I have to say. The phrase that first comes to mind is "You can not make this ish up!"
I have found the trial of the former Senator to be quite entertaining. Soap opera and TV writers must be drooling over the turn of events. For those of you that have not been keeping up with the trial, I will introduce you to the cast of characters.
John Edwards. We all know him as an attorney and a former Senator from North Carolina. He is charismatic, tall and handsome with piercing blue eyes and of course-great hair! He was married to the much loved Elizabeth Edwards who died of breast cancer in 2010. They were married for 33 years and had four children together. Their son Wade died in a car crash in 1996. In 2004 Senator Edwards was the democratic vice presidential candidate alongside John Kerry. In 2008 he ran for the democratic presidential nomination. While his wife was battling stage 4 cancer and campaigning for him, the former Senator was having an affair with his campaign videographer Rielle Hunter. According to Ms.Hunter, the affair started in 2006 and in 2008 she had a daughter which the former senator denied was his until 2010. During the campaign, he conspired with his equally attractive aide Andrew Young to hide the affair and subsequent birth of a daughter using campaign contributions. He reportedly stated that Ms.Hunter was a "slut" and there was only a 1 in 3 chance that the child was his.
Classy.
Andrew Young. I don't recall seeing his picture until recently. He is, as my older relatives would say, easy on the eyes! He is the former aide to John Edwards. Apparently the most loyal aide that ever was!! He was so devoted to the candidacy and campaign of the former Senator that he was willing to not only assist in covering up the affair but he also claimed the affair and the baby was his doing. Now why would anyone go to such extremes? Is it because he believed John Edwards would be the best president ever? Or was it because there was some financial benefit to him and his family? Well maybe both. He did admit on the stand that most of the money collected from donors to hide the affair and take care of Ms.Hunter was kept by he and his wife and a large amount went towards additions to his million dollar mansion in North Carolina. He also wrote a book about his experience. What he didn't write about was the accusation that he stole a sex tape of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter to use for personal gain.
ChaChing.
Cheri Young. Cheri is the wife of former aide Andrew Young. She was asked by her husband to go along with the lies in order to keep the campaign going. On the witness stand she claims that John Edwards told her that using the money to hide and take care of Ms.Hunter was legal as told to him by his campaign attorneys. She also testified that she was told the entire campaign would fall apart if she did not go along with the plan. Many of the checks from donors were written to Cheri Young and her husband admitted that she handled the family's finances. What came out in the trial that I had not been aware of was that Ms.Hunter lived with Mr. and Mrs.Young and their 3 children. "now say what now?" One of their residences was a $20,000 a month rental house in Santa Barbara paid for by a campaign donor. At least Mrs.Young got a home theater and pool out of it as additions to a family home that was being built in North Carolina.
Dazed and Confused
Rielle Hunter. I will admit I do not know much about Ms.Hunter. I hate to say it but she may be the only one that doesn't fit the title above :/) She is a former television actress and film producer. She met John Edwards in a bar in NYC and pitched an idea to him of informational behind the scenes campaign videos. He was obviously impressed with...something and she was soon hired by the campaign. What I do recall is that in a televised interview after the birth of her daughter she stated that her and John Edwards slept together without protection the first night they met. Really? And why exactly would you say that on television especially while John Edwards was still married and his wife was fighting for her life? She also stated that they were in love and he only stayed with Elizabeth because of his political aspirations. Hmmm. I wonder how she feels hearing John Edward's description of her stated above. And it gets more seedy. There is a sex tape of her and John Edwards that was made during the presidential campaign. Andrew young is accused of stealing the tape to sell it and to threaten John Edwards with as the lies were unfolding. During the cover up, besides living in various mansions, Ms.Hunter reportedly received $5-12,000 as a monthly allowance along with thousands for housekeeping, shopping and a BMW. She gave birth to her daughter at age 43 (wow) and did not list a father on the birth certificate. Since John Edwards claimed their daughter and is a millionaire, I am sure Ms.Hunter continues to live quite well.
Entrepreneur?
Rachael "Bunny" Mellon. Mrs.Mellon is the widow of banking heir Paul Mellon. Andrew Young testified that he was asked by John Edwards to approach Mrs.Mellon to ask for money for non campaign expenses that would be used to help him along the campaign. Such expenses were described as expensive haircuts that Mr.Edwards was ridiculed for. (he is now apparently getting his hair cut at supercuts lol). On the witness stand Andrew Young stated that Mrs.Mellon made checks out to her interior decorator who cosigned the checks with Cheri Young's maiden name. Mrs.Young would then deposit the checks into the Young's account and distribute accordingly.
