Illinois Gov. Charged With Trying To Sell President-Elect Obama's Former Senate Seat - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 12-15-2008, 03:11 PM

I think if one were to objectively review Obama's time in Illinois politics, you would find he has been one of the few to attempt to balance the interests (and influence) of the South Side, the Hyde Park reformers and the long-time Democratic establishment.

You accomplish that by engagement rather than disavowing any one interest group.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

You really should read Audacity of Hope, ace. I know it might be nothing more than opposition research to you, but I think it'd be worth it. The first chapter discusses the very thing you're talking about, from the politics of the 60s to the politics of Chicago. He isn't ignorant of his roots, nor his city's history.

It's awfully pie-in-the-sky for someone so jaded (realistic, depending on how you look at it) to believe that someone could rise to power outside of the power-brokering you rightfully believe exists, but keep in mind that there are still plenty of people who rightfully have the audacity to hope for something abnormal in our world of politics (like intellectual honesty).

I gave a real example from an alleged quote from Obama. He goes to a Chicago power broker and asks for the mans help. I did not say they did anything illegal, but Obama could not, would not have risen to power without playing the game. That is just a reality of Chicago. In some places, like in New York, perhaps a person can come in a buy an election, like billionaire Mike Bloomberg (again not making that charge but money can make a big difference in getting elected in some places), in Chicago that won't work, it is all about the "machine". I am not making a value judgment, because if I had political ambitions in Chicago, I would have played the game also. I just say yhat we shoul not prtend.

dc_dux · 12-15-2008, 03:41 PM

There are many ways to get ahead in politics.

One is to build connections to, and engage with, as many constituencies as you can. Another is to have a daddy who was president.

With many other methods and means in between.

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There are many ways to get ahead in politics.

One is to build connections to, and engage with, as many constituencies as you can. Another is to have a daddy who was president.

With many other methods and means in between.

I agree a few others include being married to a former President or having a name like Kennedy.

I don't have a problem when people use available resources to get ahead, I only have a problem with dishonesty about it.

Obama used components of the Chicago political machine to rise to power and in some cases he turned his back on those who helped him. Again, I am not passing judgment, perhaps the people he abandoned deserved it, my only point is that Obama is a politician and he is good at it. That is a compliment, he is probably the only person who could have done what he did in such a short period of time. The man has "mad skills", as they say, when it comes to politics.

dc_dux · 12-16-2008, 09:15 AM

ace...I am just trying to understand how any of that fits into this discussion and why you raised it.

First, it was your suggestion that Obama and staff should disclose what they know (despite the request from Fitzgerald that they wait). Then some remark about subjecting themselves to perjury if they told the truth about not having a role in the governor's actions.

And then you felt a need to raise Obama's "connections" to the Democratic machine in Chicago, ignoring his "connections" to numerous other constituencies in Chicago. What was your point?

Here's an interesting tidbit. When Obama was in the IL state senate he co-sponsored an ethics bill that did not have the support of Emile Jones or the Chicago political machine (or Republicans in the Senate). It died for lack of support.

But it was revived last year and Obama, long removed from the IL senate, called Jones, using his "relationship" to convince Jones to support the bill this time around and it passed.

It was this ethics bill that indirectly contributed to where Blago is today.

Quote:

THE ETHICS BILL THAT STARTED IT ALL.... Federal investigators have been focused on Rod Blagojevich for several years, but it was a deeply ironic series of events three months ago that led to yesterday's dramatic fall.

In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama's rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich's efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

So, in an indirect way, Blagojevich's fiasco may not have come to pass were it not for Obama's commitment to ethics reform. Once Obama intervened and the bill became law, Blagojevich had to scramble to collect as many campaign contributions as possible before the law took effect. The governor's efforts garnered the attention of federal investigators, who in turn tapped Blagojevich's phone, which in turn produced stunning evidence of brazen corruption.

The Washington Monthly

-----Added 16/12/2008 at 12 : 20 : 08-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama used components of the Chicago political machine to rise to power and in some cases he turned his back on those who helped him. Again, I am not passing judgment, perhaps the people he abandoned deserved it, my only point is that Obama is a politician and he is good at it. That is a compliment, he is probably the only person who could have done what he did in such a short period of time. The man has "mad skills", as they say, when it comes to politics.

LOL.,...I read the same thing...."using the political machine, turning his back on others....BUT I'M NOT PASSING JUDGEMENT" from Rush Limbaugh last week!

You are our very own Rush!

Guess what? The TFP community is smarter and more informed than your average Rush ditto head.

roachboy · 12-16-2008, 09:20 AM

to say obama is a politician is like triumphantly identifying that shiny metal thing that takes cold bread in and spits it out later warmed and brown as a toaster. MY GOD. LOOKIT THAT! IT'S A TOASTER!

at this point, ace, it really seems to me like you're still beating a straw man from the campaign.
'the basis for it is the sequence of conservative-friendly screen images floated by the mc-cain campaign and others concerning obama as "the chosen" and all that "be afraid he's the antichrist" idiocy.

given that the point of that screen action was to reinforce the sense of panic amongst the evangelical set (i'm surprised the adverts weren't loaded up with references to 144k and such) and nothing else, maybe it's time to stop restating the obvious as if you've just discovered it.

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I am just trying to understand how any of that fits into this discussion and why you raised it.

Read the thread.

Then tell me how any of my posts have not been related to issues raised by others in the thread, other than me bringing up Libby. I raised the issue of Libby because of the link with Fitzgerald and the potential for a perjury trap, I think you knew that is why I raised that issue - but I have been know to be wrong from time to time.
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 01 : 35 : 49-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

to say obama is a politician is like triumphantly identifying that shiny metal thing that takes cold bread in and spits it out later warmed and brown as a toaster. MY GOD. LOOKIT THAT! IT'S A TOASTER!

If you don't think there is a perception held by some that Obama is above normal "politics", you certainly are entitled to that belief - I know better and I point it out to those who may be holding that view.

roachboy · 12-16-2008, 10:55 AM

ace--no doubt there is as wide a range of beliefs concerning obama in a positive sense as there are in a negative sense. but the fact is that here, in our collective teacup, you aren't talking to anyone who corresponds to your preferences--if you could define The Obama Supporter, it'd be someone who thinks him Above the Fray. there are folk who are more and who are less optimistic about what he might be able to do....speaking for myself, i've been pretty interested in the cabinet nominations because there's an emergent profile of at least the tactical approach obama is taking to governance--but i hope that does not translate into lame centrist policy. there's no time for that horsepucky any more. the thatcher-reagan/neoliberal period is over.

the upshot---everyone knows full well that obama is a politician.
so your repetition machinery seems strangely directed.
maybe it's time to move on.

dc_dux · 12-16-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you don't think there is a perception held by some that Obama is above normal "politics", you certainly are entitled to that belief - I know better and I point it out to those who may be holding that view.

I can only speak for myself and have never held or expressed the sentiment that Obama is above "normal" (whatever that means) politics. I dont expect him to be a savior or miracle worker.

But I am of the opinion that he approaches politics in an inclusive manner, encourages a diversity of ideas and opinions from both politcal allies and adversaries, will be more pragmatic than ideological and will restore confidence in the WH.

All of which, again IMO, represent a fresh change from the last eight years!

But you know better.

aceventura3 · 12-16-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

... will be more pragmatic than ideological...

The concept of ideology has been coming up frequently, and I agree that A) I am driven mostly by my ideology, I think Bush was also (his ideology, not always the same as mine); and B) Obama is more "pragmatic" than ideological. So, as you put it succinctly in the words you used, I used the word that Obama is a good "politician". Over the course of our exchanges it is clear your preference of pragmatism often conflicts with my preference for clear ideology. I noticed that some see "ideology" as something less than a good thing in certain circumstances just as I see "pragmatism" as something less than a good thing in certain circumstances. I am certainly willing to give Obama a chance to succeed, but I don't understand him or more specifically what he will stand for, I don't think anyone else does either. I think that is a problem and I am not sure how I can move on given that uncertainty and what is at stake.

roachboy · 12-16-2008, 12:36 PM

to clarify something, i use ideology in almost exclusively it's marxist sense---it refers to a class-specific set of statements about the world that are presented as if they were general basically, and then to particular political worldviews (to the extent that they're predicated on this same structure, but each differs from others around it...) so i don't mean the same thing by it as you do, ace.

it's doubly confusing because pragmatism can be understood as a tactic rather than an ideology, one that entails cobbling together elements from a range of positions using a criterion of efficacy, say. but this says nothing about the ideological position occupied by the pragmatist---it simply points to tactics.

i was more interested in obama early in his campaign when he was running vaguely left. i understood why he shifted center as the candidacy became more serious--this (illusory at worst, self-confirming at best) notion of "centrists" as holding popular power.
i hope that he is more familiary with social democratic style action than his centrist campaign would have us believe simply because the territory that the us is heading into in order to manage this economic and political meltdown, brought to you by 30 years of degenerate neoliberalism, will be a type of social-democracy. if he knows this area and understand its logic, we'll collectively be in far better shape than would be the case if reality presents him with on the job training.

o and i do not consider myself to be particularly driven by ideology---i simply think that capitalism is a giant farce and expect that sooner or later it will either be taken apart or will implode. given that i have little more than contempt for conservatism in all its forms, i would prefer to see this process sped along by folk who operate from "the left"---whatever that means in 2008. but the particular situation in which we find ourselves does not provide folk like me the luxiry of ready-made belief systems, so i remain a kind of critical observer. just to say this.

dc_dux · 12-16-2008, 12:36 PM

ace...if you cant move on, then dont.

I would suggest that conservatives and the country are better served by heeding the advice of guys like Newt Gingrich on this issue rather than Rush Limbaugh:

Quote:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is denouncing Republican attempts to link President-elect Barack Obama and disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.....

...In a time when America is facing real challenges, Republicans should be working to help the incoming President succeed in meeting them, regardless of his Party.

From now until the inaugural, Republicans should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office.

Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.

This is the only way the Republican Party will become known as the “better solutions” party, not just an opposition party. And this is the only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.

Ben Smith's Blog: Newt denounces Blago attacks - Politico.com

-----Added 16/12/2008 at 03 : 40 : 52-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's doubly confusing because pragmatism can be understood as a tactic rather than an ideology, one that entails cobbling together elements from a range of positions using a criterion of efficacy, say. but this says nothing about the ideological position occupied by the pragmatist---it simply points to tactics.

QFT...only to add:

If Obama governs in a pragmatic, inclusive, consensus-building and open manner that will be far different from the last eight years, as IMO, I think he will, my guess is that he will be characterized

as a marxist by many on the far right for his domestic agenda

as only marginally better than the PNAC crowd by many on the far left for his foreign policy/national security agenda

and most Americans in the center left/right will initially support him on both and withhold judgement until they see results.

ASU2003 · 12-16-2008, 09:27 PM

Newt Gingrich is right. They didn't offer any solution to the problems that normal Americans are facing and they lost.

Is it possible that IL could hold a one party special election to pick a senator, or if they hold a special election, will it be open to anybody?

