Obama daughters to attend Sidwell Friends, just like Chelsea Clinton did

[Gustaf]

I got logged off while posting. ARGH!

Anyway, here is what Obama's own website says on vouchers:

"Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers."

While, "John McCain will take much-needed money away from our schools to fund private schools instead."

Yeah, funding private schools to allow stinky poor people to attend the same schools as Obama's fine kids, the horror!

It doesn't sound nuanced to me, and it sure as hell sounds hypocritical.


EDIT: here's the link so you know I'm not making it up http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

[Lunar]

I'm well aware of various arguments against vouchers. I live in Sweden, for crying out loud!
As I know you support them and since it isn't the topic I didn't get into it. If you mean that I painted a negative image of that position, it's true. I stand by what I said. The arguments commonly used I just don't agree much with. Note that you asked "why is it abominable". What I said is my explanation of why I think it is so. It's not supposed to be an objective assessment of the issue.

Alright, fair enough.

Back on topic: from what I've seen in this thread and elsewhere Obama does not support introduction of vouchers.

-theoretically he opposes them, which I think is reasonable.

-immediately without doing more groundwork in practicality.  He says the government should do them if it it's shown to help the kids and actually cites a case in Minnesota where they worked and said we should look into cases like that more.

That sort of, kind of equals opposing vouchers in my book.

Well, your book is kind of harsh on the subject.

Saying "I oppose vouchers, but I don't hate them" is merely a political move designed to make people like you say to yourself "I can vote for this guy because he doesn't hate vouchers" while other people can say "I can vote for this guy because he opposes vouchers"

Well, he just ran a campaign.  You can probably pick out quotes to prove that Obama supports the continuation of the Iraq War when he was attempting to be moderate.  That doesn't mean he does though!

His nuanced position, like so many Obama positinos, seems to exist more in rethoric than in actual policy. You haven't showed that he actually supports it. I believe you know more about his positions than I do, so if you can find anything I would stand corrected. In that case there would be less hypocrisy.

I don't know for sure he 100% supports vouchers because clearly his position is kind of vague.  But the question I'm attempting to answer is whether or not he deserves a snide internet comment about the hypocrisy of sending his daughters to a private school (which can better provide their safety no less).  You're not one of the people screaming and beating the hypocrisy drum though.  edit

[Lunar]

I got logged off while posting. ARGH!

Anyway, here is what Obama's own website says on vouchers:

"Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers."

While, "John McCain will take much-needed money away from our schools to fund private schools instead."

Yeah, funding private schools to allow stinky poor people to attend the same schools as Obama's fine kids, the horror!

It doesn't sound nuanced to me, and it sure as hell sounds hypocritical.


EDIT: here's the link so you know I'm not making it up http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

Ok, I guess that's his "official" position.  Fair enough.

But are his own stated beliefs nuanced enough to avoid the hypocrisy charge for the mere act of having one of his children going to a private school (again, it helps the Secret Service protect them)? 

If someone opposes vouchers, as you claim Obama does without sufficient exceptions, are they morally obligated to send their kids to public schools?

[Gustaf]

I got logged off while posting. ARGH!

Anyway, here is what Obama's own website says on vouchers:

"Barack Obama believes free, quality public education is the heart of the American promise. He supports public charter schools, but not vouchers."

While, "John McCain will take much-needed money away from our schools to fund private schools instead."

Yeah, funding private schools to allow stinky poor people to attend the same schools as Obama's fine kids, the horror!

It doesn't sound nuanced to me, and it sure as hell sounds hypocritical.


EDIT: here's the link so you know I'm not making it up http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

Ok, I guess that's his "official" position.  Fair enough.

But are his own stated beliefs nuanced enough to avoid the hypocrisy charge for the mere act of having one of his children going to a private school (again, it helps the Secret Service protect them)? 

If someone opposes vouchers, as you claim Obama does without sufficient exceptions, are they morally obligated to send their kids to public schools?

As you pointed out yourself he sent his kids to private schools before any security issues were involved (how does that back-fire feel to you??? ) So I'm gonna use that excuse to ignore that point. Anyway, my point is that his position seems to be more of "I'm going to sound nuanced while not actually supporting vouchers" than "I'm going to sound nuanced while supporting vouchers" or "I'm going to sound nuanced while actually being nuanced" If you know what I mean.

To answer the second question I would pose it differently. Precisely because a person in that situation is morally obliged to not send their children to public schools they are morally obliged to support other people to be able to do it too. And that is why I dislike opposition of vouchers. I believe I stated at the out-set that I did not disagree with Obama sending his kids to that school. I disagree with his position and this, hypocritical, move highlights why.

[Lunar]

Ok, fair enough.  That backfire sure hurts!

I'm skeptical of whether his official website actually describes his views and I'm skeptical of doing anything with vouchers when we have more pressing concerns like the economy,  thus I think it's a bit unfair to expect him to fully embrace education reform this second. If you've seen the presidential debates, when challenged to name an issue he disagrees with his party on he readily cites Vouchers and how the Teachers Union campaigned against him during the primaries for that reason.  If you read his quotes, he doesn't exactly sound like someone who expects poor people to be stuck in a flailing in a public school system -- he mostly sounds interested in first exploring fixing the public schools but has a broad commitment to do whatever works.

I think his rhetoric, when he cites examples of working systems of vouchers and his general statements along the lines of "if they are proven to work we owe it to the children to do whatever works" creates enough leeway for him to clearly and unquestionably avoid the hypocrisy-test, but you tend to have a more absolutist view of the matter.  In your "off with their heads" perspective of anyone who in any way opposes vouchers, he might very well be hypocritical I suppose.

[Gustaf]

Ok, fair enough.  That backfire sure hurts!

I'm skeptical of whether his official website actually describes his views and I'm skeptical of doing anything with vouchers when we have more pressing concerns like the economy,  thus I think it's a bit unfair to expect him to fully embrace education reform this second. If you've seen the presidential debates, when challenged to name an issue he disagrees with his party on he readily cites Vouchers and how the Teachers Union campaigned against him during the primaries for that reason.  If you read his quotes, he doesn't exactly sound like someone who expects poor people to be stuck in a flailing in a public school system -- he mostly sounds interested in first exploring fixing the public schools but has a broad commitment to do whatever works.

I think his rhetoric, when he cites examples of working systems of vouchers and his general statements along the lines of "if they are proven to work we owe it to the children to do whatever works" creates enough leeway for him to clearly and unquestionably avoid the hypocrisy-test, but you tend to have a more absolutist view of the matter.  In your "off with their heads" perspective of anyone who in any way opposes vouchers, he might very well be hypocritical I suppose.

I guess this is the closest we will come to agreement, so ok. I would expect the guy to take responsibility for his own website section of issue positions though. Especially since it distinguishes him from McCain on that specific issue. But I realize you're in a rationalization mode right now...