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

[Lunar]

You're pulling one snippet from a speech designed to pander to the teachers?

Weak.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-open-to-private-school-vouchers/71403/

Senator Obama said this week that he is open to supporting private school vouchers if research shows they work.

"I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers. Vouchers are taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead. They are despised by teachers unions, powerful players in Democratic politics.

When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both national teachers unions last year, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, he told the unions that he did not support vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.

He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids," Mr. Obama said.

Told a current longitudinal study is ongoing, Mr. Obama said he would respond to its findings with an open mind.

The executive director of the lobbying group Democrats for Education Reform, Joseph Williams, said the response was unusual for a Democratic politician, praising Mr. Obama for making his bottom line helping children learn rather than ideology.

"I don't think anyone can call him a voucher supporter out of this, but it is an intriguing response," Mr. Williams said. "It is a different kind of answer than most of us are used to hearing from politicians."

The president of the National Education Association, Reginald Weaver, told The New York Sun today that he believes Mr. Obama still opposes vouchers. Mr. Weaver's union has not endorsed a candidate yet. Mr. Weaver said he was hoping to make an endorsement after the February 5 primaries but when a clear front-runner failed to emerge he delayed an announcement. He said he is hoping to continue conversations with candidates about their education plans before making an endorsement.

He said that in conversations he expects to ask Mr. Obama to affirm his position on vouchers. Asked the same voucher question by the Milwaukee paper, Senator Clinton had a strong response, saying she opposes vouchers because they hurt public schools and could also open up the possibility of using taxpayer dollars to finance dangerous schools including training grounds for "jihad."

[Lief 🗽]

Well, he picked this over Georgetown Day School, which is much closer to where I live and where I would have maybe had the opportunity to see him drop his kids off for school sometimes. This is the last straw and I now disapprove of him.

[Flying Dog]

Probably what any dad would do if they had the means.

[anti_leftist]

Probably what any dad would do if they had the means.

Too bad Obama is probably not going to do anything to help poor dads get those means. Regardless of anything he's said, is he actually going to take concrete steps to expand vouchers or at least increase school choice for low to middle income parents? Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".


Apparently he'll support vouchers "if research shows they work". In political speak, that means he'll defer the decision then later come up with some BS about how they don't work. See Bush re: Global Warming.

[Lunar]

[ Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".

Way to knock it up a notch.  Dehumanizing your opponents is a classic tool for fools to justify their arguments.

[anti_leftist]

[ Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".

Way to knock it up a notch.  Dehumanizing your opponents is a classic tool for fools to justify their arguments.

Can you at least respond to the substance of my post? Do you honestly forsee him implementing vouchers or something along those lines to improve school choice? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outright dismiss vouchers in the last debate or something as being "not practical".


I have no problem with the decision on its own, but if you're going to say vouchers are wrong and we should focus on improving our public schools instead, then you're a complete hypocrite and that would make the people who agree with him on this mindless supporters (i.e.: sheep). I think all people should have the choice to send their kids to different schools that Obama has. Apparently he disagrees and feels only people of privilege and power should get that luxury. Seems like something that should upset some of his left-wing base, as long as they aren't irrational sheep.

[Lunar]

[ Obama makes a completely hypocritical decision and his sheep praise him for being an "unselfish father".

Way to knock it up a notch.  Dehumanizing your opponents is a classic tool for fools to justify their arguments.

Can you at least respond to the substance of my post?

If you are calling me a sheep as a diversion and a rhetorical self-propagation tool, I'm going to call you an idiot because that's how you appear .  I don't feel automatically compelled to do more.  You're on a bipartisan forum and treating it as if it is FreeRepublic makes you look ridiculous.

 

Do you honestly forsee him implementing vouchers or something along those lines to improve school choice?

I think he would sign a vouchers bill that came before him, but he would rather use his politicla capital to pass things that are more important given the state of the country.
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outright dismiss vouchers in the last debate or something as being "not practical".

That's a reasonable criticism of vouchers (and I support vouchers).  He also cited vouchers during the debates as something he disagrees with his party on.

I have no problem with the decision on its own, but if you're going to say vouchers are wrong and we should focus on improving our public schools instead, then you're a complete hypocrite and that would make the people who agree with him on this mindless supporters (i.e.: sheep). I think all people should have the choice to send their kids to different schools that Obama has. Apparently he disagrees and feels only people of privilege and power should get that luxury. Seems like something that should upset some of his left-wing base, assuming of course they aren't irrational sheep.

I agree with you 100% on vouchers.

Well, Obama has two choices here for you inherent critics:
1) Sacrifice his daughters education and safety in exchange for making a political statement (how you would undoubtedly interpret it, given your above comments)
2) Be "hypocritical" even though he himself was raised in the most prestigious private school in the state of Hawaii and expressed interest in exploring vouchers for the good of children.  He has stated he is against vouchers in principle, but if they are proven to work, then the government is obligated to do them.  I don't see what's unreasonable about that position.

C'mon man.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1) Sacrifice his daughters education and safety

In the context of education, those are usually racist codewords. Don't see how they could really apply in this case...

[Lunar]

1) Sacrifice his daughters education and safety

In the context of education, those are usually racist codewords. Don't see how they could really apply in this case...

Well, in the context of a president's kids, private schools can really help out the secret service.

And the D.C. public education system is lackluster.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, in the context of a president's kids, private schools can really help out the secret service.

Snouts in the trough. Rant. Etc. Etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe it would be better if politicians had to send their little darlings there!

[Lunar]

While he's at it, he can probably move out of the White House and into this building:



in order to improve it for the rest of the residents

[Meeker]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

[Platypus]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

[Lunar]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

It's basically under the thought that the same amount of money that the government spends per pupil on public schools would yield much better results per-pupil in private schools.  It's the idea that private schools yield far better results per-dollar.

Thus the government offers students a sort-of "blank check" -- we have this money set aside for each student's education and you can use that at any school you want.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

Working class families should have the same educational opportunities that wealthy Americans, like Obama, have.  Why should the rich be able to send their kids to better schools than the poor?

[Platypus]

Wait, clarification please...people want the government to pay for poorer people tp send their kids to private schools? I;ve neer really undersood this vouchers thing.

Working class families should have the same educational opportunities that wealthy Americans, like Obama, have.  Why should the rich be able to send their kids to better schools than the poor?

Don, that makes some sense! Now lets make the same argument for healthcare.

[Lunar]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

[Platypus]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

I know it's the internet, but please turn on your sarcasm radar

[Lunar]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

I know it's the internet, but please turn on your sarcasm radar

I think yours is the one that's broken

Meeker's comment was actually brilliant though

[Platypus]

Malia and Sasha should also be forced to become active duty soldiers once they reach 18. Maybe then they'll start fewer wars.

Brilliant comment.

It would really prove that Obama is committed to the idea of community service -- even though he himself has never been in the army and was raised in a private school, he could really make a statement by forcing his daughters to do the opposite.  Anything else would be hypocritical.

I know it's the internet, but please turn on your sarcasm radar

I think yours is the one that's broken

Meeker's comment was actually brilliant though

I...uh...I was pretending not to notice your sarcasm.

Or it just wasn't funny.

[Gustaf]

Lunar, the article you cite doesn't show Obama as in favour of vouchers. It's like a 90% opposition of vouchers instead of 100%.

What he says is "if this is great, I'm for it, I doubt it is, but if it is I will agree that it is"

...which is like, nothing.

I don't blame him, of course. He would be a horrible person to sacrifice his own children for political principles. On the other hand, that shows exactly why the principles he has are so abominable.

To me, this is not bad in itself but it serves to highlight why his position is so horrible.

I will also note that the other examples cited aren't really equivalents. If Obama said that everyone should be forced to live in poor houses it would be hypocritical for him to live in the White House and if he said all 18-year olds should have to join the military excluding his own children would be bad.

Saying choice of other schools than public ones is bad and should not be allowed and then doing it yourself IS hypocritical in my book. In a pretty nasty way, too.

[Lunar]

Lunar, the article you cite doesn't show Obama as in favour of vouchers. It's like a 90% opposition of vouchers instead of 100%.

What he says is "if this is great, I'm for it, I doubt it is, but if it is I will agree that it is"

...which is like, nothing.

I don't blame him, of course. He would be a horrible person to sacrifice his own children for political principles. On the other hand, that shows exactly why the principles he has are so abominable.

1.  Abominable?  Jesus, I'm in favor of school vouchers but I'd hardly call opposition to them "abominable"

2.  His principles, however, fully acknowledge that there are contextualized nuances to this (he cites an area in Minnesota that had great success with vouchers).  If every time he articulates his philosophy "against" vouchers he fills it full of nuances and exceptions, is it really that hypocritical for him to lean towards the latter?  Just because he says he's skeptical of vouchers doesn't instantly make him he world's number one hypocrite because he chooses a private school for his children (especially because it helps the Secret Service protect his daughters!).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While he's at it, he can probably move out of the White House and into this building:

Look, my point here isn't that a less-eligibility test should be applied to the personal lives of senior politicians. But a school that charges around $30,000 a year per head [qm].

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

While he's at it, he can probably move out of the White House and into this building:

Look, my point here isn't that a less-eligibility test should be applied to the personal lives of senior politicians. But a school that charges around $30,000 a year per head [qm].

so My mom pays 20,000 grand per year for my school.

[Lunar]

I was obviously exaggerating, I like to use sarcastic pictures as part of  my angry spew when I get all riled up   I think Meeker's example of the military is a great example -- should a president who believes strongly in self-sacrifice for Americans be logically required to pressure his own daughters to join the army?

Anyway, what is the "less-eligibility test?"  -- too lazy to Google.



And the reason why I exploded in this thread is that I don't appreciate being called a sheep by  some jerk who attacks anyone who openly supports Obama doing "the right thing" (helping the Secret Service protect his daughters and ensuring they have the best chances for their future) over what would gain him political points.  I actually mentioned in my original comments that I thought that this was the only time Obama had ever sacrificed himself to do what was not politically advantageous (with the possible exception of him supporting the bailout, depending on your point of view). 

I especially don't like it because it's such a knee-jerk, idiotic, hackish reaction to assume that Obama is being "hypocritical" by this action.  Not only does this ignore his daughter's safety, but Obama has already supported public schools with a great degree of nuance.  He's never been an ideological opponent to private schools, he himself went to one of the best private schools west of the Mississippi!!  The man has probably flip-flopped on the voucher issue but that makes him a flip-flopper and not a hypocrite!