Into My Own

The Voucher Fallacy

2008-05-01T17:12:00.003-04:00

There's a terrific piece by Greg Anrig at the Washington Monthly that explains why some conservatives have decided to give up the voucher fight. Apparently some conservatives have decided that the voucher experiment has worked as promised to bring educational prosperity to inner city poor kids.

Let's start with the contention that the academic performance of low-income children would improve after they moved to private institutions. For a long time, it was absurdly difficult to find out whether this was true in the one place where vouchers had been tried over an extended period: Milwaukee. After that city's initial small-scale initiative produced ambiguous, but generally unimpressive, results (and a lot of fighting over that data), the Wisconsin legislature chose to omit testing requirements altogether when the program was significantly expanded in 1998. This February, however, a group of researchers led by professors Patrick J. Wolf and John F. Witte produced the first installment of a study intended to follow how comparable groups of students in the public and private voucher schools perform over time. At least at the outset, they found no statistically significant differences in the test scores between the public and private school fourth and eighth graders for the 2006-07 school year. For the private as well as the public school students, the scores generally hovered around the 33rd percentile—in other words, a typically low performance for schools with high concentrations of poverty.

In Cleveland, a similar but now completed study that followed the same students over time showed dispiriting results from that city's voucher program. Tracking the scores of students who began kindergarten in the 1997-98 school year through their sixth-grade year in 2003-04, Indiana University researchers found no significant differences in overall achievement, reading, or math scores between students who used vouchers and those who stayed in public schools, after taking into account socioeconomic differences.

Anrig goes on to explain that there were also not economic pressures forcing public schools to get better the way many theorists expected. There was always a fallacy about the "competition" between schools that stood behind the voucher argument. Voucher advocates thought that public schools would begin to work to attract students back from private schools the way a business would work to bring back clients lost to the competition.

This is a fallacious analogy brought up again and again by people who can only see education in economic terms. For one thing, schools aren't stores: they can't serve everyone who shows up. There isn't room in private schools to accomodate all of the students in public schools, or even a fraction of them. You can't have competition when so few choices really exist for the large majority of people.

But where the choice/competition argument really fails is in thinking that schools fail simply because they aren't working hard enough or that they don't care about their customers. Kids in public schools don't fail because the teachers and administrators are doing a bad job. Sure, sometimes they are, but sometimes teachers in wealthy districts with good test scores are doing a bad job too. The success or failure of students in schools isn't always about the quality of the people providing the instruction. Sometimes it's about the student's ability, his or her motivation, the resources provided by his or her family, his or attendance, and so on. Changing schools doesn't fix those other factors, and it's ridiculous to think that a child's motivation, intelligence, or aptitude will improve just because they change schools. Competition doesn't fix everything. But because "reformers" want to blame teachers and unions for the failure of public schools, they have to pretend that changing the setting will fix the problem. It doesn't work that way, and many of us tried to make that point years ago, the point that geniuses like Chester Finn are just figuring out.

It's also why critics of charters schools are sometimes off base. Should we close down charter schools because students in them are failing? Of course not. Many of those kids were failing in traditional public schools, too. Not a big surprise that changing the scenery would make a big difference. We should close charter schools for other reasons. But NOT because their students are continuing to struggle in a new environment.

Until we get our heads around the fact that kids who fail in public schools fail for a variety of personal, social and economic reasons that may have nothing to do with the quality of instruction or management inside that school, we're not going to be any closer to fulfilling the promise of public education. Gimmick fixes like charters and vouchers don't address any of those underlying issues, they just offer false hope.

Your Daily Taser

2008-04-24T22:00:00.003-04:00

More taser abuse.

I'm sure there will be those saying the guys should have just obeyed and so on. True enough. You should obey the police when being questioned. But does disobeying deserve a death sentence?

When will the question be asked, does a suspect's behavior warrant deadly force? Using the taser needs to be seen in that context, as this latest event shows. The following occurred in Oxford, here in the Dayton/Cincinnati area:

A man died Thursday, five days after police subdued him with stunning device outside a bar near Miami University, a hospital spokesman said.

Kevin Piskura, 24, of Chicago, died shortly after 5 p.m. at University Hospital in Cincinnati hospital, said spokesman Don Crouse.

Police said Oxford officer Geoff Robinson used the device early Saturday morning as he tried to break up a fight.

The Butler County offices of the sheriff and prosecutor are investigating the officer's actions.

"We still request that people refrain from rash judgment and wait until the independent investigation of this event is complete, lest tragedy lead to more tragedy," the Piskura family said in a statement released by the hospital.

Piskura, a 2006 Miami graduate, argued with police after a friend was escorted from a bar, police said. The officer drew his Taser stun gun and told Piskura to stop, and when he did not, police said, the officer used the device and hit Piskura in the chest.

Video from a camera attached to the stunning device shows Piskura getting shocked for about 10 seconds as he rolls around on a sidewalk.

Robinson, 27, has been placed on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation, Oxford police spokesman Jim Squance said.

Robinson is a Miami University graduate and has been an Oxford police officer for two years. He had taken a refresher course on using a stun gun a week before the incident, police said.

En Vacances

2008-03-19T22:03:00.001-04:00

This blog will be inactive for a couple of weeks while I go on a vacation with my family. See all of you in a couple of weeks!

Clinton Then and Now on Iraq Withdrawal

2008-03-17T20:38:00.004-04:00

Hillary today:

Today I’d like to talk about how I will do that, how as president, I will bring our troops home, work to bring stability in the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in helping to secure Iraq’s future.

The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.

Sounds pretty clear that she's referring to a full and complete withdrawal. And yet it doesn't match what she said a year ago. That's fine, things change. But in the same speech today she attacked Obama for certain perceived inconsistencies in his position--specifically the fact that his former advisor Samantha Powers nuanced Obama's position by explaining that President Obama's plan would have to be coordinated with key advisors and based on facts on the ground.

Well, Clinton's position today is less nuanced than it was a year ago. While she attacks Obama for not really meaning it when he says he'd withdraw troops, Clinton herself has changed her own position in ways that make one wonder if she's being disingenuous.

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

Those are all different moving pieces on the chess board. And from the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there’s going to be a stable situation that will be inherited.

