home

Jon Huntsman Folds, Will Endorse Romney

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 10:27:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jon Huntsman is dropping out of the Republican race for President. He will endorse Mitt Romney.

< The Golden Globes Starts Now | Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jon Huntsman Folds, Will Endorse Romney | 164 comments (164 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This truly breaks my heart (none / 0) (#1)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 10:56:25 PM EST
     I hope he changes his mind. But I doubt it.

    I do not understand the appeal of (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:19:58 AM EST
    Jon Huntsman, so I wish you could explain it to me.

    Hunstman is in favor of vouchers and charter schools - school choice - which I believe just kills the public education system and is the wrong way to ensure that all children are guaranteed a quality education.  He wants to kill Head Start and the Department of Education.

    He wants tax reform, which he would achieve with  flatter taxes, the elimination of the tax on capital gains and dividends, and lower corporate rates.  Yes, he wants to end Too Big To Fail and break up the huge banks, but...he would repeal the regulatory reforms of Dodd-Frank and the ACA, would rein in the EPA, and curb the excesses of the NLRB, privatize Fannie and Freddie and reform entitlements - he thinks the Ryan Plan doeesn't go far enough.

    What, exactly, is appealing about any of this?  What makes Jon Huntsman's policies - which seem to be boilerplate GOP trickle-down - good?  Is it that he "looks the part," with a great personality, nice family, worked in the Obama Administration?  Or do you agree with his policies and plans?

    I really just don't get it, loveed, and would love you to explain how Huntsman's policies and ideology would be good for this country.

    Parent

    Hunstman also shifted his (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    position on climate change as the campaign progressed.  "Not enough solid research exists to formulate policies based on global warming."--he told the right-wing "think tank", the Heritage Foundation.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    Hunstman is in favor of vouchers and charter schools - school choice - which I believe just kills the public education system

    The public education system is already dead for probably 95% of the country.

    It is time to do some creative destruction and let the parents decide what a successful school system looks like.

    Parent

    Because parents (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    have so much knowledge about "what a successful system looks like".  Since naturally, once one has had a child that knowledge comes magically.  

    While it is true that there are some parents who delve into the doings of one or two particular schools, and some parents who are, in fact, educators, most parents just want a functioning school system.  If you want to look at successful school systems, then research systems abroad that produce well educated students.  I submit that most of them come from nations that hold education as a high priority and fund it as such.  Not a throw-away, let-the-parents-pay-for-it attitude.

    What needs some creative destruction is the propaganda that has been promoted about public education over the last 30 years or so.

    Parent

    The problem, sj (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    Is that you can research all you like and come to all the conclusions you like.... But then you can't get them implemented for a host of reasons.

    As for money, I think I read that we spend more per pupil than any country besides Switzerland. So money does not appear to be answer.

    BTW - Parents may or may know jack... but it is their children.

    Do you have any that were in the public school system. In the system? Will be?

    Parent

    Among the problems Jim (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    Public schools are a unifying factor in our society.  Take that away with vouchers (that help subsidize attendance at private schools for rich people's kids)and water it down with charter schools and we have more fragmentation and class separation in our society.

    While some public schools under perform it's also true that many public schools perform very well.

    One significant key is the community served by the schools.   A weak and impoverished community will often yield under performing schools.

    Income inequality is a major player in the decline of certain public school systems as well as the general decline of citizenship, which your philosophy of every man for himself has fostered in the past few decades.

    Parent

    Spending per pupil is (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    a silly basis of comparison.  Some schools here are well equipped.  Some don't even have enough school text books much less a functioning library.  Spending per pupil is playing with numbers to create an statistical average, and is not a reflection of how our children are educated.

    And yes, not only is my son a product of public schools, but I am, as well.  Actually he went to Catholic school for 1 1/2 years for reasons unrelated to academics.

    And if parents know jack, that is no reason for their children to suffer for it.

    Parent

    sj (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    Spending per pupil is playing with numbers to create an statistical average, and is not a reflection of how our children are educated.

    What the voucher does is allow the parent to vote with their feet. Local school bad? Take your kids and vouchers to another school.

    It's called "competition." It flushes out the non-performers and eliminates the money advantage the rich school districts have over poor districts.

    Parent

    "It flushes out the non-performers" (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure that the non-performers could be flushed out by looking at the income levels/tax base of the residents of the school district.  What "competition" does do very well is further starve already starving schools.  I understand your position.  No need to keep iterating.  I just think your position is looking at the issue through the wrong lens.  I think it's the wrong solution to the right problem.

    Parent
    Now how can (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:43:06 PM EST
    putting all the money in a pot and dividing it equally "starve" a district? It would make all districts equal. Need more money? Go to the tax payers, make a case for it and bingo! There's more money.

    Schools should not exist to "socialize" kids. They should exist to "teach" kids.

    Parent

    It does NOT divide it equally (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:05:03 PM EST
    the "have-more" schools STILL have more.  Fund all schools equally not by local taxes and then your argument makes sense.  Until that happens it's just an illusion.  Looks real, but it's not.

    Parent
    I never said that the funds should come (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:11:29 PM EST
    from "local" taxes only. Someplace below I noted that vouchers would make schools in Denver's 5 Points area equal in resources, aka money, with Cheery Creek, which is upper middle class.

    That means that all the money goes into the same pot. As I said, need more? Go to the voters and get it.

    And if Cheery Creek's share has been reduced by the inclusion of 5 Points more children but less money.... well I promise you Cheery Creek knows how to get legislation passed.

    Parent

    Won't happen - CAN'T happen (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    As I said, need more? Go to the voters and get it.

    And if Cheery Creek's share has been reduced by the inclusion of 5 Points more children but less money.... well I promise you Cheery Creek knows how to get legislation passed.

    ... in Colorado, and many other states.  Colorado already let the voters decide the issue of increased education funding.  What they ended up with was the same result as you have in many southern states - they voted for less taxes rather than adequate funding.  Now there's a state law and two Constitutional amendments that limit school funding.  Colorado has fallen from slightly above-average per student spending in the 70s and early 80s to 49th in the nation.

    Some 13 years after the adoption of TABOR, Colorado strongly felt the consequences of this progressive starvation and suspended TABOR;s limit on revenue growth. As described in this report, services had deteriorated to the point at which the quality of life in the state had been undermined -- and the state's potential for economic development had been weakened. While some services such as children's health insurance were able to be improved after the suspension, many -- including education -- have not recovered from the many years of constraint under TABOR. What has happened in Colorado should be a cautionary tale for any other state considering going down the TABOR path.