SugarMama
Fred Baron. Mr Baron who is deceased, was a millionaire, lawyer, former partner of John Edwards and an avid supporter. He also supplied cash and paid the bills once Ms.Hunter and the Youngs went into hiding. In court a note from Mr.Baron was presented that apparently accompanied cash for expenses. The note read "Old Chinese saying. Use cash, not credit cards".
Smart Friend
The movie Ides of March came to mind as I was writing this. It is definitely worth a rental. It amazes me the lengths that people will go in order to obtain and maintain power, money and control. Not to mention greed being an evil motivator. I do not think anyone is shocked by news of an affair or a child out of wedlock. However, what continues to shock me is doing so while in the public eye running for President and while your wife, who is battling cancer, is campaigning on your behalf. I haven't been able to look at Mr.Edwards the same since. But I have not heard his story. It is a good sign that his eldest daughter and parents have been supporting him in court. If convicted he faces up to 30 years in prison and 1.5 million dollars in fines for 6 charges of violating campaign finance laws and for conspiracy.
Thoughts?
Independent Political Thoughts. Welcome to my first blog! I hope to entice my friends and family into discussions on current political issues! Enjoy the news feed with opeds, the political video bar at the bottom of the page and hopefully you will also enjoy my posts! Nadeen
Monday, April 30, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Ilegal Immigration
"I am not against immigration. I am against illegal immigration". I do not remember who said this in one of the republican primary debates but I agree. I honestly think that people confuse the two. I often hear people say this country was built on the back of immigrants and America is and should be proud of being a melting point. No one can deny that. But, someone can be a champion of immigration and the melting pot and be against illegal immigration. They are not the same thing.
Although I was born in NYC ("concrete jungles where dreams are made of. There is nothing you cant do") Sorry. I digress. Most of my family immigrated here from Jamaica including my parents and my brother. Members of my family waited years to come to America one by one after being sponsored by different family members. Mothers were separated from their children and husbands from their wives. Some members of my family, unable to get "alien" or "green" cards for the US immigrated to England and Canada. My family came with hopes of fulfilling the American dream. Working hard and sending their children to college and therefore having opportunities they could only dream of. Based on this, I am sensitive to immigration issues and the desire of parents struggling in their own countries coming here to provide for their families and giving their children better hope for the future.
I do believe America needs immigration reform. If we are not going to deport individuals immediately upon knowledge that they are here illegally, then we must provide them with education and resources to be productive members of society. Sidebar- I often wonder why we do not deport swiftly and immediately individuals that we are aware of are here illegally. Yes- I know we are America and we are more compassionate about such social issues. But our country is in crisis mode. We can not even provide for the residents and citizens that are struggling and losing their homes and jobs so who could blame us for not wanting to spend resources on individuals who are in this country illegally? I work in a hospital in which at least half of my patient population is known by the administration and staff to be here illegally yet nothing is done. I have heard the argument that you cant separate mother's from their children that are born here in the US and are therefore citizens. But why wouldn't the child be returning with their mother to their native country? I have also heard of laws that would require at least one parent to have legal residency status or citizenship in order for a baby born in the US to be considered a citizen. I cant say I disagree. I do believe that people take advantage of doing whatever they have to to get to the US in time to have a child on American soil therefore "entitling" them to live here and obtain free government services including wic for infant formula, food stamps, housing, health care and education.
Based on the premise that all illegal immigrants or if I am being totally PC-undocumented immigrants (I am not sure why illegal isn't acceptable when it is accurate. although I do not like "aliens" lol) will not be deported and instead be knowingly allowed to live in the United States, we must revisit the Dream act. The Dream act is legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship. Components of the legislation state that the individuals must have entered the US before age 15, must have lived in the US at least 5 years before enactment of the law, must spend at least 2 years in an institution of higher education or the military and be of good moral character. Individuals would be eligible for citizenship after 5 1/2 years of gaining conditional permanent residency and completing the above requirements. Although I agree with some opponents view that the age minimum of 15 and the age maximum of 35 are too old and that the law rewards those that have entered the country illegally and may encourage others, I feel it can and should be amended to satisfy both parties.
I must end by mentioning that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Arizona immigration law. It is one of the toughest illegal immigration bills in the country and one aspect allows police to ask suspected criminals to show proof of residency status or citizenship. I do agree that it will likely lead to unnecessary racial profiling however I do understood the state being overwhelmed with the cost of providing for illegal immigrants as well as concerns about crime which has supposedly dropped since the law was enacted. I do feel a bit uneasy about that. I am not sure that illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal immigrants but I would have to do some more research on that. However, the federal government feels they are responsible for governing immigration laws and practices. It will be interesting to hear the high court's decision on this as well as other cases including the PPACA which I discussed under my "Universal Health Care" post.
Thoughts?
Although I was born in NYC ("concrete jungles where dreams are made of. There is nothing you cant do") Sorry. I digress. Most of my family immigrated here from Jamaica including my parents and my brother. Members of my family waited years to come to America one by one after being sponsored by different family members. Mothers were separated from their children and husbands from their wives. Some members of my family, unable to get "alien" or "green" cards for the US immigrated to England and Canada. My family came with hopes of fulfilling the American dream. Working hard and sending their children to college and therefore having opportunities they could only dream of. Based on this, I am sensitive to immigration issues and the desire of parents struggling in their own countries coming here to provide for their families and giving their children better hope for the future.
I do believe America needs immigration reform. If we are not going to deport individuals immediately upon knowledge that they are here illegally, then we must provide them with education and resources to be productive members of society. Sidebar- I often wonder why we do not deport swiftly and immediately individuals that we are aware of are here illegally. Yes- I know we are America and we are more compassionate about such social issues. But our country is in crisis mode. We can not even provide for the residents and citizens that are struggling and losing their homes and jobs so who could blame us for not wanting to spend resources on individuals who are in this country illegally? I work in a hospital in which at least half of my patient population is known by the administration and staff to be here illegally yet nothing is done. I have heard the argument that you cant separate mother's from their children that are born here in the US and are therefore citizens. But why wouldn't the child be returning with their mother to their native country? I have also heard of laws that would require at least one parent to have legal residency status or citizenship in order for a baby born in the US to be considered a citizen. I cant say I disagree. I do believe that people take advantage of doing whatever they have to to get to the US in time to have a child on American soil therefore "entitling" them to live here and obtain free government services including wic for infant formula, food stamps, housing, health care and education.
Based on the premise that all illegal immigrants or if I am being totally PC-undocumented immigrants (I am not sure why illegal isn't acceptable when it is accurate. although I do not like "aliens" lol) will not be deported and instead be knowingly allowed to live in the United States, we must revisit the Dream act. The Dream act is legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship. Components of the legislation state that the individuals must have entered the US before age 15, must have lived in the US at least 5 years before enactment of the law, must spend at least 2 years in an institution of higher education or the military and be of good moral character. Individuals would be eligible for citizenship after 5 1/2 years of gaining conditional permanent residency and completing the above requirements. Although I agree with some opponents view that the age minimum of 15 and the age maximum of 35 are too old and that the law rewards those that have entered the country illegally and may encourage others, I feel it can and should be amended to satisfy both parties.
I must end by mentioning that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Arizona immigration law. It is one of the toughest illegal immigration bills in the country and one aspect allows police to ask suspected criminals to show proof of residency status or citizenship. I do agree that it will likely lead to unnecessary racial profiling however I do understood the state being overwhelmed with the cost of providing for illegal immigrants as well as concerns about crime which has supposedly dropped since the law was enacted. I do feel a bit uneasy about that. I am not sure that illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal immigrants but I would have to do some more research on that. However, the federal government feels they are responsible for governing immigration laws and practices. It will be interesting to hear the high court's decision on this as well as other cases including the PPACA which I discussed under my "Universal Health Care" post.
Thoughts?
Monday, April 23, 2012
The Latino Vote
The Latino vote will play a crucial role in the 2012 presidential election especially in the swing states of Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and yes-my home state AKA the "hanging chad" state of Florida. The Latino vote has been the deciding factor in several close national elections in the state of Florida including the infamous Gore vs. Bush election. Due to this, both parties have already started courting Latinos in several states. Rolling out the red carpet so to speak. Both candidates had round table discussions this past week with Latino voters and leaders. The republican strategy-appeal to their pockets. Stress what they feel is a failure of the President to improve the economy. The national unemployment rate for Hispanics is 11%-higher than the roughly 8-9% for the general public.They will also remind them of President Obama's failure to pass his promised immigration reform. The irony of that is they are the reason the DREAM act failed to move through Congress. The DREAM act allows for certain undocumented children and adults up to age 26 to seek citizenship through several paths including education and military service. The democratic party on the other hand will remind Latinos of the improving economy, republican protests to immigration reform and the President will re pledge to passing legislation in his next term.
