fuel and we need jobs. We have the capacity to ramp up sustainable, renewable natural energy like solar and wind and, since there are already companies in place who are working in these fields, with a little funding, we could have fuel and jobs. With a boost in production, jobs from management to laborer, and course that looks to the future, we could be laying the groundwork for a strong, independent United States to move into the next century. Instead, we listen to the rhetoric from loud people who have their own agendas and dismiss a person who blocks the KXL as being "stunningly stupid."

In my mind, the only "stunningly stupid thing to do" is to continue down this path of oil dependence. As long as we are reliant on a non-renewable source of energy, we will continue to barter our security for our oil. As long as we are reliant on oil, we will continue to be influenced by oil companies who care more about their profits then the general welfare of our country. As long as we continue to listen to the loud mouths who have been influenced by big oil and quick fixes, we will continue to flounder along until it is too late, which will be when we finally realize that China now owns the United States. This rejection is an opportunity to move into a new and better direction. Let's go!