USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[sctx]

so why all the bitchin about fair and balanced response time by the "lesser" candidates???.......has the DNC already made up their minds???

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by sctx

so why all the bitchin about fair and balanced response time by the "lesser" candidates???.......has the DNC already made up their minds???

I think the off mike conversation between Clinton and Edwards, regarding weeding out the "lesser" candidates, pretty much answers that question. They want to eliminate people from the debates even before the traditional campaign period has even begun. Democracy in action. I think roni was wrong when he said that there weren't any more backroom deals being made. There still are, just minus the cigars.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

There still are, just minus the cigars.

that point may be arguable...the cigars I mean

[melliedee]

Found this on Obama from the Chicago Tribune around the time he ran against Keyes and opposed this form of reparations:
"Asked in Moline about a controversial demand by some blacks for reparations for slavery, Obama spoke about how slavery had left a stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated. Still, he said, he opposes "just signing checks over to African-Americans."

Far from a politician's response, I thought his reply at the debates last night showed that this is not a question with a one word answer. Righting the inequalities in the public school system is a natural first step, imo.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Found this on Obama from the Chicago Tribune around the time he ran against Keyes and opposed this form of reparations:
"Asked in Moline about a controversial demand by some blacks for reparations for slavery, Obama spoke about how slavery had left a stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated. Still, he said, he opposes "just signing checks over to African-Americans."

Far from a politician's response, I thought his reply at the debates last night showed that this is not a question with a one word answer. Righting the inequalities in the public school system is a natural first step, imo.

Thanks melliedee, I hadn't seen that quote before. The question asked last night did have a one word answer. It was a yes or no question. The quote you provided does clear it up.

The poor performances of some schools cannot blamed on a lack of resources. Some of the worst school districts in the country are those that spend the most money. Obama referred to the schools in SC, last night. I believe those school districts come up short because SC isn't exactly a rich state. I would not oppose more money for the poorer states, but I would expect results. As I mentioned before, Washington DC has the highest per student spending in the country. It sits near the bottom in terms of student levels.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

“Conservative people tend to see the world in black and white terms, good and evil. Liberals see grays. In any talk format, you have to pound home a strong point of view. If you're not providing controversy and excitement, people won't listen, or watch.”
Bill O'Reilly

Wow. Impressive quote. Is that from that interesting looking book that is a collection of O'Reilly quotes that give a (to my mind) decidedly negative overall impression of him?

Well it's not surprising, but I'm boggled that you think Obama side-stepped the question, Mark (and even more boggled that you say only Edwards answered it, in light of the K-man coming straight out and saying "yes"!). I realize roni also said that, but I tend to agree with Jacko and Melliedee that he answered it and did so rather well.

Originally Posted by melliedee

Far from a politician's response, I thought his reply at the debates last night showed that this is not a question with a one word answer. Righting the inequalities in the public school system is a natural first step, imo.

It's hard to disagree with that answer. I mean, it doesn't just throw money at a problem, as conservatives often accuse liberals of doing. As he says in that other quote, it wouldn't be just signing over checks. Nor would it be proceeding just on the basis of race, an approach often also railed against, but rather putting the money where it needed to be, helping underfunded schools and the white or Latino or Asian or other students that attend them, as well. It is completely consistent with the myth of independent responsibility, so highly regarded and touted by conservatives, as it provides an opportunity for all to get ahead depending on their own skills and intelligence and hard work. It helps our kids learn better, all of our kids. And all this is much clearer than the others' answer to the question in providing an explicit direction to funnel the monies in question.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I'm at a real loss as to how he supposedly responded in typical politician fashion and sidestepped or ducked the question. But you go ahead on, as they say, if that's your view!

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Thanks melliedee, I hadn't seen that quote before. The question asked last night did have a one word answer. It was a yes or no question. The quote you provided does clear it up.

The poor performances of some schools cannot blamed on a lack of resources. Some of the worst school districts in the country are those that spend the most money. Obama referred to the schools in SC, last night. I believe those school districts come up short because SC isn't exactly a rich state. I would not oppose more money for the poorer states, but I would expect results. As I mentioned before, Washington DC has the highest per student spending in the country. It sits near the bottom in terms of student levels.

I don't think it's a matter of poorer states, but poorer districts. The population of inner city schools is increasingly segregated. Couple that with lower property taxes and you have school districts with fewer tax dollars struggling to survive even as thier suburban counterparts flourish. The problem with No Child Left Behind is not "throwing money at the problem," as I've heard you say about education on more than one occasion, it is that the allocation of funds falls to beurocrats and consultants instead of educators.

Can't speak for DC, but in OH when I see an ACT score composite in the single digits and an extremely low high school GPA, the common denominator is zip code. That is neither a coincidence nor a reflection of students' ablilities.

What Barack gave was a detailed answer to a yes or no question that does not have (at least for the thoughtful candidate) a yes or no answer. I'd happy rob the coffers of the war chest to improve education. It remains the one deal breaker issue for me and I'd even cross party lines for the candidate who has a better solution than NCLB.

Methinks we've had this conversation before?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I don't think it's a matter of poorer states, but poorer districts. The population of inner city schools is increasingly segregated. Couple that with lower property taxes and you have school districts with fewer tax dollars struggling to survive even as thier suburban counterparts flourish...

That's just what Kozol found, yes, after studying school districts in East St Louis and Chicago and DC and a couple of other places. You probably already know that, but FWIW.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

I noticed that G W Bush now has a 65% disapproval rating. Only Nixon shortly before he resigned had a higher disapproval rating. The news prompted the comment that not only are the Republican candidates running, they are also running away from Bush.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I noticed that G W Bush now has a 65% disapproval rating. Only Nixon shortly before he resigned had a higher disapproval rating. The news prompted the comment that not only are the Republican candidates running, they are also running away from Bush.

give him 6 months and he'll have a higher disaproval rating than congress........they're at 86% or so now aren't they???

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by sctx

give him 6 months and he'll have a higher disaproval rating than congress........they're at 86% or so now aren't they???

While the total disapproval for Congress is 60% the Democrats in Congress fare better in the polls. There is also this detail:

But when it comes to judging the president versus congressional Democrats on the issue of Iraq, the public stands with Congress. Fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. (Eleven percent of all respondents and 17 percent of independents said they trust "neither.") And by 2 to 1, Americans said Congress, rather than the president, should make the final decision about when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

While the total disapproval for Congress is 60% the Democrats in Congress fare better in the polls. There is also this detail:

congress disapproval has been at +/- 75 % for a while now and some polls have shown it as high as 86%

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by sctx

congress disapproval has been at +/- 75 % for a while now and some polls have shown it as high as 86%

I've not seen a poll like that. Here is the one I was talking about:washingtonpost.com

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I've not seen a poll like that. Here is the one I was talking about:washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

RealClearPolitics - Polls

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

RealClearPolitics - Polls

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out with the link which seems to agree with what I posted earlier. Variances as small as most of the polls show are typically within the margin of error.