What fascinates me most about the Latino vote, especially since I live in Florida, is the Cuban American vote. Cuban Americans tend to vote republican compared to Mexican and Puerto Ricans who overwhelmingly vote democratic. But why? I have heard many theories. First of all, the subject close to heart for many Latino voters is immigration reform. This is not a factor for Cubans based on the wet foot dry foot policy. Any Cuban who reaches American soil is allowed to stay in the country since they are fleeing a communist regime. Other theories are as follows. Latinos feel that historically republicans have had a more anti Castro, pro embargo stance against Cuba. There is also the older generation that remembers the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by democratic President-John F. Kennedy. Then in 1983 President Reagan visited Miami wearing a guayabera (Latin style shirt) and addressed the crowd in Spanish. A street in Little Havana was soon named after the President. And who can forget the Elian Gonzalez drama in 2000. Our democratic president, Bill Clinton, authorized the raid and return of Elian to his biological father in Cuba. President Clinton's approval ratings dropped in the Cuban community as a result.
In the end, most polls show that for voters of all races and backgrounds, the economy is their main concern and determining factor in how they will cast their votes. Other top issues include health care and education. For Latinos whose friends and family members are affected by immigration laws and policies, immigration reform will also be a consideration. For Cuban Americans, pollsters find that while the older generation primarily votes republican due to the factors listed above, the younger generation is more concerned about matters here on American soil vs toppling and punishing an aging dictator on an island they have never seen.
Thoughts?
What fascinates me most about the Latino vote, especially since I live in Florida, is the Cuban American vote. Cuban Americans tend to vote republican compared to Mexican and Puerto Ricans who overwhelmingly vote democratic. But why? I have heard many theories. First of all, the subject close to heart for many Latino voters is immigration reform. This is not a factor for Cubans based on the wet foot dry foot policy. Any Cuban who reaches American soil is allowed to stay in the country since they are fleeing a communist regime. Other theories are as follows. Latinos feel that historically republicans have had a more anti Castro, pro embargo stance against Cuba. There is also the older generation that remembers the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by democratic President-John F. Kennedy. Then in 1983 President Reagan visited Miami wearing a guayabera (Latin style shirt) and addressed the crowd in Spanish. A street in Little Havana was soon named after the President. And who can forget the Elian Gonzalez drama in 2000. Our democratic president, Bill Clinton, authorized the raid and return of Elian to his biological father in Cuba. President Clinton's approval ratings dropped in the Cuban community as a result.
In the end, most polls show that for voters of all races and backgrounds, the economy is their main concern and determining factor in how they will cast their votes. Other top issues include health care and education. For Latinos whose friends and family members are affected by immigration laws and policies, immigration reform will also be a consideration. For Cuban Americans, pollsters find that while the older generation primarily votes republican due to the factors listed above, the younger generation is more concerned about matters here on American soil vs toppling and punishing an aging dictator on an island they have never seen.
Thoughts?
Friday, April 13, 2012
Silly Politics: The "working" woman debate.
This week I was once again reminded of how silly and senseless politics can get. Not long after the ridiculous "etch a sketch" fiasco created by a Romney spokesman, we are dealing with another fake scandal of words which will likely blow over in a week. In the meantime, the republican party is juicing it for all they can while the democrats are doing damage control. All over a misconstrued, misinterpreted comment made by a democratic strategist who does NOT work for the Obama campaign. Hilary Rosen stated on CNN in regards to working women that Ann Romney would not be able to give proper advice to her husband since Ann Romney " had never worked a day in her life". UhOh. Did I hear all the stay at home Moms shudder at once? Ann Romney, who states that she chose to be a stay at home Mom of 5 sons as her career, took offense to that statement as well as the statement that her husband is not sensitive to women's issues.
Here is the thing. Hilary Rosen did not say in the interview that being a stay at home Mom is not considered work. In my opinion she didn't even imply it. She was referring to women in the work force. Women whose daycare benefits may get cut under the Romney economic plan. Women who work just as hard as men in the workforce but get paid less. With all due respect to Mrs.Romney who is worth 250 million dollars, you are not one of these women. I am sure living on 21 million dollars a year affords some luxuries in raising 5 children that the average American can only dream of.
While reading on this "controversy", I came across an interesting statistic from the 2007 census. It found that 23% of married women with children below the age of 15 are stay at home Moms. Most of these stay at home Moms were Hispanic, foreign born and women without a high school diploma. Why is this? I was reminded of my interview with a low income Hispanic family in the emergency room. One of my standard questions that I ask everyone is if their child attends daycare (daycare being a haven for germs and illnesses). This father laughed at my question and said "Of course not. He is only 10 months old. He stays at home with his mother". I couldn't help myself, it had been a long tiring day. My response " Well Dad, he is lucky because a lot of families have to put their children in Daycare in order to go to work and make a living". If I'm being honest, I do notice in my profession that the majority of low income and a substantial amount of high income Moms stay at home with their children. Financially speaking, for low income families it probably makes more sense if you have several children to stay at home vs paying for daycare. For high income families, parents can afford to have not only the Moms at home but nannies that provide assistance. What happens to working families? What about the mothers that are struggling to hold down a job to help support the family while also taking care of the household, husband and children. These families fall on that precarious line between making too much to qualify for federal assistance and making too little to pay all the bills. These are the women my heart bleeds for. These are the families that need our help including providing affordable daycare, affordable tuition for higher education to advance their careers and salaries and teaching a trade or skill set to do the same.
So to all the politicians out there, can we please get back to the real issues??!!
Thoughts?
Here is the thing. Hilary Rosen did not say in the interview that being a stay at home Mom is not considered work. In my opinion she didn't even imply it. She was referring to women in the work force. Women whose daycare benefits may get cut under the Romney economic plan. Women who work just as hard as men in the workforce but get paid less. With all due respect to Mrs.Romney who is worth 250 million dollars, you are not one of these women. I am sure living on 21 million dollars a year affords some luxuries in raising 5 children that the average American can only dream of.
While reading on this "controversy", I came across an interesting statistic from the 2007 census. It found that 23% of married women with children below the age of 15 are stay at home Moms. Most of these stay at home Moms were Hispanic, foreign born and women without a high school diploma. Why is this? I was reminded of my interview with a low income Hispanic family in the emergency room. One of my standard questions that I ask everyone is if their child attends daycare (daycare being a haven for germs and illnesses). This father laughed at my question and said "Of course not. He is only 10 months old. He stays at home with his mother". I couldn't help myself, it had been a long tiring day. My response " Well Dad, he is lucky because a lot of families have to put their children in Daycare in order to go to work and make a living". If I'm being honest, I do notice in my profession that the majority of low income and a substantial amount of high income Moms stay at home with their children. Financially speaking, for low income families it probably makes more sense if you have several children to stay at home vs paying for daycare. For high income families, parents can afford to have not only the Moms at home but nannies that provide assistance. What happens to working families? What about the mothers that are struggling to hold down a job to help support the family while also taking care of the household, husband and children. These families fall on that precarious line between making too much to qualify for federal assistance and making too little to pay all the bills. These are the women my heart bleeds for. These are the families that need our help including providing affordable daycare, affordable tuition for higher education to advance their careers and salaries and teaching a trade or skill set to do the same.
So to all the politicians out there, can we please get back to the real issues??!!
Thoughts?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Current Events 1)Zimmerman update 2)Presidential foot in mouth? 3)The Buffet Rule 4)Santorum 5)Arizona Abortion law
1) Zimmerman. It was announced today that the man who admitted to fatally shooting Trayvon Martin is in police custody and has been charged with second degree murder. For most people this equals Justice-Finally. I am impressed at the nationwide protests that pushed and led to an arrest. But before today's news conference, it was announced yesterday that Zimmerman's lawyers had resigned since they had not been able to make contact with him in days. Even more bizarre was the website Zimmerman set up over the weekend allowing his supporters to make donations to him. He confessed to not being able to work, go to a store, and having to leave his home out of fear for his life. Is it wrong that I felt a little bit sorry for him? I cannot imagine the mental and emotional anguish he must be going through. If what his friends and neighbors have said about him is correct, he is not racist and is a good man. Did he just make an awful and fatal mistake? In the end, he may be in fear for his life but at least he has a life.
2) Presidential foot in mouth? In reference to the Supreme Court's pending decision on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the President stated that the high court would not invoke "judicial activism" by overturning a law put in place by an elected Congress. Some saw this as a sort of threat towards the high court. However, the supreme court justices had already cast their vote on the issue although the decision will not be made public for weeks. The justices had to decide if the law was constitutional. But is there anyone that believes the justices are impartial and will base their decision solely on its constitutional merits? The justices are often described as conservative, liberal or as "swing voters". Decisions by the court are often made along those lines similar to party lines in the Senate and Congress. Plus,the justices are appointed by a conservative or republican president or a democratic or liberal president. And isn't the constitution similar to the Bible? Open to interpretation.
3) The Buffet Rule. I do not get it. I do not get the opposition to this rule. The current tax system stinks. I was once again reminded that former Governor Romney's income is 21 million a year but he only pays 14% in taxes. Why am I paying 34%???!!!! I am far far far FARRRR away from making the million dollars that would be the cut off of having to pay 30% with the Buffet rule. I would be happy to make 1 million dollars a year and pay 30% in taxes since it would still be less than what I pay now!
4) Rick Santorum. Yesterday the former senator announced that he was suspending his campaign. Ahhh-Mr.Santorum was my first blog post. I was so shocked by his conservative views-well really I was shocked that someone not only had such conservative views but also felt that with those views he could be elected president of this country. Well he made quite a run for it and lasted longer than I thought he would. But what I can say for the former Senator, I can not say for Mitt Romney. He never wavered from his views no matter the criticism. I truly got a sense of who he is, what he
believes in and therefore what he would stand for as President. For all those things, I ended up having respect for someone with polar opposite views to mine. Ain't America grand? :-)
5) Arizona Abortion law. Arizona's senate recently passed a law banning abortions over 20 weeks gestation except in cases of harm to the mother. The law also requires graphic images of abortions on a state website and an ultrasound to be performed at least 24 hours prior to the abortion. The republican Governor is expected to sign it. Although I am pro-choice, I am not opposed to the 20 week ban. If an abortion has to be done, it should be done as soon as possible and 20 weeks is late in the growth and development of the fetus. 4 more weeks and it is viable-meaning it could live on its own outside the womb-in an ICU of course. I do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control. Women who are having unprotected sex should be vigilant about keeping track of their periods and taking regular pregnancy tests or consider the morning after pill which is available without a prescription. However, I think the ultrasound and pics are unnecessary scare tactics. I also think there should be more leniency in cases of rape, incest or if the fetus is found to have a life threatening illness.
Thoughts?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Who is Mitt?
Although I have been following the republican primary as I did 4 years ago when Mitt Romney was also running, I still do not have a clear idea as to who he is or where he stands on the issues. Maybe I have been thrown off by his Ken doll appearing good looks :-) or maybe it is because he seems to change his stance on things to fit popular opinions from state to state and from month to month. I will admit that if I was to play a word association game and someone said Mitt, I would respond Mormon. The next few things that come to mind are-he is rich, he is a former Governor of Massachusetts that passed health care reform during his term and he played a leading role in planning the Winter Olympics in Utah. But since it has become more obvious that he will be the Republican presidential nominee (someone please tell Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul), I felt it was time to take a closer look at Mr.Romney.
Basic facts:
1) He is from a political family. His father George W. Romney was a former Governor of Michigan and was also a CEO of American motors in Detroit. He was reelected twice as Governor. His father was considered a moderate republican and served as the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Richard Nixon. The Governor had a failed presidential run in 1968. His mother Lenore Romney had an unsuccessful 1970 campaign for US Senator in Michigan.
2)Education. He attended Stanford University for a year then received his undergraduate degree from Bringham Young University and earned a JD AND a MBA from Harvard University.
3)Early career. He worked in the management consulting business and eventually became the CEO of Bain and Company and co founder of Bain Capital- private equity investment firms. Under his leadership, Bain Capital was one of the largest in the country and as such he amassed great wealth.
4)Religion. He is a fifth generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.One of his great great grandfathers was an early leader of the church. Mitt spent 30 months of his early adult years in France as a Mormon missionary. He is therefore fluent in French.
5)Personal life. In 1969 he married his high school sweetheart Ann Davies and they have 5 sons. Mrs.Romney suffers from Multiple Sclerosis.
6)Wealth and Philanthropy. It is reported that Mr. and Mrs. Romney are worth approximately $250 million. Most of this wealth is held in trusts and the couple reportedly receives about 21 million a year for income. In 2011 they paid 3 million in taxes (only about 14%!) but they also gave over 3.5 million to charities including their church.
But what I think most people are interested in is Mr.Romney's political career and his stance on major issues.