And so it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser, and I do not believe that it can be successful. If we had done it right from the beginning, we might have had a fighting chance. We did not, and I think it is beyond our control now.

But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region — the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.

It would appear that Clinton has adjusted her position to fit facts on the ground--the political facts of the domestic ground, and the need to match Obama's pledge to withdraw from Iraq. The interview from last year continues:

Q. So what you seem to be suggesting if I understand is a policy of maintaining American forces in Iraq, but redeploying them out of Baghdad and keeping them let’s say in areas where they could protect against Iranian infiltration, or stabilize Kurdistan, or possibly put them in Al Anbar — I don’t know if that’s part of your plan.

A. Well it is. Al Anbar is the likeliest candidate for the failed state scenario that will serve as the launching pad for Al Qaeda. That is their primary objective in terms of what they’re trying to achieve right now. It would be far fewer troops. We would not be doing patrols. We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that is a smart or achievable mission for American forces.

So I think that we will have troops.

She thinks we will have troops.

Furthermore, Clinton has said in another interview that it is the preparation before she takes office that determines the ability to withdraw troops--clearly that preparation hasn't taken place, and won't, but that hasn't prevented Clinton from calling for immediate withdrawal.

Six months into a Hillary Clinton administration, about how many U.S. military personnel do you envision being in Iraq to handle what you've referred to in the past as "vital national security interests" -- from helping the Kurds to preventing Iran from crossing the border?

I cannot give you a figure because I will not become president until January 2009 and there is no way to predict what will occur between now and then. I have said repeatedly that I am committed to taking our combat troops out of the midst of this sectarian civil war. And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation. When I'm elected -- and between the time that I am elected and the time I become president -- I will focus to a great extent (and nearly to the exclusion of a lot of other important matters) on being ready to make those decisions once I become president.

But it is just impossible to make any kind of credible predictions at this point. I am still hoping that the president will decide to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and begin to alter the makeup and mission of our force before he leaves office. I think it is his responsibility to do that. So that's my principal emphasis during this time -- to try to persuade or require him to take the steps that I would have to do initially if he has not.

The War's Toll On Cleveland

2008-03-17T18:58:00.000-04:00

h/t Good Girl Roxie:

A graphic from The Nation shows the the war in Iraq has cost the city of Cleveland nearly $500 million, and shows what else the city could have done with that amount of money. Click through the link above.

Pretty startling.

Yet Another Media Double Standard

2008-03-17T18:32:00.003-04:00

As was reported last week, John McCain's supporter and "spiritual advisor", Ohio's Rod Parsley, has a history of language that is far more incendiary than what Obama's pastor has said. But which receives wall to wall media coverage? Why the one that scares white people half to death.

But David Corn ran into a stonewall when he attempted to get some "straight talk" from the McCain camp about Parsley.

Yesterday, I posted a piece at MotherJones.com that disclosed that a megachurch pastor whom John McCain has hailed as a "spiritual guide" has called for the destruction of the "false religion" of Islam. This fundamentalist televangelist, Rod Parsley, who is an important political ally of McCain in the all-important state of Ohio, means this quite literally. In a 2005 book, he writes that there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization" and notes, "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Being a responsible reporter, I called both Parsley and the McCain campaign's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, before posting the story. I had to leave a message for Parsley and didn't hear back from him. And I never got through to Hazelbaker, but I spoke to another communications aide at the campaign. I explained why I was calling: I was about to publish an article noting that a prominent McCain supporter, with whom McCain had campaigned in Ohio last month, advocates a holy war with the aim of eradicating Islam. "Oh," she said. Can I read you some of Parsley's quotes? I asked. Go ahead, she said reluctantly. I got through three sentences, and she said, "That's enough."

"There's a lot more," I told her. I hadn't gotten to the portions where Parsley calls Allah a "demon." I don't need any more, she said, and she asked, "Can you give me a few minutes to get a response?" Sure, I replied. She promised to call me within 15 to 20 minutes.

Twenty minutes went by. Nothing. I called after half an hour passed. This staffer, I was told, could not be reached. Another fifteen minutes. Nothing. I called again. Once more, I was told that this staffer could not come to the telephone. Hazelbaker, too, was unavailable. Yet another fifteen minutes--and another call from me to the McCain press office. I was now informed that the staffer who had promised a response was in a meeting. Would this meeting be over soon? I asked. We don't know, said the person on the phone. Can I get a message to her now? No, she's in a meeting. Can you find out if this meeting will last hours or minutes? No, I cannot. Is Jill Hazelbaker available? No.

I got the picture. Stonewall. No straight talk.

Corn goes on to suggest that maybe reporters covering the Straight Talker himself should press him every day for an answer. Go read Corn's entire piece.

Meanwhile, John Amato says Fox News has been curiously silent on the matter of Parsley. Strange.

From Chicago to Kenya: Obama's Dreams From My Father

2008-03-15T22:20:00.006-04:00

This is the second of two parts reviewing Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father. Read Part I here. The photo is from Punahou High School, where Obama wrote his name in concrete. The "King" was added later.

I always find discussions of political experience rather reductive, as the recent discussions of Obama's experience demonstrates. The definition of experience used by Washington insiders is usually pretty limited. Unless a politician was previously a soldier, a lawyer, or a CEO, previous life experience doesn't count for much, and certainly not the experience of working day to day with the working poor of Chicago's south side projects. I'm sure that if Barack Obama had not resigned his job on Wall Street he might be considered by some to be more qualified to be President, but the decision wouldn't have fit with his values and identity.

The middle part of Obama's Dreams describes these years in Chicago, the frustrations and successes, the growth of his leadership, the struggles within him to find direction and meaning in his life, a search which ultimately leads him to Kenya and to the graves of his father and grandfather.

Dreams From My Father, written over ten years ago, gives insight into many of the issues from Obama's life that have commanded media attention during the last few months of his campaign. Of course, first and foremost is Obama's "community organizing" in Chicago. Obama took a job with a non-profit in Chicago after leaving Wall Street for work that would be more meaningful to him. His job is to work with the residents of the south side to find concrete ways to improve their lives. Rather than simply lobby the city government for improved services, Obama and his colleagues work with residents to help them do it themselves. One of Obama's projects is to organize a group of residents to secure an employment center closer to their project. Obama's organizing career coincides with the election of Harold Washington. Obama explains that the election of Washington was a seismic shift in Chicago politics, but it was also an inspiring moment for the city's black population who suddenly felt they had an ally in city hall. Still, the residents had to work to cut through the bureaucracy of the city government in order to have their concerns heard.

Living and working in a predominantly black community causes Obama to think about the divisions in the community. He seems to observe from a distance the confusion regarding color consciousness: "if you're light, you're alright; if you're black, get back." Obama doesn't seem concerned about questions of how "black" he was, even though it would come up later in his own nascent presidential campaign. He admits to "privately measuring my own degree of infection" with these questions, but in general he wonders if it isn't "an expression of self-hatred."

Mostly I kept quiet when these subjects were broached privately measuring my own degree of infection. But I noticed that such conversations rarely took place in large groups and never in front of whites. Later I would realize that the position of most black students in predominantly white colleges was already too tenuous, our identities too scrambled, to admit to ourselves that our black pride remained incomplete. And to admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self hatred--for there seemed no reason to expect that whites would look at our private struggles as a mirror into their own souls, rather than yet more evidence of black pathology.

Obama's book is full of fascinating observations like these, observations about race, politics, his own efforts to understand the black community that he really didn't grow up in, while at the same time negotiating city and organizational politics. Obama also describes his friendship with "Rafiq," a black nationalist whom Obama admires in spite of his radicalism. Over time, Obama becomes distrustful of an ideological that he finds self-defeating in spite of its message of self determination:

In talking to self-professed nationalists like Rafiq, I came to see how the blanket indictment of everything white served a central function in their message of uplift; how... one depended on the other. For when the nationalist spoke of reawakening of values as the only solution to black poverty, he was expressing an implicit, if not explicit, criticism to black listeners: that we did not have to live as we did. And while there were those who could take such an unadorned message and use it to hew out a new life for themselves,--those with the stolid disposisitons that Booker T. Washington had once demanded from his followers--in the ears of many blacks such talk smacked of the explanations that whites had always offered for black poverty: that we continued to suffer from, if not genetic inferiority, then cultural weakness. It was a message that ignored causality or fault, a message outside history, without a script or plot that might insist on a progression. For a people already stripped of their history, a people often ill equipped to retrieve that history in any form other than what fluttered across the telvision screen, the testimony of what we saw ever day seemed only to confirm our worst suspicions about ourselves.

Nationalism provided that history, an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady attack on the white race, the constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country, served as ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despari. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self-loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving, is planted by them...

Obama finds the white hatred of black nationalism difficult to accept and personally uncomfortable. Ultimately, however, Obama's critique of black nationalism centers on the practical questions of cooperation with whites and the reality of integration on a practical level. Obama understands that his own history and family prevent him from really needing or believing in a complete withdrawal from white society. It's hard to see your mother and grandparents, whom you love, as the white devil. He describes efforts of some in Chicago to create a completely separate economy of goods and services so that no money had to be spent on white businesses. But, he explains that for most blacks, economic realities prevent them from completely withdrawing into black nationalism: he imagines a worker saying, "White folks I work with ain't so bad, and even if they were, I can't be quitting my job--who's gonna pay my rent tomorrow or feed my children today?"

As an aside, anyone reading these pages in Obama's book can't help but wonder at the simplistic criticism of his supposed association with Louis Farrakhan. Obama discusses the following and the crowds he drew in Chicago in the 80's, the allure of his message to the residents of the south side. But Obama offers a thoughtful critique, written long before his presidential or even senatorial runs, to Farrakhan and black nationalism, however unsensational it may be in the climate of "gotcha" political reporting.

There is a story from Chicago that speaks directly to Obama's campaign rhetoric about empowerment. One of his major successes as an organizer was to uncover a serious asbestos problem in the Altgeld project where Obama worked. The problem became apparent after asbestos was removed from the offices of some of the directors of public housing, while the asbestos present in the residences was to be left untouched. After a time spent organizing the residents and creating awareness of the issue, Obama organizes a bus trip to the director's office at the Chicago Housing Authority to demand answers about the asbestos problem. The press arrived, and one of the parents at Altgeld, a woman named Sadie, became a media celebrity after Obama made her answer the questions from the press. Obama says that he "changed" as a result of that bus trip, becoming more aware of the power of individuals to alter their own destiny.

But is was away from all that (publicity), as wwe prepared for our meeting with the CHA director, that I began to see something wonderful happening. The parents began talking about ideas for future campaigns. New parents got involved. The block by block canvass we'd planned earlier was put into effect, with LInda and her swollen belly waddling door to door to collect complaint forms; Mr. Lucas, unable to read the forms himself, explaining to neighbors how to fill them out properly...It was as though Sadie's small, nohest step had broken into a reservoir of hope, allowing people in Altgeld to reclaim a power they had all along.

Obama's time in Chicago comes to an end when he is admitted to Harvard Law School. But first he makes a trip to Kenya, a trip which comprises the final third of the book. His sister, Auma, and his brother Roy both have visited him in the US, giving hints as to his father's history and his grandfather's. In Kenya, Obama learns of the family divisions. The paltry estate of his father is the subject of a legal dispute, pitting Obama's grandmother on one side, and the second (or step) mother of his father and Barack's children on the other. Obama, led by his sister Auma through the Kenyan family sites, doesn't choose sides. Obama is looking for his own share of the inheritance: the stories of his father and grandfather.

Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was a stern man who made a small fortune as a domestic during Kenya's colonial era. He also assisted with organizational affairs, working with road crews to facilitate the infrastructure the British needed. After a lifetime of service, Onyango as he is known purchases a plot of land and builds a life there. He has a hard time finding a woman who can put up with his aloofness, and even Barack's (Obama's father is known as Barack) mother runs away. After a time, the children, Barack and his sister, attempt to run away and rejoin their mother, but they aren't successful, and Barack never attempts to leave again.