    Parent
    That isn't the way it works now (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:16:24 AM EST
    Schools aren't funded now only from local taxes, but it is the local taxes that make the difference between Cherry Hills and Five Points.  When all schools are funded equally then you can talk about "creative destruction" (whatever that is in relation to educating all our kids).  And then vouchers would make sense.  Maybe.  But that isn't the way it works now.  You want the extra cash without the investment.

    Vouchers aren't going to make that investment magically happen by their very existence.  Vouchers, as currently discussed, even by you, don't do a thing to equalize the have-mores and the have-nots.  They just take away from the poorer schools systems.

    Parent

    I understand that isn't how it works now. (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:15:33 AM EST
    What we have now isn't working.

    Think outside the box.

    Let's do a "single payer health care" deal and not an "Obamacare" type thing.

    If we need more money, let's go after it.

    Here's some more thoughts.

    The physical plant of most schools are under utilized. Let's start some adult classes. Maybe we could get some local banks to have classes on how to balance your check book. (A lot of people don't know how.) How simple interest works, etc., etc.

    Make the school year 11 months. The school day from 7 to 6 allowing parents to be more flexible in making a living. Feed the kids FREE breakfast, lunch and a late heavy snack around 3:30. (You can't teach a hungry child.)

    At the same time, insist on school uniforms. That would be a huge help in stopping gangs and associated problems. A strong program on birth control and the downside of having a baby outside of marriage, etc., etc.

    You want more dollars and more support for schools?

    Let the parents choose. Make the school a central part of the community in ways besides sports.


    Parent

    Just saying (none / 0) (#162)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    "Vouchers!!!" isn't cutting it.  As to the rest of your thoughts: when I was a kid my high school was used for adult classes in the evening.  I don't know if they still do that, but it's a good use of the space.

    I have mixed feelings about classes from 7 - 6.  It would be good for the parents, surely, but that's an awfully long time for students.  If there was more physical activities for the active kids, and rest periods for the born bookworms, I could see it.  For a day that long, there is no one-size-fits-all that would benefit and encourage individual abilities and propensities.  But I remember that I couldn't join many school clubs because they met after school and the school buses didn't wait.  And for me, no school bus meant no way home.

    And free breakfast and lunch should be a given.  

    Parent

    Well, we're thinking (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    And that's a plus!

    As a conclusion I gotta say that all I saw out of this conversation was that the progressives wanted to stand pat.

    Which tells me they aren't.

    Parent

    Medicare doesn't cover ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:14:47 PM EST
    As a conclusion I gotta say that all I saw out of this conversation was that the progressives wanted to stand pat.

    ... eye care?

    Parent

    Hahahahahahahahah .... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    Need more money? Go to the tax payers, make a case for it and bingo! There's more money.

    Eezy-peezy!  Great idea!  In fact, to be fair, we should extend this to other areas ...

    ... defense spending, Medicare, social security checks, ...

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    LOl (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:31:16 AM EST
    What you mean is instate a child tax or a punishment for having a child who isn't "perfect". What you are advocating is what third world countries have been doing for quite a while. But hey, we all know that conservatives consider becoming like a third world desirable because they believe that they're not the ones who are going to have to suffer.

    Parent
    "Lies, d@mn lies and statistics" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    The public education system is already dead for probably 95% of the country.

    Wonder where baseless, entirely-made-up "statistics" would fall in Twain's continuum ...

    Parent

    his world (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    is one of poor neighborhoods with one room school houses packed to overflowing.

    Parent
    Yes, The public education system is dead (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    without qualifiers and without hope (other than to get rid of teachers unions and tenure) from pre-kindergarten through post-secondary public education--and graduate programs as well.   And, 99.99 percent of charter schools and voucher programs are successful, without qualifiers.  Schools need to be run like a business.

    Parent
    Indeed, indeed, KeysDan (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:35:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks, but I will (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    double check with the Republican candidates campaigns to make sure I did not miss anything.

    Parent
    ROTFL (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    You didn't realize that was snark.

    Parent
    You didn't realize (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    that was a snark back.

    Please try and keep up.

    Parent

    That would be great (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    IF teachers coiuld set their own agendas instead of "teaching to the test" because their school will be punished;

    IF teachers could have total control and if they feel a kid needs to be held back or kicked out, they should have the authority to do so, without a parent being able to overrule them on every decision; and

    IF school start accepting .0000001% defective raw material in the front door (like manufacturing companies can), so they are able to turn out 99% perfect products,

    then I say, sure, run a school like a business.

    Until then, people who have never taught or have any idea what it's like, besides attending school themselves, should shut the he!! up and should definitely not be setting education policy in this country.

    Parent

    The evidence on charter schools (none / 0) (#141)
    by observed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    is already in, and is quite conclusive.
    They are at best equal to public schools, and often much worse.


    Parent
    I can't remember what House of Lies (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:01:34 AM EST
    designated the acronym for pulling figures out of your a$$ is.  I'm going to have to watch that episode again.  I think it is a FROMA

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    And coming from someone who is way too old to have kids in public education is especially rich.

    I would argue the tons of kid's parents at the two public schools in my neighborhood would disagree.

    I would also add that this line seem to stop once college bound, where public education once again seems to fine fine and dandy in republican circles.

    Parent

    ScottW (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    And coming from someone who is way too old to have kids in public education is especially rich.

    I guess you have never heard of grandchildren.

    ;-)

    Scott, how many children or grandchildren do you have in "public" or "private" education?

    Parent

    ScottW (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    And coming from someone who is way too old to have kids in public education is especially rich.

    I guess you have never heard of grandchildren.

    ;-)

    Scott, how many children or grandchildren do you have in "public" or "private" education?

    Parent

    public schools (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by womanwarrior on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:53:20 AM EST
     I am a product of great public schools and I do not want to see this system die.  Killing it will further kill our democracy and leave this country run only by those who can afford private education.

    My three children are all graduates of a great public school system.  The parents in our district are very involved in the schools.  Our cohort began a movement to upgrade the schools when my oldest was in grade school.  We changed the school board which was deferring maintenance and resting on its laurels in the interest of not raising taxes.  Instead we did facility and population studies and upgraded our buildings for a modern education. It took sustained work: the high school was rebuilt when my youngest was a senior in high school. We keep great teachers.  Our children all went on to succeed at excellent colleges. Our system means that our property values will remain high.  And we have an educated populace.  We still have problems in our system, but we have to keep working for it, and not give up on it.  

    Parent

    I agree completely about public schools (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    but I think the need for public schools - with national standards - is even more important in neighborhoods where parents are not actively involved.  or even worse where school boards are controlled by knuckle dragging neanderthals who want to teach creationism and bible studies.

    Parent
    Capt, I assume you have no children (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    That's okay and as a citizen you have a right to be interested.

