From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed? (Re: The New Education President)
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:56:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) says:


>>  Decay and neglect by *which* recent administration. If I'm not mistaken 
>>all of D.C.'s issues are decided by the House Of Representatives which is
>>controlled by democrats. If he opposes the educational proposals of his
>>own party then why hasn't he said so.  
>
>I thought of this, but rapidly discarded it as significant because:
>1) D.C. is unique in being run by the House, yet the problems of inner city
>   schools are hardly unique.

  Exactly. D.C. is unique and it gives us a shining example of what an
educational system would turn out like under control of the Democratic
party.

>2) Federal support for public schools has clearly declined greatly over the
>   past dozen years, in a charge publicly lead by RR and GB.  I blame that
>   on the influence of the Presidency.
  
  And even as such the national SAT scores rose... Why is it that some
school districts can function quite well under this decline of support 
you mention but D.C. hasn't, maybe leadership?


>>>Let Clinton represent his own views.  Your second guessing to twist his
>>>actions to support your views is shameful.
>>
>>Since Mr. Clinton has refused to represent his views about why he chose 
>>a private school we are forced to speculate.
>
>No, nobody placed a gun to your head and forced you to speculate.
>Nor has anyone forced you to speculate in a manner to contrary to everything
>that he's said to date.  Indeed, speculation that he would support vouchers
>after an entire campaign where (among other things) he helped distinguish
>himself from his opponents by not supporting vouchers.

  No, no one forced me physicaly to speculate. I'm sorry, I'm supposed to
take what ever my government does or says and accept it with out question,
particularly when the head of the Kremlin ...er...uh... I mean the
President show a lack of support for the educational system every one else
must endure. 

 
>>And if your statement is true about his resolve to 
>>better the schools then this will be displayed by his transferring
>>his child to the public system after he has changed them. (i.e. if this
>>transfer to a public school doesn't happen then obviously he has failed
>>at solving the educational systems problems, or hasn't even tried.)
>
>That's a particularly stupid assertion, as several other posters have already
>pointed out.

 Please give me a brief synopsis on why it is a stupid assertation, I must
have missed those posts.

>
>And besides, his daughter might not want to be forced to change again.
>
  You are right what was I thinking, it's not like the rest of the country
has to be forced to go to a school they don't like (i.e. being bussed miles
away). What about all of the military children who were forced to change
schools several times? They did this as a service to their country, why
shouldn't we ask the President to do the same. It's not like she is being
asked to go to a new country like many military people must do.

>Mike Huben
>

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian