From: rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:15:25 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: mugwump.cl.msu.edu

In article <-y!388#@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
> >You might advocate excellent highways but fly across the country
> >because you can afford it.  Remember that Chelsea is a separate
> >human and may have had a lot of input into this decision.
> 
> Now, you're talking Apples and oranges... get a better arguement than that..
> 
> ---------------------------------
> J.R. Ordon

Ah, can't grapple with an analogy, so just dismiss it.  Your
spelling is as good as your rhetoric.  The point is that the
Clintons are a family who want the best for their daughter
and at the same time he is a President-elect who understands
that a voucher system is an excuse for destroying public 
education in this country.  

Try another analogy: do you think someone who supports soup 
kitchens for the poor is hypocritical if he ever eats at a
nice restaurant?

Face it -- you refuse to look at the Clintons as a real human 
family who face personal choices as well as political goals.
You're out to attack Bill Clinton whenever you see an opening.
Chelsea did attend a public school in Arkansas.  Her visibility
is much higher and the choices are much starker in DC.  Clinton
cannot wave his hand and improve DC schools, and he wants the
best for his daughter right now.  Wouldn't you?  What would you
do if faced with the same choice?  Even if you believe that a
voucher system would improve schools, it wouldn't overnight.
If you were President tomorrow with a teenage child who needed
to pick a school for winter semester, what would you do?  Be
honest.  I would not call you a hypocrite if you made such a 
choice, while still pushing for a voucher system.  Indeed, 
Lamar Alexander, Bush's Secy of Education, had to defend his
sending of kids to private schools while advocating improvements
in public schools.  The difference is that Bush gave lip service
to being the  'education President' while really having no vision
whatever for improving schools, public or private.

If I had school aged kids I'd want to send them to excellent
public schools.  If that wasn't possible I'd scrape to send
them to private schools.  At the same time I support removal
of the property tax as the method for funding public schools,
as it reinforces inequities.  I do think some measure of choice
is a good thing, but I don't support a voucher system that allows
taxpayer money to pay for parochial schools.

If you want to attack Clinton's positions on education, get
yourself some better arguments.  For instance, read today's
New York Times op ed page, where someone from the American
Enterprise Institute makes some cogent points questioning the
assumptions underlying Clinton's education policy.  It's possible
to offer a principled alternative view on education policy but
this sophomoric attack on a very understandable personal choice
doesn't cut the mustard.

As to whether Clinton is 'rich' -- yes, he wants to raise income
taxes on couples with incomes > 200K.  As President he will, for
the first time, barely qualify for that income range.  And if he
raises taxes for that bracket, he personally will lose out as a
result.  Will you give him any credit for consistency there?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct