They are due to several things. First of all is the abject failure of the Bush Presidency in the eyes of the public and the unbelievable amount of damage he has done to the Republican brand. If you're looking for ethical discretion politics is the wrong place to find it, as it is the first place where rats desert a sinking ship (see Richardson, Bill), and pretty much anyone can be bought (Lightner is one example, but there are many, many others). Many of these late endorsements are people trying to pick the winner, and race is absolutely a complicating factor in Colin Powell's endorsement, there's no way untangle race from it (by the way, watch Bren use this comment as a way to call me a racist). Honestly? Colin Powell has been out of office now for 4 years. The last thing he did was go to the UN and try to convince them that there were WMD's in Iraq, he really isn't that relevant anymore.
The Democratic party is benefiting from the failures of the Bush administration far more than any of their own accomplishments (and if you don't believe me check out the Democrat Congress's approval ratings, they have been significantly lower than the President's for more than a year). It's totally understandable after Bush that people would be seeking an alternative, and Barack Obama presents a very appealing package to a superficial voter. Factoring that in and combining it with some major miscues by the McCain campaign (most particularly not separating himself from Bush early or vigorously enough), an insane money advantage, and a media that is very clearly in support of the Democrats (the best evidence for this being the way the NY Times jumped on that spurious McCain allegation with literally nothing earlier this year but it took the National Enquirer to "break" the John Edwards story literally 6 months after it already big news in Europe) and you have the recipe for an Obama victory.
The Last Debate
Moderator: Yankees
The democratic Congress's approval ratings are very low, largely because the public thinks they aren't doing anything or doing enough. It's tough to get anything done though when you have an incompetent nutcase who is going to veto pretty much anything you actually want to get done and you don't have enough of a majority to override his veto.
If McCain wanted to separate himself from Bush, he should have voted differently as a congressman and maybe gotten himself a clue about economics at some point over the last 20+ years.
If McCain wanted to separate himself from Bush, he should have voted differently as a congressman and maybe gotten himself a clue about economics at some point over the last 20+ years.
Yup, Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich... to a level that would be lower than they were during St Reagan's term. Wow, the Rich sure got the shaft back then didn't they?
Part of the problem with the situation we're in now is the government is essentially strangled. We're borrowing billions from China because we cut taxes and started a war. That money has to be paid back eventually, you can't just not pay back a nuclear power with a population of 6 billion people.
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT BARACK OBAMA WON'T COME UP WITH BAD IDEAS
Wow, if you want to sit around and wait for a candidate that we KNOW won't come up with bad ideas, then good luck with your wait. That person certainly isn't John McCain, he keeps making bad decisions on a regular basis throughout this campaign. Maybe Obama will have some bad ideas. John McCain CERTAINLY will. Both men are intelligent. Obama however at least appears to have a clarity of thought and a degree of level-headedness. McCain on the other hand too often seems governed by his emotions, he is admittedly a hot-head and coming from someone who knows a thing or two about hotheads, when you're hotheaded you're far more likely to screw up and for that screw up to be massive.
"Anybody but Bush" and McCain's policy similarities to Bush is certainly a factor in this election. but shouldn't it be? Bush has been a terrible president. McCain's positions are very similar, why should the American public elect someone who is so much like such a bad leader and who boasted about it openly? on top of that, add his economic ignorance, his impulsive hotheadedness and the questionable judgment he's shown and really, why should anyone vote for him? You seem to be spending far more time talking about why people shouldn't vote for Obama than why they should vote for McCain.
Obama represents the changing culture and attitudes in America. His health care plan is sound (though I'd prefer a move towards universal healthcare), he has a firm understanding of economic issues and has shown the judgment and wisdom to surround himself with people whose knowledge supplements his own as shown by his selection of Biden. He's socially tolerant and isn't so intent on 'winning' in Iraq that he'd stay there for 100 years. he understands that the key to the war on terror is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. I love how McCain says that Bin Laden says the key to the battle is in Iraq... uhm, DUH, I'd say that too if I was Bin Laden, if he said the key was Afghanistan (y'know where he lives and where his power base is) then the US would intensify efforts in Afghanistan. He would lead globally by working with other countries and communicating, instead of just acting and expecting people to follow and ignoring or ostracizing those who disagree.
Part of the problem with the situation we're in now is the government is essentially strangled. We're borrowing billions from China because we cut taxes and started a war. That money has to be paid back eventually, you can't just not pay back a nuclear power with a population of 6 billion people.
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT BARACK OBAMA WON'T COME UP WITH BAD IDEAS
Wow, if you want to sit around and wait for a candidate that we KNOW won't come up with bad ideas, then good luck with your wait. That person certainly isn't John McCain, he keeps making bad decisions on a regular basis throughout this campaign. Maybe Obama will have some bad ideas. John McCain CERTAINLY will. Both men are intelligent. Obama however at least appears to have a clarity of thought and a degree of level-headedness. McCain on the other hand too often seems governed by his emotions, he is admittedly a hot-head and coming from someone who knows a thing or two about hotheads, when you're hotheaded you're far more likely to screw up and for that screw up to be massive.
"Anybody but Bush" and McCain's policy similarities to Bush is certainly a factor in this election. but shouldn't it be? Bush has been a terrible president. McCain's positions are very similar, why should the American public elect someone who is so much like such a bad leader and who boasted about it openly? on top of that, add his economic ignorance, his impulsive hotheadedness and the questionable judgment he's shown and really, why should anyone vote for him? You seem to be spending far more time talking about why people shouldn't vote for Obama than why they should vote for McCain.
Obama represents the changing culture and attitudes in America. His health care plan is sound (though I'd prefer a move towards universal healthcare), he has a firm understanding of economic issues and has shown the judgment and wisdom to surround himself with people whose knowledge supplements his own as shown by his selection of Biden. He's socially tolerant and isn't so intent on 'winning' in Iraq that he'd stay there for 100 years. he understands that the key to the war on terror is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. I love how McCain says that Bin Laden says the key to the battle is in Iraq... uhm, DUH, I'd say that too if I was Bin Laden, if he said the key was Afghanistan (y'know where he lives and where his power base is) then the US would intensify efforts in Afghanistan. He would lead globally by working with other countries and communicating, instead of just acting and expecting people to follow and ignoring or ostracizing those who disagree.
Have you heard some of the things that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid believe in? More importantly have you ever heard either one speak? There's plenty of incompetence to go around in that Congress thank you very much.
Two years ago John McCain warned about the risks of the GSE's and the bubble in housing they were creating. Since 2004 Barack Obama received $123,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists (second to Chris Dodd). Couple that with Obama's Jimmy Carter era economic ideas, and then go ahead and clean up the shards of that glass house your in, be careful they're sharp.
The economy is certainly not John McCain's strongest issue, but he has the right philosophy: We need to make the pie bigger. Incidentally, Obama's policies about government intervention and government spending are much closer to Bush style government then McCain.
Two years ago John McCain warned about the risks of the GSE's and the bubble in housing they were creating. Since 2004 Barack Obama received $123,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie lobbyists (second to Chris Dodd). Couple that with Obama's Jimmy Carter era economic ideas, and then go ahead and clean up the shards of that glass house your in, be careful they're sharp.
The economy is certainly not John McCain's strongest issue, but he has the right philosophy: We need to make the pie bigger. Incidentally, Obama's policies about government intervention and government spending are much closer to Bush style government then McCain.
Let's see 123 k over 4 years... wow, that's about what Obama raised every 36 minutes this past September through his grassroots fundraising. I'm sure Fannie and Freddie will have a HUGE say in his administration. Meanwhile some of McCain's chief advisors are former F/F lobbyists.
For all McCain's 'warning's he sure backed it up by pushing for more and more deregulation, even in the face of the banking crisis. What happens with deregulation? Corporations swell and step on the little guy, both their employees and their customers.
Make the pie bigger? Forget that, how about dividing up the pie fairly for a change, if all you do is make the pie bigger you're still gonna have the same people take the same huge chunks and leaving the scraps for the bulk of the nation. I'm not talking about giveaways, I'm talking about paying a decent wage to people who work their asses off for scraps while execs get tens of millions for running their company into the ground.
Obama knows that the real battle against terrorism is in afghanisatan, not Iraq. Make Iraq with their budget surplus, pay for their own security.
Obama wants to pay teachers the wage they deserve for holding our children's futures and educations in their hands.
Obama has the balls to sit down with other world leaders even if they don't agree with him. It's called diplomacy, something some people seem to have forgotten about.
I don't agree with a lot of what Obama wants to do on energy, but there aren't many politicians I do agree with on that (I don't know of any frankly). That said, I like his plan more than most mainstream politicians.
Are you gonna talk about why McCain should be President rather than why Obama shouldn't? Or have you given that argument up for dead like McCain seems to have?
For all McCain's 'warning's he sure backed it up by pushing for more and more deregulation, even in the face of the banking crisis. What happens with deregulation? Corporations swell and step on the little guy, both their employees and their customers.
Make the pie bigger? Forget that, how about dividing up the pie fairly for a change, if all you do is make the pie bigger you're still gonna have the same people take the same huge chunks and leaving the scraps for the bulk of the nation. I'm not talking about giveaways, I'm talking about paying a decent wage to people who work their asses off for scraps while execs get tens of millions for running their company into the ground.
Obama knows that the real battle against terrorism is in afghanisatan, not Iraq. Make Iraq with their budget surplus, pay for their own security.
Obama wants to pay teachers the wage they deserve for holding our children's futures and educations in their hands.
Obama has the balls to sit down with other world leaders even if they don't agree with him. It's called diplomacy, something some people seem to have forgotten about.
I don't agree with a lot of what Obama wants to do on energy, but there aren't many politicians I do agree with on that (I don't know of any frankly). That said, I like his plan more than most mainstream politicians.
Are you gonna talk about why McCain should be President rather than why Obama shouldn't? Or have you given that argument up for dead like McCain seems to have?
As a teacher, I can say I hate McCain's education plan. However, I don't like Obama's that much either. Fact of the matter is, every election, teachers are scapegoats for politicians. Hey, kids are doing bad in schools, lets blame it on the teachers. It couldn't possibly be because some students are just lazy, or that they have bad parents. Are there bad teachers? You bet. In all honest, about 1/4 to 1/3 of students that fail classes you could blame on the teacher, but the rest of the time, its on the students or the parents.
Perfect example, my old government teacher, who is without a doubt the best teacher I've ever had, and I'm including college, has a class that's easy to pass if you don't mind doing a little work. If you review newspaper articles and magazine articles from Newsweek that he provides the class, and get a C on the tests in the class, you can get a B in the class. He has a lot of students fail because they want their grades handed to them. That is not the fault of the teacher. There are plenty of other ways to earn points in his class too, but because students are lazy today, they don't and they fail.
The best education policy I heard this election was from Ron Paul. Get rid of the Department of Education. Let the state's run education like they did in the past. That's a states rights issue anyways and now you don't have some bureaucrat in Washington that's never taught in a classroom deciding what should be taught to your kids. On top of that, it saves the federal government a shitload of money. With No Child Left Behind, you could have your school passing 98% of the students, if the next year it only passes 97%, it goes on probation. That's Washington bureaucracy at its finest
Perfect example, my old government teacher, who is without a doubt the best teacher I've ever had, and I'm including college, has a class that's easy to pass if you don't mind doing a little work. If you review newspaper articles and magazine articles from Newsweek that he provides the class, and get a C on the tests in the class, you can get a B in the class. He has a lot of students fail because they want their grades handed to them. That is not the fault of the teacher. There are plenty of other ways to earn points in his class too, but because students are lazy today, they don't and they fail.
The best education policy I heard this election was from Ron Paul. Get rid of the Department of Education. Let the state's run education like they did in the past. That's a states rights issue anyways and now you don't have some bureaucrat in Washington that's never taught in a classroom deciding what should be taught to your kids. On top of that, it saves the federal government a shitload of money. With No Child Left Behind, you could have your school passing 98% of the students, if the next year it only passes 97%, it goes on probation. That's Washington bureaucracy at its finest
The Federal government having a hand in Education isn't the problem. It's that the people in control of education, at the Federal and State levels, AREN'T teachers.
The US functions as a nation, not a collection of states. with advances in communication and transit, States' rights is a dead issue, it's completely and totally impractical. Especially looking at something like education. 2+2=4 pretty much everywhere you go, English is our official language and spelling doesn't vary, science doesn't vary by region either (only religious perspectives on science). Let the states run it... sure, then you can have 50 different effed up education systems instead of one, each trying to outbid each other for the next hot 'education czar' who has never actually taught in a classroom. Meanwhile with national standards out the window colleges will have an even harder time trying to gauge students in one state versus students in another state. Try fixing 50 screwed up projects some time then compare that to fixing one larger screwed up project. Paul is a crackpot, I can see why you like him.
"If you review newspaper articles and magazine articles from Newsweek that he provides the class, and get a C on the tests in the class, you can get a B in the class."
You didn't exactly paint this guy as a great teacher, just an easy one. When teachers make it easy to get a good grade they shortchange the educational system and make it more likely that students are going to slack off. Kids should have to earn their educations and their diplomas.
The US functions as a nation, not a collection of states. with advances in communication and transit, States' rights is a dead issue, it's completely and totally impractical. Especially looking at something like education. 2+2=4 pretty much everywhere you go, English is our official language and spelling doesn't vary, science doesn't vary by region either (only religious perspectives on science). Let the states run it... sure, then you can have 50 different effed up education systems instead of one, each trying to outbid each other for the next hot 'education czar' who has never actually taught in a classroom. Meanwhile with national standards out the window colleges will have an even harder time trying to gauge students in one state versus students in another state. Try fixing 50 screwed up projects some time then compare that to fixing one larger screwed up project. Paul is a crackpot, I can see why you like him.
"If you review newspaper articles and magazine articles from Newsweek that he provides the class, and get a C on the tests in the class, you can get a B in the class."
You didn't exactly paint this guy as a great teacher, just an easy one. When teachers make it easy to get a good grade they shortchange the educational system and make it more likely that students are going to slack off. Kids should have to earn their educations and their diplomas.
Right, I don't know jack cuz I'm not a substitute teacher like you.
Or maybe because I'm just not obsessed with states rights and the fact that my ancestors were on the wrong side (and losing side) of a war that ended 100 years before I was born. Cuz really, that's where your problem is. We both agree that the person in charge of education need to be people who know something about education. The disagreement is your obsession with states rights which simply won't work in a world where issues increasingly need to be looked at from a global perspective. States righters such as yourself are essentially just looking to divide people further and further.
Or maybe because I'm just not obsessed with states rights and the fact that my ancestors were on the wrong side (and losing side) of a war that ended 100 years before I was born. Cuz really, that's where your problem is. We both agree that the person in charge of education need to be people who know something about education. The disagreement is your obsession with states rights which simply won't work in a world where issues increasingly need to be looked at from a global perspective. States righters such as yourself are essentially just looking to divide people further and further.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4348
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
I have to say, I agree with Bren's take here. Unless we just have people from Alabama go to the U of A, people from CT go to UCONN, and people from Mass got to UMASS, by having a government led educational system, and providing rigor around what's taught in classrooms (led by former teachers, I agree with both on this), it allows kids from all areas of the country the opportunity to receive (somewhat) equal education, and the opportunity through collegiate advancement. And, to a previous point, Obama is pushing far harder the improvement, both educationally and economically, of the community college system than McCain is, as well.
My parents and brother are both in education - and they agree with the above as well.
My parents and brother are both in education - and they agree with the above as well.
It's really easy to push for improvement in anything when you don't think there's a cap on the amount of money you can spend. Community colleges are hugely important, but there are fundamental problems at lower levels of education that need to be fixed as well.Royals wrote:And, to a previous point, Obama is pushing far harder the improvement, both educationally and economically, of the community college system than McCain is, as well.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4348
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
I'm willing to accept more spending if it's to improve our education. That's one of the few (maybe the only) areas that I think needs a massive overhaul, and influx of money. All over the country education budgets are being slashed. Schools are starting to lose music programs, drama programs, athletic programs, special needs programs, and student enrichment programs.
If we leave education to the states, and continue to watch budgets slashed, we will not be able to provide our youth any opportunities for scholastic growth. We'll just have 45 students to a classroom, underpaid/underperforming teachers, and textbooks from 1998. We are falling behind scholastically in the global spectrum because we do not offer our students enough of a quality education, and enough options during their education to find other areas of ability, or to improve upon current areas of ability.
If we're voting against Obama because he wants to spend more money in general, it's an opposing position I'm willing to accept. If you're going to say that education is 'easy to push for' when you don't put a 'cap on the money you can spend,' insinuating that it's just another area of spend, then we'll have some fundamental disagreements here. I'm all for ending the Iraq war today if it means putting that $10 billion per month into education.
If we leave education to the states, and continue to watch budgets slashed, we will not be able to provide our youth any opportunities for scholastic growth. We'll just have 45 students to a classroom, underpaid/underperforming teachers, and textbooks from 1998. We are falling behind scholastically in the global spectrum because we do not offer our students enough of a quality education, and enough options during their education to find other areas of ability, or to improve upon current areas of ability.
If we're voting against Obama because he wants to spend more money in general, it's an opposing position I'm willing to accept. If you're going to say that education is 'easy to push for' when you don't put a 'cap on the money you can spend,' insinuating that it's just another area of spend, then we'll have some fundamental disagreements here. I'm all for ending the Iraq war today if it means putting that $10 billion per month into education.
I totally agree that education spending should be a priority (generally speaking I think that federal government funds should go to national security, law enforcement, education, maintaining public lands, veterans affairs, and thats it). But my larger point was that Obama's philosophy is spend spend spend, so obviously he supports more spending on education then McCain does. Also, ending the war in Iraq doesn't instantly free up all that money, it's a lot more complicated then that. The bigger problem with education isn't about the money invested, its about how the money is spent.
Sure, but do you have any idea how much money is misallocated by bizarre regulations that either come from the state house or school boards. Meanwhile the caliber of teachers is a notch below where it needs to be because of the teacher's union, which continues to protect bad teachers and create an environment that discourages new teachers. New money should be tied to better policies.
One of the things Obama is suggesting is paying teachers based on student performace. That's all well and good in theory. In reality, new teachers almost always get stuck with the remedial classes and the worst students, so what that will do is cause new teachers to leave the profession or have them make their classes so easy that everyone gets an A so they get the pay raise. I don't like teachers unions and I will only join one until I get tenure
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4348
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Well that would speak directly to the reasons that states are ill-equipped to govern themselves educationally. At this point, the only way we are getting better policies is if the central government sweeps in and cleans up each states mess.Sure, but do you have any idea how much money is misallocated by bizarre regulations that either come from the state house or school boards.
If I'm not mistaken this has 0% to do with grades, and 100% to do with testing. Teachers and schools should be punished if their educational system falls behind easily attainable levels. I'm not sure I'm in total agreement with this, but I think some level of this is necessary given the state of education in the US.One of the things Obama is suggesting is paying teachers based on student performace. That's all well and good in theory.
Couple of things. First of all, the problem that poor school districts have is that they tend to get lost in the shuffle budget/focus wise. If states don't have the ability to work with every district in their state, in what universe does it make sense to put every school in America under the jurisdiction of the federal government? Everywhere you go is unique, the most important lesson of No Child Left Behind is that there is no one size fits all solution, and it certainly isn't testing (if you want to see a dramatized version of why check out the Wire, I'm not sure if it was season 3 or season 4 when the guy becomes a teacher, but the storyline is based on fact and its essentially what happens when you tie funding to test scores). Education needs to be fixed from the bottom up, not the top down.
-
Yankees
- Posts: 4348
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fulshear, TX
- Name: Brett Zalaski
- Contact:
Listen, I don't think every third grader should be reading Dickens. I'm saying there are some bare-bones requirements that schools and teachers should be responsible for. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a student shouldn't pass or fail based on one test score - but I think schools and teachers should be REWARDED for accomplishments above the mean. And I don't mean national mean, I mean state mean - get what I mean?
Education will not be fixed from the bottom up. It's just not happening. It had a shot and it was an abject failure. The federal government needs to test students to gauge where the schools and teachers themselves are at, reward the high-achieving schools and get their hands dirty with the schools and teachers that are constantly failing their students.
This isn't about the students failing - this is about the system failing the students.
Education will not be fixed from the bottom up. It's just not happening. It had a shot and it was an abject failure. The federal government needs to test students to gauge where the schools and teachers themselves are at, reward the high-achieving schools and get their hands dirty with the schools and teachers that are constantly failing their students.
This isn't about the students failing - this is about the system failing the students.
-
Padres
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4433
- Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:00 am
- Location: Wells, Maine
- Name: Jim Berger
There is nothing in either candidates stated education policies that prohibits a local school jurisdiction, or a state for that matter, from going beyond meeting the federal mandated minimums.Royals wrote:Education will not be fixed from the bottom up. It's just not happening.
In some places the education of our children is a priority and educational performance is being fixed from the bottom up. It really is happening - not in as wide spread manner as necessary but it is a too blanketing statement to say that it is not happening.
What I hope to see is any attempt to level the playing field, i.e., improve the dollar flow into poorer school districts, does not include provisions that, in effect, serve as a disincentive for successful school districts to stop spending and/or stop implementing innovative educational programs.
Tenure is the WORST thing in education. I've met more awful teachers who were completely unmotivated and unfirable because they have tenure.Cardinals wrote:One of the things Obama is suggesting is paying teachers based on student performace. That's all well and good in theory. In reality, new teachers almost always get stuck with the remedial classes and the worst students, so what that will do is cause new teachers to leave the profession or have them make their classes so easy that everyone gets an A so they get the pay raise. I don't like teachers unions and I will only join one until I get tenure
PS... NCLB was never well funded. Everyone likes to talk about improving education, no one EVER does anything about paying for it.