SecretMethod70 · 12-17-2008, 07:14 AM

It will be open to anyone.

roachboy · 12-17-2008, 07:47 AM

dc---if my leftoid friends are any indication of a broader trend (and it's obviously impossible to say, given how odd we all are), left folk seem to be witholding judgment for the time being. the cabinet appointments are differentially alarming, but like i said above governing from a center coalition does not necessarily lock in anything at the level of policy. these are extraordinary times and i suspect that most of the old distinctions left/right are going to come down.

given the astonishing incompetence of at the level of the bush squad both at the level of reactions (in the strongest possible sense of the term) to the various modalities of implosion of the neoliberal order (talking a different game then they play, writing a blank check to the financial sector while looking to fuck the uaw in manufacturing and playing chicken with the american auto industry in the process; doing fuck all for people who find themselves in danger of losing their homes on and on) and on regulatory enforcement (madoff-ponzi confection anyone?)--and the political miscalculations--and the squandering of american credibility internationally--and so forth---i think the relief over the fact that these idiot reactionaries will soon be gone is very considerable indeed.

i'm torn about obama's position on afghanistan---the more i dig into information about what's happening there, the more ambivalent i become, simply because the logic of his statements on policy leads directly to military action against pakistan--not against the central government, but rather against the staging areas for militant groups that pakistan has de facto condoned and which are fundamental (along with astonishingly stupid and badly executed policies) for the deteriorating situation in afghanistan.
what concerns me about this is the regional spiral this could very easily unleash, one that would involve india as well...but even here, i'm waiting to see what actually happens.

what's sure is that obama will have no honeymoon. a more massive pile of shit passed from one administration to its successor i have never seen or read about even.

edit:

one thing i was wondering about with respect to governor rod is whether he actually committed a crime or if he simply appears to be a sleaze---which is not illegal.
i heard this question raised somewhere on the vast pool of idiocy that is television last night...the correlate question is why the district attorney moved when he did, and whether this leaves the investigation more or less dead in the water.

what it looks like happened is that the fitzgerald moved early in order to maybe
(a) save his job
(b) prevent a compromising situation linked to obama from arising very early in his administration

but most likely it's

(c) stuff i don't know about that motivated it.

any ideas about this?

guyy · 12-17-2008, 09:50 AM

What i heard was that the Trib was going to come out with something that would blow the cover off the investigation, and that forced Fitzgerald to come out with the indictment before he was ready.

aceventura3 · 12-17-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But I am of the opinion that he approaches politics in an inclusive manner, encourages a diversity of ideas and opinions from both politcal allies and adversaries, will be more pragmatic than ideological and will restore confidence in the WH.

All of which, again IMO, represent a fresh change from the last eight years!

But you know better.

Obama announced Duncan as his Education Secretary. Duncan is currently the head of Chicago schools, among the worst schools in the nation. Duncan's performance in Chicago has been poor based on actually improving academic performance relative to other professionals who may be better qualified, yet he was selected - why? Could it be that Duncan and Obama are pals? Could it be they play ball together? Could it be the both graduated from Harvard? Is this the fresh change you refer to? Or, is it just cronyism? Or, just business as usual in the world of Chicago style politics?

roachboy · 12-17-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

actually improving academic performance relative to other professionals who may be better qualified, yet he was selected

like who, ace?
and what information are you relying on for this post anyway?
it seems to me that you're ideologically opposed to public schools, have a problem with the main teachers' union and would have preferred someone who might continue the republican policy of attempting to destroy the public school system in the name of reforming it.

from what i read in the chronicle of higher education, obama seems particularly interested in the fact that duncan has been consistently data-oriented in his approach to the school system in chicago.
do you have a Problem with the use of data?

aceventura3 · 12-17-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

like who, ace?

I live near Charlotte, the superintendent of Charlotte schools, Dr. Peter Gorman, has been doing a good job. I have not had the opportunity to review a long list of available candidates. Are you really interested in who I think might be better qualified? We could start with anyone leading a school system performing better than Chicago. We could even pick Washington D.C..

Quote:

and what information are you relying on for this post anyway?

I still have family in the Chicago area. I have family/friends in the teaching profession in and near the Chicago area. I am going to visit next week. When I do visit and spend time in Chicago, I interact with people who recently graduated from the school system. I read. If you have information showing Chicago schools are performing and doing the job, please share it. Hell, even Obama sent his kids to a private school in Chicago.

Quote:

it seems to me that you're ideologically opposed to public schools, have a problem with the main teachers' union and would have preferred someone who might continue the republican policy of attempting to destroy the public school system in the name of reforming it.

I am ideologically predisposed to rewarding results. Duncan may be a nice guy, a highly educated guy, etc., but he gets an "F" in terms of improving Chicago schools. If you argue he needs more time, then let him take the time and show some results.

Tully Mars · 12-17-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I live near Charlotte, the superintendent of Charlotte schools, Dr. Peter Gorman, has been doing a good job. I have not had the opportunity to review a long list of available candidates. Are you really interested in who I think might be better qualified? We could start with anyone leading a school system performing better than Chicago. We could even pick Washington D.C..

I still have family in the Chicago area. I have family/friends in the teaching profession in and near the Chicago area. I am going to visit next week. When I do visit and spend time in Chicago, I interact with people who recently graduated from the school system. I read. If you have information showing Chicago schools are performing and doing the job, please share it. Hell, even Obama sent his kids to a private school in Chicago.

I am ideologically predisposed to rewarding results. Duncan may be a nice guy, a highly educated guy, etc., but he gets an "F" in terms of improving Chicago schools. If you argue he needs more time, then let him take the time and show some results.

Do you have any studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system? I mean other then the anecdotal stuff you've posted.

aceventura3 · 12-17-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Do you have any studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system? I mean other then the anecdotal stuff you've posted.

Here are a couple of links to sources, the first gives Chicago schools a rating of 3 out of 10 (with 10 being the highest), D.C. schools were rated 4.

I assume you want this because of uncertainty regarding the performance of Chicago schools. In my experience it is and has been common knowledge that Chicago schools perform poorly and have performed poorly for decades. I probably could spend more time giving more links, but I am not sure the time will be worth the effort. Regardless, of what follows it will either be "cherry picked", not all the data, or whatever they shot of the day will be.

