Election: Repubs win; Conservatives Lose - Page 2

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Once the USA gets of it's perceived Christian high horse things will change....like it has in other nations:

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Sweden

There are rays of hope for America, look at the Houston Mayor's race.

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

This is a highly conservative district (in the hands of Republicans since the 1800's), and had national attention (including endorsements by anyone who is someone in the party), and they still lost. I think it's a bigger message that even a high profile conservative candidate will turn off enough voters to cost elections.

If they can't win in a conservative district like this one, their prospects in less highly-publicized elections will likely be even worse.

Its a TRADITIONALLY conservative district that Voted for Obama, so one must question exactly how conservative they are. Add to that, the local Republican party there nominates a liberal, and I'd not place an overabundance of weight on this.

KAM

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micael

(Go ahead Dems, please stay on the tax and spend path you're on)

Well of course we will. Spending on silly things like education:

Obama coaxes states to change with school dollars

Quote:

MADISON, Wis. — President Barack Obama challenged states Wednesday to get their education policies in line with his administration's priorities if they want a chance at $5 billion in grants.

"If you're willing to hold yourselves more accountable, if you develop a strong plan to improve the quality of education in your state, we'll offer you a grant to help make that plan a reality," Obama said while speaking at a Wisconsin middle school.

Marking one year since his victory in the presidential election, Obama said his administration's first obligation was bringing the U.S. economy back from the brink of collapse. But long-term economic success, he said, can only be achieved by making investments in education.

Pesky investing in America's future.

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

If you drum out, dismiss, or label as RINO's / liberals any people who deviate from your vary narrow set of "values" (i.e. Powell, Snowe, McCain), then it is indeed about purity. To-may-to, To-mah-to.

Yes, the Democrat party is much better at exploiting so-called moderates (like the Blue Dogs) who most often just say "Yes sir/ma'am" when their leftist leadership says jump. So far some of them are holding out on things like Healthcare, because it may very well cost them their seats, but I expect them to buckle.

In other words--Democrats aren't particular as long as they can get ahold of the power-seats, because they have no trouble marginalizing and whipping their "moderate" members into shape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bujin

For the record, I've stated many times that if the Republicans can decide on a set of values, they will be very successful. They currently have two distinct sets of values: fiscal conservatism and evangelical social conservatism. If they could stick to the former and jettison the latter, they will likely not turn off so many libertarians and those who are fiscally conservative but not hung up on the social issues.

Well, I'll first comment on what you are correct about (IMO)--that is for 2010 running on Fiscal conservatism is likely to be a winning strategy. I think it is one of the main reasons they lost Congress in 2006 and 2008...failure to be Fiscal Conservatives. Of course, this ignores the fact that voting for Democrats is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, but why bother with relevant facts--this is politics.

However, the "blame republicans/bush" for everything mantra that the Democrats depended on (because they have no credibility in claiming fiscal restraint of any kind--even less than the less-than-thrifty republicans), isn't likely to carry much weight, although it won't stop them from trying it--its what they do--blame Republicans.

In any case--Yes, Running on strict Fiscal Conservatism is an excellent strategy that is likely to work for Republicans in 2010.

However, I disagree with the rest of what you are saying. Why should Republicans have to be ONLY what you want them to be, while Democrats are free to do whatever they wish. Why can Democrats push their social agendas on the public with the power of government, but for a Republican to even suggest such a thing is totally taboo?

I'd prefer the Government keeps its nose out of social issue altogether, but of course that's not what Democrats do--they love to use Government, schools, and whatever else to push their views and beliefs on others.

What you're basically saying is that Republicans should be silent about their views on non-economic issues while allowing democrats to do whatever they want. Wouldn't that be a great treat for Democrats?

KAM

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

Well of course we will. Spending on silly things like education:

Pesky investing in America's future.

Yes, maximizing the indoctrination potential in puclic schools is vital to the Democrats' future. I see absolutely no reason why a school, that is doing what it should--you know, teaching things like Reading, Math and Civics need to be "in line with administration policies."