    But show me where "national standards" have worked??? Didn't we just have a bunch of teachers teaching the test in Atlanta??

    And if a private school wants to teach the bible, what business is that of yours?

    Parent

    look! (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    over there.  something shiny

    Parent
    He was talking about public schools (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:01:48 PM EST
    And if a private school wants to teach the bible, what business is that of yours?

    If you want to send your kids/grandkids to private schools that teach bible studies and creationism instead of actual science, knock yourself out.

    Just don't expect others to pay for it ...

    Parent

    It is wonderful that you had such a great school (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    I graduated in the mid 50's and had a great school.

    I am glad your children had a great education.

    Mine were in a variety of schools. Some okay, others not. Where my grandson lives now the local school system has received failing grades for the past four years.

    And property values stayed high... Until the great recession...

    But I digress. He went to a private preschool and then to public kindergarten. After that he was put in a private school where he is excelling. In addition to the usual courses he has computer science and foreign language. Neither are "elective," except you get to chose between Spanish, French or German. To graduate you must also take Latin along with 4 years of history, science, math, English and Literature.

    I help out on the tuition. Our property taxes are well above state average and 76% of them are for the school. So I'm paying for something that I'm not using because it is so bad.

    Yet no one seems to be able to change the system. No matter what, the power structure holds on.

    I say trash it, give every parent vouchers and let's see where the money will be spent. That's the only way you can force changes.

    Parent

    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    the thing with the NCLB grades--they are stupid. I have a high school that was in the top 10% of schools nationwide but a middle school that feeds into that same high school got a FAILING grade. So you have the exact same students and parents for a top ten school but then you have the same thing for a failing school? It's stupid.

    Parent
    the way to get good public schools (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:34:38 PM EST
    is to create a culture that values education over just about everything else - then you can have top-notch public schools.  Welcome to Massachusetts.

    Everytime Republicans bring up "failing" public schools, I like to point to the state rankings.  The worst public school districts are almost always in the south.  So maybe it's really just Republicans that fail at public schools.  I realize that the (sub)urban vs. rural factor also plays in, but Vermont manages to pull it off.

    That being said, I have a hard time with the idea of abandoning charter schools as well.  I think it would be a complete shame to shut down well performing charter schools that provide a real opportunity for students in under-performing areas.  I see no reason why they can't work well in a system together, and I think that Boston is showing that they can.  I get that many other places are showing that they don't - which is why you have to be careful about it.  It won't work if you use it as an excuse to abandon the public school system.

    I understand the funding issues, but I think we should address that at the funding level and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  It's really hard to argue against things like Match Charter, and say they shouldn't exist, when it's one of the best schools in the state and it serves one of the most needy population bases.  I just think that school districts have to be smart and careful about it, and not use it as an excuse to shortchange the rest of the students.

    The problem is not charter schools themselves, it's the idea that they can solve all the problems and be a replacement for public schools that is the problem.  They can't and they shouldn't.  But they can work together well with a well-funded and functioning public school system.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Here's that citizenship thing ...

    So I'm paying for something that I'm not using because it is so bad.

    Long ago, in the middle of the 17th century the Massachusetts Assembly required every town with 15 or more families to establish a public school system open to all.  Didn't matter if you had kids attending the school, it was your duty as a citizen to provide schools.

    That's called citizenship.  It's about commitment to the future.

    Today, with Conservative ideology scrapping the whole idea of citizenship the public commitment to education has waned.

    Failure to support public education will only foster sharper class distinctions in our society.

    And here's another little gem ...

    And property values stayed high... Until the great recession...

    In the 60s and the prior decades 42% of the cost of local public education was paid for by taxes on industry and commerce, that was the national average.  In 1991 business paid for 16% of the local tax bill.  I don't know today's percentage but, if I were to bet I'd bet the percentage is lower given the tax abatement and subsidy demands by business interests.

    It's that old citizenship thing again.

    Parent

    In your rush to feeling so superior (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:55:12 PM EST
    You have failed to note that my complaint is that I am paying for a PUBLIC school that is failing thus forcing me to pay for a PRIVATE school to educate my grandson.

    Thus I am paying for something that I am not using and for something that I am using.

    I think that is unfair.

    And that's called common sense.

    Parent

    That's called "nonsense" (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:18:54 PM EST
    You have failed to note that my complaint is that I am paying for a PUBLIC school that is failing thus forcing me to pay for a PRIVATE school to educate my grandson.

    1.  No one is "forcing" you to do anything.  You choose to contribute to your grandchild's education, just as your child chose to live in the school district they live in.  Poor people may have little choice where they live, but unless your child is poor, they chose their school district.

    2.  Paying for a public school system that's available to all is a public policy choice we made as a society long ago - one that's been a tremendous benefit to all of us for many decades.  As such, we all contribute, whether we have children or not, and whether we choose to take advantage of our public school system.  Of course, some people complain about it after the fact - after they and their children have received the benefits of a public education, they feel they shouldn't have to contribute any longer (even when their annual  school taxes cover a fraction of the annual cost of schooling for one child).

    Oh, well.

    Some people don't think our local police force is sufficient protection, and they choose to hire a private security company, pay for an alarm company, or put a gate around there community, which is their choice.

    I choose not to pay for their private security, and to vote against any politician who wants to use tax monies to pay for private schools.

    Parent

    while we discuss the world is burning (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    The Chester Upland School District in Delaware County, Pennsylvania suffered a serious setback when Gov. Tom Corbett (R) slashed $900 million in education funds from the state budget. The cuts landed hardest on poorer districts, and Chester Upland, which predominantly serves African-American children and relies on state aid for nearly 70 percent of its funding, expects to fall short this school year by $19 million.

    Faced with such a shortage of funds, the school district informed its staff that it will not be able to pay their salaries come Wednesday. So the teachers decided to work for free. As one teacher put it, students "need to be educated, so we intend to be on the job":

    its a pretty amazing story and not all covered in this one article.

    At a union meeting at Chester High School on Tuesday night, the employees passed a resolution saying they would stay on "as long as we are individually able."

    if interested google "chester upland school"


    Parent

    Yep - and while Gov. Corbett ... (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    ... slashes public school funding and forces teachers to work without pay, he wants to fund a voucher program to use tax money to send kids to private schools.

    (I'm from PA and used to teach in a poor, inner-city school, so I've been following this story - but thanks for the link).

    Parent

    And if the schools were funded by (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:37:48 PM EST
    vouchers everyone would have the same resources.