Chicago Schools - Chicago Illinois School Ratings - Public and Private

The second is from the Chicago Tribune actually commenting on the discrepancy on how graduation rates are calculated but it shows Chicago with a HS graduation rate of between 52% and 54%

Quote:

Chicago, the third largest school system, had a 52.2 percent graduation rate. That corresponded with a study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, which reported this year that 54 percent of Chicago public school freshmen receive a diploma.

The real dropout rate | Chicago Tribune

dc_dux · 12-17-2008, 02:18 PM

IMO, in the case of the performance of Chicago schools, a better measure of some level of success would be before and after Duncan...not relative to other cities. I agree that the high school graduation is low by national standards, but it went up 6-7% under Duncan. In the elementary schools. reading skills went up, math skills went up.....

Or maybe measure his performance against Bush's first Sec. of Ed....who, it turned out, fudged the city schools records to show greater success in improving Houston's schools than was actually achieved....the so-called "Houston Miracle" was a sham.

In the case of the two cabinet appointments made today, Interior and Agriculture, they are eminently qualified and equally important, and unlike Bush's appointments, they are not mining or agribusiness executives. I am more confident that they will not abuse their position of public trust to the benefit of the industries regulated by their respective departments.

The change from the current administration is that it is not a cabinet of sycophants and industry whores. A diversity of opinions on policy will be encouraged and the public interest put first.

matthew330 · 12-17-2008, 03:37 PM

DC forgot to mention that Newt was referring specifically to the video, and it's timing. The entire very short letter was posted except for these two references, which quite change the meaning:

The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.

This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.

I happen to agree with him on the ad. But to suggest that Newt wants people to "move on" from Blago and that this is not a matter worth discussing is stupid. This was about the simplest opportunity one could really have to go straight to the source:

Focus on solutions, not negative attacks: an open letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan

Why did you quote Ben Smith Bloggers on Newt? Don't you get tired at telling people to move on from things you don't want to hear about?

dc_dux · 12-17-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Why did you quote Ben Smith Bloggers on Newt? Don't you get tired at telling people to move on from things you don't want to hear about?

Mathew...I really dont know what your point is here? That I linked to a Politico, a marginally right-leaning pub?

My point was that if I were a Republican, I would be focusing on the abysmal party brand image and less obstructionism and more policy alternatives that are not the same old tired far right talking points instead of slinging bullshit in the hope that something might stick.
-----Added 17/12/2008 at 06 : 53 : 29-----
If I were a Republican, I would be focusing on this:

Only one out of four Americans trust your guys in Washington.

filtherton · 12-17-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here are a couple of links to sources, the first gives Chicago schools a rating of 3 out of 10 (with 10 being the highest), D.C. schools were rated 4.

None of the data you presented from either of these links constitute "studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system".

In order to gauge whether or not someone has done something to improve something else you might want to compare how things were before and how things were after. Not only that, but you also need to have a sufficient understanding of the underlying forces at work, because it is quite possible that he has gone above and beyond the call of duty to improve things, but other forces at work foiled him.

In other words, these words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

dc_dux · 12-17-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

None of the data you presented from either of these links constitute "studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system".

In order to gauge whether or not someone has done something to improve something else you might want to compare how things were before and how things were after. Not only that, but you also need to have a sufficient understanding of the underlying forces at work, because it is quite possible that he has gone above and beyond the call of duty to improve things, but other forces at work foiled him.

In other words, these words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

In fact, one of aces' links, Great Schools (whoever they are) praised the appointment of Duncan:

Quote:

Nice job, President-elect Obama. Congratulations Arne Duncan!

Arne Duncan is a great choice for Secretary of Education because he’s been in the trenches of school improvement for seven years as CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Like Barack Obama, he’s a pragmatist, not an ideologue. He’s demonstrated a deep commitment and passion for improving opportunities for disadvantaged young people. He knows that improving schools means involving parents.....

GreatSchools: Bill's Blog: Arne Duncan for America?s Schools

matthew330 · 12-17-2008, 04:08 PM

Of course you don't get my point DC, that's no surprise. Why do you bother telling me that anymore. That's a given - that and you want me to "move on" from whatever my thoughts are on any given topic.

With the exception of that video, anytime I've heard anyone mention Blago, has made clear that there is no evidence of involvement by Obama, and what evidence there is points to the contrary. But this is a story that needs to be investigated, I know you don't want to hear about it, but it does.

DC, it's hilarious that you really think if you were republican you would be focusing on that irrelevant chart, and not this. That's comedy. I would love to see how this board would light the fuck up if the situation were reversed.

dc_dux · 12-17-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

DC, it's hilarious that you really think if you were republican you would be focusing on that irrelevant chart, and not this. That's comedy. I would love to see how this board would light the fuck up if the situation were reversed.

Thanks for your insight into my thought process. I guess you think you know me better than I know myself!

I'm pleased you think the chart is irrelevant....keep thinking that way.

Tully Mars · 12-17-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here are a couple of links to sources, the first gives Chicago schools a rating of 3 out of 10 (with 10 being the highest), D.C. schools were rated 4.

I assume you want this because of uncertainty regarding the performance of Chicago schools. In my experience it is and has been common knowledge that Chicago schools perform poorly and have performed poorly for decades. I probably could spend more time giving more links, but I am not sure the time will be worth the effort. Regardless, of what follows it will either be "cherry picked", not all the data, or whatever they shot of the day will be.

Chicago Schools - Chicago Illinois School Ratings - Public and Private

The second is from the Chicago Tribune actually commenting on the discrepancy on how graduation rates are calculated but it shows Chicago with a HS graduation rate of between 52% and 54%

The real dropout rate | Chicago Tribune

Others beat me to it, but with out context of before and after the data you've posted is useless.

roachboy · 12-17-2008, 04:42 PM

all i'll add here is that i would rather have someone who operates on the basis of data and who has had some success in dealing with an extremely complex (byzantine might be better) system appointed to head the department of education than someone without that predeliction and experience. this not only in itself, but also because the problems with the educational system are systemic. changing the public education system, moving it away from idiotic pseudo-solutions like "no child left behind" for example, will be a quite difficult matter---but i think it is one of the most important political and practical issues facing obama's administration, to at least make some headway in this regard.

as for what he actually does, i'll withold judgment until there's something to talk about.

aceventura3 · 12-18-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Others beat me to it, but with out context of before and after the data you've posted is useless.

How about this piece of data: Obama did not send his children to Chicago public schools.

O.k. granted he is rich, etc., so I ask you and for simplicity lets take out the top and bottom 10% of Chicago public schools so we have the remaining 80%, would you send a child you loved to one of those schools chosen at random? I would not. I don't know anyone who would, if they had a choice. However, in most other places in this country I would have no problem with that choice.

roachboy · 12-18-2008, 09:09 AM

ace--what exactly are you interested in demonstrating here? that you don't like obama? if that's the point, why bother with all this mishandled infotainment?

aceventura3 · 12-18-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, in the case of the performance of Chicago schools, a better measure of some level of success would be before and after Duncan...not relative to other cities. I agree that the high school graduation is low by national standards, but it went up 6-7% under Duncan. In the elementary schools. reading skills went up, math skills went up.....

Or maybe measure his performance against Bush's first Sec. of Ed....who, it turned out, fudged the city schools records to show greater success in improving Houston's schools than was actually achieved....the so-called "Houston Miracle" was a sham.

This is a cabinet choice were we can actually look at the nominee based on some objective measure of performance in a role consistent to what they will be responsible for in Obama's cabinet, that is why this selection is interesting.

For clarification, do you think Obama's choice is the best available candidate for the post based on actual performance?

My view is that he is not and the selection is an example of cronyism, very typical of Chicago style politics.
-----Added 18/12/2008 at 12 : 16 : 13-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--what exactly are you interested in demonstrating here? that you don't like obama? if that's the point, why bother with all this mishandled infotainment?

Obama supporters are not willing to admit to Obama's obvious faults. They have a distorted view of Bush and by comparison have unrealistic expectations of who Obama is, what he is about, and the "change" he is going to bring to the WH. Obama in my view is like a snake oil salesmen. I enjoy pointing out his faults to the most faithful Obama supporters.

Tully Mars · 12-18-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about this piece of data: Obama did not send his children to Chicago public schools.

O.k. granted he is rich, etc., so I ask you and for simplicity lets take out the top and bottom 10% of Chicago public schools so we have the remaining 80%, would you send a child you loved to one of those schools chosen at random? I would not. I don't know anyone who would, if they had a choice. However, in most other places in this country I would have no problem with that choice.

How about this for a question- take out the top and bottom 10% of restaurants in Chicago. That leaves 80% of them, would you pay to eat at one of them?

What does this have to do with whether or not the person in question increase or decreased the educational system in Chicago? Nothing as far as I know. But it probably has the same relevance as the blurb you posted.

So, after asking twice now and getting basically anecdotal claims and gibberish for answers, I take you don't have any actual facts or data to support you're claim he's done nothing to improve the Chicago public school system.

filtherton · 12-18-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about this piece of data: Obama did not send his children to Chicago public schools.

O.k. granted he is rich, etc., so I ask you and for simplicity lets take out the top and bottom 10% of Chicago public schools so we have the remaining 80%, would you send a child you loved to one of those schools chosen at random? I would not. I don't know anyone who would, if they had a choice. However, in most other places in this country I would have no problem with that choice.

Why stop there? Why not eliminate the top 34% and the bottom 65% so that all that is left is the one school that is 66% as good as the best school. Would you send your child there? Did Obama? Ladies and gentlemen, Chewbacca is a wookie. I wouldn't send my child to any 72nd percentile schools ever, and no one I know would either, so this is proof, ipso facto that Obama's nomination for Secretary of Education is unqualified. Need I even say it? Okay, I will: QED.

The only interesting thing about what you've said in this thread in the past few days is how much stamina you have when it comes to pretending that you have any sort of objective reason to believe the things you believe.

roachboy · 12-18-2008, 09:50 AM

ace---i've made my positions on obama pretty clear.

you've made yours even clearer, though you seem to have trouble simply saying it "nope, i don't like the guy." and instead, as filtherton pointed out just above, are busy as a beaver trying to find "evidence" that will make your arbitrary personal distaste seem to you more than that.

aceventura3 · 12-18-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

How about this for a question- take out the top and bottom 10% of restaurants in Chicago. That leaves 80% of them, would you pay to eat at one of them?

Hell yes! Chicago has the best restaurants in the country if you ask me.

Quote:

What does this have to do with whether or not the person in question increase or decreased the educational system in Chicago? Nothing as far as I know. But it probably has the same relevance as the blurb you posted.

They don't publish the information you really need to analyze the Chicago Public School System as a whole. You certainly can look at the data they do publish (biased just as you think the data I give is and does not give comparative information to other districts), you could look at rating websites often related to general area demographics (like I did), or the National Assessment of Education Progress data (which also has flaws), but I would generally measure the effectiveness of a district based on the disbursements or ranges from the mean or the standard deviations. When we take the middle 80% we are only looking at about 1.5 standard deviations from the mean. A school district being run well will have a tight distribution in my opinion. Chicago's is wide, meaning they have many good schools and they have many poorly performing schools, almost making the mean meaningless if you were faced with a random selection. It also means that those managing those schools either don't care about the school performing poorly or they don't know how to fix them. there are many school districts and systems in this country where the differences or the range between poorly performing schools and those performing well is small, even when there is a diverse population of students and income levels.

So, short of me going to Chicago and going through their raw data, there is no way for me to objectively prove to your satisfaction what everyone who is paying attention already knows.

Quote:

So, after asking twice now and getting basically anecdotal claims and gibberish for answers, I take you don't have any actual facts or data to support you're claim he's done nothing to improve the Chicago public school system.

I throw up the white flag. But, for the record I would never enroll a child of mine in a Chicago Public School.
-----Added 18/12/2008 at 03 : 04 : 57-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

... though you seem to have trouble simply saying it "nope, i don't like the guy."

Nope, I don't like the guy.

Tully Mars · 12-18-2008, 12:31 PM

Great. Perhaps we can all agree you don't like Obama now. Wasn't so hard was it?

But it seems odd to me that you would argue Duncan hasn't made any improvements in the Chicago Schools when all I've read is he's done several positive things. Like this article out of Seattle-

Quote:

PRESIDENT-elect Barack Obama's choice for Education Secretary signals two important advances in public education: a push for continued reforms and an upcoming period of détente in the education wars.

Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan is a change agent. He has shaken up the status quo with support for charter schools, performance pay and strict accountability for struggling schools.

He has gotten results.

In just seven years, Duncan boosted elementary test scores in Chicago from 38 percent of students meeting standards to 67 percent. The dropout rate in the country's third-largest school system has gone down every year under Duncan's tenure.

A laserlike focus on academic improvement has not put him at odds with teachers and their unions. Duncan has a reputation for reaching out to teachers, according to Randi Weingarten, head of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers.

Another thing to like about Duncan is his reputation for compromise and for embracing wide-ranging reforms. Like the incoming president, Duncan is not rooted to any education ideology other than academic excellence for all. It is a nimble stance that has allowed the 44-year-old Harvard graduate to sidestep the "you're either for us or against us" traps often present in education-reform debates.

Duncan promises to lead the nation's public-education systems, from kindergarten to college, with the same boldness and innovation he has shown in Chicago.

Duncan has been unhesitant about shutting down failing schools and he supports paying educators for improved school performance. Reform-minded superintendents across the nation, including Seattle's Maria Goodloe-Johnson, would find support in this nominee.

Another thing to like about Duncan is his steadfastness. Amid angst over the No Child Left Behind Act, Duncan has remained supportive of the law's overarching principles. He was among urban school superintendents who this summer urged Congress not to back away from the law's strict accountability requirements.

During that same moment before Congress, Duncan stressed the importance of "challenging the status quo, pushing the envelope and driving change." Public education will go through some challenging times ahead and Duncan ought not forget his words.

Link Here

Am I sure Duncan, or for that matter Obama, will be good for the country? No, not at all. But I'd give him a better chance for success in the field of education then I would someone who had a background in running horse shows as the head of FEMA.

dc_dux · 12-18-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Am I sure Duncan, or for that matter Obama, will be good for the country? No, not at all.

Every election and subsequent appointments are a crap shoot to some degree. I would have chosen different people for some of Obama's cabinet, but that doesnt mean any of those he selected are not qualified.

ace...it sounds like you want to use only one measure (with no data to support it) to "prove" that Obama did not select the "most" qualified person? WTF? Only a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure (and misrepresent that measure), and not consider a range of factors including personal traits and character, vision, experience, etc.

What is clear to most objective observers is that the country's satisfaction with Bush as he leaves office is the lowest of any president since Nixon and that Obama brings the best opportunity for taking the country in a new direction.

I suspect that the 20-25% of Americans who still believe that Bush was good for the country are the same ones who wont be willing to give Obama a chance.

Yep...ace, I include you...but it would be nice if once in awhile, you have facts on your side.

aceventura3 · 12-19-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...it sounds like you want to use only one measure (with no data to support it) to "prove" that Obama did not select the "most" qualified person? WTF? Only a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure (and misrepresent that measure), and not consider a range of factors including personal traits and character, vision, experience, etc.

This is a fundamental problem. There is data that supports my view, you just don't like it, so then you say there is no data - "WTF?" Then you create a strawman argument, that a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure - "WTF?" So, now I am left with a dilemma - do I respond in a manner that illustrates how a decision like this is made and how the deciding factor among qualified candidates may come down to one or two factors. This general decision making 101 explanation then offends people who then say that I am stating the obvious, or I come across as offensive because I can't believe what I am having to explain and will do it in a mocking manner. It is a no win situation. so I choose the latter.

Duncan is highly educated and in charge of the third largest school district in the nation, these factors alone make him worthy of consideration. He has lead the school district to some improvements, he has accomplished some of his goals, he has the respect of many of the constituents interested in Chicago schools, i.e., teachers, parents, business, political leaders, etc., all of that is good and he could be put on a short list. Now it get interesting, what final criteria do we use to make the final selection, and then how much weight do we give to each? Here is a clue - the decision maker decides, or as Bush would put it - "I am the decider". The decision made tells us a little bit about the "decider". In this case, Duncan has not completed his job in Chicago. Chicago schools are well below the national averages in almost every measure of a successful school district (If you don't think that is true and is not a fact, I challenge you to show me, I have already given some reference sources, and you don't like them), the Chicago school system is failing, so it is clear that Obama did not use actual performace as a criteria for the selection, or if he did he put a secondary weight to it. So, the question is what was given primary weight? An honest person can admit when they select someone based on familiarity, loyalty or some other intangiable. And that is all I have put on the table, my belief is the selection was cronyism, I could be wrong but I have not seen anything to contradict my view.

Quote:

What is clear to most objective observers is that the country's satisfaction with Bush as he leaves office is the lowest of any president since Nixon and that Obama brings the best opportunity for taking the country in a new direction.