7)Political career. In 1993, Mitt Romney changed his political affiliation from Independent to Republican and in 1994 ran against Senator Ted Kennedy for a Massachusetts senate seat. Ironically, he ran on the same platform in 1994 as he did in 2008 and 2012-a businessman who could create jobs and as a Washington outsider. He also stated he was an Independent during the Reagan-Bush era and did not plan to imitate their policies. He lost the election to Senator Kennedy. In 2002 during his run for Governor, he stated he was not a partisan republican but a moderate with progressive views. He won the election and served one term ending in 2007. During the last 2 years of his term, Massachusetts had surpluses of $600-$700 million based on strategies such as spending cuts and removal of corporate tax holes (not very republican of him :-) and raising fees for things such as a gas retailer fee and driver's license fees.
8)Health Care Reform. This I found to be very interesting. Governor Romney decided to make a case for universal health care in the state based on the idea that people without insurance still received expensive health care and the money used to cover those expenses could be better used to pay for health insurance for the poor. He pushed for an individual mandate but did oppose a raise in taxes to cover the new plan. In the end, a new payroll tax was added and on April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires the majority of residents in the state to buy health insurance or face penalties. Does any of this sound familiar? In 2010 when the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, Mr.Romney stated it was "an unconscionable abuse of power". (hmmm hypocrite?)
9)Gay marriage and civil unions. In 2004 Governor Romney supported an amendment that banned same sex marriages but would allow for civil unions. However in 2006 he supported an amendment that banned both same sex marriages and civil unions. He then supported the Federal Marriage amendment that limits marriage in the United States to a union between one man and one woman. So no polygamy! Again interesting considering sects of the LDS church do practice polygamy.
10)Abortion. In 2002 he ran with pro-choice views but in 2005 he stated he changed to a pro-life position. As Governor he vetoed a bill that was overturned allowing for emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies.
11) Presidential aspirations. I think most of us remember this race. Part of the former governor's downfall was Senator Mccain and former Governor Mike Huckabee's characterization of him as a "flip flopper". (you think?). He also faced many questions about his faith that did not sit well with the conservative christian republican base. Are we in 2012 or 2008? This all sounds too familiar. He lost the nomination to Senator McCain but is now the front runner and likely soon to be the official Republican nominee.
12)Immigration-he supports legal immigration but is against illegal immigration and in state tuition for illegal immigrants. He opposes the DREAM act. He supports English as the official language with English immersion classes. He supports the idea of a border fence.
13)The Economy. He recently stated "Apply Reaganomics to the current recession:cut taxes and grow" (didn't I write somewhere above that he previously ran on a platform of being against Reagan-Bush policies?) "Corporations are people. Cut the corporate tax rate". In 2010 he stated the US didn't bail out wall street- that we prevented financial failure. But he later stated the government should have forced the auto industry into managed bankruptcies.
I could go on and on..... but I think author Daniel Gross summed it up quite well. He sees Romney as "approaching politics in the same terms as a business competing in markets, in that successful executives do not hold firm to public stances over long periods of time, but rather constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions".
I have no problem with his wealth or his religion. He seems like a nice guy. I admire his success because that is what all Americans should strive to be-successful. Also, I do not disagree with his previous stances on spending cuts, removal of corporate tax holes and being pro-choice. And I definitely agree with and commend his passage of health care reform in Massachusetts and his current stance on illegal immigration. But herein lies my issue with the former Governor. It appears that for his presidential runs in 2008 and presently, he has become more conservative by the minute to appeal to his party's base. He continues to "flip flop" on issues. Everyone has a right to change their opinions, but are these new opinions sincere or does he have his eye on the prize and will do and say anything to get there? If he is elected, which Mitt Romney will the country be getting? The pre 2007 Mitt or the post?
Again I ask-Who is Mitt?
Thoughts?
Basic facts:
1) He is from a political family. His father George W. Romney was a former Governor of Michigan and was also a CEO of American motors in Detroit. He was reelected twice as Governor. His father was considered a moderate republican and served as the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Richard Nixon. The Governor had a failed presidential run in 1968. His mother Lenore Romney had an unsuccessful 1970 campaign for US Senator in Michigan.
2)Education. He attended Stanford University for a year then received his undergraduate degree from Bringham Young University and earned a JD AND a MBA from Harvard University.
3)Early career. He worked in the management consulting business and eventually became the CEO of Bain and Company and co founder of Bain Capital- private equity investment firms. Under his leadership, Bain Capital was one of the largest in the country and as such he amassed great wealth.