Barack is an excellent student, and a very quick learner. He succeeds in school, in spite of his laziness, although he is eventually expelled, and his father sends him to work as a clerk in Mombasa in order to teach him responsibility. He becomes involved in politics, is jailed for his involvement, gets married and has two children, Auma and Roy, whom Obama has met in the US. After a time, he finds two American women, missionaries, who offer to help Barack find a university to attend in the United States. This inspires Barack to complete correspondance courses and enables him to gain the credentials needed to be admitted in an American university. Finally, he is admitted to the University of Hawaii where he meets Obama's mother. Having left one family in Kenya, he later leaves another behind in Hawaii. As Granny explains, Onyango's opposition to the marriage in Hawaii had nothing to do with the fact that Obama's mother was white. It was that Barack already had a family in Kenya, and he doubted that he would be able to take care of both.

Later, Barack returned to Kenya and a white woman, Ruth, came looking for him. They were married as well. Barack continued in his career in public service until at the end of his life he found himself alone and underemployed. At the end of this book, Obama has had his questions answered, the story of his life and his father's is as complete as it can be. The book ends with the image of Obama sitting before the graves of his grandfather and father, both of whom are buried at the family compound in graves beside each other, while the rest of his reunited African family looks on.

For a long time I sat between the two graves and wept. When my tears were finally spent, I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America--the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of it was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away, connected by more thatn the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain I felt was my father's pain. My questions were my brother's questions. Their struggle, my birthright.

In the heat of a presidential campaign, it's easy to distort a candidate's past, invent radicalisms where none exist, fabricate associations out of mere acquaintances. Obama's Dreams From My Father not only puts some of the heated rhetoric of this campaign into a more sensible context, but it also provides a view of Barack Obama as a man, his youth and his development, his insecurities and passions. The book also shows his brilliance. The book is prefectly constructed, beautifully written, and honest.

War Costs Ohio $11 Billion

2008-03-14T22:47:00.001-04:00

h/t Left of Dayton

Rank States Amount
#1 California: $40,600,000,000.00
#2 New York: $26,500,000,000.00
#3 Texas: $25,600,000,000.00
#4 Illinois: $17,700,000,000.00
#5 Florida: $15,500,000,000.00
#6 New Jersey: $14,500,000,000.00
#7 Pennsylvania: $12,600,000,000.00
#8 Ohio: $11,500,000,000.00

Mike Turner: Key Votes Show Loyalty to Bush, Party First

2008-03-14T21:06:00.005-04:00

It's no surprise that Mike Turner voted with the president and the GOP today against the amended FISA bill that denied blanket, retroactive immunity to telecoms who participated in illegal spying against Americans. It's a pattern of Turner's votes that follow the party line against the best interests of his district.

For starters, Turner has repeatedly voted to maintain an open ended, unlimited military presence in Iraq. He voted against a bill that "requires the president to submit a "comprehensive strategy" for Iraq to certain congressional committees by January 1, 2008 and requires him to update that strategy again in July, 2008 and every 90 days thereafter" (HR 2956). Over and over again, Turner has voted against accountability for the president's handling of the disastrous war in Iraq. He also voted against an appropriations bill for military operations (HR 1591) that included funding for healthcare for veterans and hurricane recovery. But because it too held the president accountable for progress in Iraq, Turner voted no.

Mike Turner pretends to be a defender of American workers, but he voted to create a Central American free trade zone, enabling coporations to transfer American jobs to Central America and the Dominican Republic.

While oil companies reap record profits, Turner voted against a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for big oil companies. Here's the Post's summary of the bill Turner voted against:

This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf. Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

Sounded like a bad idea to Mike Turner and President Bush. (HR 6)

Turner joined the Republicans in voting against a bill which would have allowed the government to negotiate for lower drug prices (HR 4).

When a bill banning the degrading treatment of detainees in American captivity came up for a vote (HR 2863) Turner again voted with President Bush, and voted against the bill. He voted against accountability for the Director of Intelligence.

Turner voted for restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research (HR 810) and voted for the courts' intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

In a further display of loyalty to the party, Turner voted for ethics changed designed to benefit Tom DeLay (HRes 6, 2005). He voted against a reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine so that broadcasters could continue to spew partisan hate on the radio.

Turner voted against prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.

On other occasions, Turner has simply not shown up. He refused to hold Bush accountable again when he didn't vote on contempt of Congress resolutions last month. Overall, Turner has voted with the GOP 88% of the time.

Shadow Organization Promotes Myths About Teachers, Tenure

2008-03-14T17:46:00.003-04:00

A lot of news has been made recently by the labor-bashing group Center for Union "Facts" and their anti-education group "Teacher Union Facts".

They have been in the news recently promoting a contest to name the worst teacher in America. Nice.

Their website is full of disinformation about teacher tenure rights. See below.

Here's probably the worst example:

So why don’t districts try to terminate more of their poor performers? The sad answer is that teachers unions have made the process prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. In Illinois, Reeder found, it costs an average of $219,504 in legal fees alone to get a termination case past all the union-supported hurdles. Columbus, Ohio’s own teachers union president admitted to the Associated Press that firing a tenured teacher can cost as much as $50,000. In New York State, the average is $128,941 (Education Week reports that in New York City, the average is $163,142). A spokesman for Idaho school administrators told local press that districts have been known to spend “$100,000 or $200,000” in litigation costs just to get rid of a bad teacher.

I'm interested to know how teachers unions have made the process expensive and time consuming. Do unions set the rules for teacher dismissal, or do school boards and state legislatures? Do unions impose their contracts on helpless school boards, as though there is a gun to their heads? Of course not. Teachers and school boards agree on terms of their contracts. That's what negotiation is about.

How do teachers get tenure? Does the union force it on school boards?

Are administrators and school boards completely helpless in the face of unions' overwhelming power?

As I've said on this site many times, it's not the union's fault that bad teachers don't get dismissed. Or that they ever are granted tenure in the first place. Why blame the unions because their members don't get fired? Is it the unions' job to fire their members?

The liars at this site say, "everyone cares about public schools." Nothing could be further from the truth. These people, for example. Their operation refuses to release any information about their donors, and they don't accept comments on their blog. So not only are they liars, they're cowards too, afraid of any scrutiny or criticism.

This anti-education group is simply a front for right wing critics of the public education system, most like a combination of voucher proponents and right wingers who fear the political clout of the NEA. They're not reformers, they're political hacks out to make cheap points at teachers' expense.

Poll: Ohioans Want a Democrat for President

2008-03-12T21:09:00.005-04:00

From the Dayton Daily's Ohio Politics Blog:

Nearly two-thirds of Ohio adults want to see a Democrat take control of the White House in the November election, according to a new poll released Wednesday, March 12...

A key finding: 59.5 percent of the political independents wanted a Democrat to take over.

Overall, 64.1 percent favored a Democrat, while 95.9 percent of the Democrats and 14.2 percent of the Republicans wanted to see a Democrat take over.

On a related question, 69.1 percent said that regardless of how they planned to vote they thought a Democrat would carry Ohio in November. More than half of the Republicans - 55.8 percent - thought a Democrat would win, while 61.9 percent of the independents and 83.3 percent of the Democrats thought there would be a Democratic victory.

Nearly half of those surveyed - 47.5 percent - said economic issues would be most important in determining their vote for president, nearly double the 24.8 percent who said foreign policy issues such as the war in Iraq would be most important, the poll found.

Of course, whether there's a Democrat left standing by then is another question...

The poll here. One number really stands out: Respondents trusted the Democrats on the economy by a huge margin. Sixty-five percent favored the Democrats on economic issues, versus 31% for Republicans.

Hillary's Outsourced Hate

2008-03-12T16:51:00.003-04:00

In 1984 I took a visit to Michigan State University. I was a politically aware senior in high school. Right there in front of Beaumont Tower was a political rally. None other than Geraldine Ferraro came out to speak against Ronald Reagan and his divisive politics, his race baiting of welfare mothers, his draconian budget cuts. Of course Reagan seems tame by comparison now, to the race baiting divisiveness of the last eight years. But Ferraro was a dream. She was brilliant, unabashedly liberal. And symbolic as the first woman to grace a national ticket, a barrier breaker in her own right. In those final embers of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, the writing was on the wall, but she soldiered bravely on, mocking the Spartans for Reagan who had assembled a counter-rally nearby with seeming glee.

Since yesterday, when I posted this at Candide's Notebooks, I've tried to refresh my memory on Ferraro's liberal creds. When I saw Ferraro in 84, I was 18 and the only kid in town who wasn't in Club Gipper and had a subscription to Harper's, I was thrilled to hear her take down Reagan's foreign policy and opposing the tax cutting regimen that was leaving no money left for higher ed--I paid attention to that, at least--and social programs after the defense department got their cut. Remember, the Mondale campaign was crucified on the honesty of pledge to raise taxes to restore the social programs liberals like us care about.

She was anti-nukes, if I remember, the big liberal issue of the day, and refreshing my memory on wikipedia (I know, the Clinton supporters are editing her entry madly right now) I found her comments on the Contras:

We're not moving toward a more secure area of the world. As a matter of fact the number of troops that the Sandinistas have accumulated since the administration started its covert activities has risen from 12,000 to 50,000, and of course the number of Soviet and Cuban advisors has also increased. I did not support the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua; it is a violation of international law. Congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just this week, the Congress voted in cut off covert aid to Nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it, and the Congress approves it again in March. So if Congress doesn't get laid on, the covert activities which I opposed in Nicaragua, those CIA covert activities in that specific country, are not supported by the Congress. And believe it or not, not supported by the majority of people throughout the country. (not sure about the word laid there, but you get the idea)

I'd like to have more of that in our current Congress: cutting off funding for illegal administration activities. By current standards its not only liberal but downright revolutionary.

How disgusting then, to see her now, using the worst racist dog whistles, a shameless and transparent Clinton surrogate, able to burn the fiery rhetorical turpentine that the Clinton juggernaut fuels itself on now while the candidate herself remains safely outside the ring of fire. First Ferraro argued that Obama is where is because he’s black. Think about that: he is successful because he’s black. Where then, are the other black senators? Why no black president before now, if it’s such a winning strategy? Why so few black CEO’s in America, if the top prizes are set aside for them? Ironically, as Clarence Page pointed out today on MSNBC, it wasn’t long ago that pundits wondered out loud if Obama was black enough. But now according to Ferraro, his success is all due to his race. Reminds one of the criticisms against her own 84 candidacy: Mondale chose her because she’s a woman. Wikipedia also reminded me of the controversy of Ferraro being called a "witch", while now she is the paid mudslinger. The sad irony seems lost on her.

The Obama campaign has, for once, struck back, using the righteous indignation it earned itself with the unbecoming canning of Samantha Powers, to ask the logical question, why hasn’t Clinton denounced–-pardon me, denounced and rejected--these remarks? To which Ferraro responds, turning to victimhood in classic conservative style, “any attack on Obama is racist.” A remark which is, in itself, racist, and patently dishonest. But she goes further: He’s attacking me because I’m white. Classic Bush up-is-down-ism: He’s the attacker, not me.

What a shame. The great barrier breaker becomes the Clinton camp pit bull, engaging in the worst sort of politics, the kind Americans have become sick of, the kind she once symbolized a break from. Another liberal icon fallen.

Postscript: Here is Ferraro's Who, me? defense.

"I was talking about historic candidacies and what I started off by saying (was that) if you go back to 1984 and look at my historic candidacy, which I had just talked about all these things, in 1984 if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would have never been chosen as a vice presidential candidate," Ferraro said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "It had nothing to do with my qualification."

Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record.

"David Axelrod, his campaign manager, has chose to spin this as a racist comment because everytime anybody makes a comment about race who is white — he did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful; he did it with (Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter) Ed Rendell, he was less successful; and he is certainly not going to be successful with me," Ferraro told CBS' "The Early Show." "He should have called me up ... He knows I'm not racist."

Because you can never have enough testing

2008-03-12T06:03:00.002-04:00

Ed Week has everything behind a wall now, so this is all I can give you...

For the first time, a select group of states is expected to take part in a 12th grade version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading and mathematics, a move that could lay the foundation for even greater state participation at that grade level on the heavily scrutinized test.

The board that sets policy for NAEP , known as “the nation’s report card,” has approved tentative plans to have 11 states voluntarily participate in the exam.

Each of those states would have a representative sample of its high school seniors take part in a reading and math NAEP beginning in 2009.

Already strapped state budgets are going to be asked to come up with money for it, I'm guessing. Actually there is a lot of merit to this idea. We don't know enough about how 12th graders compare between states. There's an awful lot to say about the state of the senior year in American education. Maybe the NAEP could inform some discussion about that.