Perhaps if the Federal Government wasn't so busy making schools chase (our taxpayer) money, they could actually teach children vital foundational learning skills, and we could actually have a future, instead of forcing them into social experiments orchestrated by politicians outside of their communities.

KAM

groovy · 11/04/2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

Well of course we will. Spending on silly things like education:

Obama coaxes states to change with school dollars

Pesky investing in America's future.

The proof of the pudding, as they say. The President's priorities in education are even more vague than his priorities in health care. People are scrambling to get stimulus money without knowing exactly what they have to do to get it. I fear a lot of organizations will spend a lot of money to implement new programs but will ultimately not benefit from the stimulus because they didn't know the specifics far enough in advance to do anything about them.

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Yes, maximizing the indoctrination potential in puclic schools is vital to the Democrats' future. I see absolutely no reason why a school, that is doing what it should--you know, teaching things like Reading, Math and Civics need to be "in line with administration policies."

Perhaps if the Federal Government wasn't so busy making schools chase (our taxpayer) money, they could actually teach children vital foundational learning skills, and we could actually have a future, instead of forcing them into social experiments orchestrated by politicians outside of their communities.

KAM

The "Administration Policies" are those on the performance of educational institutions including booting teachers that stink regardless of the teachers union.

You can continue to use dramatic inflammatory words like "indoctrination" all day long but this administration has tapped the best minds to apply the logical changes to fix the things which need fixing. Plain and simple.

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovy

The proof of the pudding, as they say. The President's priorities in education are even more vague than his priorities in health care. People are scrambling to get stimulus money without knowing exactly what they have to do to get it. I fear a lot of organizations will spend a lot of money to implement new programs but will ultimately not benefit from the stimulus because they didn't know the specifics far enough in advance to do anything about them.

Huh?

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 04:47 PM

Hello Everyone,

I've got to laugh at the leftist strategy being parroted here, which amounts to "You Republicans should be more like Democrats if you want to win."

Wow, that is just so brilliant. Adopt your oppositions positions, why didn't they think of this sooner? All they needed to do all this time is take the advice of their opponents, because I'm sure they have only their best interests at heart right?

My Goodness, can you be more transparent? Do you really think that you're fooling anyone, or are you so immersed in your own propaganda that you believe this is actually sound advice. Your strategy is to look as much like your opponent as possible, even though it is against what you believe, so you have a chance of being chosen, because no one can tell the difference?

When you are a Republican that holds onto principles, you are a "purist" who cannot tolerate dissent. When you are a democrat who holds any number of outlandish ideas pandering to your kook base, well, that's all well and good.

Pure silliness. Does it mean that moderate voters will always agree with you? No--of course not--that's why they are moderates and not conservatives, but they won't necessarily agree with the liberals either (which...right is why they are not liberals).

Incidentally, there was various talk about Republican identification, and that's largely true I think, however, I seem to recall a while back "Conservative" as the largest self-identifying category? Found it.
â€œConservativesâ€ Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

So...yeah...great advice.

KAM

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

The "Administration Policies" are those on the performance of educational institutions including booting teachers that stink regardless of the teachers union.

Isn't that what 'No child left behind' did? Teachers I've talked to have told me how counterproductive these sorts of programs have been. I agree that getting rid of bad teachers is a good idea, but there is no way in hell that the Obama administration and democrat party (owned by the NEA) is going to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

You can continue to use dramatic inflammatory words like "indoctrination" all day long but this administration has tapped the best minds to apply the logical changes to fix the things which need fixing. Plain and simple.

Oh yes, clearly this administration has done everything wonderful and perfectly well, using only the "best minds" do do exactly what needs to be done. No reason to question anything now is there? They've got it covered. Indoctrination...well, I must have been mistaken, this doesn't sound ANYTHING like that. How could I have been so mistaken--I just needed someone to point out the glorious benefits that come when one sees the light of the Obama administration. Its all plain and simple as you say--no need to worry about anything anymore.

Thanks for the example.