4)Religion. He is a fifth generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.One of his great great grandfathers was an early leader of the church. Mitt spent 30 months of his early adult years in France as a Mormon missionary. He is therefore fluent in French.
5)Personal life. In 1969 he married his high school sweetheart Ann Davies and they have 5 sons. Mrs.Romney suffers from Multiple Sclerosis.
6)Wealth and Philanthropy. It is reported that Mr. and Mrs. Romney are worth approximately $250 million. Most of this wealth is held in trusts and the couple reportedly receives about 21 million a year for income. In 2011 they paid 3 million in taxes (only about 14%!) but they also gave over 3.5 million to charities including their church.
But what I think most people are interested in is Mr.Romney's political career and his stance on major issues.
7)Political career. In 1993, Mitt Romney changed his political affiliation from Independent to Republican and in 1994 ran against Senator Ted Kennedy for a Massachusetts senate seat. Ironically, he ran on the same platform in 1994 as he did in 2008 and 2012-a businessman who could create jobs and as a Washington outsider. He also stated he was an Independent during the Reagan-Bush era and did not plan to imitate their policies. He lost the election to Senator Kennedy. In 2002 during his run for Governor, he stated he was not a partisan republican but a moderate with progressive views. He won the election and served one term ending in 2007. During the last 2 years of his term, Massachusetts had surpluses of $600-$700 million based on strategies such as spending cuts and removal of corporate tax holes (not very republican of him :-) and raising fees for things such as a gas retailer fee and driver's license fees.
8)Health Care Reform. This I found to be very interesting. Governor Romney decided to make a case for universal health care in the state based on the idea that people without insurance still received expensive health care and the money used to cover those expenses could be better used to pay for health insurance for the poor. He pushed for an individual mandate but did oppose a raise in taxes to cover the new plan. In the end, a new payroll tax was added and on April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires the majority of residents in the state to buy health insurance or face penalties. Does any of this sound familiar? In 2010 when the President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Act, Mr.Romney stated it was "an unconscionable abuse of power". (hmmm hypocrite?)
9)Gay marriage and civil unions. In 2004 Governor Romney supported an amendment that banned same sex marriages but would allow for civil unions. However in 2006 he supported an amendment that banned both same sex marriages and civil unions. He then supported the Federal Marriage amendment that limits marriage in the United States to a union between one man and one woman. So no polygamy! Again interesting considering sects of the LDS church do practice polygamy.
10)Abortion. In 2002 he ran with pro-choice views but in 2005 he stated he changed to a pro-life position. As Governor he vetoed a bill that was overturned allowing for emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies.
11) Presidential aspirations. I think most of us remember this race. Part of the former governor's downfall was Senator Mccain and former Governor Mike Huckabee's characterization of him as a "flip flopper". (you think?). He also faced many questions about his faith that did not sit well with the conservative christian republican base. Are we in 2012 or 2008? This all sounds too familiar. He lost the nomination to Senator McCain but is now the front runner and likely soon to be the official Republican nominee.
12)Immigration-he supports legal immigration but is against illegal immigration and in state tuition for illegal immigrants. He opposes the DREAM act. He supports English as the official language with English immersion classes. He supports the idea of a border fence.
13)The Economy. He recently stated "Apply Reaganomics to the current recession:cut taxes and grow" (didn't I write somewhere above that he previously ran on a platform of being against Reagan-Bush policies?) "Corporations are people. Cut the corporate tax rate". In 2010 he stated the US didn't bail out wall street- that we prevented financial failure. But he later stated the government should have forced the auto industry into managed bankruptcies.
I could go on and on..... but I think author Daniel Gross summed it up quite well. He sees Romney as "approaching politics in the same terms as a business competing in markets, in that successful executives do not hold firm to public stances over long periods of time, but rather constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions".
I have no problem with his wealth or his religion. He seems like a nice guy. I admire his success because that is what all Americans should strive to be-successful. Also, I do not disagree with his previous stances on spending cuts, removal of corporate tax holes and being pro-choice. And I definitely agree with and commend his passage of health care reform in Massachusetts and his current stance on illegal immigration. But herein lies my issue with the former Governor. It appears that for his presidential runs in 2008 and presently, he has become more conservative by the minute to appeal to his party's base. He continues to "flip flop" on issues. Everyone has a right to change their opinions, but are these new opinions sincere or does he have his eye on the prize and will do and say anything to get there? If he is elected, which Mitt Romney will the country be getting? The pre 2007 Mitt or the post?
Again I ask-Who is Mitt?
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)