SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (3146)7/6/2003 6:00:51 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793719
 
CAMPAIGN 2004
No Left Turn
If the liberals win, the Democratic Party loses.

BY AL FROM AND BRUCE REED - WSJ.COM
Sunday, July 6, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Messrs. From and Reed are, respectively, founder/CEO and president of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Democrats are fighting again over their party's direction. We think that's a good thing.

The 2004 presidential nominating process is the first big chance Democrats have had to define the party in a dozen years. This definition will determine whether our candidate can defeat George W. Bush. For party and country, the stakes couldn't be higher, so we've urged candidates to follow President Clinton's strategy and seize the vital center, not veer left.

To some on the left, that advice is "fighting yesterday's wars." We only wish it were so. Despite the unprecedented progress the country made under a Democratic president in the '90s, no Democrat will take back the White House in 2004 unless he recaptures the trust of ordinary Americans as Bill Clinton did in 1992. We're all for turning out the Democratic faithful, but energizing the liberal base is not enough to win nationally. For a decade, the electorate has been 30% conservative, 20% liberal and 50% moderate. There's a reason Mr. Clinton was the only Democrat elected and re-elected president in 60 years: he inspired Democrats but also went after the independents and moderate Republicans he needed to win.

The doubts Democrats worked so hard to put to rest in the '90s--that we love government and taxes too much, and care about security and values too little--are back. Twice as many Americans think Republicans, not Democrats, have a clear vision for the country. Three out of four voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to keep the country safe. No wonder that this year Gallup has consistently found more Americans identifying themselves as Republicans than Democrats. We won't overcome those odds by continuing to preach to the converted, only louder. Democrats need an agenda that not only excites the core, but also benefits ordinary Americans with no ties to either party.

We don't have to compromise our principles to win. We simply need to live up to our best traditions: Andrew Jackson's belief in equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none; FDR's passion for reform; Truman's tough-minded internationalism; JFK's civic obligation; Mr. Clinton's insistence that opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand. A Democrat in that tradition who is not afraid to use U.S. power in dangerous times; who wants to reform government, not just expand it; and who offers a plan to grow the economy and increase middle-class incomes, not the middle-class tax burden, can beat Mr. Bush. A Democrat who fails to overcome doubts about security, or who raises new doubts by promising to increase government as dramatically as conservatives hope to shrink it, will not.

Mr. Bush's record--shafting the middle class and helping the wealthy--will do more to get our core voters to the polls than overheated rhetoric and promises. The Bush White House desperately hopes that Democrats will make the election an ideological contest between liberals and conservatives. That's the one battle Republicans know they can win--without having to answer for the worst economic record since Hoover. So for some, sounding the alarm about the urgent need to expand Democrats' appeal may seem like yesterday's war. To us, it's the only thing that will keep Democrats from becoming yesterday's party.
opinionjournal.com



To: JohnM who wrote (3146)7/6/2003 11:02:40 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793719
 
Look at the Census figures that the "Washington Times" includes, John. Really damning to the, "more men and money" argument. I guess you will claim that the numbers are wrong, because it came from the Times. That mean old Moony church makes them fake everything. :>)

Troublesome school talk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES - EDITORIAL
Published July 6, 2003

The past couple of weeks have been hard on Superintendent Paul Vance. First came the sad but expected news that students performed poorly on two standardized exams, the 2002 National Assessment of Education Progress reading exam and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Last Sunday, the superintendent tried to downplay, indeed he criticized, the NAEP results, saying, among other things, that NAEP unfairly compares the District to states. Then, on Tuesday, President Bush used the backdrop of a charter school, over which the superintendent holds no authority, fortunately, to explain why poor D.C. students deserve vouchers. That the city's mayor, school board president and the lawmaker chiefly responsible for educational matters were in attendance as voucher supporters stands as testament to remarks the superintendent himself made about the disappointing performance of D.C. Public Schools.
First, the NAEP scores. Sixty-nine percent of D.C. fourth-graders scored below basic on the NAEP, compared to 39 percent nationwide. Among black D.C. students (and the D.C. public school system is overwhelmingly black), 72 percent scored below basic. All told, D.C. Public Schools scored lower than all 50 states.
While School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz rightly characterized that illiteracy rate as "absolutely inexcusable," Mr. Vance made excuses. In his June 29 opinion piece in The Washington Post, Mr. Vance called the NAEP assessment "unfair." The unfairness relates to the fact that states "offset low scores from some areas with scores from traditionally higher-performing areas, such as suburbs."
Well, no, the District is not a state. It's fair, though, in this instance, to say that Mr. Vance has read the Eleanor Holmes Norton Book of Liberal Propaganda, which advises that, when all else fails, cry no taxation without representation. The fact of the matter is that D.C. taxpayers hand over an awful lot of money to Mr. Vance and his staff. According to census statistics released this spring, the District's per-pupil spending, including capital outlays, was $15,122, compared to the national average of $8,521.
Mr. Vance also took issue with achievement gaps. "The gap in fourth-grade reading between African American and white students was reduced," he said, "by 12 points, while the gap between Hispanic and white students was reduced by 19 points." What Mr. Vance did not tell readers of The Post is that, while the national gap between white and black and white fourth-graders stands at only 29 points, the gap in the District is far more pronounced, standing at 60 points. So much for bridging that divide.
The superintendent went on to say that, since the NAEP is but one "indicator of student achievement," the city will continue to rigorously follow the student achievement goals set out in its own plan for school reform." Our rub here is that the District's plan, i.e. Paul Vance's plan, isn't working, even when measured not by the NAEP but by the SAT-9. According to Mr. Vance's own critique of that exam's recent scores, middle, junior and senior high schools continue to lag behind their regional and national counterparts, with scores for a number of those schools either unchanged or slipping.
Surely, by now, Mr. Vance and his staff are familiar with the bluntness with which Mr. Bush spoke on Tuesday, when he talked about "the soft bigotry of low expectations." And they have probably read by now Mr. Bush's comments about D.C. schools. "There are some great schools in the District," the president said, "and there are some lousy schools in the District." How right he is.
Mr. Vance knows the great schools from the lousy ones. Problem is, Mr. Vance doesn't give the great ones credit for helping to "offset low scores" by the lousy ones and his reform "plan" isn't helping the lousy schools either. As charter schools continue to flourish and vouchers become available, Mr. Vance will have less "lousy" schools to worry about.

dynamic.washtimes.com