KAM

groovy · 11/04/2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daThomas

Huh?

What specific benchmarks to localities have to meet in order to get the stimulus carrot?

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 05:03 PM

Hello Again,

Let me say a little something about Conservative values. Above they are called "narrow." Here's a general view of my "narrow" values.
I believe in personal liberty, personal responsibility and the government keeping its nose out of my personal business.
I believe in a government that performs its duties as defined by the US Constitution, and not grabbing whatever power they can imagine.
I believe in a Government that is not there to involve itself in every aspect of my life, but to enable and protect a civil society where people are free to make their own choices--what they eat, who they associate with, where they live, how they live, who they do or do not worship and how they educate their children.
I believe in my own ability to decide things for myself, and how to use my money that I work hard to earn, but understanding I pay my FAIR (real fair, not redistributionist "fair") share of taxes towards things that individuals cannot provide for themselves (roads, national defense, etc).
I believe in minding my own damn business, and demanding that others pay me the same respect.
I oppose government trying to supplant the roles of mothers and fathers and holding our own money over our heads in an attempt to "nudge" us toward the behaviors they want.
I believe in living my own life without harming others and expecting others to let me do the same.
I believe that I have the right and responsibility to provide for myself and my family.
I can choose how to spend my money to help others better than the government can choose for me.
I believe in individualism and achievement, not the misery of collectivism.
I believe in a limited government, not a statist one.
I know what's important to me, and what's best for me and my family, and we'll make those decisions on our own without government's advice.

Go ahead--tell me about how "narrow" my views are.

KAM

ryleyinstl · 11/04/2009, 05:23 PM

The constitution is what the constitution does. I think this nation is currently operating the way you describe it KAM. The question is, is that ideology actually in the best interests of everyone? I think not.

groovy · 11/04/2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

The constitution is what the constitution does. I think this nation is currently operating the way you describe it KAM. The question is, is that ideology actually in the best interests of everyone? I think not.

Which of those do you disagree with?

ryleyinstl · 11/04/2009, 05:52 PM

Most of it. I just don't understand the American bias towards not helping out your fellow citizen. "My money is mine and none of it is going to anything I don't want it to." How can we get ahead thinking like that. More even distribution of wealth insures we all are doing better and in turn the country as a whole would do better.

We need a government to make the decisions for us that we can't make properly for ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovy

Which of those do you disagree with?

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KAM1138

Isn't that what 'No child left behind' did? Teachers I've talked to have told me how counterproductive these sorts of programs have been. I agree that getting rid of bad teachers is a good idea, but there is no way in hell that the Obama administration and democrat party (owned by the NEA) is going to do that.

Secretary Duncan Says Rewrite of 'No Child Left Behind' Should Start Now; Reauthorization Can't Wait

Quote:

Next Version of the Federal K-12 Law Should Drive School Reforms That Prepare Students for Success

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today said that the $24.8 billion in federal funds available annually to the nation's schools should support reforms that prepare students for success in college and careers.

"Today, I am calling on all of you to join with us to build a transformative education law that guarantees every child the education they want and need—a law that recognizes and reinforces the proper role of the federal government to support and drive reform at the state and local level," Duncan told more than 200 leaders of major education groups in his first major speech about the future of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The ESEA was reauthorized most recently in 2002 in what is known as the No Child Left Behind Act.

In his speech, Duncan said that the NCLB law has significant flaws and that he looks forward to working with Congress to address the law's problems. He said the law puts too much emphasis on standardized tests, unfairly labels many schools as failures, and doesn't account for students' academic growth in its accountability system.

"But the biggest problem with NCLB is that it doesn't encourage high learning standards," Duncan said. "In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when they are not."

Duncan credited NCLB for highlighting the achievement gap in schools and for focusing accountability on student outcomes, and said he is committed to policies that work toward closing that gap while raising the achievement of all children.

He said he wants the next version of ESEA to create tests that better measure student learning and to build an accountability system that is based on the academic growth of students. He also wants the law to create programs to improve the performance of existing teachers and school leaders, to recruit new effective educators, and to ensure that the best educators are serving the children that are the furthest behind.

"Our role in Washington is to support reform by encouraging bold, creative approaches to addressing underperforming schools, closing the achievement gap, strengthening the field of education, reducing the dropout rate and boosting college access," Duncan said.

After Duncan's speech, the two senior staff members who will coordinate the department's effort to reauthorize the ESEA invited members of the audience to outline proposals for the next version of the law.

The session was the first in a series of events where education stakeholders will offer input about the law. Carmel Martin, assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and program development, and Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, will host the events in the Barnard Auditorium at the department's headquarters in the Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, 400 Maryland Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C.

The dates and times for upcoming ESEA stakeholder meetings are as follows:

* Wednesday, Oct. 7 from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
* Wednesday, Oct. 21 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
* Wednesday, Nov. 4 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
* Friday, Nov. 20 from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
* Wednesday, Dec. 2 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The forums are part of the department's "Listening and Learning" tour seeking public input about changes to the ESEA. By the end of the year, the secretary or a senior staff member will have led a listening and learning event in all 50 states.

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

The constitution is what the constitution does. I think this nation is currently operating the way you describe it KAM. The question is, is that ideology actually in the best interests of everyone? I think not.

How do you define what is everyone's best interest? I'll define what my best interest is and you define yours--I don't cede my right to anyone to decide that for me.

The Constitution is what the Constitution does? What the heck does that even mean?

KAM

daThomas · 11/04/2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovy

What specific benchmarks to localities have to meet in order to get the stimulus carrot?

Race to the Top Website

Race to the Top Proposed Priorities Full Details Here

Quote:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority 1: Absolute Priority--Comprehensive Approach to the
Four Education Reform Areas

Proposed Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority--Emphasis on
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

PProposed Priority 3--Invitational
Priority-- Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems

Proposed Priority 4--Invitational Priority--P-20 Coordination and
Vertical Alignment

Proposed Priority 5--Invitational Priority--School-Level Conditions for
Reform and Innovation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

groovy · 11/04/2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Most of it. I just don't understand the American bias towards not helping out your fellow citizen. "My money is mine and none of it is going to anything I don't want it to." How can we get ahead thinking like that. More even distribution of wealth insures we all are doing better and in turn the country as a whole would do better.

We need a government to make the decisions for us that we can't make properly for ourselves.

Actually, America, being the most generous country in terms of charitable giving, has no bias towards helping out its fellow citizens. What we are talking about here are differences in methodology. Conservative Americans would rather give their money to the less fortunate than have their money taken away and distributed to a bloated and overly bureaucratic state before any of it gets to the less fortunate.

KAM1138 · 11/04/2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Most of it. I just don't understand the American bias towards not helping out your fellow citizen. "My money is mine and none of it is going to anything I don't want it to."

First, that isn't what I said--I specifically mentioned paying taxes, and undoubtedly I won't agree with all of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

How can we get ahead thinking like that. More even distribution of wealth insures we all are doing better and in turn the country as a whole would do better.

You are a collectivist, that's fine. I'm not, and it is the antipathy of liberty. I hope your philosophy fails to take hold here to save us all from the failure and misery it has caused throughout the world.

How you fail to respect private property rights, which is a massive pillar of our entire nation is amazing to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

We need a government to make the decisions for us that we can't make properly for ourselves.

Spoken like a true statist. Maybe YOU need government to make decisions for you--that's your failure, don't drag me down with you. Who the heck gives you or anyone the right to make decisions for me? You have no right to declare yourself or anyone else the power to define what is proper for me.

I'm a bit stunned at this--unless I am mistaken, you are literally promoting outright tyranny. If you can't handle your own life and your decisions to live it--then you go ahead and ask someone to manage it for you. You have no right to force anyone else into that.

Its a bit refreshing to hear someone so openly expressing their views however, instead of hiding them. For that I congratulate you, despite the fact that I find those views repulsive.

KAM