Post THREE: The Republican Debate in New Hampshire

OK...from the middle. Here's my synopsis.

Looks like they all received that Reagan commandment; "Thou shall not trash a fellow republican"...not an exact quote...but you get the idea. I was prepared for Gingrich to attack Romney  after all of those negative ads by some PAC that is allegedly is comprised of Romney's Wall Street buddies.

Romney was definitely the winner from what I saw here in the middle...Santorum tried to put him down by saying CEOs aren't leaders. Romney turned it around to make Rick look like a non-business guy who has been in Washington and maybe even lobbying too long.

Gingrich brought up Baine Capital (spelling?)...some company Romney led...but he didn't hit it home. He didn't explain it well enough for us to understand. What does it mean? Why should we care.

But nobody took on Romney.

Was Rick Perry there? He had the best hair of the  night, but he seemed absent and when he had the chance to say something he sucked up to the Christian right by saying he would stop the bigotry against Christians in this country...what? Isn't like 90% of this country Christian...or is that just here in the middle.

Santorum was the loser...I guess because he basically tied in Iowa (time and hard work pays off I guess as he visited every county in Iowa)...and he just seemed all over the place tonight. I can't even remember anything he said except being rude to Ron Paul when the buzzer went off accidentally. Rick Santorum said, "the buzzer went off because you're lying again" or something like that...it was muffled, which was even more annoying. If you're going to be snarky, go big...or don't go at all. One should never "half-ass" snarky!

When Santorum decided to perk up and take on Romney for real, it was about the distinction between middle class and middle income people..."We don't have classes in this country. I'm not going to play to that class warfare. If I'm the nominee, I won't allow the word class in the lexicon" I perked up because it was the most animated he had been all night and then he wastes my time by banning the word "class" from the lexicon!

And this whole anti-gay marriage thing. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have no idea why we're focusing on this issue. I think it was Santorum who said something about heterosexual marriage being the institution that is central to our country's founding. What?

Gingrich was a loser because he is supposed to be such a great debater, and he seems intelligent and knowledgeable about a lot of issues, but just didn't have much substance tonight.

I heard more from Huntsman than I recall during this whole process. He made some sense but then started speaking Chinese (trying to hard to look smart...or pro-China...don't think they get to vote though). I agree with him that taking on China isn't as simple as Romney makes it sound when it comes to leveling the playing field. But here in the middle, Romney spoke to us by giving us a list of all the things China has been doing---all the things they have been doing to cheat! Stealing our patents, copying our products, hacking our computers, depressing the valuation of their currency (and he explained without making me feel stupid, why the currency thing matters).

Ron Paul always entertains. "Freedom is just another word for having nothing left to lose"....he just says what he thinks and it's kind of liberating. He has some good points and some shortcomings but I feel he really respects the Constitution and understands the connection between economic health and our country's national security.

As for our commentators, I thought the NH reporter did really well. George Stephanapoulous was good. I have always admired Diane Sawyer so much...what happened? Did someone tell her she had to act perky and silly and dumb? Am I the only one who thought that she appeared really ditzy and silly and then she went on and on about George Stephanapoulos doing the This Week show on Sunday. I'm all about trying to create the good ole girls network, but not at the expense of being honest. Maybe the botox they made her inject in her forehead affected her behavior. While on the botox, what did they do to Mary Matlin (spelling)...the lady who is married to Carvel. She's so botoxed up she has no expression. I can't understand the emotion behind what someone is saying if their muscles are so paralyzed by botox that they can't move their forehead.

I'm sorry this isn't a very scholarly review of the debate. I just wanted to type the stuff that came to my mind...sitting here in the middle. Now, I can listen to the news people for a couple days to see what I should have thought...ha ha.

Thanks for reading. What did you think about the debate?

Post TWO: Same Sex Marriage - Why won't we let gay people enter into a legal contract?

There was an interesting exchange on Facebook today about gay marriage. One of my FB friends posted a link from a speech the Governor of Washington gave about the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJu6MA_wF7o&sns=fb

I was glad to read people’s thoughtful comments about the issue. I’ve copied the ones I like best below:

"My observation has been that for non-gay people, particularly for non-gay males, sexual differences are inherently perceived as inferior or even downright evil. Although I was a formal student of ethics, it took a long time before I really understood the difference between "not right for me" and "not right"--the difference between personal preference and the ethical thing to do. The understanding that having gay loved ones was no threat to my own feelings and preferences, is something that came only gradually."

About the speech, another friend said:

"I think this demonstrates what can happen when people work to change the hearts and minds of otherwise reasonable people who may struggle with this issue."

I remember years ago (circa 2003) when we got into one of those meaningful discussions after work about issues and politics (I miss those days). The subject was gay marriage and the idea of passing a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage.

I just couldn’t understand the position of the people who were so adamantly against allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage. One colleague, who described herself as devoutly Christian, became agitated and I kept asking her to explain her position.

She said something like, “It would make a mockery of my marriage.” I kept asking her how two gay people getting a marriage license from the state would make her marriage less important or less valid. I never got an answer.

To me, there are two parts to the institution of marriage: the legal part and the religious part. If a church doesn’t want to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people or doesn’t want to “recognize” that marriage, that’s one thing. But we have separation of church and state in this country (it’s a pretty big deal!) and not allowing gay people to enter into the legal contract of marriage has never made sense to me. It wasn’t too long ago when states had laws making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry each other.

Interestingly, my 11-year-old daughter, asked me this same question when we were watching the news. I think they were covering the issue when gay people were flocking to NY or Massachusetts to get married. She asked, “Why don’t people want gay people to be able to get married?” Instead of answering, I asked her why she thought they didn’t want gay people to be able to get married and she said, “Maybe they think it’s wrong to be gay or something, but they aren’t hurting anyone. They can’t help it they’re gay just like you can’t help it that you’re not gay.”

Whenever the subject comes up in conversation, I do my part to give my legal versus religious explanation and put the issue in context of how we used to have laws banning interracial marriage. It’s been met with less agitation and annoyance over the last year compared to that first conversation I had nearly 10 years ago—which leads me to believe we are evolving—or moving to the middle J as a society.

Until next time...

Blog ONE: Why am I here?

I heard a great song that describes this blog endeavor of mine perfectly. Kid Rock’s song entitled “I Can Care.” Here is an excerpt from the song, “I hear screaming on the left. Yelling on the right...while sitting in the middle, trying to live my life.” Kid Rock song with lyrics

There are a gazillion blogs out there…why did I start this one? I think I’m just weary of the disconnect about what’s really going on in the world.  To listen to the news or talk radio, one would conclude that the world is black and white, left  or right, good or bad. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Most things are gray. Most of the world is in the middle.  We wake up each day, do our best to make a difference and be our best. Some days we succeed. Some days we fail.

A more selfish reason for starting this blog is to express myself. These are the issues I used to discuss with my husband—trying to understand issues, express my feelings, and make sense of it all. He died in a car accident and I find myself with no real outlet because some of these issues are the ones that they tell you NOT TO TALK ABOUT…religion, politics, and sex (not sure we’ll get into that last category).

And don’t worry about upsetting me with comments about your opinion or “how wrong-headed” I am…that’s the whole point. To hear what other people think, but more importantly “why” you think that.

So, here’s my take on a range of issues…from where I sit…in the middle