    Parent
    No, they wouldn't (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:29 AM EST
    Corbett's plan (like almost every other voucher plan) provides funding only to lower income families and only in an amount equal to the tuition charged by the private school or the amount of state funding their sending district receives for that student, whichever is less.  This might pay for some private, elementary schools, but the better private schools in my area charge between $14,000 and $20,000 per year for tuition.  The amount families would receive under Corbett's plan is between $6,000 and $8,000.  What you would have is a tiered system where children from wealthy families could go to the better private schools, while children from low/middle income families would not be able to go to the better schools.  The same private schools would be allowed to refuse admission to children with disabilities - who require additional/expensive accommodations - as well as gay students.

    Parent
    And it's NOT citizenship (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:32:02 AM EST
    You have an obligation as a citizen to pay for public schools.

    It's your choice to send your kids/grandkids to a private school.

    No way in hell should you be relieved of your obligations as a citizen.

    Your ideology is however doing everything possible to destroy citizenship.

    Parent

    If that (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    particular public school or school system was properly equipped there would be no reason for the private school.  I assure you, the public schools in affluent areas are much sought after.  You've lived in Denver, right?  The Cherry Hills public schools are amazing.

    Eliminating all public schools because "yours" is deficient is like cutting off everyone's right hand because yours has been crushed to a pulp.

    Parent

    And Littleton was considered good (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    But the 5 Points neighborhood was worse and so was the Aurora.

    And I don't think giving the people in Denver the means to send their children to a school with the same resources as those in Cheery Creek is anything but just and fair.

    Parent

    Private vs, public (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by the capstan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    The one private school my son attended was much worse than the public schools he went to.  (The private school taught fifth grade math twice (repeating it in 6th grade) rather than risk poor grades for the majority of the class.)  The last school my son attended was not so hot--my son left for college before graduating.  But he none-the-less was a Science Talent Search semi-finalist and a first-place winner at the 'international' Science Fair.

    Why did he do so well if the high school was not top notch?  He was a college prof's child, for one thing, and had lots of encouragement.

    And at the other end, I have a severely retarded daughter.  So do I advocate public schools being able to refuse admittance to the mentally handicapped?  You can bet your durn life I do not!

    Parents make a difference!  (And when they don't, then it is time for the public to volunteer, pay higher taxes if that would help, and be involved in local schools and vote in school board elections.)

    Parent

    A private school may or may not be better than a (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    public school.

    But I say that in 95% plus of the cases the private schools are better than the public. If they weren't then the family would not sacrifice to send the child to the private school.

    You are correct in that it is the parents that make the difference. As to higher taxes... I again note that I think we spend more per pupil than any country except Switzerland. I'm not convinced that the problem is money.

    And yes, people should vote. But the facts are that overcoming and changing the local power structure is almost impossible. Vouchers would do that very effectively.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:42:54 PM EST
    A lot of people who send their kids to private schools aren't concerned with the academics in the least. We have one in our area that isn't even accredited and people are sending their kids there because they want teacher led prayer. There are plenty of bad private schools probably about 50% of them are bad. There are a lot of people here in the south that send their kids to private schools so they won't have to go to school with black kids. There are plenty of people willing to pay for things other than academics.

    Parent
    Schools teaching religion is (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:24:09 PM EST
    a bad thing for you. And you have my sympathy. Guess those Jesuits had no idea......

    Face it. You aren't looking to educate, you are looking to indoctrinate them into whatever the latest PC correct fad is.

    BTW - My grandson's school is accredited and has a sizable minority students in which their parents all passed the same test as everyone else. It's called "Can you pay the tuition?"

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:33:40 AM EST
    Conservatives are the ones looking to indoctrinate children not educate because if it was to educate then the schools in conservative areas would be the best and they are the worst.

    I have no problem with a private school using prayer. And if parents want to blow their money sending their kids to these fundie schools I could care less but you want me to fund these schools or subsidize people like you.

    Parent

    He said - she said (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:09:41 AM EST
    So Conservatives are all ignorant Bible thumpers.

    heh

    Your responses are so typical.

    Tell me. Why are you so fearful of giving parents vouchers equal, let's say, to the sum of all the school districts in the state divided by the number of children and let the parents choose??

    Oh, wait. You think the State knows better than the parents.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:52:27 PM EST
    is that you don't understand that what you want doesn't work. It amounts to a child tax. They have vouchers here in GA and they are a joke. I have a LD child and the state will give you a 3K voucher for a school that costs 20K a year. So if I can't afford to pay 17K a year in child taxes, I can't afford to send my child to school. It's as simple as that. And it is going to be the same way for a lot of children. Parents ARE NOT going to have a choice. That is a bunch of right wing think tank nonsense. You are going to go to whatever school you can afford. So instead of you going to a school that is decided by where you live it is going to be decided by your income and that helps only the people that are already paying. Conservatives should just be honest and say that they want to give money to people that are already sending their children to private school instead of saying it's about choice because it's not. That is a lie.

    Parent
    You are fighting the last war (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    It goes without saying that your voucher for your LD child would be sufficient to get that child into a school equipped to teach. i.e. More money.

    Try thinking outside the box rather than opting for lunch on the reservation.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    if you read the actual voucher proposals but out by the American Enterprise Institute they advocate 3K per child. Of course, this is based on a lie that they promote that there are plenty of schools that you can go to for 3K. The truth of the matter is that it is something that will not work. It is the same thing that they do in third world countries and they have many children who do not get an education. You really should educate yourself on the facts of a voucher program. Of course, I believe that conservatives want an uneducated country so that there will be plenty of people to pick the crops on their plantations. It's not only vouchers that promote a plantation economy, it's their economic policies also.

    Parent
    Ga.... Quit assuming that we (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    are locked into any proposal. This would be something new. 100% vouchers for all.

    Let the parents choose!

    Are you a Democrat against democracy???

    You sure sound like it.

    Parent

    You don't (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:19:47 PM EST
    get the fact that you aren't choosing and aren't going to really have choices. I mean if my salary only allows me to have an economy car you seem to think I'm going to get a Cadillac. Just be honest for once and admit that you want your subsidy for the tuition that you're paying and be done with it.

    Parent
    I'm against (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:22:15 PM EST
     a child tax imposed by the state which is what you are advocating. Why do you hate children so much that you want parents to pay a child tax? Is a child tax what defines a democracy? I guess in bizarro conserva-world it does.

    Parent
    They already CAN choose (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    No one's "against democracy" ... no one's stopping anyone from enrolling in a private school.

    BTW - The closest private school to my home costs over $25,000/year.  There are some that are less expensive, but it's nice to know that Generous Jim is willing to fund "100% vouchers".

    Gonna get a little expensive, though ...

    Parent

    Not ALL of them (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    So Conservatives are all ignorant Bible thumpers.

