« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | Ground Zero Mosque Imam: Project meant to prevent similar attack »

Maybe It'll Work This Time...

One of the hallmarks of the Left, it seems, is the insistence that their theories are correct, that their ideology is right, and just need to keep trying and trying and trying until it finally works. The best example is communism; no matter that attempts to implement it have failed catastrophically every time, and led to the deaths of hundreds of millions, there are still plenty of leftists who insist that it can work; it just hasn't been done "right" yet.

The current challenge the left is facing is the Tea Party movement. This is proving to be a real threat to their grand plans, and they are doing all they can to discredit and denigrate the movement.

The only problem is, they're using the same playbook that they have for years. That playbook, of course, is Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals."

The Rules are a diabolical collection of tactics and schemes that have shown themselves to be remarkably effective. But they have two serious flaws: the first is that they don't work too well when the opposition knows them too. The second is that while they were couched as a plan for the left, they're really applicable for the out of power. They're ideologically independent, so when the Left is the establishment, they can be used quite effectively against them.

But I digress. The Left is obsessed with trying to apply these rules against the Tea Party, and can't grasp the fundamental truth that they simply don't work when used by the powerful against the insurgents.

The most recent example is their repeated attempts to apply Alinsky's final rule in regards to the Tea Party:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, now John Boehner. They are convinced that if they can find the individual who is the linchpin to the whole Tea Party movement, and attack them, they can make the thing fall apart. That's why the White House and the New York Times have been coordinating their attacks on Boehner the past few weeks. Boehner is positioned to become Speaker of the House should the Republicans retake it, hence the steady stream of attacks on him.

Idiots.

First up, should they manage to discredit Boehner enough, that won't keep them in control of the House. Boehner isn't running for Speaker, he's running for his House seat. Should the Republicans retake the House while Boehner is taken down, then some other Republican will take the gavel.

Second, the Tea Party simply doesn't give a rat's ass about individuals. There simply isn't a single leader or group of leaders at the top holding the whole thing together, setting the agenda, unifying the members. Yes, there are some people who the movement respects and is willing to throw their weight behind, but all of them are utterly disposable should it become necessary. Even Sarah Palin, if the Left ever succeeds in tearing her down -- and I really don't think they can.

So the Obama administration and the New York Times want to destroy John Boehner? Whatever. My natural inclination is to presume that all members of Congress are guilty until proven innocent, and I had to double-check his first name before I started writing this. Hell, I can't even tell you what state he's from without looking it up. (Oh, he's a Buckeye. Color me impressed.)

One other aspect of the White House/New York Times axis attacking Boehner needs to be brought up. President Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. (Dennis Miller once stated that it isn't the color of Obama's skin that troubles him, but its thinness.) He takes opposition personally, and often calls out his opponents by name.

This has an unfortunate effect for him: by personalizing the fight, he portrays his opponents as his equals. He doesn't seem to grasp that, as president, he has no peers. So when he calls out Boehner or Palin specifically, he's placing them on the same level as he is. (We also saw this in 2008, when Obama's supporters -- and no small number of his opponents -- compared Obama and Palin directly. Very few recognized that they were comparing one side's presidential nominee with the other side's vice-presidential nominee.) The prime result thus far of the attacks on Boehner are to raise his profile across the nation, as he's gone from "who?" status to "the Great Satan."

One final observation: I don't recall where I read it, but someone noted that the White House/New York Times hasn't really thought this whole thing through. Suppose they do manage to discredit Boehner enough to eliminate him as a contender for Speaker. That means that some other Republican representative will take the gavel. Some other House member with the respect and loyalty of enough House members and, possibly, a very high profile and popularity with the Tea Party movement.

I'd dearly love to see Obama's face the first time he has to utter the words "Speaker Bachmann."


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40222.

Comments (50)

One of the hallmarks of ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

One of the hallmarks of the Left, it seems, is the insistence that their theories are correct, that their ideology is right, and just need to keep trying and trying and trying until it finally works. The best example is communism;

Be real Jay, I've never met anyone on the left that believes in communism. It would be better if you gave an example to an idealogy that people on the left actually subscribe to.

...just need to keep try... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

...just need to keep trying and trying and trying until it finally works.

This is actually a non-partisan trait. It exists equally in idealogues on the left and right.

One of the goals of the Tea... (Below threshold)
Bob:

One of the goals of the Tea Party must be to hold the Republicans feet to the fire. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from January 1995 to January 2007, when Nancy and Harry took over. They also had control of the White House during 6 of those 12 years. But the steady increase in government spending and regulation continued unabated. I'm not particularly bashing Bush, although he is certainly to blame for the first minimal stimulus, TARP and the auto company bailouts, but, in retrospect, this certainly seems like a wasted opportunity. If the GOP gets control in January, I hope the Tea Party makes sure they actually fulfill their Pledge and more.

Uk, Tina. I'll bite. Name... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Uk, Tina. I'll bite. Name the right wing ideology that keeps repeatedly getting attempted which has killed hundreds of millions over the twentieth century to compare to the socialist/Communist movement? And Tina? I'll believe your protestation that the left doesn't believe in communism when they stop trying to incorporate planks of the Communist manifesto into government every time they are in charge.

Jay,Have you ever he... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jay,
Have you ever heard of the book "The Starfish and the Spider"? Your article touches on how it applies to the Tea Party. Indeed many in the Tea Party are reading this book istead of Alinsky.

Yup, you can't personalize ... (Below threshold)
JB:

Yup, you can't personalize the decentralized.

Tina,Given unlimit... (Below threshold)
JB:

Tina,

Given unlimited power, the left would certainly go down the path of communism again. I've known too many leftists intimately to believe otherwise.

Be real Jay, I've ... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Be real Jay, I've never met anyone on the left that believes in communism.

Okay Pauline Kael, since you've never met one let me introduce you.

Start here and scroll down.

Maybe you've heard of A.N.S.W.E.R., they are the anti-war group that comes out to the ALL of the anti-war protests. They are closely affliated with the Worker's World Party. Read this story by David Corn, hardly a right wing columnist, pay attention to who is affiliated with A.N.S.W.E.R. and who supports their causes. Hint: it's not Conservatives.

"Speaker Bachmann"... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"Speaker Bachmann"

I can just hear the explosion of liberal brains (like in Scanners) just thinking about it! Wonderful!

"Majority Leader DeMint" al... (Below threshold)
Saterp:

"Majority Leader DeMint" also has a nice ring to it...

Hey Tina in what constituti... (Below threshold)
John:

Hey Tina in what constitutional republic with a capitialist monetary system does the governement take over auto manufacturing, student loan business etc. I'm sure other's can add several areas where the state is taking over where it shouldn't.

Michelle Bachmann is the se... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Michelle Bachmann is the second most hated conservative woman -- after Sarah Palin -- in country, as far as the left is concerned. I would die laughing to see the pained expression on the leftards faces in the media when they have to mention her, as Speaker Bachmann, in stories they would have to report.

If the left had a compellin... (Below threshold)
Hank:

If the left had a compelling argument for their policies, they wouldn't need to personally attack their political opponents. The argument would suffice.

Tina S -I'd recomm... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Tina S -

I'd recommend you read Amity Shlaes's book "The Forgotten Man", a history of the time leading up to and during the Great Depression. Many of the architects of the policies put into place to 'fix' the problems post-1929 were highly enamored of the way the USSR was doing things, and attempted to replicate a lot of them here - with pretty much universal failure. Collectivism? Failed. Bash the rich? Hey, it justified their tax increases, so it worked... but it also caused the 'rich' to stop investing so it stifled recovery. After all, why bother starting a business when you'd be villified for doing so, making a profit when the profits would be taxed at rates up to over 70%, and being viewed by the government as the ENEMY, instead of a partner?

Making things 'fair' for all? Justified the imposition of massive regulation of small business, but the people writing the regulations didn't have any clue about what those businesses entailed, and when the regulation caused those businesses to fail, it justified writing even MORE regulations.