Space called out by progressive blogs on FISA; Mitakides on right side of issue

2008-03-11T16:57:00.006-04:00

Zach Space was called out big time today on the big progressive blogs. Specifically, FDL named Space as one of the six worst Democrats on FISA for his pledge to stand with Republicans on the measure. I haven't followed Space's work closely, and I know he has some big fans in Ohio, but I know he's on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe his Democratic constituents can write him and set him straight.

FDL says this is part I only of the effort, with part II targeting Republicans. One of the first they target should be Bush lackey Mike Turner. Mitakides stated her position on telecom immunity during the primary, telling me in my interview with her that she opposed blanket immunity.

I support the FISA bill as passed by the House. I am against blanket, retroactive immunity. I understand the intent of the Feinstein Amendment (which seeks to determine whether some telecoms acted in “good faith” believing their actions were legal. However, giving the power of that determination to the FISA court keeps a cloud of secrecy over the issue. Unless the Senate can provide a better alternative, the House version should stand.

Prophetic quote, because in fact the House is working on a compromise modeled along the Feinstein amendment Jane talked about, allowing telecoms to argue their case in a FISA court. As Jane says, it's too secretive, but that seems to be where the House negotiators are now, as it's reported by the Times:

Instead of blanket immunity, the tentative proposal would give the federal courts special authorization to hear classified evidence and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable. House Democrats have been working out the details of their proposal in the last few days, officials said, and expect to take it to the House floor for a vote on Thursday.

Texas districts reject merit pay

2008-03-11T15:37:00.003-04:00

Texas school districts are pulling out of that state's merit pay scheme, leaving only a third of the districts in the state participating, according to the Dallas Morning News. (Registration required.) The sticking point seems to be the matching requirement: local districts are afraid they will be forced to pick up the tab for the state program if state budgets get tight. It's a real concern: educators tend to be famously wary of fads that find budgetary favor one year, and disappear the next.

What struck me about the story though was this:

More than 100 school districts have changed their minds and dropped out of Texas' new merit pay plan for teachers – leaving just a third of the districts in the state to help launch the $148 million program next year.

The decision by so many districts to bail out of the plan – mostly because of financial concerns – means there will be more money for the districts that are staying in.

For example, the Dallas school district will get almost $1 million extra for a total of nearly $8.2 million.

Districts decide how to distribute the money, but the recommended minimum bonus is $3,000.

Look at that figure again: $148 million. Not breaking the bank in a state like Texas, but still plenty of money.

It's amazing how much money legislators can find for their ideological pet programs, isn't it?

Ohio 3rd: Two New Mitakides Interviews

2008-03-10T20:25:00.002-04:00

Thrilled to see and interview with Jane Mitakides on the great Ohio Daily Blog. I'm jealous but then again unlike me Jeff actually knows how to conduct an interview, so of course the results are better than mine.

An excerpt:

YDS: Since you aspire to be a legislator, I have to ask this. Who would you regard as your role model, the person you would look to as an example for how to conduct yourself in that role?

JM: That's an interesting question. There are a couple of people who come to mind. Certainly, the late [U.S. Sen.] Paul Wellstone, in his conduct and dedication, I think he was just a living example of a person who understands the difference between politics and public service. His politics were far more liberal than mine, but as a role model, as a person who fought to do the right thing and represent the people of his district, certainly Paul Wellstone.

And Daniel Patrick Moynihan is another thoughtful, intelligent person who served our country so well.

Go read the whole thing.

Another interview with the Greek News posted on the Mitakides for Congress site. Reposted below.

But first: A little business to conduct. I've created an Act Blue page to support Jane. If you can afford $5 or $500 please drop by and make a contribution.

By Vicki J. Yiannias

Voters in the 3rd Congressional District of Ohio gave Democrat Jane Mitakides a resounding victory on March 5. Jane won more than 54% of the votes cast in OH-3 Democratic primary, more than the other candidates combined.

Jane Mitakides, a successful businesswoman and community activist who was born and raised in Dayton, Ohio, has been married for 25 years to John Mitakides, a dentist who has practiced in the Dayton area for over 30 years.

“This isn’t just about picking the Democrat,” she said to the media after her victory, “It’s about picking the winner in November. The people of this district want a representative who will listen to their ideas and find solutions to the challenges they face everyday. That’s what I plan to do in this campaign and in Congress.”

“With the primary behind us, it’s time to come together and focus on the serious issues facing our families,” said Mitakides, adding, “It’s time to end the era of no-bid contracts and ‘pay-to-play’ politics and put our community first.”

Mrs. Mitakides took some questions from The Greek News on the major points in her campaign message of “renewed opportunity and real solutions to challenges including the economy, fair trade, education, and healthcare.” The questions address these issues as well as border control and the Iraq war. The interview began with her opinion on trade policies and the problem of NAFTA in Ohio.

TGN: Do you think NAFTA should be renegotiated?

JM: Unlike some border states, Ohio has seen no substantial benefit from NAFTA, just jobs lost. We need fair trade, not just free trade policies. In Congress, I will only vote to ratify trade deals that include enforceable environmental and labor standards. While I understand the importance of free trade and reject isolationism, I also know first-hand the challenges faced by American workers and their families, many of which live right here in my district, who have lost their job to unfair trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA.

TGN: What are your specific ideas to change the health insurance program?

JM: There are 43 million Americans who do not have health insurance. That is simply unacceptable. Health care costs more in America as well – nearly double the cost of other countries, per capita. Working families are struggling to afford the most basic health insurance while those without any insurance are often crippled by the debt caused by necessary but expensive medical procedures. In Congress, I will support a health care plan that provides for universal coverage and lowers healthcare costs for small businesses and individuals.

TGN: What are your specific plans for veterans’ affairs?

JM: When America’s brave young men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedom, we must ensure that America is fulfilling our promise to them when they return home. In Congress, I will work to update the GI Bill of Rights so that it meets the needs of the 21st century to offer expanded education, training, housing benefits. We must also ensure that all of the components of the armed services are guaranteed equal access. This includes the National Guard and Reserve forces who have served this country in combat operations.

I will also work tirelessly to ensure that the 1.8 million veterans who are uninsured in this county have access to quality and affordable healthcare. We must also cut the red tape and streamline the system so that our veterans are no longer forgotten in the backlog of claims that exist today. We must not overlook the emotional needs of those returning from war, as well.