    Not all of them ...

    Why are you so fearful of giving parents vouchers equal, let's say, to the sum of all the school districts in the state divided by the number of children and let the parents choose??

    Because the funds will be used to promote particular religions - that whole "separation of Church and State" thing.  Moreover, public funds should be used to teach actual science, rather than indoctrinate children with fairy tales about humans living with dinosaurs on an Earth less than 5,000 years old.

    You think the State knows better than the parents.

    In many cases, he// yeah!  Let's see - curricula developed by education experts with years of studying child development, pedagogy and content vs. average Joe Sixpack who has no background in education other than attending school as a student.

    Not a difficult decision.

    Parent

    You're absolutely right (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:42:55 AM EST
    Face it. You aren't looking to educate, you are looking to indoctrinate them into whatever the latest PC correct fad is.

    We expect them to be "indoctrinated" with scary, "PC fads" like Science, Evolution and Geology ...

    Parent

    Why not learn the FACTS ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    But I say that in 95% plus of the cases the private schools are better than the public. If they weren't then the family would not sacrifice to send the child to the private school.

    ... rather than just make it up as you go along.  If 95% of private schools outperformed public schools, the private schools would be vastly superior to public schools.

    In reality, they're not.  A review of 10 years of studies of voucher programs reached the same conclusion.

    As for the reasons why parent would pay for private schools - it probably varies.  In my area, we have excellent public schools, but some people (mostly Catholic) want their children to receive an education with a religious component.  Others view it as a status symbol, and "feel" they're getting a better education, even though they're not.  I have a former business acquaintance in Alabama who is conservative and sends his kids to private school because he wants them to learn "creation science" rather than evolution.

    Parent

    Vouchers (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    This is what scrapping public schools and sending everyone a voucher would do:

    We would end up with multi-tiered school offerings.

    If you don't have the money you'd have to send your kid to a school that charged only the voucher amount for tuition.  Your kid would be in a glorified K-12 day care center.

    If you can spring for an extra grand or so per kid you could send them to a school that makes some attempt at teaching.

    For much more per kid you could send them to fairly good school.  

    For still more you could send them to a school with well paid teachers instructing in small class sizes.

    That's exactly what a voucher only system would yield and we would end up with an even more stratified society and miss out on discovering and developing a lot of talent.

    No way in hell I'll ever support a system that subsidizes rich people and does grievous damage to the nation.  Oops, I'm already living in a nation that subsidizes rich people.

    Parent

    The appeal thing (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    A friend of mine--an always solid Democrat--had earlier said that Huntsman seemed smart, nice, reasonable.  When reminded that H. Was every bit as conservative as most of the others, she nodded with a vaguely aware "that's true".

    Other than being liked by the media politicos, it sure looks like a replay of the "McCain is actually a maverick (wink, wink) and more moderate than the others" BS of long ago.  These myths get reprised every so often.

    Parent

    the moderate thing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    in today's republican party, admitting that you can speak Chinese (and think that's a good thing), acknowledging that the scientists might be right on science, and not hating gay people - makes you a moderate.

    Parent
    And his strong preference for (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:25:30 AM EST
    Paul Ryan's economic proposal, etc...privatization & more.  In some ways, "moderate" like John McCain moderate.

    Parent
    Huntsman was (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    anything but moderate.  the adage that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king applies here.  on a stage filled with lunatics he just looked moderate by not actually talking about how conservative he was.  I think he expected voters to look at his record.  how quaint.

    he was in fact the conservative Romney pretended to be.  democrats should all be glad he is out of the race.

    Parent

    See my post below (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    H did in fact hold moderate views, mostly in FP. some of them easily liberal Dem views and to the left of Obama.

    I also forgot to mention he was pro civil unions, which puts him with moderate Ds.

    Definitely he was a voice for moderation among the R primary field in both substance and rhetoric.  Ds should not applaud his exit though it was clear after NH he had no way to continue.

    Parent

    personally (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    his passing support for "less than marriage" hardly makes up for his enthusiastic support for the radical Ryan budget

    Parent
    Funny thing about "smart, nice and (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    reasonable" is that if the same ideas Huntsman is behind were expressed or communicated with arm-waving, a raised voice and a fair amount of flying spittle, we would easily see those ideas for what they are: crazy.  

    But sadly, too many people these days look no further than the packaging and conclude that, well, maybe this guy (and you can insert any number of names here) wouldn't be so bad after all...

    [But then, look at what happened to Howard Dean - his exuberance and attempts to be heard over an equally exuberant crowd were engineered (in much the same way we at home can hear quite clearly the sideline interviews with athletes who are having great difficulty hearing, because of crowd noise, the reporter standing right in their faces) to make him look like a lunatic - and it worked.  That was a lesson learned by others, which is why most candidates these days seems to have about as much enthusiasm and passion as potted plants.]

    What is of more concern to me, really, is how attractive our current president - and nominal Democrat - Barack Obama, finds the policy stylings of a Jon Huntsman.  Because I have to think that at some level, whatever attributes made Huntsman a good choice for his ambassadorial role, I'm thinking Obama could have found someone with those same attributes who came with decidedly more attractive-to-Democrats leanings in other areas.

    I've heard it posited that Obama named Huntsman to the China post precisely to keep him off the 2012 presidential candidate radar - guess that didn't work quite as planned.


    Parent

    Re: Your last paragraph above (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    People like myself would say--from a strategic political view-- that the naming of Huntsman as Ambassador worked...in many ways.  You allude to the "get him out of town" aspect.  That worked in that his late start precluded any possibility of his overtaking Romney et al.  At the same time, the Administration  & country it serves got a fairly capable ambassador.  And, the Repubs of today wouldn't' go near an Obama appointee.

    Parent
    Two reasons (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    Huntsman had an overall moderate FP program with the possible exception of Iran.  He wanted a faster pullout from Afghan putting him to the left of Obama.  Questioned the need to station 50k troops in Germany.  Wanted to reduce military spending; wanted to engage diplomatically with China.  Called for an end to the bitter partisan atmosphere at home.  Refuse to personally demonize Pres Obama or engage in the rhetoric of Repub dog whistles.

    Second, his soft spoken reasonable sounding personality produced a perception that he was far more moderate than some of his conservative domestic positions would suggest.  Especially compared to the other mouth breathers seeking the nom, H seemed like an intelligent reasonable fellow who wouldn't go off half cocked and start a war nor obliterate the social safety net at home.

    Parent

    gotta love this (none / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Called for an end to the bitter partisan atmosphere at home.
    How did that work out for Obama?  It's easier to move difficult legislation than it is to change personalities.

    Parent
    I was responding to Anne (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    who wondered why H had so much appeal to libs.  The left obviously would prefer Rs cooperating in Congress with Ds in crafting legislation, as a Pres Huntsman presumably would encourage, as opposed to Rs obstructing or ramming hardline ultraconservative legislation down the Ds' throats, as happens in too many R dominated states today.

    Ds probably viewed H as someone who would govern in the Ike bipartisan mold, which made him far more preferable a Repub than the others.  And he didn't have the ugly and weird baggage Ron Paul has.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    We aren't delusional.  We know that Hunstman is as conservative as anyone. We like him because:

    1. He tends not to demonize his progressive principles and dems as evil.

    2. He can be approached rationally and logically.

    That's pretty much it. In a GOP where the goal is who can vilify the left the most, someone who simply disagrees but sees good and fair people on the other side of the debate is valuable.

    We will always have divisions on policy.  You just hope that those on the other side have the intellect and perspective to put yourself in the other side's shoes.

    Personally, I don't like when the left demonizes the right either.  I think there are a lot of conservatives (most of them even) who believe that low taxes, the free market, etc. are the best way and aren't taking those positions to line their pockets, or kill little cute puppies or whatever.

    Now they are completely wrong IMHO, but I can respect that they believe that they are advocating what is best out of good faith.

    Huntsman operates in good faith and I respect that a lot.

    Parent

    this (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    I agree with.  but I also think because of all that he would have been a real threat in the general and so you and I should be glad he is gone.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    I was terrified of Huntsman in the general.

    Parent
    Yes. He is sane enough to admit (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    believing evolution and climate change science. That alone puts him a cut above most of the rest of the GOP. Though I disagree with him on most everything else, at least I can respect his basic intelligence.

    Parent
    I think he would have been a great (none / 0) (#77)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    President.
     It's been a long time since we had a patriot as a president. Bill Clinton was a patriot. They put the country first.
     I believe our country is in danger.
     I loved everything about him. His tax plan would have reduced my burden from 18% to 8%. When I work overtime it pushes me into another tax bracket. Maybe I would get 1/3 of the extra day. When my husband was laid off for two years 8%, would have helped. The taxes we're paying on his unemployment is ridiculous.
     A flat tax would allow companies to gage there tax burden for years. A holiday to allow money overseas to return.
     I agree with Jh that it time to get away from oil as a major source of energy.
     I like his family. It starts with his father. Country service is encourage. His wife work with young women, his sons military career, the adoption of his 2 daughters. Cancer research foundation. His father the billionaire plans on dying broke.
     Utah was the number one state, when he was governor.
     We need all kind of ways to educate our children.
    There is no one size fit all.
     He wanted to get rid of banks to big to fail.
     No one is more informed on China than Huntsman. I could go on.
     I wish he would have waited til after the next two debate. I think it would have made a difference in his poll numbers.

     I wonder how long we will continue to allow the media to pick our president. The tabloid coverage by the media will continue to tear down this country. The media decides who get coverage and the way it covered.
     The presidency will be bought again. BY another person who just want to be president.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    the first person I thought of when I saw he was pulling out. Looks like 2012 might be an election where the majority of the population has a clothes pin on their nose to vote for somebody.

    Parent
    loveed: 2016 (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:32:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Not really a surprise (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:55:06 AM EST
    He has been polling in the single digits all along, and never got any attention or passion from the evangelicals.

    He had the Mormon thing going for him (Romney was already a known quantity from 2008, so he's not as "scary").

    He worked in the Obama administration and worked in China - the new "evil empire".  That alone would never allow him to be the Republican nominee.

    I'm just surprised it took this long.  Maybe a promise of a cabinet position - UN Ambassador or Secretary of State in a Romney administration?

    Parent

    In geography & belief (none / 0) (#13)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    Clearly a connection to Romney.  Your last paragraph says it too.

    Parent
    I have no idea what that means (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:41:13 PM EST


    Parent
    maybe VP! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:10:28 AM EST
    oh, wait . . .

    Parent
    loveed, you were the first one I (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    thought of. You may be the only Huntsman diehard.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#82)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:12:05 PM EST
      There more of us than you know.
     I wonder how long we will allow the media to pick our president.
     They decide on the coverage. How it's covered. Who's covered.
     This will be first time in my life, I will not be voting.
     With this being MLK day it makes me really sad to think this way.

    Parent
    In my view (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    It's not so much that the media picks our presidents/senators/congress(wo)men, as it is that the people pulling the media's strings are the same ones funding the candidates.

    I hope that sentence makes sense because I'm not re-writing it.

    Parent

    make sense & I agree (none / 0) (#95)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:35:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Gingrich has to step up his game. (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    Maybe he can accuse Romney of having an "anti-colonial" viewpoint, as he said of Obama.
    or he could join Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    in accusing him of being a serial killer.  based on his statement that corporations are people too.

    Mitt The Ripper

    (note the excellently appropriate John Lighgow/Trinity VO)

    Parent

    pulling away (none / 0) (#3)
    by markw on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:26:22 AM EST
    Romney up by 11 in latest Insider Advantage poll.  (Same group that had him up by only 2 last week.)  Should all be over by Saturday. It's gonna be a tough fight for Obama.

    But what about the dog? Listened to (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:33:11 AM EST
    "Media Matters" on public radio this afternoon.  Consensus was people focus on the dog like they focus on celebrities.  More interesting and easy to grasp than the real issues re governing U.S.  

    Parent
    We must see this kennel (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:50:30 AM EST
    It is hard to believe that any dog would sign up for living the Seamus Romney life.  We have several dogs and several kennels around here, I don't have a single kennel that I could strap to the roof of any car we own that any one of my dogs would joyously enter again once they had gone on that ride ONCE.  

    Parent
    Yes, and either the kennel or (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    Seamus, or both, were unique in that Romney said the kennel was "air tight."

    Parent
    2008 (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:51:58 AM EST


    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:20:05 AM EST


    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    the suggestion is that since it was discussed in 2008 it is, what, irrelevant?  shrug.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    re-reading that I'm wondering now if it's not a dig at the Obama "bright shiny new object" fascination.

    But if you're right that's just silly.  No one cared about Romney in 2008.  A lot of people were barely paying attention to the republican primary given the alternative show.  Plus Romney was never really the front runner so there was very little focus on him personally.

    For the more casual political observers 2008 was all about Obama/Hillary.  By the time anyone was watching Republicans McCain was already the nominee.

    Parent

    It means (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    It will be a blip on the radar of stories.

    Parent
    Keep on campaigning/shilling, markw (none / 0) (#17)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:19:16 AM EST


    Parent
    I hardly (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    think that admitting Obama is going to have a hard time in Nov is hardly "shilling".

