Did I Miss The "Hip" Part?
By: Ann Coulter
CNN commentators keep telling us how young and hip the audience was for
last week's YouTube Democratic debate, apparently unaware that the
camera occasionally panned across the audience, which was the same
oddball collection of teachers' union shills and welfare recipients you
see at all Democratic gatherings.
Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first "woo" of the debate — the
mating call of rotund liberal women — for demanding a federal mandate
that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.
So much for the "younger, hipper" audience. Maybe CNN meant "hippier,"
as in, "My, she's looking a bit hippy these days."
Not counting talking snowmen, the main difference in the YouTube debate
audience and the audience for the earlier CNN Democratic debate is that
the YouTube debate had 173,000 fewer viewers in the 18-49 demographic.
So it was provably not young and, on the basis of casual observation,
definitely not hip.
As usual, the audience consisted mostly of public schoolteachers.
According to CNN, the highest reading achieved on the CNN feelings-knob
was for Richardson talking about public schoolteachers. (Some in the
audience said they hadn't been that excited since the last time they had
sex with an underage student.)
B. Hussein Obama said he was for slavery reparations in many forms, but
the only one that got applause was for more "investment" in schools. In
Obama's defense, the precise question was: "But is African-Americans
ever going to get reparations for slavery?" So a switch to the subject
of education was only natural.
Moreover, a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're
half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery
and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve
sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to
yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees — which is the same way
federal aid works.
It was fun to hear the Democratic candidates give heart-rending reasons
for not sending their own kids to public schools. Except John Edwards.
He got a "woo" for sending his kids to public schools from all those
"young, hip" Democrats whose greatest concern is how to transfer more
money to public schoolteachers while reducing their workload.
The candidates all managed to come up with good reasons for sending
their kids to private schools — with extra points for reasons that
involved a family tragedy or emergency — but it didn't seem to occur to
any of them that ordinary families might have good reasons, too.
In her first risible lie of the debate, Hillary said Chelsea went to
public schools in Arkansas. But when they moved to Washington, they were
advised that "if she were to go to a public school, the press would
never leave her alone, because it's a public school. So I had to make a
very difficult decision."
"Unfortunately," she said, it was "good advice."
Was it really that difficult a decision not to send Chelsea to public
schools in Washington, D.C.?
This is how The New York Times recently described the schools in
Washington, which it called "arguably the nation's most dysfunctional
school system."
"Though it is one of the country's highest-spending districts, most of
the money goes to central administration, not to classrooms, according
to a recent series of articles in The Washington Post. Its 55,000 mostly
poor students score far worse than comparable children anywhere else in
reading and math, with nearly 74 percent of the district's low-income
eighth-graders lacking basic math skills, compared with the national
average of 49 percent."
So Hillary was dying to send Chelsea to the D.C. public schools, but
"unfortunately" did not do so only because of the press? Did she also
agonize over whether to allow Chelsea to play in traffic?
She was not dying to send Chelsea to D.C. public schools. And no
Democrat cares about "education" or "the poor."
Democrats care about social service bureaucrats who make their living
allegedly working on behalf of the poor — the famed "public service" the
Democrats always drone on about — jobs that would disappear if we ever
eliminated poverty. That's why Democrats keep coming up with policies
designed to create millions and millions more poor people.
Democrats fight tooth and nail against any measures that would actually
help the poor, such as allowing schools to fire bad teachers. They
refuse to allow parents with children in the rotten D.C. public schools
to take money out of the public school system so their kids could go to
Sidwell Friends like Chelsea.
Most important, Democrats resolutely refuse to tell the poor the secret
to not being poor: Keep your knees together until marriage.
That's it. Not class size, not preschool, not even vouchers, though
vouchers would obviously improve the education of all students. You
could have lunatics running the schools — and often do — and if the kids
live with married parents, they will end up at good colleges and will
lead happy, productive lives 99 percent of the time.
But Democrats don't care about the poor. They don't care about the
children. They care about government teachers and other government
bureaucrats — grimy, dowdy women who "woo" at political debates. Or as
CNN calls them, the "young," "hip" crowd.
redstatesusa.com
From: PROLIFE 4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 764051 |