"New direction?" I stated several times that the US under Obama won't be much different than the US under Bush, just the US was not much different than when Clinton was President. The "new direction", "change is coming", etc, etc, are campaign slogans. As Pelosi recently told one of Obama's guys, "This is a House matter, we will handle it", Obama is not going to change anything without the buy in of others. The bush myth that is perpetuated is that Bush acted unilaterally, that is B.S. and we know it. the dissatisfaction ratings Bush has are related to a war weary nation in a recession and is related to the overall dissatisfaction with Washington politics as evidenced by Congress' approval rating.

Quote:

I suspect that the 20-25% of Americans who still believe that Bush was good for the country are the same ones who wont be willing to give Obama a chance.

I repeat, I am willing to give Obama a chance. And, I think his public works announcement may be the spark to triggers renewed economic growth. I have said that in the past as well. My view of Obama is not blinded by my dislike of him, the way manny liberals were blinded by their hate of Bush.

Quote:

Yep...ace, I include you...but it would be nice if once in awhile, you have facts on your side.

You presented nothing to dispute what I have stated, the information I have provided or the references I pointed to. Your fantasy like view as illustrated above,and it is repeated, is interesting and I think I have gotten a handle on why. Every once in awhile it is worth the effort to step outside of the box and take a look in, it is very worth while. And the funny thing is when you go back into the box, it is alot more fun.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 05 : 35 : 33-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Great. Perhaps we can all agree you don't like Obama now. Wasn't so hard was it?

I did not think that issue was in doubt. I thought anyone who reads my posts on this forum when they involved Obama would have known I don't like him. I also thought I gave reasons why I don't like him. Perhaps, I engage in tautology more. Learned that word here, it means needlessly repeating an idea. Did I tell you that I don't like Obama.

Quote:

But it seems odd to me that you would argue Duncan hasn't made any improvements in the Chicago Schools when all I've read is he's done several positive things. Like this article out of Seattle-

There is a difference between doing positive things and being the best qualified person. When I payed football, I did some positive things on the field, but that did not get me an NFL contract. Gee, I wish I had you as my agent.

Quote:

Am I sure Duncan, or for that matter Obama, will be good for the country? No, not at all. But I'd give him a better chance for success in the field of education then I would someone who had a background in running horse shows as the head of FEMA.

Why don't you folks respond to my premise. I think the selection was cronyism. Even cronies can do good things in the jobs they get, but sometimes you want the best. I would certainly pick BFF for somethings just becasue he/she is my BFF, but when results are most important, I go based on someone who can get the job done and has a proven track record. I would not want a trainee doing surgery on me, do you?

12-15-2008, 03:11 PM	#41 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think if one were to objectively review Obama's time in Illinois politics, you would find he has been one of the few to attempt to balance the interests (and influence) of the South Side, the Hyde Park reformers and the long-time Democratic establishment. You accomplish that by engagement rather than disavowing any one interest group. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-15-2008, 03:41 PM	#43 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	There are many ways to get ahead in politics. One is to build connections to, and engage with, as many constituencies as you can. Another is to have a daddy who was president. With many other methods and means in between. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-16-2008, 09:20 AM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to say obama is a politician is like triumphantly identifying that shiny metal thing that takes cold bread in and spits it out later warmed and brown as a toaster. MY GOD. LOOKIT THAT! IT'S A TOASTER! at this point, ace, it really seems to me like you're still beating a straw man from the campaign. 'the basis for it is the sequence of conservative-friendly screen images floated by the mc-cain campaign and others concerning obama as "the chosen" and all that "be afraid he's the antichrist" idiocy. given that the point of that screen action was to reinforce the sense of panic amongst the evangelical set (i'm surprised the adverts weren't loaded up with references to 144k and such) and nothing else, maybe it's time to stop restating the obvious as if you've just discovered it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2008, 10:55 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--no doubt there is as wide a range of beliefs concerning obama in a positive sense as there are in a negative sense. but the fact is that here, in our collective teacup, you aren't talking to anyone who corresponds to your preferences--if you could define The Obama Supporter, it'd be someone who thinks him Above the Fray. there are folk who are more and who are less optimistic about what he might be able to do....speaking for myself, i've been pretty interested in the cabinet nominations because there's an emergent profile of at least the tactical approach obama is taking to governance--but i hope that does not translate into lame centrist policy. there's no time for that horsepucky any more. the thatcher-reagan/neoliberal period is over. the upshot---everyone knows full well that obama is a politician. so your repetition machinery seems strangely directed. maybe it's time to move on. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2008, 12:36 PM	#51 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to clarify something, i use ideology in almost exclusively it's marxist sense---it refers to a class-specific set of statements about the world that are presented as if they were general basically, and then to particular political worldviews (to the extent that they're predicated on this same structure, but each differs from others around it...) so i don't mean the same thing by it as you do, ace. it's doubly confusing because pragmatism can be understood as a tactic rather than an ideology, one that entails cobbling together elements from a range of positions using a criterion of efficacy, say. but this says nothing about the ideological position occupied by the pragmatist---it simply points to tactics. i was more interested in obama early in his campaign when he was running vaguely left. i understood why he shifted center as the candidacy became more serious--this (illusory at worst, self-confirming at best) notion of "centrists" as holding popular power. i hope that he is more familiary with social democratic style action than his centrist campaign would have us believe simply because the territory that the us is heading into in order to manage this economic and political meltdown, brought to you by 30 years of degenerate neoliberalism, will be a type of social-democracy. if he knows this area and understand its logic, we'll collectively be in far better shape than would be the case if reality presents him with on the job training. o and i do not consider myself to be particularly driven by ideology---i simply think that capitalism is a giant farce and expect that sooner or later it will either be taken apart or will implode. given that i have little more than contempt for conservatism in all its forms, i would prefer to see this process sped along by folk who operate from "the left"---whatever that means in 2008. but the particular situation in which we find ourselves does not provide folk like me the luxiry of ready-made belief systems, so i remain a kind of critical observer. just to say this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2008, 09:27 PM	#53 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Newt Gingrich is right. They didn't offer any solution to the problems that normal Americans are facing and they lost. Is it possible that IL could hold a one party special election to pick a senator, or if they hold a special election, will it be open to anybody?

12-17-2008, 07:14 AM	#54 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It will be open to anyone. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

12-17-2008, 07:47 AM	#55 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dc---if my leftoid friends are any indication of a broader trend (and it's obviously impossible to say, given how odd we all are), left folk seem to be witholding judgment for the time being. the cabinet appointments are differentially alarming, but like i said above governing from a center coalition does not necessarily lock in anything at the level of policy. these are extraordinary times and i suspect that most of the old distinctions left/right are going to come down. given the astonishing incompetence of at the level of the bush squad both at the level of reactions (in the strongest possible sense of the term) to the various modalities of implosion of the neoliberal order (talking a different game then they play, writing a blank check to the financial sector while looking to fuck the uaw in manufacturing and playing chicken with the american auto industry in the process; doing fuck all for people who find themselves in danger of losing their homes on and on) and on regulatory enforcement (madoff-ponzi confection anyone?)--and the political miscalculations--and the squandering of american credibility internationally--and so forth---i think the relief over the fact that these idiot reactionaries will soon be gone is very considerable indeed. i'm torn about obama's position on afghanistan---the more i dig into information about what's happening there, the more ambivalent i become, simply because the logic of his statements on policy leads directly to military action against pakistan--not against the central government, but rather against the staging areas for militant groups that pakistan has de facto condoned and which are fundamental (along with astonishingly stupid and badly executed policies) for the deteriorating situation in afghanistan. what concerns me about this is the regional spiral this could very easily unleash, one that would involve india as well...but even here, i'm waiting to see what actually happens. what's sure is that obama will have no honeymoon. a more massive pile of shit passed from one administration to its successor i have never seen or read about even. edit: one thing i was wondering about with respect to governor rod is whether he actually committed a crime or if he simply appears to be a sleaze---which is not illegal. i heard this question raised somewhere on the vast pool of idiocy that is television last night...the correlate question is why the district attorney moved when he did, and whether this leaves the investigation more or less dead in the water. what it looks like happened is that the fitzgerald moved early in order to maybe (a) save his job (b) prevent a compromising situation linked to obama from arising very early in his administration but most likely it's (c) stuff i don't know about that motivated it. any ideas about this? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-17-2008 at 07:53 AM..

12-17-2008, 09:50 AM	#56 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	What i heard was that the Trib was going to come out with something that would blow the cover off the investigation, and that forced Fitzgerald to come out with the indictment before he was ready.

12-17-2008, 02:18 PM	#62 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	IMO, in the case of the performance of Chicago schools, a better measure of some level of success would be before and after Duncan...not relative to other cities. I agree that the high school graduation is low by national standards, but it went up 6-7% under Duncan. In the elementary schools. reading skills went up, math skills went up..... Or maybe measure his performance against Bush's first Sec. of Ed....who, it turned out, fudged the city schools records to show greater success in improving Houston's schools than was actually achieved....the so-called "Houston Miracle" was a sham. In the case of the two cabinet appointments made today, Interior and Agriculture, they are eminently qualified and equally important, and unlike Bush's appointments, they are not mining or agribusiness executives. I am more confident that they will not abuse their position of public trust to the benefit of the industries regulated by their respective departments. The change from the current administration is that it is not a cabinet of sycophants and industry whores. A diversity of opinions on policy will be encouraged and the public interest put first. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-17-2008 at 03:29 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

12-17-2008, 03:37 PM	#63 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	DC forgot to mention that Newt was referring specifically to the video, and it's timing. The entire very short letter was posted except for these two references, which quite change the meaning: The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack. This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008. I happen to agree with him on the ad. But to suggest that Newt wants people to "move on" from Blago and that this is not a matter worth discussing is stupid. This was about the simplest opportunity one could really have to go straight to the source: Focus on solutions, not negative attacks: an open letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan Why did you quote Ben Smith Bloggers on Newt? Don't you get tired at telling people to move on from things you don't want to hear about?

12-17-2008, 04:08 PM	#67 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Of course you don't get my point DC, that's no surprise. Why do you bother telling me that anymore. That's a given - that and you want me to "move on" from whatever my thoughts are on any given topic. With the exception of that video, anytime I've heard anyone mention Blago, has made clear that there is no evidence of involvement by Obama, and what evidence there is points to the contrary. But this is a story that needs to be investigated, I know you don't want to hear about it, but it does. DC, it's hilarious that you really think if you were republican you would be focusing on that irrelevant chart, and not this. That's comedy. I would love to see how this board would light the fuck up if the situation were reversed.

12-17-2008, 04:42 PM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	all i'll add here is that i would rather have someone who operates on the basis of data and who has had some success in dealing with an extremely complex (byzantine might be better) system appointed to head the department of education than someone without that predeliction and experience. this not only in itself, but also because the problems with the educational system are systemic. changing the public education system, moving it away from idiotic pseudo-solutions like "no child left behind" for example, will be a quite difficult matter---but i think it is one of the most important political and practical issues facing obama's administration, to at least make some headway in this regard. as for what he actually does, i'll withold judgment until there's something to talk about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-18-2008, 09:09 AM	#72 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace--what exactly are you interested in demonstrating here? that you don't like obama? if that's the point, why bother with all this mishandled infotainment? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-18-2008, 09:50 AM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace---i've made my positions on obama pretty clear. you've made yours even clearer, though you seem to have trouble simply saying it "nope, i don't like the guy." and instead, as filtherton pointed out just above, are busy as a beaver trying to find "evidence" that will make your arbitrary personal distaste seem to you more than that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite