who will u vote for in Nov.?

I still havent decided who my vote will go to.. I feel like I'll be picking the lesser of 2 evils.

I voted for Nadar last election, not because I actually wanted him to win... but voting for him in texas really didnt have any impact because duh our electoral votes go to bush... I thought it would be interesting if he got a large enough percentage to participate in the debates this time around. He got booed off ut campus this semester by the university democrats, wasnt pretty.

I am bothered by Bush's agenda on abortion, I know this is a sensitive subject so I'm not going to even go into it. And I also wanted to vomit when he made such disgusting statements about homosexual marraige.... but then again kerry hasnt stood up for gay's either really.

What I don't like about Bush:

• Arrogance of foreign policy. I actually don't have a problem with some unilateralism, as I feel that before we were often forced into an area by other countries. Originally, I was delighter that Bush campaigned on limiting US foreign engagement. One thing I disliked about Clinton's foreign policy is that he stuck his nose where it did not belong. I actually though Bush's administration would be an improvement.
• Patriots act et al.. Yes, I know we've had 9/11. However, this country is built on principles of freedom and liberty. While it is not quite as bad yet as it was in other wars, I don't like where this is going. Administration is using fear to scare people into accepting limits on privacy and personal freedom.
• Social Policies. This to me includes abortion rights (including cutting funding to international groups that include abortions in their services), anti-gay marriage ammendment, religious charities being eligible for federal funding, etc.
• Partisanship. Bush campaigned on working on "both sides of the aisle". In fact, this is the most divisive administration ever. While I do believe that Bush is the fairly elected president (it's not his fault that winning popular vote doesn't mean anything), I think he should have been a little more mindful of the "other side". I have been particularly upset by his choice of federal judge nominees.
• Environment Administration has pushed for act after act that lowers environmental standards on everything from forests to salmon population. Also, his policies increase funding for highways at the expense of public transport -- bad environmental policy.
• Taxes. Bush's tax policiy makes life easier for the poor little rich people. While taxes on lower classes don't technically go up, services are cut due to lower budget; since lower classes are the primary recepients of various programs, they end up suffering. I mean come on, people, we have the biggest income gap since 1920's!
• Truthfullness. I have a problem with this administration's lies. I'd rather the president lied about his sexual indisgressions than about, say, reasons to go to war. I admit that there could be reasons for this war I do not understand, but I'd like the administration to be honest with me about it.

As to "No Child Left Behind"... I actually think it's the right direction; unfortunately, it hasn't been thouroughly through through. I don't know what kind of test Alaska or Nebraska uses; the one used by Massachusetts is actually very reasonable, targeting "understanding" of subjects rather than rote memorisation. I think this test information should be used to determine which schools need extra funding, and perhaps even an overhaul (A few years ago we've had a complete state overhaul in the state's poorest city, Lowell). Certainly, the idea that low-performing schools should lose their funding is absurd. Also, I favor national standards of what kids should learn. Until recently, the only math standard for graduation in Massachusetts was 2 years of High School math. In other words, one could get a diploma with barely knowing fractions! That, IMO, is unacceptable; so I favor the federal governement setting some very loose standards for education.
Doris, as to your statistics... I think a lot of it has to do with culture. In New England, there were laws forcing towns to have public schools back in colonial times; consequently, most people were literate. In the South, OTOH, in the colonial days laws were passed actually forbidding public schools. I am not sure waht exactly is the history of public education in Texas, but I would guess it's not quite what it is in New England.

Sorry for the extra-long post, guys

Ptichka, I live in CT, my grandson goes to school in MA, and I lived in VT for 22 years and raised my children there. I also lived 14 years in NY, which was radically different as to how schools are treated vs. New England. The value that New Englanders put on education is certainly of very, very long standing. In VT, UVM was founded in 1784, long before it joined the US, for example. I am sure that N.E. and schools definitely has a cultural component.

However, how this cultural component works is not entirely obvious.

1. MA, CT and VT all have state constitutions that make it crystal clear that all residents are guaranteed equal services. This means that the courts, in the case of VT, have mandated that poor towns get money from rich towns so that all students have equal opportunity. It works somewhat differently, but similarly, in CT. This is not the case in many states.

2. In TX if the schools are bad, concerned parents homeschool or send their kids to one of the millions of religious based schools. Then they generate 16000 reasons why they think the schools are bad.

In NY, they send the kids, throw money at the problem, and nothing gets better (at least for the 14 years I was there). And they complain endlessly.

In VT, if the schools are bad, or even if the school has hired a bad teacher, the parents hold a meeting. Heads roll. Volunteers spring up everywhere. The principal writes a series of grant requests, and gets some of them. If the town is short of money for the school, you are gently told by your neighbors when it is your turn to work the school library, help cook school lunch, teach a section of Senior Seminar, babysit for the cross country skiing at recess, coach hockey, or work as a math or reading aide. If the approp for the new school doesn't pass, the town just keeps running votes every couple months until it does pass. Having bad schools is just not acceptable. CT is a lower key version of VT.

So I assume that NY and TX are not the only states where people are not expected, as a civic duty, to be part of and be concerned with their schools. States like VT where the whole town is part of the school are just bound to have better schools than the town budget would imply, just because of the level of interest.

3. Not only were schools banned in some circumstances in some Southern states. The Protestant religious school system was given a huge push by the desire of Southerners (and Texans) to send their kids to schools where there were no blacks and no Hispanics. This gets rationalized by saying, for example, the Angel Wings Day School has such better teachers, facilities, whatever. It is best for my kids and I want what's best for my kids. But one reason the town school has lousy facilities, teachers, etc. is that the people sending their kids to Angel Wings are completely uninvolved with the public schools and resent every dime spent on the public schools. This policy has become embedded in Republican platforms in TX.

In Texas, one version of the Republican platform explicitly says that there is no reason that a child is entitled to a public education. They regard public education as a type of welfare. In New England, it is a Constitutionally protected right. Huge Difference.

The non funding of NLDC and the statistical structure of the testing is such that in 5 years or so, all schools will be failing.
Why? A. Special ed students have to meet grade level standards for normal students. B. Even schools doing well must show improvement. Since people are not getting smarter, obviously continuous improvement without end is not possible.
C. As soon as a school is failing for enough years, there are vouchers for everybody to go use in their religious schools.

The destruction of the public education system is a Republican goal in some states.

Now Republicans in New England don't look like Republicans in TX. So you can't just vote by party, particularly in local elections. Olympia Snowe just is not Tom DeLay, for example. You have to know the people who are running.

When I spent time in TX, I never saw a sign that said, "Xville Proud of Our Schools", a common welcome to town sign in New England.

And of course, there are the Florida public schools (my best friend lives in South Fl), and public schools there are by and large in bad shape, and Jeb hasn't made them any better at all!

Now Republicans in New England don't look like Republicans in TX. So you can't just vote by party, particularly in local elections. Olympia Snowe just is not Tom DeLay, for example. You have to know the people who are running.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. In fact, I think Massachusetts is hurt by such strong Democratic party. No party should be 100% certain that it will always have the legislature; it makes politicians too arrogant. I don't necessarily think that a strong GOP is the answer for us; personally I would be more than happy with a strong Green party. The most liberal democrats would move there, while the remaining Democrats would make a small move to the right, evening out the scales.

As for your point about schools... Vermont is a small state, it doesn't have many urban ghettoes. What does it mean that MA is #1 on the list? It means very decent public schools in all middle class communities, adequate schools in lower middle class communities, and superb schools in upper middle class towns. Once you look at Boston, Lowel, or Lawrence schools... I have volonteered for a few different programs over the years, and it is shocking. Sometimes, I think that the only way indeed to fix those schools is to start new; problems are just unsurmountable. Those problems are certainly part the larger socioeconomic picture, but we can't just wait for all problems to be solved before we tackle this.


The recession did not help either (it hit us especially hard, since so much of our economy is high tech). All programs were cut. One example is METCO -- a program that busses inner-city kids to good suburban schools. While it is very hard on the students (they sometimes have to get up at 6 a.m. and don't get home until dark), it is very successful in terms of students who graduate and go on to college. It was decimated (with arguments about it being too condescending). In fact, they even tried (though failed) to cut the program to the point where kids actual IN the program would have had to be taken OUT of it, and go back to inner city school after spending years at, say, a Lexington school.

C. As soon as a school is failing for enough years, there are vouchers for everybody to go use in their religious schools.

Click to expand...

I keep going back and forth on this. Sure, I don't like that this takes money from the already struggling public schools, or that religious schools are getting governement money (my personal pet peeve). However, do I, living in a nice middle class community, have the right to tell poor inner city parents that they cannot give their child a decent education because it violates some principle? For those parents, the argument that they have to work to make the school better is not much of a relief, since their kids would probably have long graguated before this work will bear fruits. I know when my family came to this country, we had no money; my parents rented a truly terrible appartment just so we could live in a good town with a good school to make sure I got a good education. Following the anti-voucher logic, would it have been more "correct" for them to live in a poorer community? As I've said before, I don't have an answer.

Finally, I'd like to mention that even in our school-friendly state it's not as simple as that. Recently, a co-worker of mine campaigned for raising property taxes in his town to pay for school building renovation because it was in such a condition that it did not pass inspections. It is a middle to middle-upper class community. You wouldn't believe what he went through! When he stood on the corner near the school with a sign urging people to vote for the tax hike, people would actually stop to give him the finger! At times, there would be rivaling demonstrations on both sides of the street! One of the arguments against the tax hike was why should childless people have to pay for the school; those people completely ignored the fact that their property values remained high in part due to the excellent schools in that town!

Ptichka, Exactly. And that's why I wrote at length about how to have good schools with no money, as they do in VT.

VT does not have urban ghettoes. It has rural, Appalachian level poverty and squalor in some parts of the state. It has one room schools. It has Gores that have no schools at all and have to bus to neighboring towns. In our town we had some people living in old chicken coops and in shacks with no bathrooms. (It's not like that now. Burlington has crept out to Underhill, and it is now quite posh.) But what it does have is the town meeting.

You get your town report. All the tax income is listed. All the last year's expenditures are listed. You also get your school report.
On Town Meeting you go to the town meeting for half the day and the school meeting for half the day. You know that if you want good schools, you will be part of the solution. The budget items are listed. The moderator will make clear what your choices are. If you want to keep having lunches, we can pay the cook, but there will have to be 2 helpers per day. You sign up.

The principal for the 4 room elementary school reports that there are too many kids in 2nd grade for the teacher to give enough reading time. One volunteer a week is needed. You gulp and sign up again.

The high school principal asks for volunteers to teach 2 week segments in senior seminar so that the college bound seniors can be exposed to subject areas that we cannot afford to have separate teachers for. (You are thankful that you know nothing about zoology or anthropology.)

If you don't feel you have ownership in your school, this does not happen. If you think someone else, some paid employee of the town for example, is going to do it, this does not happen. But even in a poor place, if the neighborhood school is kept, this can happen. Even in urban ghettoes. But it doesn't.

And the more the ambitious children are removed, the lousier the schools get, because the parents who might have cared, don't.
The state owes these poor areas good schools. The hands that make this happen though are the teachers, and the parents, and the students.

I have seen enough bloody war and nasty things Bush has done to Iraq people. He should step down.

Kerry's has my vote.

Dee

jesslily said:

I have seen enough bloody war and nasty things Bush has done to Iraq people. He should step down.

Click to expand...

LAst I checked BUSH wasn't the one slaughtering millions of his own people just because they didn't like him...




on another note:

KERRY NEEDS TO LEAVE MY HOUSE ALONE. We're getting his stupid newsletter and everything WE'VE NEVER BEEN DEMOCRATS. I'm wondering if he's bothering Republicans in general or Alaskans because of our current job problems--which his stupid party was the reason for!(That's one more reason not to vote for him IMHO, when he's not well liked by our former Governor who is also a democrat) I can only see our situation getting worse... not better.


As for the No Child Left Behind... I was talking to some teachers about it and they said it *can work* if the bugs got worked out and we had more teachers wanting to teach... in Alaska it's hard because of the requirements brought forth on the teachers... bush villiages are not able to afford more than one teacher at a time... that could cause problems... but at the same time I understand the point of having teachers who actually know what they're talking about... last year our band director taught geometry... basically by reading hte book because she had no clue what she was talking about. One of the many "great" ideas a certain principal had.

I'm a nervous Democrat. I'd have to be convinced not to go with Kerry, but I don't feel I know enough about him. I can't see anything making me vote for Bush. I wish we had better choices. It's been rare for me to find a candidate that I truly wanted to vote FOR. Mainly, I've been voting AGAINST the one I feel is worse.

*mourns for the Howard Dean campaign...*
I really hope that JK appoints HD his running mate;hey I can dream!

I'm not really a fan of either candidate. Both are Yale skull-n-bones men. Both are quite wealthy and, IMO, out of touch with regular Americans. Like Ice_magick, I'm bummed that I cannot choose Howard Dean or General Clark. So now, I'm going to concentrate on local house and senate races.

Draft Howard Dean as VP Petition

For those who (like me) miss Howard Dean, there is a petition to draft him as Kerry's VP candidate.

Just click on the above link.

On a really off note... our former Governor is running for Senator this year... he's a democrat, but not as liberal as most of his party members(and is not well liked by a lot of democrats in Washington) and he was room-mates with Bush in college... just thought I'd throw that out. I thought it was interesting...

I'm hoping that our current senator that is hoping to get re-elected DOESN'T. Her dad is our governor, and before that was in the senate for years and did a great job... Lisa Murkowski is not who I want. She doesn't stand firm on ANY issue, and is very vague on what she stands for. In fact her campaign website and info brochure doesn't even have an area that lists her stupid stands! *venting* I much prefer the other republican trying to beat her for the Republican vote... Mike Miller for US Senate! (though I'd rather have Democrat Tony Knowles... even if that would give the Democrats more power in the senate, at least Alaska will benefit from him being there!)

Tonichelle said:

I'm hoping that our current senator that is hoping to get re-elected DOESN'T. Her dad is our governor, and before that was in the senate for years and did a great job... Lisa Murkowski is not who I want. She doesn't stand firm on ANY issue, and is very vague on what she stands for. In fact her campaign website and info brochure doesn't even have an area that lists her stupid stands!

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the old saying:

"If you don't stand for something, than nothing is what you stand for."

I just got a reply from an email I sent her campaign asking that they please list her beliefs/stances on her site

they basically said "thanks for the suggestion, however we feel that her actions speak clear enough on where she stands and we are confident that she will keep her senate seat."

uh, hello???? With Mike Myers listing all of her not so great decisions she better get her rear in gear and tell us what she's doing right!

DJStuCrew said:

I'm not really a fan of either candidate. Both are Yale skull-n-bones men. Both are quite wealthy and, IMO, out of touch with regular Americans. Like Ice_magick, I'm bummed that I cannot choose Howard Dean or General Clark. So now, I'm going to concentrate on local house and senate races.

Click to expand...

The "out of touch with regular Americans" cuts both ways. Honestly, I think it doesn't take a genius to figure out that most of us care about jobs, medical care for us and for our parents/ grandparents, education, etc. The major difference between parties is how they want to go about achieving those goals. In the sense, I'd rather my president had more experience in how to fix problems, than in knowing what to fix. The only ones IMO who really have to be in touch with their constituents are Congressmen -- and I know from experience that my Congressman, Barny Frank, does indeed connect with his voters.

I, too, was quite excited about Dean. However, I think he and Kerry are too different as people to ever work together effectively. As to Clark - he was actually one of the few primary candidates I never liked.

Well said, Ptichka. About all I'd disagree with is that the current admin not only is going about fixing problems in a way I disagree with, but has actually added to them!

Otherwise, the difference between parties blurs. The difference, as I see it, is this; They're both spendthrifts. They can't wait to take OUR tax dollars and spend 'em as fast (or faster) than they come in. They only spend them on different things.

Secondly, at least the Democrats pay their bills. They make sure that the income is sufficient to cover their outgoing expenses -- so much so that there was actually a federal surplus (projected) at one time!

Like some of the Republicans, when Clinton laid-out plans in his State-of-the-union speech about how we should SPEND that surplus, I was a bit miffed that he never once suggested that, maybe, that money should be returned to the taxpayers. That IS our money, after all! I think that this might have been the main thing that cost Gore the election. (Aside from political trickery.)

So in come the Republicans, and as promised, they do indeed cut taxes. Hey, they gave a much better deal to the filthy rich than they did to the middle class, but I certainly didn't mind getting an extra $350 back! Hey, even us liberals like money!

But the Republicans then go on to spend money like drunken sailors. Their budget actually exceeded any previous by the Democrats by a wide margin! Suddenly we've got WAY more money going out than coming in! You first year economic students (or anyone with a brain) can see what this will do. And thus is born "the biggest deficit in the history of the planet!"

And this was all before the added costs of the war.

So I'm at odds with the current administrations thinking (or lack thereof) and the other nominee has a checkered track record that leaves much to be desired. I only have the hope that, at least where the economy is concerned, he's reading from the Clinton playbook. Another year of "hold your nose and vote." I've gotten used to it by now...

Ptichka, you're definitely right that unless you live in one of the small (population wise) states, your Senator pays no attention to you. Only your Congressman does (maybe). Rob Simmons, our Republican Congressman, generally does get his staff to get back to you. In fact if the Dems persist in putting up Sullivan the lame against Simmons, despite my concerns about what the House will do, I will vote for Simmons again, who at least has been effective about 2nd district concerns.

The person that I'd really like to be able to vote for again is Bernie Sanders, the Independent Representative from VT. Bernie got me (and a lot of other older IBMers) a fair portion of our pensions back from IBM. So if anyone tells you an Independent can't get stuff done in Congress, don't believe them. When the votes are close, it's the independents who are truly free to make the difference.

Another thing. I wish that people would be more careful about who they vote for for governor (and state legislature), especially in their primaries. Governors get the executive experience to be presidents, but so often they are a bunch of mutts, like our current Republican CT governor Rowland, under investigation for many kinds of corruption, and admittedly guilty of some of them. These races don't have the panache of the national races, but if we don't fill the pipe with good people, there we will be again in 4 more years, holding our noses and voting.

This year I did wanted to understand the primary process more. I studied all 9 Dem candidates. I listened to them on CSPAN and read any articles I got and all the websites. What the media sound bited for you about the candidates, and the news they presented and spun, versus the news they completely ignored, and did not report would make your head spin. And the way the actually primary votes and caucuses were managed in several key states, including Maine and Washington, would make you grind your teeth. Suffice it to say that since a primary is all one party, it is the party that validates and transmits all vote counts to the press. The process has very little oversight by any independent reviewer. If challenges are made to the count in any district, all that happens is that district just disappears from the overall count and you hear things like for 2 weeks Maine had only 80% of districts reporting.

At this point we have the Dem candidate that the DLC and DNC wanted (for whatever reason) at the outset. I'm not sure that we shouldn't just go back to letting the party hacks pick the candidate at the conventions, since that's the way it is going to be eventually anyway. It would cost everybody less and would make the conventions more interesting.

And when I see McCain for the Republicans on TV, or for that matter, Dean for the Democrats, I feel that our current primary system has some serious, serious flaws. Whichever party, I don't see the most able guy getting the nod.

Some of the problem is the voters. 1. Not enough people vote in primaries. 2. People voting in primaries get hung up about who can win in Nov and not who is the most able guy. 3. A large percentage (I think I read it was over 40%) of people actually believe what they hear in political ads, all of which stretch the truth very very thin, whichever party you are in. 4. Negative ad campaigns disgust voters to the point of not voting. No wonder we are holding our noses to vote. This is a purposeful tactic by the parties. Then instead of a democratic process, we have a GOTV contest as to which party can get more of the unthinking party faithful to the polls.

Doris, I have very ambiguous feelings about the primary process. You are absolutely correct that it is pretty much a joke. However, doesn't the party have the right to nominate who they see fit? 4 years ago, Massachusetts gave a ringing endorsement to McCain. Had he won the nomination, I would have probably vote for him, despite disagreeing with much of his policies. However, doesn't the Republican party have the right to say "no, he does not really represent our party values, we want someone like Bush, who more fits our bill"?

I would add one more to your "list of problems". Most of us listen to the news we want. As a liberal, I listen to NPR -- arguably, this just confirms my liberal beliefs. A conservative may listen to FOX and also hear what they want to hear.

P.S. As to my experience with our Congressman. When my family was getting our US citizenship, my father and I got it, but my mother's file somehow slipped through the cracks. It was weird. They didn't lose it; in fact, every 6 months she would get a notification to get her fingers printers again (as if the old ones expire or something!). The lawyer wouldn't take this, because she was not actually refused. A week after we called Barny Frank's office, we got a letter from the INS inviting my mother for a tiny barely-official ceremony to receive her citizenship. Thank you Barny Frank!