    I prefer here over Kos and their "it's gonna be a landslide" blah, blah, mentality because here we look at the numbers and then go from there.

    Numbers right now are showing it as a tight race between Romney and Obama. Of course, this is subject to change at any time.

    Parent

    The writing style (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    Gives Markw's rah-rah away.  

    Parent
    Heh - Pot? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    Meet kettle ...

    Parent
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:12:11 AM EST


    what would be actual news (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    is if Perry and more importantly Gingrich dropped out before the vote.  Perry doesnt seem far fetched at all since he is still in the single digits.  
    and we are about to learn just how badly Newt wants to hose Romney.  because if, as I have suspected, hosing Romney is ultimately more important to him than winning the nomination and with Santorum getting the backing of the evangelicals what he has to do to make that happen is drop out and endorse Santorum.

    will this happen?  who knows.  but I dont think its impossible

    Not (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:01:02 AM EST
    impossible but I seriously doubt that Newt is going to endorse anyone at first. And does Santorum even want his endorsement because Santorum's line is that Newt is anti-capitalism.

    I'm left wondering exactly how much influence the domonionists that endorsed Santorum are going to have in deciding the nominee.

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    a week ago Huntsman was saying Romney was unelectable.  means nothing.  
    I have no idea if this will happen and ultimately even if it did it probably wont stop Romney from getting the nomination but it would keep Romney on the defensive and in the news for the things republicans say about him and that is good for democrats.

    will be see Newt the tactician or Newt the egomaniac?  what is the phase of the moon today?

    Parent

    Newt's (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    ego will always win out and he's not the grown up that Huntsman is.

    Parent
    and we see (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    how far that got Huntsman

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    just like being the grown up has worked so well for Obama hasn't it?

    Parent
    actually I think it worked pretty well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    I also think you should talk to someone about your obsession with turning every utterance into some kind of attack on Omama.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    Obama's just done such a poor job. He's been the one that's been trying the "grown up in the room" strategy with the GOP which is a stupid strategy IMO when you are dealing with people who are suicide bombers. This is the same problem that Huntsman ran across too.

    Parent
    this is a test (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    the sky is blue

    Parent
    curious what we think of this (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    Mitt Romney gave an unemployed African-American woman a handful of cash after a campaign rally in Sumter, South Carolina.

    An aide for Romney said the woman received about $50 dollars from the GOP presidential candidate according to reports.

    "He was kind to me," she said in a report from CNN. "He held onto me and he made Gov. Haley and them come see about me."

    not so much the act which I suppose can be seen as ,I dont know how to finish that, seen as what? charitable?
    but more the optics which think are absolutely awful.

    To: Romney (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:28:49 PM EST
    From: Dr. Martin Luther King
      Re: $50 hand-out
    " philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which makes philanthropy necessary."

    Note: business format as only way to get Romney's attention.

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    That is kind of ridiculous if you really think about it.

    $50?

    Parent

    not only that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    it reinforces every possible negative stereotype I can think of.  about who is poor (black people) about what they do about it (ask for money from a white man) . . .. I could go on but jeez.  its awful.  I almost cant watch the video.  its sickening to see this man so rich he wont release his tax returns so we can see how rich he is giving a 50 to a destitute and clearly hurting person.

    jesus.  you would think he would have at least given her the amount he was willing to bet in a debate.

    Parent

    one other thing about this (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    it seems to me the right thing to do in this case would have been for him to not patronizingly give her 50 bucks but to direct her to some agency or office that could help her.

    but of course the problem with that is his stated position, like all of this co-candidates, is that the safety net that could help her should not even exist.

    Parent

    he should have given the $50 (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:10:17 PM EST
    to some rich white guy in the crowd & then told the woman that eventually some of that cash would trickle down to her

    Parent
    One for the late night.oomedy routines (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    Hey, Addams Family, thanks for the laugh-out-loud quip!

    Parent
    an agency to help her? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by the capstan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    In Sumter, SC?  You must be joking.  And if I pass a homeless person on the street, I should just keep going because I don't have a wad of cash in my pocket?  Or do I give what I can?  I doubt if even Romney travels with $10000 in his pocket (if he does, he's dumber than I think).

    Do what you can with what you have:  sort of the widow's mite thing?  I won't vote for any Republican, but I also won't trash a kind impulse.

    Parent

    It strikes me as a kind impulse also (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    To me the travesty is not that he "only" gave her $50, but that he can't make the mental leap and extrapolate how very many other people are in her shoes as well.  And that it takes government services to make a fundamental difference.  If you want to look past just the next meal or two.

    Full disclosure: I will often give whatever cash or change I have in my pockets to panhandlers.  I don't worry about how it's spent either, whether on food or dope or booze.  Once it has crossed over from my hand to theirs, it is their decision which itch to scratch.  Fuller disclosure:  I don't keep anything greater than a $10 in my pockets.  And the reason has nothing to do with panhandlers.

    Parent

    i give money to street people too (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:03:39 PM EST
    but I ask again.  what would have happened if he was not surrounded by people and reporters?

    we will never know.  and until Romney releases his tax returns we will never even know how many tax dollars he is willing to surrender for such things.

    Parent

    Do you deduct the money (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    you give to street people?  I don't.  I don't even keep track of it.

    I've never, ever missed it or regretted it.  Except once, kind of.  

    I'll digress and tell the little story.  I was walking down Colfax Avenue in Denver when I was stopped by a panhandler.  It was a hot summer day and he looked totally spent.  I had a $5 bill in my pocket that was already mentally spent.  I can't recall now on what, but at the time I was terribly pleased to have that $5 available.  At that point in my life it didn't happen often.  But he clearly needed it more than I did.  So I reached in my pocket, pulled out the bill, and with a little sigh of regret gave it to him and went on my way.  

    I would have never remembered the event except that later that evening when I was doing the laundry I took off those jeans, emptied the pockets of the usual tissues, and also pulled out a $5 bill.  Which I assure you, was not there earlier.  I didn't forget that I had another $5.  There was no other $5.  And yet there it was.  A little tiny $5 miracle.

    Anyway, I just remembered that story.  It brings a smile to my face

    Parent

    not at all (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    it actually never occurred to me.  

    I consider it karma

    Parent

    Then why bring up his tax returns (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    in relation to this event?

    Parent
    why bring up his tax returns (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:00:26 PM EST
    because he refuses to release them.  we dont know how much money he has, where it is or how much, if any, taxes he pays.

    Parent
    See! (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:48:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh I know about angels (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:50:56 PM EST
    and miracles large and small.  I don't know how I would have made it this far without some sort of divine intervention. LOL

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:05:03 PM EST
    a "kind impulse".

    what else could he have done in the circumstance.  other than what I suggested would have been the sensible thing to do?  people were watching.

    Parent

    It's impossible to speculate (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:15:50 PM EST
    I don't know the man personally.  I don't know what he would have done with no cameras.  He may not ever have encountered her or someone like her without cameras.  Who knows?  But if the fact that "people were watching" was the impetus, then why take an action that has such terrible optics as you described it earlier?

    Frankly, my son is one who has great compassion for the individual and yet has a hard time making the leap from the individual to whole classes of people.  Even now I have to get him to see the larger picture.  

    My greatest disappointment in life (really) is that when he registered to vote it was as a Republican.  (A result of the Catholic school I mentioned earlier).  He was once an avid Republican; now he doesn't discuss politics.  I have seen glimmers that give me hope that he will eventually see the light.

    Anyway, compassion for the individual is not to be sneered at.  Even if he appears to have no compassion for the larger group she represents.  It still strikes me as a kind impulse.

    Parent

    why (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    why take an action that has such terrible optics as you described it earlier?

    this is a man who talks about liking to fire people, who considers himself part of the middle class, who thinks corporations are people.
    he the most completely out of touch presidential candidate I have personally ever seen.  I have no doubt that it never once occurred to him how bad it would look because he is clueless.

    thats why

    Parent

    I'm not going to vote for the guy (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:33:14 PM EST
    But I'm not going to criticize him for this either.  There's is plenty else wrong with him that can be criticized.  But this?  Nope.

    Parent
    in truth (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    I think am not criticizing him for it either, at least directly.  I am criticizing the system that created him and the necessity for that act to have ever happened.  which he not only represents but is the figurehead for.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    But that's not how your comments are reading.

    Parent
    I would direct you to the original comment (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    not so much the act which I suppose can be seen as ,I dont know how to finish that, seen as what? charitable?
    but more the optics which think are absolutely awful.


    Parent
    Well there are (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    plenty of other comments that follow that.

    Parent
    and I stand by every one of them (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:13:18 PM EST
    Romney is a clueless plutocrat who is beginning to make Louis XIV look like an everyman.  and I think that incident of giving 50 bucks to a destitute woman while championing the dismantling and destruction of every office of government that could actually help her is about as close to a microchasm of the republican party today and this 2012 political contest as we will ever see.

    still, my original comment was about the political optics of it.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    why a lot of people don't seem to enthused by this election. Obama who whines about the price of arugula at Whole Foods and east $100 a pound ham and a guy who hands someone $50 when they really need a job. If there was a candidate out there who really understood what was going on can you imagine? A lot of people might be going to the polls in the fall with clothes pins on their noses.

    Parent
    see (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    comment #45

    Parent
    Relate the $5 story to your son someday (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    In any event, adages have a peculiar appeal for me. Don't be surprised if your son...that apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Heck, he may even have his own version of the $5 story someday. Miracles & love, y'know.

    Parent
    Oh I can easily see him (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    handing over his last $5.  He has great personal compassion, but tends to view the world in black and white.  He needs help to see shades of gray.

    But you know?  I don't think I have ever told him that story.  I'm not sure if I've ever told anyone that story until now.  I think I'll take your advice and tell him about it some time.

    Parent

    Last time Romney (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    tried to give someone a couple bucks he couldn't come up with anything smaller than a $100 bill.

    I'm surprised he found $50 this time.

    Parent

    look (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:34:49 PM EST
    if he is going to give money with his millions 50 bucks is insulting.  I am sure he travels with more that 50 bucks.

    it was a sad comment on the state of this country, its politics and Romney in particular.  you think he would have given her money if there were not witnesses?  perhaps a 5.

    Parent

    Which president was it (none / 0) (#106)
    by the capstan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    who did not know what to do at a check out counter?

    Parent
    It was (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    George H.W. Bush.  Although, that whole incident may have been blown way out of proportion.  I'm not sure that any president in my lifetime (or, at least, my adult lifetime) has gone to the grocery store to purchase things on his own.  I could maybe see Harry Truman doing so, but no president since then.  Well, okay, maybe Jimmy Carter.  ;-)
    (Geez, I can't believe I'm defending G.H.W. Bush!)

    Parent
    It was Bush the First (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 06:53:45 PM EST
    As I recall, he was amazed at the bar code price scanners.

    Parent
    oh and this - (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    an agency to help her?
    In Sumter, SC?

    not
    only  am I not joking that would be exactly my point.  if there is no state agency to help this person, instead of patronizingly handing out 50s perhaps he should turn his attention to making sure there are federal programs to help her.


    Parent

    This was so demeaning (none / 0) (#83)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    I think she needs a job, not a handout.

    Parent
    "When I was hungry, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by the capstan on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    you gave me something to eat...."  But then I grew up in the Bible Belt--as did the woman who took the money.  A job is would be good--but they are sort of hard to come be in SC these days.  In the meantime, hunger hurts.

    Parent
    That is a good reminder, capstan. (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 04:56:44 PM EST


    Parent
    I also grew up in the belt (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    and if his point was to give her money to eat 50 bucks makes sense.  its about what he spends on lunch.

    Parent
    I am starting to like (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    the guy running Newts superpac who is making the rounds on cable debunking the "inaccuracies" in the bain film that HUntsman decried today.
    yesterday I saw him go at it with Mike Wallace and I just watched him do the same thing with Mrs Greenspan.  he is steadfast, unapologetic and he knows his sh!t.  he doenst give an inch and one of his new retorts is that he understands why the media might be embarrassed that they did their work for them.  which needless to say starts the talking heads squawking.  

    more please

    "Jon Huntsman is dropping out..." (none / 0) (#128)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:02:56 PM EST
    Huh.. maybe daddy turned off the cash faucets.

    watch it (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    you are not allowed to say "daddy"

    thats SUPERPAC

    but I would say the answer is yes

    Parent

    Jon Huntsman father (none / 0) (#133)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:22:46 PM EST
    like all fathers love and supports his son.
     What is the hangup about his money. He earned it. And he plans on giving it all away (he wants to die broke). He is the founder of one of the largest cancer foundation in the country. He was not born rich.
     I think this is called achieving the American dream.
     Plus Jon has his own money. If he wanted to buy the election he could have.
     This is a decent family. Whom has served there country well.

    Parent
    I think the point is (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:17:39 AM EST
    at least my point is superpacs. and how absurd it is to say they have no connection to them or control over them.  in any case but especially if your father is running it.

    Parent
    Jon Huntsman Folds, Will Endorse Romney | 164 comments (164 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment