Well then, you were a rare liberal indeed - most likely a product of your upbringing, environment and political culture. Young indoctrinated libs with this attitude, which usually comes with common sense as well (a rare commodity these days), are pretty much destined to jump the plantation fence at some point later in their lives once they realize how things really work in the world.
Another plus is that you're obviously quite intelligent, based upon reading your missive - which I did read (obviously unlike some who have responded to this thread). Ignoring the past support for Obama, I found myself in agreement with the majority of what you wrote beyond that point, although not all. As for the responders claiming the letter was too long - that's probably true. But I can sympathize, since I often do the same thing myself. I'm famous for horribly long emails.
As to one of your original questions about whether this sort of approach would work to sway traditionally D demographics, I have no idea. To me it mostly sounded like logical arguments for conservative ideals, with a bit less pandering (for obvious personal reasons). I'd certainly like to think that's the right approach, since pandering and promising free stuff is absolutely the wrong answer if you truly believe in individual freedom, limited government and free economies. Maybe it really is just a question of getting the message out in minority communities, but I really don't know how you do that. The stupid party (Republicans) hasn't had a candidate since Reagan who bothered to even TALK about and explain, in well understood terms, the pros and cons of economic conservatism. During the debates I heard an inkling of it from Ryan when he was trying to get a word in edgewise with the mean, obnoxious drunk he was sentenced to "debate," but that was about it.
BTW, I had no idea that Obama's claimed position on education is as you state it. I'll take you at your word there, but I find it really hard to believe - meaning he's lying yet again, as he pretty much always does. What has Obama actually done in terms of charter schools & teacher accountability? Answer: Nothing. And don't hold your breath. That's straight up anti-NEA, and unions are the bread and butter that keep that tyrant and his tyrannical party in power - which is all they care about. He will never bite the hand that feeds him and put him in power as a Manchurian candidate, no matter what supposed positions he claims to support on education.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m not particularly interested in launching into a defense of Obama’s education policies but if you look into the Race to the Top program, it forces states to adopt new laws and policies that ease the way for charter schools and allow for test scores to play a role in teacher evaluation in order to qualify to compete for funds. He also supported the district in Rhode Island that fired the entire teacher staff when they wouldn’t agree to spend a little extra time improving education. Yes the NEA and the teacher’s unions hate all of this, but they are somewhat muted because they know a Republican President would be even worse for them.
He hasn’t supported vouchers, and I’m sure that there’s plenty that’s he’s done going the other direction, and certainly it’s still within the general framework of an active role for the federal government in education, which a lot of us would like to end. And a lot of it might just be seeing the “writing on the wall” and trying to head off/somewhat co-opt the general movement towards school choice, but his policy is definitely not what the teacher’s unions would most like to see, that much I do know.