Posted on 01/29/2002 7:09:28 PM PST by woofie
I'll put that down in the "I can't refute his argument, so I guess I'll just have to attack" category.
Ding. Chalk up another round for me.
END GOVERNMENT EDUCATION - NOW!
This deserves a big bump.
I see....
No, you don't "see" at all. I thought we'd already established that.
A message has to be appropriate for the intended audience. Yours isn't. It's ham-fisted and awkward. Bush's is gentle and finessed. One will work on the audience; the other won't. Yours only works when you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. And, if you're only preaching to the all ready converted, how is that going to change anything?
EXACTLY.
Now there's the understatement of the year.
Here's what the Cato institute had to say about the speech last night:
According to a Cato Institute analysis ( http://www.cato.org/new/01-02/01-29-02r-state.html ), the president outlined 39 new or expanded initiatives, up from 38 initiatives he proposed in last year's address to a joint session of Congress, and significantly fewer than the 104 initiatives proposed by President Clinton in his 2000 State of the Union address. Bush made his 39 proposals in 48 minutes--one minute less than last year. This is the fourth year the Cato Institute has tabulated the number of new initiatives proposed in State of the Union addresses. Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz offers the following additional analysis:
"It's a pleasure to watch a State of the Union address largely devoted to carrying out the federal government's proper function of providing national defense. Too many recent State of the Union speeches have involved a laundry list of proposals that exceed the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
"It was gratifying to hear the president say, 'America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law... limits on the power of the state... respect for women... private property... free speech... equal justice... and religious tolerance.' Those are the liberal values on which America was founded, but it's been some time since a president included 'limits on the power of the state' and 'private property' among our fundamental values, along with 'respect for women... free speech... and religious tolerance.'
"This president understands that all those principles go together, and we can only hope that he will continue to focus his energy on the federal government's unique and important responsibilities, and leave other matters to the states, the local communities, and the people."
Would you like their email address so you can write them and accuse the Cato Institute of having ear muffs on as well? Funniest thing, you seem to be the only one that heard what you think you heard -- and with no evidence or "arguments" to back it up to boot.
P.S. Opinions not based on an underpining of argument are worthless. It is the logical, supportable, and explainable argument that has value in a political discussion. Or, where you just here to brawl?
Well said. We usually leave the Utopian fantasies to the Dems -- or the passionately uninformed and unrealistic.
Speaking of that, did you see Politically Incorrect (I know, I know)? They had the ultraliberal cousin of Condie Rice on, a civil rights attorney, and this cousin was moaning about how the "mantra" of "Let's roll" was so beneath us as a leading nation. It was pure joy to watch actor/comedian Larry Elder (I hope I got his name right) put her in her place.
It's also a joy to see conservative celebrities speaking out.
1. It emphasizes the concept of accountability. It establishes the principle that the educrats are responsible for what they do with the money they get, and if children aren't learning, it won't do to make a great noise about the latest educational theory, or to say "It isn't our fault; you didn't give us enough."
2. It emphasizes alternatives. It moves some decision-making power to the local level; it encourages diversity in schooling at the local level; it also recognizes that parents have a right to alternatives if the schools are failing their children.
These are necessary principles to establish on the road to school choice. As long as the boundaries of the possible are set by the assumption that the education establishment must allowed to rule education without accountability as "experts" before whom the unwashed must bow, and that parents especially are expected to sit back and take whatever the "experts" dish out, then the preconditions for school choice are not even present in the national conversation.
I don't believe Bush's school choice proposals are dead - he just knows he can't get them passed now. If he gets a second term and a more firmly Republican Congress, I think school choice will be back. Again, he will look for the thin end of the wedge - school choice for parents in persistently failing schools - and point to these principles as embodied in this bill, in order to crack the school-choice taboo.
Bush consistently does this with domestic policy -- not an all-out assault that will lose, but an attempt to insert thin end of the wedge and open up the politically thinkable options. The Social Security investments accounts are another example - the thin end of the wedge, breaking open the consensus that only the government can provide for your old age.
I understand the incremental approach. That is what the Dems are now trying to do with health care, to push the ball towards the Canadian single payor system. But where also does the Educational Bill do the above? I missed it. (Tutors don't count.)
Your entire post is very well said, indeed, ladyinred. Thank you.
woofie, thanks for posting a good read.
I agree. He looked his usual self.
Iran was mentioned before Iraq. For those of you who remember, this is a re-emphasis I’ve been arguing for for a while. It was extremely encouraging to see it in the speech. That Iran-sponsored boat full of weapons for the PLO was arguably the dumbest initiative those clerical thugs have perpetrated in a very long time. This new emphasis also lies behind, I think, the new tough line with the Palestinians. An Iranian-backed client state on the West Bank has to be avoided.
I had the thought last night that the Administration could use the dems screams about Enron and funny accounting practices against them in the budget. After-all, in that aspect, Congress makes Enron look like a bunch of pre-schoolers.
Which raises the question, how is he different from the Democrats? Clinton co-opted every Republican issue and he was said to be a bad guy on this forum because of it. But this guy does it and the same people genuflect.
Amen! What a great read.
A president may propose, but Congress disposes.
What is Congress' role in your gloom and doom scenario?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.