Of every issue I face, there is none that I feel more passionate about than keeping our promises to our veterans. My family has a long history of military service and I will work tirelessly to help our veterans receive the benefits they have earned in the service of our country.

TGN: What is your opinion of the present status of US involvement in the Iraq war; do you support a pullout of troops? If so, at what rate and timetable?

JM: Our brave men and women in uniform rid Iraq of a terrible dictator, and now it is the Iraqi people and leaders who must stand up and seize the opportunity they have been given to create a free and functioning Iraq. We must bring these brave young men and women home in a way that is both responsible and safe. We must refocus our efforts from a military offensive to a diplomatic one, working to bring stability to the region while bringing our American heroes home. It is past time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin seeking long-term solutions to the divisions within their county.

TGN: Since Ohio is a border state, what are your opinions on border security? Is Ohio protecting its border?

JM: The Ohio-Canadian border stretches 158 miles through the middle of Lake Erie.

I support the Northern Border Initiative, which is a collaborative law enforcement effort lead by the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Division of Ohio Homeland Security. Created by Governor Strickland, the initiative provides the resources necessary to protect Lake Erie and the citizens of Ohio. While there are relatively few travel restrictions between the U.S. and Canada, there is a need to ensure that those who cross any of our borders are doing so legally, to curtail drug trafficking and any possible terrorist activity. That is exactly what this imitative achieves and why I will continue to support it.

The Mitakides for Congress Campaign has unveiled a television and radio spot, both of which can be found on the Campaign’s website, www.Jane08.com. The campaign plans to open campaign offices and continue building on an already-strong grassroots organization.

Why Levies are Failing: Not Because Voters Hate Schools

2008-03-10T18:50:00.006-04:00

One of the best sources of information on tax policy as it relates to education and local property taxes is the Education Tax Policy Institute (ETPI). Their analysis is an excellent way to understand why Ohio voters are rejecting school levies, at a 50% or higher rate. The answers they provide show that it's not because voters hate education that levies are failing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Voters have taxed themselves locally to one of the highest rates in the nation. So it's no wonder that voters are tired of shouldering so much of the burder through local property taxes.

If you google "property tax burden" or any other combination of "tax" and "burden", you're likely to come up with a list of links to the Tax Foundation (or one of the ubiquitous news reports that rely on the Tax Foundation to push the theme that darnit Ohio's taxes are just too high). One of those unfortunate news pieces is here, at the PD site from just last December.

But the ETPI debunks the methodology used by the Tax Foundation pretty thoroughly, and shows that the ranking the Tax Foundation annually uses and which show Ohio's "tax burden" as being one of the top ten in the country are misleading to say the least. As ETPI explains, the TF rankings lump a lot of taxes together and weight them. But what interests me, and probably a lot of other voters, is how much of our taxes for schools come not from corporate and personal income taxes or sales taxes, but instead from local property taxes. As the ETPI shows, Ohio's statewide income tax is fairly low, or at least average, while our property tax rates, which are voted on directly and locally by the people who pay them, are actually very high.

Interestingly, Ohio’s state-levied taxes (i.e., those enacted by the state legislature) amount to $1,733 per capita and rank 34th, lower than all but 16 states. Conversely, Ohio’s local taxes are $1,283 per capita, 9th highest in the nation. (It might also be observed here that,under Ohio law, much of this local burden has been imposed directly by local voters rather than elected officials.) Combining these state and local burdens yields the figure of $3,016 in per capita state and local taxes, and the ranking of 20th, explained earlier. (my emphasis)

Go to the ETPI site and click on "Ohio's tax ranking: setting the record straight" for the full PDF that the above came from.

So, as I've said before, it's up to the governor and legislature to change the system. Voters have taxed themselves at a high rate. But they can't take anymore. The system has to change.

"Not Anti-American, Anti-War"

2008-03-08T23:00:00.000-05:00

I BEG TO DREAM AND DIFFER FROM THE HOLLOW LIES
THIS IS THE DAWNING OF THE REST OF OUR LIVES

McCain's Man in Ohio

2008-03-08T16:28:00.003-05:00

From Right Wing Watch.

Here's McCain's man in Ohio, and his "spiritual guide," as he called him in Cincinnati last week, Rod Parsley.

Melville's Prophecy Comes True

2008-03-07T17:55:00.002-05:00

At long last, the White Whale has been spotted.

“What do ye do when ye see a whale, men?”

“Sing out for him!” was the impulsive rejoinder from a score of clubbed voices.

“Good!” cried Ahab, with a wild approval in his tones; observing the hearty animation into which his unexpected question had so magnetically thrown them.

“And what do ye next, men?”

“Lower away, and after him!”

“And what tune is it ye pull to, men?”

“A dead whale or a stove boat!”

More and more strangely and fiercely glad and approving, grew the countenance of the old man at every shout; while the mariners began to gaze curiously at each other, as if marvelling how it was that they themselves became so excited at such seemingly purposeless questions.

But, they were all eagerness again, as Ahab, now half-revolving in his pivot-hole, with one hand reaching high up a shroud, and tightly, almost convulsively grasping it, addressed them thus:—

“All ye mast-headers have before now heard me give orders about a white whale. Look ye! d’ye see this Spanish ounce of gold?”—holding up a broad bright coin to the sun—“it is a sixteen dollar piece, men. D’ye see it? Mr. Starbuck, hand me yon top-maul.”

While the mate was getting the hammer, Ahab, without speaking, was slowly rubbing the gold piece against the skirts of his jacket, as if to heighten its lustre, and without using any words was meanwhile lowly humming to himself, producing a sound so strangely muffled and inarticulate that it seemed the mechanical humming of the wheels of his vitality in him.

Receiving the top-maul from Starbuck, he advanced towards the main-mast with the hammer uplifted in one hand, exhibiting the gold with the other, and with a high raised voice exclaiming: “Whosoever of ye raises me a white-headed whale with a wrinkled brow and a crooked jaw; whosoever of ye raises me that white-headed whale, with three holes punctured in his starboard fluke—look ye, whosoever of ye raises me that same white whale, he shall have this gold ounce, my boys!”

“Huzza! huzza!” cried the seamen, as with swinging tarpaulins they hailed the act of nailing the gold to the mast.

“It’s a white whale, I say,” resumed Ahab, as he threw down the topmaul: “a white whale. Skin your eyes for him, men; look sharp for white water; if ye see but a bubble, sing out.”

Hillary Clinton: Slash and Burn Politics

2008-03-07T16:54:00.005-05:00

(Cross posted at Candide's Notebooks)

I have always been a partisan Democrat.

But after this week, I’m not sure I can support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she wins the primary. It started with her Iraq vote. But then again, Edwards and Kerry voted the same way, and I managed to forgive them once they disavowed the vote and proved their opposition to the war and Bush’s leadership.

Then, I wasn’t happy at all about Marc Penn’s company’s defense of Blackwater.

But in the last week, Clinton’s campaign has devolved into the worst sort of dirty tricks, cheap shots, and fearmongering that we would expect from a Republican opponent. First she aired an ad showing a sleeping child and talking about the “3 AM” phone call, and who would best handle it. She said that she had crossed the national security threshhold–whatever that means, and that Barack Obama hadn’t. But, that he gave a very good speech in 2002.

Well, let’s see. There are hundreds of people in the Pentagon and Congress who would have a pretty good idea of what to do with the mysterious “3 AM phone call”. Barack Obama can appoint one of them to be his National Security Advisor. But there aren’t very many who can inspire people with their words. Can Hillary Clinton appoint someone to inspire the country? Can she appoint someone to have enough good judgement not to trust cherry picked intelligence reports?

Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that it was HER campaign, not Obama’s, that gave private reassurances to Canadian officials that the talk about NAFTA was just that. She praised John McCain’s qualifications, saying only she and McCain had crossed the "threshold" of national security. Her top advisor compared, ridiculously, Obama to Ken Starr. She’s refused to release her tax records, after public assurances that she would do so. She’s demanded to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida–but said she would ”not accept” (as if she has the power of refusal) a caucus. But more than anything, she has simply run a mean-spirited, dishonest, and fear-mongering campaign. She seems intent on destroying her party if she can’t be the nominee.

At this point, if she were to win, I think I’d have a hard time voting for her in the general. Even Nader seems more palatable.

Gary Hart in the Huffington Post has it about right, I think:

Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

Olbermann Nails It

2008-03-06T20:04:00.003-05:00

Wow!

Keith Olbermann, discussing Clinton's remarks comparing her experience to McCain's in national security in contrast to Obama's "giving a speech in 2002".

Olbermann wondered out loud if CLINTON WERE A MCCAIN DEMOCRAT OR A LIEBERMAN REPUBLICAN. Wow.

Would Clinton, he asks, rather have President McCain than President Obama?

"All she has to do now is kiss President Bush on the cheek and she'll be just like Joe Lieberman."

Strickland, Legislature Face Decisions on Education

2008-03-06T17:10:00.002-05:00

An editorial from NE Ohio captures it perfectly. Strickland doesn't have time to bask in the glow of Clinton's win in Tuesday's primary. He has other things to attend to: like the overdue and promised plan to overhaul school funding. As levies on Tuesday across the state proved, voters are impatient and unwilling to approve new property taxes. They want the state to act:

Strickland and his fellow leaders in Columbus should take notice.
Voters throughout the state are angry that it's already been a full year since the governor took office after pledging during his campaign that he'd fix school funding. Sadly, he said it will be another year before he releases his plan to solve the crisis. You're making us wait, Gov. Strickland.
We hope you're paying attention to the disappointment your inaction has fueled.
As you sit by and watch more districts fall into financial trouble, you should be hopeful our disappointment doesn't turn into resolve to make some fixes ourselves.

There's another decision pending. With Democrats in Washington insisting they'll wait for a new president rather than go along with Bush's voucher proposals built into his education budget.

Will Ohio continue to go along with NCLB? The states are becoming increasingly outspoken in their opposition to it, and Virginia is the most recent, sending messages that would indicate it might pull out of the federal compact all together and tell Margaret Spellings to take her money and stick it.

What about Ohio? Our arcane "accountability" system is getting almost as hard to understand as the funding formula for Ohio schools. A lot of it could go away if NCLB were not reauthorized, of if Ohio decided the federal money weren't worth the hassle. The governor and legislature need to decide where they stand on NCLB and school funding. It's been long enough.

Mitakides for Congress: This is a Dem-leaning district

2008-03-05T17:41:00.006-05:00

With the primary settled, it's time to get down to the business of defeating the Bush enabling, ethically challenged Mike Turner. I posted a piece a few weeks ago arguing that the Ohio 3rd was, far from a safe GOP seat, in play. We started in 2006 to turn Ohio blue, but my little corner of it is painfully red. Now, with a well funded campaign and a great candidate in Jane Mitakides, it's time to turn the rest of Ohio blue.

Following up on my earlier post, some of the numbers from the Democratic primary are encouraging. Here's a look at some of the voting from the counties that make up the Ohio 3rd.

In Warren County, in spite of 41,377 to 12,440 advantage in registrations, 28,683 R ballots were cast as opposed to 27,855 D. It's also important to note that 77,000 Warren County voters are registered as non-partisan.

In Clinton County, the results were more lopsided, but the Republican advantage of 6,807 registered voters to 2,062 Democrats is dwarfed by the total number of independent voters at over 17,000. When we look at ballots cast in the primary, the number of voters identifying with each party is evened out at 5,066 to 6,005. Clearly a large number of independent voters lined up with the Democrats in the primary.

In Highland County, a similar pattern emerges. Although the total number of registered partisans isn't available in their summary report, 5223 Republican ballots were cast for president as opposed to 5611 Democratic votes for president.

Meanwhile, in Montgomery County, a whopping 96,000 ballots were cast for the Democrats, while only 41,000 were cast for Republicans.

Granted, this is a primary, and there are crossover voters, and there's no guarantee that the Democrats voting for president in this primary are going to vote Democratic in the fall congressional race. Over 20,000 Democratic ballots didn't register a vote for the congressional primary, and those voters have to be brought on board. But when you look at these numbers, it's hard to accept the conventional wisdom that this is a solidly Republican district. In the current environment, and with the history of 06 in mind, the Ohio 3rd is very winnable for the Democrats.