They did manage, however, to set a bad example of what SHOULDN'T have been done - since pretty much everything they did to get the country to recover didn't work, the obvious thing to do is avoid doing those things again. Don't make the same mistakes, and you don't get the same results, right?

But the theology doesn't allow for that. You have folks who have theoretical knowledge trying to dictate what can be practically done - but reality always trumps theory no matter how much you want the theory to be correct. Government can't handle everything - and they shouldn't be trying to.

'Jim' being majority leader... (Below threshold)
Ryan M.:

'Jim' being majority leader would cause leftists to become 'Deminted"(Demented)

Last night on Fox John Stos... (Below threshold)
John:

Last night on Fox John Stossel interviewed a typical leftist, and asked how much of the economy should be dominated by the government. The reply was even as much as 20% if necessary, John then pointed out that the government now dominates 40% of the economy. The reply to that was ... "oh that's because of waste and fraud but we still need more". This is what we're up against, no matter how badly the government performs, no matter how much waste and fraud and ineffeciency there is, the only answer is more. Why does it make sense to pour money into the government when even the left agrees it's full of waste and fraud and ineffeciecies?

Uk, Tina. I'll bite. Nam... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Uk, Tina. I'll bite. Name the right wing ideology that keeps repeatedly getting attempted which has killed hundreds of millions over the twentieth century to compare to the socialist/Communist movement?

Ryan, most liberals reject communism and socialism. Give me an idealogy that most liberals actually subscribe to.

"Ryan, most liberals reject... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Ryan, most liberals reject communism and socialism. Give me an idealogy that most liberals actually subscribe to."

Tina, better check with Barry when you assert they 'reject socialism'.

Really Tina? What is the li... (Below threshold)
John:

Really Tina? What is the liberal postion on Health Care? What would you call single payer? Isn't that part of the reason liberals are upset at Obama, no push for single payer? I'm sure others here can come up with other examples as well.

most liberals reject com... (Below threshold)
cirby:

most liberals reject communism and socialism.

No they don't. They may indulge in some minor denial, like yourself, but when it comes to actually denying socialism and communism as proposed by major parts of the left wing, they fail miserably. For that matter, for a lot of last year, one of the major whines by the left was "socialism isn't so bad - we need national socialized health care to cover that last 12% or so of people who don't have insurance now".

Note the A.N.S.W.E.R. citations above: during the Bush years, the socialists of International A.N.S.W.E.R. organized several huge antiwar protests which were chock-full of Democrats who said nothing against that group - even in the face of repeated reminders of who founded it and who still funds it.

Hey Tina in what constit... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Hey Tina in what constitutional republic with a capitialist monetary system does the governement take over auto manufacturing, student loan business etc. I'm sure other's can add several areas where the state is taking over where it shouldn't.

What about public parking? Isn't that one of the biggest entitlement programs? Theres nothing in the consitution that says everyone is entitiled to a free parking space. Do you beleive we should get rid of public parking and if not, doesn't that make you a socialist?

Actually, Tina, free parkin... (Below threshold)

Actually, Tina, free parking would fall under the 10th Amendment -- and that is exactly how it's handled.

Feel free to go and read it. And then explain how other things -- like health insurance -- shouldn't also fit under that Amendment.

J.

Jay, I'm not talking about ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay, I'm not talking about state rights. If a program is socialist in nature, than having it implemented by a state instead of the federal government does not make it less socialist.

Actually, I wouldn't mind g... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Actually, I wouldn't mind getting rid of Free Parking if it means reducing my taxes. Because like everything else that is Socialist, it calls itself free but isn't.

That Free Parking space isn't free. It is being subsidized by tax revenues. We pay taxes to the State to make that space available to anyone who uses it and for the state to maintain that space.

In the case of a private parking lot, the owner of the lot pays taxes to the State for the right to use that piece of land and he is responsible for maintenance costs. He then charges a temporary rent to whoever uses a parking spot, which is then used to pay the taxes and maintenance.

