--- Begin Message ---
Blog For Arizona
///////////////////////////////////////////
Which of these men appears to be "presidential"?
Posted: 16 Oct 2008 03:19 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/423027077/which-of-these.html
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
This Reuters photo says all you need to know. You can suggest a photo caption
in the comments.
///////////////////////////////////////////
D.C. Voucher Program Works . . . Not So Well
Posted: 16 Oct 2008 03:51 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/422982477/dc-voucher-prog.html
by David Safier
In last night's debate, McCain touted the successes of the Washington D.C.
voucher program. He's a big supporter of vouchers, though he prefers to call it
"School Choice" and avoid the V word whenever he can. But a post on Washington
Monthly's blog, Political Animal, says, not so fast. It seems the D.C. voucher
program has been less than completely successful.
First, D.C. is basically run by the U.S. government, and the voucher program
came from Bush and Congressional Republicans who have been trying to jump-start
vouchers for years, with little success. They decided they would field test the
idea in their own little laboratory.
Well, there have been a few problems. In a 2007 story, Voucher Program Puts
D.C. Kids at Risk, Study Says, the Washington Post wrote that no one bothered
to check if the private schools were accredited or had proper buildings.
In a random sample of 18 schools reviewed by the GAO, two lacked occupancy
permits, and four lacked permits needed for buildings used for educational
purposes. At least seven of the 18 schools were certified as child development
centers but not as private schools. In one case, a school was operating in a
space designed for a retail store, the report says. . . . Some schools told
fund officials that they had certain amenities, such as a gymnasium or an
auditorium; the report says they did not.
Some of the teachers in these schools lacked bachelor's degrees.
But all that doesn't matter if the students excel, right? Except, they didn't.
A Post article from June of this year, Report Finds Little Gain From Vouchers,
wrote that a study measured students who tried to get in the voucher program
but weren't picked in the lottery (there was limited space) against those who
were picked and went to one of the private schools. After two years, the
students in private schools did no better on reading and math tests than those
who stayed in public schools.
The report, by the way, came from Bush's Department of Education, not some
pinko, lefty, anti-voucher group. And it reinforces another Department of Ed
study that found there is no appreciable difference between the performance of
students in standard public, charter or private schools.
So John, your example, like so many others you love to use either to promote
your agenda or to slam Obama, doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'm tempted to call
you a liar and a dishonorable man, but how can someone who was a prisoner of
war in Hanoi possibly tell a fib or act dishonorably? That's what you and your
surrogates always say, right?
Department of shameless self promotion. I mentioned last week that I now have a
weekly column in The Explorer. It just so happens, today's column is about my
objections to vouchers. As current as today's headlines, even if I did submit
it last Thursday.
///////////////////////////////////////////
John McCain: "I am not President Bush"... No, you're worse.
Posted: 16 Oct 2008 12:31 PM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/422871044/john-mccain-i-a.html
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
All the McMedia spinmeisters last night were reading from the McCain campaign
spin room talking points trying to salvage the evening by claiming that McCain
scored points with his line distancing himself from President Bush (oh, snap!):
"Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President
Bush, you should have run four years ago." Actually, the point was scored a
minute or so later by Barack Obama when he responded:
"So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your
policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues
that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on
spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush."
And as everyone in America knows by now, John McCain has voted with George W.
Bush more than 90% of the time. This does not a "maverick" make. The Obama
campaign is already up with an ad from last night's debate:
Think of it in terms of this analogy. Americans decided that they liked the
folksy-sounding guy they wanted to have a beer with in 2000, so they handed the
keys to the car to the drunkard, and his drinking buddies climbed into the
backseat of the car to go along for the ride. The drunkard immediately drove
the car into a ditch, but instead of taking the keys away from him and letting
someone more sober drive, his drinking buddies pushed the car back up onto the
road and let the drunkard continue to drive as they climbed back into the
backseat of the car to go along for the ride. This insanity was repeated over
and over again, with the drunkard's drinking buddies always encouraging him to
continue on after driving into yet another ditch and by enabling his reckless,
irresponsible and dangerous behavior. The drunkard eventually drove the car
over a steep cliff - and we are all now holding our breath on the way down in
anticipation of what is going to happen next.
John McCain was a principle enabler of George W. Bush. He was the only one who
could have stood up to him. It was John McCain who should have put "country
first" in 2004 by challenging Bush for the nomination of his party. He lacked
the courage, convictions and principles to do so. Instead, he put his personal
political ambition ahead of principles and his country and heeled like an
obedient dog, actively campaigning for and supporting the policies of the
"drunkard" and enabling him to continue on with his reckless, irresponsible and
dangerous behavior, which has now brought this country to the brink of
potential disaster. This "enabler" shares the blame equally with the "drunkard"
for his reckless conduct, as do all of the "drinking buddies" in the car. It
is time to throw all of Bush's enablers out of Congress and government.
The good folks at SEIU Cope explain in this ad why John McCain may actually be
worse than "W."
///////////////////////////////////////////
Dem Ticket sweeps Series 4-0!
Posted: 16 Oct 2008 11:29 AM CDT
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BlogForArizona/~3/422819014/dem-ticket-swee.html
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
October means two things to me: the Worlds Series and presidential debates. So
to borrow a sports metaphor, the Democratic ticket of Obama-Biden swept the
presidential debate series 4-0. Break out the brooms! None of the games were
even close, with snap polls and focus groups of undecided voters declaring the
Democratic team the decisive winner in each debate by more than a 2-1 margin.
Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher Final Debate: Obama Wins in Polls writes:
Four and out? A sweep for the Democrats? It could have followed the same script
as the past three encounters: Obama or Biden win on points and demeanor,
pundits call it a draw anyway, polls mock the pundits by showing an easy win
for the Dem. "In the first presidential debate, second presidential debate and
vice presidential debate, more uncommitted voters said the Democratic candidate
was the victor.
And tonight's results have, by a wide margin, made it a clean sweep." CBS Poll:
Uncommitted Voters Say Obama Won Final Debate
CNN, CBS, MediaCurves, the focus groups, all showed the same results. Obama won
big.
Obama dramatically improved his favorable number with the Stan Greenberg
undecided focus group from 42 before the debate to 72 after. McCain dropped
from 54 before to 50 after. Obama's unfavorables dropped from 42 to 22.
McCain's, however, rose from 34 to 48. And, this was a focus grouped that was
undecided, but started out leaning towards McCain. Greenberg focus group:
Decisive win for Obama (Note: The CNN poll also noted a drop in McCain's
favorable rating).
GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who hosted a Fox News undecided focus group, said
that "Early in the debate these people thought McCain was doing better, by the
end of the debate Obama seemed to finish better." Four of the undecided group
decided to vote for Obama, none for McCain. "This is a good night for Barack
Obama" said Luntz. Frank Luntz Focus group: This is a good night for Barack
Obama.
All in all, these debates have been a humiliating defeat "my friends" for the
Republicans, no matter how much their spinmeisters in the McMedia try to spin
their defeat into victory. It is no wonder why so many Republicans are so
angry at McCain and Palin rallies - their team does not have the skills or
ideas to compete.
There are two dynamics at play here. First, the very essence of John McCain's
being is his "McNasty" personality. That's the "real McCain." His sneers,
sarcasm and contemptuous behavior towards his opponent (the "bug eyes" thing
last night was way over the top - h/t to Daily Kos for the graphic) turns off
voters. Voters simply do not like candidates who behave badly and display an
obvious anger management issue. As David Gergen at CNN commented last night
"He looked angry. And it was almost an exercise in anger management up there
for him to contain himself."
And former Sen. Tom Daschle commented last night, "2/3 of the American people
think [McCain is] an angry candidate, and for 90 minutes, he tried to convince
the other third." He succeeded.
As I have written before, using Sarah Palin as his attack poodle was a serious
mistake. Female politicians simply cannot be used as an attack dog in a
campaign. The public, particularly female voters, really do not like it. Hey,
I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is in the real world.
The second dynamic at play here is one that Republicans and their allies in the
McMedia have yet to acknowledge. This is fundamentally a change election, what
is sometimes referred to as a wave election, in which the dominant political
philosophy of an era is replaced by a new political governing philosophy.
Movement conservatism which has dominated our politics since coming to power
with the so-called Reagan Revolution in 1980 is in its final death throws. It
is an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology (hell, George W. Bush just
nationalized the banking system, that's socialism). Conservative pundits like
George Will and David Brooks have hinted at the demise of this ideology in
recent columns, but they have yet to accept that their time on the stage is
over. There is a new political paradigm coming, and the voters are going to
deliver the final death blow to movement conservatism on Election Day. This
election will be at least as comparable to 1980 in terms of political
significance, if not the ultimate "wave election" standard of 1932.
Conservatives like to say that conservatism never fails, conservatives fail
conservatism. In other words, they will blame John McCain for being an
imperfect candidate and not being a "true" conservative who was capable of
delivering their conservative message.
On the contrary, John McCain sacrificed his last shred of integrity and decency
to hew to the conservative ideology of his party in this campaign, and it is
that conservative ideology which voters are now rejecting.
--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Blog For Arizona."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now
http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=14094206&key=AjP_O2IRy9
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Blog For Arizona, c/o
FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661
This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.
--- End Message ---
