Wendy Rosen: From Businesswoman and Arts Advocate to Politician

This is a repost of a story that I wrote for Forbes.com
Washington needs some right-brain thinkers to develop creative ways for this country to get its people back to work and keep Main Street vibrant. That’s the pitch from Wendy Rosen: successful businesswoman, arts advocate, small business advocate, and now a candidate for Congress.Rosen, 57, is running as a Democrat for the U.S. House seat in

EWP Gets Political... Sort Of

Usually my only mention of politics around here is to comment on Michelle Obama's arms (which are FABULOUS!) but today I wish to discuss a Republic candidate.

*shock*

I know!  And while I could go on how the Republican candidates aren't all that Republican - they're all about big government, war, and government getting involved in your private life (stop trying to legislate my uterus!), which, honestly, are all against the real republican ideals of small government - but we'll save that for another day.

Today I want to discuss Mitt Romney.

Okay, not Mitt Romney.  His sons.

He sure has a lot of them.  And they are cute.  Well, maybe not that unfortch blonde one in the middle, poor guy, but the rest sure are!  Seriously, look at them.

If they stood behind Mitt Romney during his debates, I might actually watch them....

Iowa Republican debate: Winners and losers

The last Republican presidential debate of 2011 is in the books. It was a remarkably sedate affair with the frontrunning candidates — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney — playing it safe and staying away from any direct attacks on one another.

Republican presidential candidate former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) listens to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (L) during the Republican Party presidential candidates debate in Sioux City, Iowa, December 15, 2011. REUTERS/Eric Gay/Pool If you missed any of the debate, never fear: We live-blogged it! We also jotted down some winners and, yes, some losers from the night that was. Our picks are below. Agree? Disagree? The comments section awaits.
WINNERS
* Michele Bachmann: Bachmann is an underrated — or maybe just overlooked — debater. Since a lull in the early fall, she’s been very solid in these forums, and put together a strong performance tonight.
For second tier candidates — like Bachmann — debates are about fighting for air time and drawing contrasts with the frontrunners. She did both.
Bachmann slammed Texas Rep. Ron Paul for his position on Iran and hammered Gingrich for taking money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. She also was forceful — and effective — when she lashed out at Gingrich for repeatedly acting dismissively toward her. A nice night for Bachmann.
* Rick Perry: Given the Texas Governor’s disastrously bad past debate performances, it’s always tough to know if you are grading him on a curve. But, for the second straight debate, Perry was energetic and forceful. He stayed on his outsider message — part time Congress etc. — and only very occasionally drifted into the he’s-saying-words-but-they-don’t-mean-anything territory.
Was his line about being the “Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses” a little forced? Um, yes. But still, it’s likely to be one of the most quoted lines in the post debate coverage and that’s a good thing for Perry.
* Mitt Romney: For the first 90 minutes of the debate, Romney was at his very best. After going after Gingrich last Saturday, Romney seemed to scrap that strategy, using every question asked of him to paint himself as three things: 1) a big picture thinker and 2) the anti-Obama 3) the de facto nominee.
The hiccup came when moderator Chris Wallace pushed Romney on his alleged flip flops on things like abortion, gay rights and guns. Romney started off well — he acknowledged he had “changed his mind” on abortion — but then got too into the weeds with an extended discussion of why his position on gay rights had been consistent. Not good.
Still, taken as a whole, Romney reasserted himself in this debate and , because he came under virtually no criticism, was able to effectively portray himself as the guy most ready to take on President Obama next fall.
* Tim Tebow: All he does is win. Also, we are Tebowing as we write this.
LOSERS
* Ron Paul: The Texas Congressman spent WAY too much time defending his isolationist foreign policy views — including his belief that the biggest danger Iran posed to America was if the next president “overreacted”. Bachmann effectively bashed Paul — she said she had “never heard a more dangerous answer” than he gave on Iran — and the Texas Republican, as is his nature, unhelpfully doubled down on his position.
We’ve written before that if Paul talked exclusively about economic/domestic policy he could well be a top tier candidate. But, he simply won’t/can’t avoid airing his foreign policy views, which are badly out of step with the average Republican primary/caucus voter.
Of course, Paul’s supporters love him for it. (These same people will jam the Fix email inbox with complaints about our wrongheaded analysis of Dr. Paul’s performance.) But are there enough hardcore Paul-ites to deliver him a win in Iowa?
* Newt Gingrich: Gingrich’s first hour in this debate was not good. He got caught in a philosophical discussion about government sponsored enterprises — GSE’s — that allowed his opponents to swing away on him taking lots and lots of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He tried to save himself by drawing a distinction between consulting and lobbying that average people just don’t grasp.
Gingrich also seemed peevish at times. Clearly bothered by Romney’s critique of him over the last few days, he acknowledged he was trying not to be “zany” and was editing himself so as to not sound too heated rhetorically. His disregard for Bachmann, which he always seems to keep barely hidden below the surface, was evident tonight and not helpful.
Gingrich, to his credit, did bounce back in the second hour and seemed to win the audience back on his side. But his second hour wasn’t good enough to make up for a first hour that leaves plenty of opportunities for his opponents to attack in the final two and a half weeks before Iowa.
* The Gchat noise: The cable networks need to come together and pick a better “time is up” noise going forward. Our suggestion: A few bars of “The End” by the Beatles. Or Jim Morrison crooning: “This is the end....my only friend...the end”.
* Drama: This was a debate almost entirely devoid of any major moments. There was no memorable exchange, no big mistake. Most of the candidates were content to stay within their stump speeches, avoiding much direct interaction with their opponents. Maybe they just were tired of debating so much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Christmas Keeps Coming Early for EWP

Y'all, this even trumps the Zac Efron present - Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed!! I will say I'm very impressed with my Illinois Senator Mark Kirk for putting aside party lines to do the right thing and being one of the Republican senators who voted to repeal the ban on gays openly serving in the military. Thanks, Sen. Kirk!

"It is the right thing to do. No longer will able men and women who want to serve and sacrifice for their country have to sacrifice their integrity to do so. We will be a better military as a result." -Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

Can we just stop and take a moment to heart on Adm. Mike Mullen? I seriously love that man.

The fight for civil rights continues, but at least this chapter of it is now over.

And now I will go have a big ugly cry of happiness. Excuse me.

A Repost on Gay Marriage

Yesterday the Illinois legislature passed a measure to extend civil unions to gay couples in this state. While I was very happy to see this step in the right direction, I couldn't help but be sad that we couldn't just call it marriage and still have to have this whole separate nomenclature based on who you're marrying. Add to that the Senate debating the archaic ridiculousness that is Don't Ask Don't Tell, and I've had gay rights on the brain more than usual today. And then I remembered this post I wrote almost two years ago and thought maybe it was time to dig it up, dust it off, and repost it. It is Christmas-time afterall, and what is more in the spirit of loving thy neighbor than standing up for their basic rights?

Today I'm going to take a break from chatting about the normal superficial (but very important) topics of shoes and hotness to discuss something that has been weighing heavily on my heart. And with Iowa and Vermont joining the ranks of states legalizing same-sex marriage, I thought there was no better time than now to talk about this topic that is very important to me.

We, as Americans in the '90s and '00s and the upcoming teens, have been so blissfully lucky. While we recently have had some financial woes, we've spent the last few decades enjoying a peaceful existence, not paying much attention to all the struggle that got us where we are. We didn't have to burn our bras (thank God, because those things are expensive!) for the right to vote. We didn't have to march on Washington (TG b/c these heels don't really take me very far) for the right to an equal education. Most of us have sat on our haunches (or wandered the boutiques) and enjoyed our relatively unencumbered existences.

But for many of our fellow Americans, the struggle for equality continues.

Why should I care about gay marriage as a heterosexual female married to a male? Because I am an American, my fellow Americans are hurting, and it's the right thing to do.

Our country was founded on great principles, such as freedom, equality, and (something many people these days attempt to forget) the separation of church and state. The religious beliefs of the religious majority in this country should not dictate the government's treatment of any minority groups.

People quake in terror at the thought of same-sex marriage and state "but my religion defines marriage as between a man and woman." Well, that's fine. No one's telling your religion to change that. What is being asked for here is civil marriage. The right to go to city hall, NOT a church, and enter into marriage, with all the many rights and privileges it provides. Not to mention the comfort, safety, and love.

And even though the definition of marriage some religions so cling to is not being attacked or asked to change and will continue untouched, it does not follow that civil marriage's definition cannot be changed. It was not so long ago that our country forbade the marriage of people of different races. It seems almost laughable now (at least to most people with half a brain) that the government would ever dictate that someone black couldn't marry someone white. But it took years of struggle. And, thanks to the brave people before me who were jailed, beaten, and worse for following their hearts, I could in November, with no questions from my government except to make sure we weren't related, marry my wonderful husband. Sure it irked my parents to no end my then-fiance was white, but that was their problem, not the government's.

So it goes for gay and lesbian Americans.

Some, continuing to protectively clutch the term "marriage," offer civil unions. They say it's the same thing, with the same rights, but gay and lesbians just get a different name. To which I respond, if it's the same thing, why does it need a different name? Are we really back to the days of touting "separate but equal"? Saying civil unions are just as good as civil marriages is akin to saying the back of the bus is just as good as the front. And we all have seen how that logic has held up.

Each day I spend in matrimonial bliss, the more this cause tugs at my heartstrings. Why is the love, companionship, security, and family I have been so lucky to have being denied other Americans just because of whom they have chosen to love? I had wished with all my heart that Proposition 8 would not pass, but, while on my honeymoon, I read that the fear and hate spreaders had won. And I cried. Oh how I cried. Sitting at breakfast with my new husband, sporting our shiny wedding bands as badges of our love for each other, my heart could not comprehend that others would not be so fortunate as to have this because our government would not let them.


As a Muslim American who has lived through the tyranny of 2 Bush administrations, I know well the feeling of being a second-class citizen. It is not a feeling any American should ever have to experience. We all should have the same rights. We should all be treated equally under the law. And when our fellow Americans are being oppressed, it is our duty to step forward and stand up for them.

For more information, visit the Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/

Sick of the Hate-Mongering

We've been pretty sickened in the EWP household listening to all the horrible things people are saying in protest of the Islamic Center in New York. We'd expect it from the racist hillbillies running around parts of this country, but when purportedly educated people like Sarah Palin said some hateful things about it, I really started to fear for the downturn in religious tolerance in this country. Freedom of religion, anyone? No, we don't believe in that anymore? Oh, I wasn't aware we got rid of that particular amendment. Excuse me while I go invest in some kevlar for myself and my unborn child before they declare it okay to shoot Muslims on sight. I wonder if Chanel makes bulletproof vests....

But I was pretty amused by this little clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party