If I never use a private parking space, then I never pay a penny for it.

If I never use a Free Parking space then I have paid for it with taxes.

Free parking is a big entit... (Below threshold)
John:

Free parking is a big entitlement? Did I miss something, my city is full of parking meters and pay lots. If there isn't a free space available does the IRS or the FBI or whatever other fed agency, show up and make one for me. Did someone write a law that says there must be a free space for every single car and that ever single driver must park in a free spot or be subject to fines. I mean good lord are you kidding?

"Some other House member wi... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"Some other House member with the respect and loyalty of enough House members and, possibly, a very high profile and popularity with the Tea Party movement."

Might I point out that the Speaker of the House DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN ELECTED MEMBER of Congress...

That's right, Speaker PALIN ...
If there is a God above, I would pay dearly to see the pained look on the faces of ALL of her detractors if that happened.

More on Obama and the ny ti... (Below threshold)
Hank:

More on Obama and the ny times trying to discredit the Tea Party, Palin, Boehner and others.

It was Obama himself who said:

"..Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."

or.....

"What's stopped us [from meeting our challenges] is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems"

As I've said before, Obama is simply not that bright. In this day of the internet, does he really think he can say anything any time and get away with it? If we had an impartial MSM with the slightest shred of integrity, they'd pin him with his owns words. Instead they abet the dishonesty.

"I mean good lord are you k... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I mean good lord are you kidding?"

She must be. Conflating parking spaces with socialism/communism?

If she isn't kidding, it's a sign of how desperate the socialism advocates are becoming. They can't persuade on the macro-scale merits, because those are illusory - so they're turning to parking spaces as proof that socialism works?

Socialism's dead - it just hasn't stopped twitching yet.

JLawson, public parking is ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

JLawson, public parking is one of the largest entitlement programs yet one can support public parking and still not be considered a socialist. My point is that just because a program is government run and/or considered an entitlement does not make it socialism(nor does it make those that support it a socialist).

" public parking is one of ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

" public parking is one of the largest entitlement programs yet"

Now I'm convinced I'll never understand how a liberal thinks.

Tina, please describe what ... (Below threshold)
ke_future:

Tina, please describe what you think socialism is. And then explain to me how that is different than the Democratic Party platform.

Because when I look at the wikipedia article on socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism and then compare it to the Demo's platform http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283 I see a lot of similarities in ideological thought.

BTW, i followed the links to the Democratic party agenda... http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html ironic. And telling that they don't want to let people know what their agenda is.

Tina, I repeat: For not lik... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Tina, I repeat: For not liking socialism or Communism they sure keep trying to implement planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Not by word, Tina, but by deed.

Sorry, Tina, but you can deny it until you are blue in the face, but from Obamacare to Social security et all. . . . democrats and the left are socialists.

Liberals object to the term... (Below threshold)
John:

Liberals object to the term Socialist not the ideology. They want to take over health care, most people call that Socalized Medicine, they have already taken over 2 auto companies some would call that socialized auto manaufacturing, they have taken over the student loan business some might call that socialized lending, they invented Fanny and Freddy to socialize home ownership. They definately agree with socialism they just don't want to be called socialist. Bad connotation and all from a past riddled with failure.

Tina -Public parki... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Tina -

Public parking is now an entitlement?

Okay, you've not only jumped the shark, you've looped over it a half-dozen times, flossed it's teeth, AND given it a pedicure.

(Admittedly difficult, since they don't have feet - but you've managed!)

Tina, shark jumpers everywh... (Below threshold)
epador:

Tina, shark jumpers everywhere are cringing at being categorized with you.

#1 Public Parking in cities is not an entitlement, or else EVERYONE would have a right AND have a parking space if they needed one. I guarantee that there are NEVER enough public parking areas in US cities. And don't cite city studies, ask the people that live there.

#2 Public parking is a service provided to the community by local government, paid for with taxes (and parking fines). It comes a goes, sometimes is free, and sometimes is available only by fee and permit.

#3 Good God don't get me started about alternate side of the street parking rules!

Tina, same question I alway... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Tina, same question I always ask Liberals and rarely if ever get an answer to; what is the highest tax rate you think anyone should be made to pay?

Tina, same question I al... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Tina, same question I always ask Liberals and rarely if ever get an answer to; what is the highest tax rate you think anyone should be made to pay?

The highest tax bracket currently is 35%. I'm not a financial expert but that seems reasonable. I would get concerned if it went above 40%.

Public parking is now an... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Public parking is now an entitlement

JLawson, I am aware there are no laws nor should there be any that entitle people to free parking. I was casually referring to it as an entitlement while making a point. Whether or not it is truely an entitlement does not affect the point I was making.

It is possible to support a... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

It is possible to support an individual program or policy that has elements of socialism and still recognize the superiority of capitlistic economies over socialist economies.

As proof answer the 2 questions:

1. Would you support replacing the public education system with one in which all schools are private and the full tuition from kindergarden to college is paid by the parents?
2. Are you a socialist?

If you answered no to both questions than you proved my point.

Whether or not it is tru... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Whether or not it is truely an entitlement does not affect the point I was making.

Unfortunately, the point was lost in the absurdity of using public parking as an example.

"1. Would you support repla... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"1. Would you support replacing the public education system with one in which all schools are private and the full tuition from kindergarden to college is paid by the parents?"

So far the little guy's only up to 7th grade, but that's what we've been doing because the schools are crappy in our neck of the woods. We're still paying school taxes on top of his tuition. For a while they were talking about school vouchers, but that idea's currently out of fashion, because it wouldn't be 'fair' for concerned parents to take kids out of lousy schools and get money for their private schooling.

I'm really starting to think that 'fair' in the case of education means 'equal outcome for all, no matter how crappy that outcome is'.

So, Tina, Obama is being un... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

So, Tina, Obama is being unreasonable, right? Most of the democrats want _At least_ the 39.6% tax rate.

Also I am curious if you can answer why some people should be punished because they make more money by having a higher proportional tax rate on it?

JLawson,It's unfor... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

JLawson,

It's unfortunate that vouchers are not being offered where you live. I'm suprised that vouchers are considered out of fashion. Yes, I do support vouchers.

Obama doesn't. The educati... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Obama doesn't. The educational unions don't. "Fairness" is all important.

Like each of the families in Waiting for Superman, thousands of parents in Washington, D.C., are dying to get their children out of violent and non-functioning local public schools and into alternatives like the Sidwell School that President Obama chooses to send his kids too. One-thousand-seven-hundred low-income D.C. school children have attended private schools with the help of the $7,500 scholarships awarded through this D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program.

In the fall of 2008, 216 new low-income students were notified by the Department of Education that they had been selected to receive scholarships. These kids had their winning lottery tickets in hand. Then President Barack Obama was elected with the help of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. At the behest of Obama's union allies, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent letters to the 216 families informing them that he was taking back the $7,500 in scholarship money that the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had previously awarded them. In other words, President Barack Obama tore up their winning lottery tickets.

The NEA and AFT hate the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program because it has a proven track record of success. The Department of Education released a study last year showing that students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship program had statistically significant better reading scores than students who applied to the program but were not offered a scholarship. The students that were in the program the longest showed notable improvement reading at levels approximately 1.5 to two full school years ahead of the sample group. Also, students that used a scholarship to attend a private school had a 91 percent graduation rate. Less than half of children in D.C. public school graduate.
Who benefits, Tina?

What is the public school system designed to do? Educate our students as well as possible, considering that some will be more capable and intelligent than others? (Oh, I know, it's not PC to say some are smarter than others - but let's be blunt, 'k? You and I both know that it's true.) Or is it to provide a minimal educational level, reaching for a lowest common denominator and being satisfied when all kids are 'equal'?

Who benefits, Tina? From my point of view, it's not the kids - but giving them the best possible education should be of overriding importance.

It's NOT.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/28/will-anyone-at-nbc-ask-about-the-216/

By the way, I was told by some when first planning on sending the little guy to private school that I should get involved with the school if I didn't like how low the scores were, to try to improve things within the system. I look at the scores and go "THAT should be sufficient incentive for THEM to improve on their own. I shouldn't HAVE to go in and make a nuisance of myself to get them to clean their shit up - and having a real job (along with my lovely bride of 17 years) and a real life I don't have the TIME to do the shit THEY should be doing.

Who benefits from crappy schools, Tina? And why is there such resistance to change within the public school systems? I'm certainly willing to accept that the law of unintended consequences is roaming freely, but at some point you've got to look at what's going on and go "WTF? WHY are they doing this crap?"

JLawson, I agree with you. ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

JLawson, I agree with you. I could have rephrased the following better.

Would you support replacing the public education system with one in which all schools are private and the full tuition from kindergarden to college is paid by the parents?

Below is the point I was trying to make:

Providing everyone in America with an opportunity to attend kindergarden is an important part of what made us a great nation. The concept of providing a free education (kindergarden - highschool) to every citizen is very socialist in nature but also played a critical role in the success of our country. I don't think anyone would want a system in which only the wealthy could afford an education. Yet that is what would happen if the government did not provide everyone with an oppurtunity to attend school.

I do not like socilaism, I am not a socialist nor am I defending socialism. I am merely pointing out that one can support a concept which is very socialist in nature, such as providing everyone with an education and still not be a socialist.

This is how I should have phrased the questions.

1. Would you support a system in which a significant portion of our population could not afford and therefore not attend grade school?
2. Are you a socialist?

Tina, do you support a syst... (Below threshold)
John:

Tina, do you support a system where public servants (Obama, most of congress god knows who) send their kids to private schools leaving the people that pay them to suffer with the crappy public education we currently have in this country? Seriously your education argument works against you it is a prime example of why socialism doesn't work, it always goes to the lowest commone denominator. So my answer would be I would like our education system to work currently it doesn't in far too many places. I am also sick and tired of the elected officials in this country getting all the benefit and pushing policies that only hurt the tax payer. Oh and if you're not a socialist you support the wrong party.

John,The point is ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

John,

The point is that if we completely removed all socialist elements from our education policy, what would we be left with. Only people who can afford the full tuition(unassisted by the government) of a private school would get any kind of formal education at all. Note that this would mean a private school could not get any kind of government funding, because that to is socialist in nature, thus tuition would also rise. I would describe myself as anti-socialist but do not let my idealogies prevent me from seeing reality.

John,The point is ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

John,

The point is that if we completely removed all socialist elements from our education policy, what would we be left with. Only people who can afford the full tuition(unassisted by the government) of a private school would get any kind of formal education at all. Note that this would mean a private school could not get any kind of government funding, because that to is socialist in nature, thus tuition would also rise. I would describe myself as anti-socialist but do not let my idealogies prevent me from seeing the reality of the situation.

Tina, you're not even tryin... (Below threshold)
John:

Tina, you're not even trying to answer the questions, see the issue right now is that the government is tied to the unions the unions are calling the shots (unions by the way are socialist to their core). So using the public school system as your example points to all the issues that come with socialism. If you promote government intrusion into your life in these institutions you lower the bar for everyone. So I'll answer your question again I do NOT like the public school system as currently designed with the heavy hand of government charting the course. I also believe there is enough money floating around (New Jersey being a prime example) that you could fund each and every student in the US and let them make their own choice. Let's try this on for size, I give every student $X and let them choose, let's also allow that public schools can even be cheaper, but that they have to compete for students. If you lived in DC and had a choice would you send your kids to that school system or would you use your money to send them elswhere? By the way your friends the democrats eliminated a very successful charter school option for DC, if I were a low income african american in DC I would never vote for another democrat as long as I lived.

John, i'll continue this di... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

John, i'll continue this discussion this evening when I get off work.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy