’)The upside for Democrats is that they won’t listen to a word of what Sen. Snowe says.
I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.
How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.
There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.
At the heart of this is the belief by conservatives that the very same thing that has driven them off a cliff – hardcore conservatism – is what is needed to bring them back into relevancy. But they don’t even realize how far gone it is.
The Republican party isn’t even relevant right now, let alone in danger of contending for the majority again.
Do situations like this change? Sure, they can turn on a dime. But the Republican party seems dead set on screwing itself. Better them than the country.
Now is the time to rub their faces in the same old b.s. they’ve been spouting at The Libbzzzz for the past 30 years, especially the past 8: you MUST move to the center!
For them, that meant the D’s dropping abortion, the f#gs and the Blacks to appeal to the “swing staters”.
Now, for them, it means embracing, no, coupling and reproducing/adopting/fostering/domestic partnering with the same.
I am having a muslim/whitey house/socialist/devil of a time watching them wallow in the mess they made for themselves. Nothing pleases me more to hear Snowe, M. McCain, Michael Steele and now even Arlen Specter/hate-on-Anita-Hill agree with me.
Believing in science makes you a traitor in Republican circles
I saw this op-ed as Snowe’s warning that she’s ready to step out, too. This is step 1 of leaving the GOP, demonstrating a clear philosophical and strategic difference with party leadership. Step 2 is whatever “the last straw” is. Step 3 is screw you guys, I’m going home.
The Reagan quote is damning:
“We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”
The only one of these that today’s GOP can remotely claim as their own is tax reduction, they’ve forgotten everything else..
Keep it up, GOP, 61 is just a few phone calls away…
Snowe is more liberal than Specter. And the map is against the Republicans in 2010. And they have to defend at least four open Senate seats in swing / blue states.
I’m not seeing a lot of good news for the party.
I’m sure one of the true believers here will tell me where I’m wrong, but I’m not seeing it at the moment.
CSS, the true believers” are hung over this morning after a massive binge.
Somewhere around here I have an editorial cartoon by the NY Post from the 1992 election, showing the GOP Elephant shooting itself in the foot. If I could find it I might find a way to post it, as it is appropriate today.
The big problem is that the Republicans aren’t even conservatives anymore. They’re right-wing libertarians. And libertarians can’t get elected. You don’t hire someone for a job that they tell you, loudly, that they hate.
the very same thing that has driven them off a cliff – hardcore conservatism – is what is needed to bring them back into relevancy.
As CrustyDem points out, Republicans have been losing precisely because they HAVEN’T been practicing Conservatism.
As CrustyDem points out, Republicans have been losing precisely because they HAVEN’T been practicing Conservatism.
Nor are they advocating or practicing conservatism now. They’re advocating defense of marriage amendments, climate change denial, support of torture and anti-abortion posturing. Making noise about tax cuts and paying lip service to small government while agitating for legislated Christian morality do not a conservative make.
Even when the leadership finally decides they need to reach out, it will be the hard core constituents who assist in making that ‘difficult’ at best (I believe I am being nice there).
The divisive racism inherent in the last election cycles can’t simply be pushed away based on the decision that they have done so. When they decide they are willing to accept minorities and other moderate viewpoints, it will be along the same manner in which they found their conservative economic policy platform again just after the election.
The bottom line will be ‘Hey, you can trust us now because we say so’ simply won’t be good enough. They’re going to have to prove those changes, not merely give lip service to what they believe people want to hear.
Can someone please find me a link to the Reagan quote used by Snowe? I have tried using several bits of it and, other than quotes to her OpEd, I can find anything? Did she fabricate this, misremember or create a composite of several speeches?
Obama just passed the biggest tax cut ever.
Republicans only want tax cuts for George Soros.
A lot of Northeastern moderate conservatives have just had it with being treated like 2nd hand sh*t by the party’s Southern freak wing. But the Southern freak wing has been driving the party for the last 30 years. You just got what you paid for.
I agree with Crusty… this is foreshadowing her own move.
Snowe is more liberal than Specter.
Undoubtedly, but she doesn’t have the same motivation to switch as Specter, as she’s not threatened in Maine. That said, if she sees Specter getting what he wants, she might get a little tired of her complete inability to get anything accomplished (there’s almost nothing as powerless as being a senator without even filibuster power).
As CrustyDem points out, Republicans have been losing precisely because they HAVEN’T been practicing Conservatism.
Yes, but party leaders don’t even know what conservatism was (I don’t use is because there’s no evidence it exists in the GOP right now). The whole point of the GOP for the last 41 years was to consolidate power. Version 1.0 was the southern strategy; the idea being that bigots (or at least people who think that LBJ was the worst president ever because he passed the civil rights act) plus traditional conservatives=unbeatable numbers. Version 2.0, in the 80’s/90’s was when the GOP started co-opting evangelicals into the mix; which was a pretty natural fit as the GOP adopted anti-abortion philosophy. Oddly, the evangelicals and the bigots get along well, but they’ve demanded so much crazy from the GOP (anti-choice purity, the bible is literal fact, the gays=teh evil, don’t teach kids evolution, science is bad, etc etc etc) that “traditional conservatives” haven’t even gotten lip service since 1992, and have been leaving in droves. Add in the demographic changes, and you’ve got a party that needs complete reinvention..
If you think that reinvention will be classic conservatism, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. That ship has sailed.
If they’re irrelevant, why do so many bloggers insist on continuing to write about them? That would lead a person to believe that “irrelevant,” perhaps, is not the correct word. The American Vampire Party is irrelevant, Republicans still annoy the hell out of you, and just a few short years ago, held the white house and congress. Ye have too much faith in the Dems. They’ll screw up. They always do.
You’ve never heard of the word “humility” have you?
Didn’t think so.
If they’re irrelevant, why do so many bloggers insist on continuing to write about them?
Because the death spasms are kind of fun to watch. It’s great to see the traditional go-to buzzwords and catch phrases of the GOP, developed carefully by Rove et al., fail completely to motivate anyone. I mean, how hilarious is it that republicans still don’t realize the Colbert is completely destroying them?
Republicans still annoy the hell out of you, and just a few short years ago, held the white house and congress. Ye have too much faith in the Dems. They’ll screw up. They always do.
Oddly, I completely agree. With the Dems, it always ends up coming down to graft and corruption (the GOP tends to do a better job get away with that because they claim to be fighting spending). But after 6 years of talk about “The Permanent Republican Majority!”, I’ll enjoy the honeymoon of the filibusterless GOP until the wheels come off (sometime between now and 2012).
Yeah the GOP was losing because they weren’t conservative enough- the Santorum/Keyes policy porfolio is the road back to power! Bachman is a visionary not a nut! The Tancredo types didn’t jeporardize the future prospects of the GOP they enhanced them!
This is like if the Democratic Party had looked at 2002 and 2004 and decided it needed to run a Kennedy-Kucinich ticket because being too moderate is what cost them the Whitehouse and Congress.
Hey GOP the reason Reagan was a winner is because he was an affable guy who pitched a form conservatism that would today get him branded an apostate- deficit spending (well, that’s not a big deal), amnesty, not sticking it out in a quagmire (Lebanon), arming OBL (oh, wait that’s pretty nuts), violating the constitution (nope, forgot that’s a prereq for the Presidency in the modern GOP), raising taxes, meeting with dictators, making pretty pre-written speeches (Reagan was a telepromptard- actually considering he was an actor this line of criticism against Obama seems insanely hypocritical).
Normally, I’d agree with there being an inevitable swingback (and indeed there still might be one) but the regional and demographic trends seem to bode ill for the GOP- it wasn’t just Obama, Iraq, Katrina, Bush etc that killed the GOP- the biggest thing was the Immigration thing- that is going to haunt the GOP for years and might end up killing them off.
Actually, I think the Democrats may have lost 2004 by being too “moderate” or bipartisan — but at no time would I have given up trying to find the best candidate who could actually win.
Like, I think my ideas would be best for the country and the world. But I’m a crazy fringe leftist anarcho-socialist — I don’t have any illusions that I or someone of my ilk would win an election short of some unanticipated miracle.
30 years of counter-revolutionary Reaganism dominated, and destroying, the country, and the problem is that ‘real’ conservatism has just never really been tried.
“Republicans still
annoyamuse reality-based Americans to no end”As I said before, if everything I wrote was nonstop “President Obama is kicking ass and taking names” it would get monotonous. Writing about Republican ineptitude breaks it up.
The Democrats will inevitable be out of power at some point. Could be 4 or 8 years; it seems much more likely it’ll be longer than that, at this point. Someone will overreach.
The big question is, will the Republicans be the ones who come into power when that happens?
Probably. There’s a lot of money and power invested in the GOP, and a new party would have a lot of trouble overcoming that. But it has happened before in American history, and can’t be ruled out.
It seems very likely that the Republicans that do come into power will be a very different breed than the current crop. Be whoever those people might be, they’re nowhere near evident now. The GOP has to endure a lot more time in the wilderness before they find new leaders; it’s going to take a long, long time before they recognize that they need new ideas.
My question is, if the Republicans come back to power, especially relatively soon, will it be still led by the reactionary crazies, who will begin work immediately on destroying the country again — because nobody, but nobody hates America and Americans and American values like Republicans do — or will there be an old-style moderate conservative leadership such as used to exist in the Northeast and Midwest?
30 years of counter-revolutionary Reaganism dominated, and destroying, the country, and the problem is that ‘real’ conservatism has just never really been tried.
I’ve heard this from many a conservative (not accusing you), and I find it endlessly amusing. Generally it’s stated by those who never stopped cheerleading for those same leaders they claim failed conservatism. If your movement is co-opted by the corrupt, stupid, or evil, it’s your responsibility to get them out (or at the very least, speak out loudly against them). If you didn’t, you deserve a big steaming cup of STFU; it’s one of the many reasons why the cognitive dissonance of the tea party/baggers was so amusing.
The Republican party isn’t even relevant right now, let alone in danger of contending for the majority again.
I’d be careful with these kinds of bold statements. Of course, in March of 1995, Bill Clinton was pathetically talking up his ‘relevance’ in the face of a GOP juggernaut (which came on the heels of an arrogant Democratic majority), yet 18 mos later he was easily re-elected.
18 months is a long time in politics, so you guys should “not sucking each others dicks just yet” (And that’s a quote from Pulp Fiction BTW, so suck back in the hyena-like shrieks at me about homophobia). Obama only gets to use the “I inherited this” excuse for so long.
In actuality, Reagan conservatism saved this country from the quicksand policies of the disastrous four years that Jimmy Carter gave us. Of course, the revisionist idiots would have people believe it was only the “the rich” who benefited during that time, but that’s just what is….revisionism. No, what’s slowly destroying the country is an ever slower encroachment of the government into areas it does not belong and it’s increased growth with started with Bush 41, then Clinton, continued under Bush (fools argue that Bush was this fanatical right wing President, but he was anything but when it came to spending) and is going to reach unheard of heights with President Obama.
The government has proven time and time and time again that it cannot do anything efficiently and everything they do costs far more than is projected.
I keep hearing about “new ideas” but what new ideas specifically are the Democrats proposing? They’re finding their success built upon a society where many people believe that they should get something for nothing. “I WANT” has become the rallying cry. “I want more money for education”, “I want more money for health care”, “I want more money for job training”, “I want my mortgage payment lowered”, “I want a home even though I can’t afford it.” The list goes on and there’s your average liberal, acting like what we call the “Yeahwecandothat” people in sales who promise potential customers whatever they want regardless of the fact they’re making promises that will send people over a cliff because they can’t deliver.
So Democrats “new ideas” are just the same old smelly fish (health care, education (the feds involvement in public education has worked WONDERS….), etc. wrapped in fancier packaging and being sold to a whole new generation of suckers who believe the value of hard work is for suckers. No, it all has to handed to them AND they don’t want to pay for it.
Good work.
The problem with waiting around for the other guys to fail is that there’s really no backup plan if they’re even moderately successful–other than what was done to Clinton. And I don’t think that sort of opportunity is likely to present itself again.
By 2024 the Great American Culture War will pretty much be over, and the dirty hippies will have won it.
Crusty Dem: “the very same thing that has driven them off a cliff – hardcore conservatism – is what is needed to bring them back into relevancy.”
SaveFarris: “As CrustyDem points out, Republicans have been losing precisely because they HAVEN’T been practicing Conservatism.”
And the leaders want the party to move farther away from ‘true conservatism’ and closer to ‘Wingnut Insanity’.
‘Fuck being fiscally conservative, we have gays, guns, and abortion on our side!’
I liked George H.W. Bush. I would have voted for him over Michael Dukakis in 1988. But the GOP decided in 1992 that the path to victory was through insanity, and they’ve never looked back.
(On a side note, I’m starting to think the party has always been insane, but I just didn’t notice back then.)
“30 years of counter-revolutionary Reaganism dominated, and destroying, the country, and the problem is that ‘real’ conservatism has just never really been tried.”
I should have made it clearer that I was mocking this argument.
umm, CS, that was Oliver, not me.. What I was attempting to point out was that today’s mainstream GOP congressman wouldn’t even recognize the major tenets of Reagan conservatism (even while trying to name every project in the country after him). The whole premise of “conservatism” has become so malleable over the last 10 years that using the word is actually counterproductive. I will disagree slightly w/SaveFarris to say that I think the GOP’s problem is less what they aren’t doing (“true conservatism”) and more what they are doing (Crazy Stupid Shit^22*avogadro’s number).
Just some common sense, reasonable governing (with just about any ideology) would be vastly superior to the last 8 years, where the GOP stated that the government is useless and bad, then set out to prove themselves correct (at least when they’re in charge).
No, what’s slowly destroying the country is an ever slower encroachment of the government into areas it does not belong
such as the bedroom, private conversations, doctor’s office, etc….
Jay Caruso: “(the feds involvement in public education has worked WONDERS….)”
Yes! Let’s go back to the days with the vast majority of the population was uneducated. That’s surely the way forward!
Yes! Let’s go back to the days with the vast majority of the population was uneducated.
Oh right I forgot. Nobody went to school or college before the creation of the Department of Education. How could I forget??
Goalposts!
Republicans still annoy the hell out of you
Well, they are members of the party of racist assholes. And racist assholes like de facto Republican leader Rush Limbaugh are annoying. You know, because they’re racist assholes.
Me: “Yes! Let’s go back to the days with the vast majority of the population was uneducated.”
Jay: “Oh right I forgot. Nobody went to school or college before the creation of the Department of Education. How could I forget??”
Most people didn’t go to school and especially college before the government got involved. Yes. This is a fact.
Thank you for arguing against reality. It is entertaining.
Most people didn’t go to school and especially college before the government got involved. Yes. This is a fact.
So, before the creation of the Department of Education which started operating on May 4, 1980, according to you, “most people didn’t go to school and especially college” is a fact.
And what evidence do you have to support this fact. I’d like to see it.
Jay, public education really big in the 1840s, though it started much earlier. Not 1980.
Me: “Most people didn’t go to school and especially college before the government got involved. Yes. This is a fact.”
Jay: “So, before the creation of the Department of Education which started operating on May 4, 1980, according to you, ‘most people didn’t go to school and especially college’ is a fact.
And what evidence do you have to support this fact. I’d like to see it.”
Wow. You really are a fucking retard. No wonder you hate public education; you want everyone to be a stupid as you are.
Read what I fucking wrote.
Public education pre-dates the Department of Education.
Fucking idiot.
I was wondering when CS would get flustered when confronted with his own nonsense and here it is (when the cursing and name calling begin, that’s when you know CS inserted his big foot into his idiotic mouth). So I specifically mention the Department of Education. You respond to my remark about the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and use the term “public education” and then whine like a girl and call names when I respond back without interpreting that you were no longer referring to what I said about the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. I guess it was too much for me to think that your comment was related to the comment I made about the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. I thought maybe you could keep up, but what was I thinking?
Parthenon, it is very clear that I am talking about education spending at the federal level. The Department of Education (along with the other federal programs that were created in the 1960’s) were implemented with the implicit purpose of improving our public education system. It has cost billions upon billions of dollars and has not come close to making the improvements that were promised. If anything, some areas are worse or have basically flatlined.
It couldn’t be that since 1980, Republicans have been the ones largely staffing the DoE, right?
Jay Caruso: “I was wondering when CS would get flustered when confronted with his own nonsense…”
I’m flustered? I call you on your bullshit, and I’m the one who’s flustered?
“So I specifically mention the Department of Education.”
After the fact. After you make a bullshit claim, you then mention the Department of Education. In other words, you moved the goalposts and I called you on it.
“You respond to my remark about the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and use the term ‘public education’ and then whine like a girl…”
Two points…
1.) You used the term ‘public education’ first. I’m just trying to keep you on your original claim.
2.) Nice slice of sexism there. It really adds weight to your argument.
After the fact. After you make a bullshit claim, you then mention the Department of Education. In other words, you moved the goalposts and I called you on it.
No CS. I specifically said:
the feds involvement in public education has worked WONDERS…
The federal government started sticking its snout into public education in the mid 60’s and was given its permanent perch when the completely useless Dept of Education was created. My comments were targeted at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and not “public education” in general.
So add a little mustard to your foot, or ketchup if you’re so inclined.
And attempting to make me out to be a sexist is truly lame. Is that the best you can do?
When jumpin’ Jim Jeffords crossed over, it changed control of the Senate – it’s leadership and it’s agenda, Specter changes nothing. If the concern is that he’ll suddenly change the way he votes – well that’s a GOOD THING (unfortunately he won’t change). Is the concern that the Dem’s now have a filibuster proof majority – there was no filibuster on the porkulus bill. The number of “offical” dem’s is inmaterial, it doesn’t matter whether the votes are from Dem’s or Repub’s it’s whether a given bill has 60 votes – and they did have 60 regardless of what Benedict Arlen calls himself.
The really stupid thing here is Olympia Snowe getting angry with the Republicians about losing Specter. It wasn’t the party, it was the polls – Specter saw that he he couldn’t win the primary. What Snowe is getting at is that the republician party should have prevented Toomer from mounting a Primary Challenge. That is exactly the attitude that is at the core of what is wrong with this country right now. We are stuck with two parties – and she thinks that the parties should lock the people out of having choices about who reprensents them.
Fantastic, Olympia – lock us down to two choices – left or right. Then if the people aren’t happy with the choice of their representative, they have the choice to vote other guy’s pick. That is the real reason Republicians haven’t been winning lately – the only choices are BAD or AWFUL – so naturally we choose BAD. We put BAD campaign sign in yard’s, BAD bumper stickers on our car’s, on and on. Really we are sick of BAD but it’s better than AWFUL.
No More – good ridance Arlen – your’e next Snowe.
Jay writes “The government has proven time and time and time again that it cannot do anything efficiently”
I’m glad to hear you were one of the anti-war protesters in the lead-up to the occupation of Iraq.
Yup, all the government has done is bring the elderly out of poverty, build a national Interstate highway system, and land a man on the moon.
“the feds involvement in public education has worked WONDERS…”
I agree. My early schooling in public schools was good, as was the public university where I got my Master’s. Wow, we agree on everything today!
Less snarkily, there are certainly problems with public education, but overall the American educational system is the envy of the world. There’s a reason so many non-Americans want to do their university degrees here.
But please, continue to keep spewing your ridiculous talking points. I’d love to hear about all of the home-schooled kids who have won Nobel Prizes. Please share!
“The government has proven time and time and time again that it cannot do anything efficiently”
Earlier, we hear Jay warning about making “bold statements,” and now he tells us that government cannot do “anything” efficiently.
I’m wondering what his model of efficiency is, since our system of government has proven so wanting. Slavery and serfdom were efficient, certainly. Creating law by royal decree was SUPER efficient.
Yeah, yeah, we know: bureaucracy is difficult. But the only “small” governments that work are either dealing with countries much smaller and with fewer problems than this one, or are so small because there’s a tiny, iron-fisted cabal on the throne.
But please, continue to keep spewing your ridiculous talking points. I’d love to hear about all of the home-schooled kids who have won Nobel Prizes. Please share!
Oh you mean like Pierre-Gilles de Gennes the 1991 Nobel Prize winner in physics? Or how about John D. Linsley? He didn’t win the Nobel Prize but was nominated for the prize in physics in 1981. Of course, Thomas Edison was home-schooled as well.
Study after study has shown that home-schooled students clearly out-perform their public school counterparts and score higher on college entrance exams than public school students. Home-schooling is of course, derided by people such as yourself because you’re probably one of the people who think it’s nothing but religious crazies keeping their kids at home so they don’t come into contact with the “homos” but in reality, home-schooling is becoming a viable option for many people and not just for religious reasons. Maybe I’m wrong, how knows? But you did take a shot at home-schooling so I will assume you’re one that’s opposed to it.
That being said, while I am an advocate of home-schooling, I am only up until high school as kids who want to have a career the sciences should have that high school introduction to biology, chemistry and other science labs.
I’m wondering what his model of efficiency is, since our system of government has proven so wanting. Slavery and serfdom were efficient, certainly. Creating law by royal decree was SUPER efficient.
Oh please, I was not discussing our system of government. If our government did more of what it was supposed to and less of what it wasn’t supposed to do, things would be better. I am talking about what happens once the legislation is written. Intentions mean squat. Execution and direction is what determines destination. The problems occur when the legislation gets to the bureaucrats and regulators whose lot in life is to add layers of regulations and make things more bureaucratic. Welfare programs for example. Nearly 75 cents of every dollar gets eaten up by the bureaucracy before it even gets to a person. You compare that to private charities where the best ones spend 30% or less of the money they get on administrative costs. And no I am not arguing that we can replace welfare with private charities. I am merely saying that the government model is one of waste, inefficiency, and often, ineffectiveness.
I get a good laugh at the fact that the approval rating of Congress is in the sewer yet so many of those people who believe that are the ones who want them to come up with ’solutions’ to problems.
Less snarkily, there are certainly problems with public education, but overall the American educational system is the envy of the world. There’s a reason so many non-Americans want to do their university degrees here.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Our education system is the envy of the world? Really? You mean that after all those international tests in which our students attain mediocre results makes the other countries envious?
The only place other countries are envious is our university system, which is more financed by private institutions than on the primary school level. I believe the entire Ivy League is private, no? Even lots of public colleges and universities get plenty of funding from private sources.
And in Europe universities in places like Germany and France and almost entirely publicly funded, yet we have the more prestigious institutions. Funny, that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/world/europe/12france.html
Oh, and the latest Long Term Trends results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress are out. At the end of high school, students perform no better today than they did nearly 40 years ago, and yet we spend more than twice as much per pupil in real, inflation-adjusted terms.
But I’m sure it will be totally different when it comes to health care.
Jay Caruso: “Study after study has shown that home-schooled students clearly out-perform their public school counterparts…”
Home-schooled students also tend to have massive amounts of one-on-one time. If you don’t think that has an effect, you are fucking stupid.
education-portal.com/articles/Public_Schools_vs._Private_Schools:_New_Study_Says_There_is_No_Difference.html
Key quote…
“They found that there is no real difference between the academic performance given by public and private school students from the same low-income bracket and background, suggesting that family involvement has more of an impact than the school setting.”
Jay Caruso: “I get a good laugh at the fact that the approval rating of Congress is in the sewer yet so many of those people who believe that are the ones who want them to come up with ’solutions’ to problems.”
Umm…. Congressional Republicans approval ratings are in the sewer. Congressional Democrats are doing rather well.
Home-schooled students also tend to have massive amounts of one-on-one time. If you don’t think that has an effect, you are fucking stupid.
Can you even respond without having to throw out a curse word or insult? Is that possible?
And yes, I do think it has an effect and because it is so, would tend to lend credibility to the idea of home-schooling rather than detract from it.
“They found that there is no real difference between the academic performance given by public and private school students from the same low-income bracket and background, suggesting that family involvement has more of an impact than the school setting.”
The study was conducted by the Center on Education Policy which is an advocate for public education and therefore the results are suspect (not necessarily untrue, but because they have a clearly spelled out agenda, there needs to be more to look at). This is a topic where results from independent studies are warranted.
My goal here is not to get into a pissing match about private schools vs. public schools. There are many good public school systems. But the fact remains that we have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into public education from the federal level without any significant improvement and the unfortunate result of this is that there are too many people who believe the solution is to spend MORE money.
“Study after study has shown that home-schooled students clearly out-perform their public school counterparts and score higher on college entrance exams than public school students.”
Bullshit. Link please.
“BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Our education system is the envy of the world? Really? You mean that after all those international tests in which our students attain mediocre results makes the other countries envious?”
Yup. I’m guessing you never went to college, but for foreign students getting into an American university is kind of like winning the lottery. I didn’t say the American public education system was perfect — far from it. But it happens to be the best in the world. Pity you didn’t get much out of it.
“The only place other countries are envious is our university system, which is more financed by private institutions than on the primary school level.”
You’re an idiot. Public (and private) American universities get billions of dollars from the Fed. And again, it ain’t perfect, but it’s the best educational system in the world according to the rest of the world.
Sorry wing-nuts, you lose again.
Bullshit. Link please.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.3642453/k.B171/US_15_yearolds_lag_in_math_and_science_on_international_test.htm
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
http://www.philly.com/philly/education//20081210_U_S__students_still_test_as_mediocre.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/us-students-lag-behind-other-nations-in-science/67500
Yup. I’m guessing you never went to college, but for foreign students getting into an American university is kind of like winning the lottery. I didn’t say the American public education system was perfect — far from it. But it happens to be the best in the world. Pity you didn’t get much out of it.
Pity you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Here is Obama:
“The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens. And yet, despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world, we’ve let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us. … We’ve accepted failure for far too long.”
But then again, maybe his perspective is skewed because his mom home schooled him while they lived in Indonesia and he hates public education.
You’re an idiot. Public (and private) American universities get billions of dollars from the Fed. And again, it ain’t perfect, but it’s the best educational system in the world according to the rest of the world.
You do realize that this does not contradict what I wrote, right?
Sorry wing-nuts, you lose again.
This coming from the guy that thinks that we have an education system that is the envy of the world, proving you are vastly ignorant on the subject. The only aspect of our system that inspires real jealousy is our universities, which coincidentally is the part of our education system the government has the least amount of influence on.
But it is rather obvious that you are more interested in talking points than facts.
I was asking for links supporting the contention that home-schooled kids did better than public school kids. None of your links provide that kind of evidence.
And I’d agree that the main problem with the American system as it stands is with regards to math and science education at the high school level. At the University level, not so much. American universities are where the bulk of advanced research gets done.
I admitted that the American public education system has problems, but it’s still the envy of the world. Look at where the top students from other advanced nations want to go to university — it’s ain’t in Japan or Korea, countries that score higher on math and science tests at pre-university levels.
Further, let’s say that the American system as a whole wasn’t the envy of the world. Would the answer to improving come through simply stripping it of all Federal funds? Of course not. The problems are huge, but not because of government funding.
But thanks for playing and losing once again.
Wow, forgot to respond to this little bit of idiocy: “The only aspect of our system that inspires real jealousy is our universities, which coincidentally is the part of our education system the government has the least amount of influence on.”
Do you know what a “research grant” is, sparky?
I was asking for links supporting the contention that home-schooled kids did better than public school kids. None of your links provide that kind of evidence.
My bad: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html
“Lines notes that “virtually all the available data show that the group of homeschooled children who are tested is above average. The pattern for children for whom data are available resembles that of children in private schools.”(51) Ray notes that, regardless of income, race, gender, or parents’ level of education, homeschooled children consistently score between the 82nd and 92nd percentiles on achievement tests.(52) The data from the Washington Homeschool Research Project, which has analyzed the SAT scores of homeschooled children in Washington State since 1985, demonstrated that the scores of those children were above average. Jon Wartes, writing on behalf of the project, notes that “fears that homeschooled children in Washington are at an academic disadvantage are not confirmed.”(53) One significant piece of evidence of the educational progress homeschooled children are making: the National Merit Scholarship Corporation chose more than 70 homeschooled high school seniors as semifinalists in its 1998 competition.(54) ”
More here:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
I admitted that the American public education system has problems, but it’s still the envy of the world. Look at where the top students from other advanced nations want to go to university — it’s ain’t in Japan or Korea, countries that score higher on math and science tests at pre-university levels.
You want to keep talking about privately-dominated universities as if they are the sum total of the American education system. I can understand why, given how pathetic the government dominated K-12 system is. But it doesn’t make your point any stronger.
Further, let’s say that the American system as a whole wasn’t the envy of the world. Would the answer to improving come through simply stripping it of all Federal funds? Of course not. The problems are huge, but not because of government funding.
You’re right. Money doesn’t make people dumber, but the regulations and conditions that comes with the money does. And it is the height of naivete to think that the two can be separated.
But thanks for playing and losing once again.
You realize that declaring yourself the winner doesn’t make it so, right?
Wow, forgot to respond to this little bit of idiocy: “The only aspect of our system that inspires real jealousy is our universities, which coincidentally is the part of our education system the government has the least amount of influence on.”
Do you know what a “research grant” is, sparky?
Do you know that this, once again, doesn’t contradict what I said? Go ahead and break down public vs private funding for universities and get back to me. And feel free to keep grasping at straws.
Me: “Home-schooled students also tend to have massive amounts of one-on-one time. If you don’t think that has an effect, you are fucking stupid.”
Jay Caruso: “Can you even respond without having to throw out a curse word or insult? Is that possible?”
Style Over Substance is a logical fallacy, not a convincing argument.
“And yes, I do think it has an effect and because it is so, would tend to lend credibility to the idea of home-schooling rather than detract from it.”
You think home-schooling is practical?
“The study was conducted by the Center on Education Policy which is an advocate for public education and therefore the results are suspect…”
Poisoning the Well, another logical fallacy.
“My goal here is not to get into a pissing match about private schools vs. public schools.”
Because clearly you would lose that argument.
“But the fact remains that we have dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into public education from the federal level without any significant improvement…”
This is not a fact. This is an assertion without evidence.
“…and the unfortunate result of this is that there are too many people who believe the solution is to spend MORE money.”
No. But the solution is to spend more money is a smarter way. You need more teachers so kids get more one on one time, and you need to pay teachers more, because they are underpaid.
On the other hand, No Child Left Behind cost money and made education worse.
Also, you need federal standards so local boards don’t decide to teach religion as science.
Cato is a libertarian think-tank. And the piece you cite is an overview of home-schooling. The conclusion of the piece is “home-schooling is here to stay” and offers no certifiable evidence that in general home-schoolers are better off than their peers in public schools. Your other cite is from the legal defense fund of home schooling.
Learn to google.
“You want to keep talking about privately-dominated universities”
Privately dominated universities like The University of Virginia? The University of Michigan? The University of Texas? The University of California at Berkley?
Learn to read.
The “one” issue not really addressed in comments about the Republican arty is that of Racism. It is unlikely that Ronald Regan’s style of “conservatism” would prevail today for several reasons – one is the blatant hypocrisy that would be exposed immediately in this internet age, and fact that the demographics have changed considerably when any party could totally ignore or dismiss the minority “Blacks” and so-called “Latinos”.
The Dick Army’s, Bill Bennett’s, Pat Buchannan’s, Rush Limbaugh’s all contribute to a hateful, ignorant and vile group, who are unlikely to succeed in that mould.
Cato is a libertarian think-tank. And the piece you cite is an overview of home-schooling. The conclusion of the piece is “home-schooling is here to stay” and offers no certifiable evidence that in general home-schoolers are better off than their peers in public schools. Your other cite is from the legal defense fund of home schooling.
Both links indicated superior performance by home schooled children. Learn to read.
Privately dominated universities like The University of Virginia? The University of Michigan? The University of Texas? The University of California at Berkley?
Your argument is ridiculous as it cherry picks rather than taking a comprehensive view. But given the weakness of your argument I am not surprised. Even here, however, your argument falls apart:
http://www.nacubo.org/x683.xml?ss=pf
University of Virginia Projects More Private Than Public Funding for FY04
Print
June 3, 2003
The University of Virginia (UVA) may become the first public institution to derive a majority of its annual funding from private sources. The university projects using $134 million in private funds in FY04 compared to $131 million in state support. The significant funding shift is an example of greatly reduced recent state support for higher education coupled with major capital campaigns at public universities.
The situation in Virginia is indicative of the situation in other states. The portion of state support making up UVA’s annual operating budget has dwindled from 28 percent in 1985 to 8.1 percent next year. As state support has declined, fundraising has risen significantly. In 1990, UVA collected $51 million in donations, compared to $255 million in 2002. While private funding has increased, it does not serve as a direct replacement for state appropriations because gifts and endowment earnings are usually earmarked for a specific purpose. State funding tends to have fewer restrictions.
Learn to google.
And, as a bonus, they don’t have to learn about liberal devilry like evolution, climate change, gay marriage and progressive taxation.
“Both links indicated superior performance by home schooled children. Learn to read.”
They literally do not. They literally can’t, because no studies are available to show that in general home-school kids perform better than public school kids. Stop lying.
And of course public universities don’t mean “no private money universities.” Grants come in many forms, and endowments are built up from a variety of sources. You’ve still failed to indicate how the public university system in America can be easily separated from the public school system in general. There are certainly differences worth looking at, but my statement stands — taken as a whole, the American educational system is the envy of the world. Could it be better? Absolutely? Are there problems with primary education regarding math and science? Of course.
Stick to the kiddie pool for now on the debates, k?
They literally do not. They literally can’t, because no studies are available to show that in general home-school kids perform better than public school kids. Stop lying.
They literally do:
“virtually all the available data show that the group of homeschooled children who are tested is above average. The pattern for children for whom data are available resembles that of children in private schools.”(51) Ray notes that, regardless of income, race, gender, or parents’ level of education, homeschooled children consistently score between the 82nd and 92nd percentiles on achievement tests.
Stop lying.
The rest of your argument is the same tired excuse that because we have good public universities that our public education system is the envy of the world. Sorry, but just repeating this over and over won’t make it any more true.
The fact is that even public universities receive a majority of their funding from sources other than the government. The only aspect of the US education system you are willing to defend is also the one least dependent on the government.
To summarize:
* Our K-12 system is mediocre
* Private and even home schooled kids outperform public school kids
* US colleges and universities are far less dependent on government funding than either the K-12 system or colleges and universities in most other countries. Coincidentally they also are our best performers.
* Number of facts you have offered up to support anything: 0
But other than that you’re doing great.
I eagerly await a cite that shows home-schoolers do better than public-schoolers.
You failed to do so.
And you failed to show that top American universities aren’t in a large part publicly (i.e., government grant) funded.
K-12 in America definitely needs work. Home schooling and vouchers aren’t the answer. Our publicly funded major universities, however, are doing just fine despite your little fits of bitching and moaning.