RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

A couple of months ago, I asked if there was any room in the Republican Party for moderates and of course the reponses were pretty revealing. However, recent events have questioned who makes up the Republican Party and who actually leads it. Two people who come to mind are Senator Ensign of Nevada and Governor Sanford of South Carolina. Both were considered rising stars in the Republican Party and both admitted to extramarital affairs only after being caught.
I don't have to explain where both of these men stood on issues in the party, but both were considered strong moral conservatives.
The fact is when we preached morality, we have to be careful who the meessenger is and what the message is. If we paint ourselves into a corner, then we have to accept the consequences of men such as Ensign and Sanford.
Now don't misundertsand me, the republicans do not have the market cornered when it comes to moral lapses. There are plenty of candidates in the Democratic Party, however sad as it may seem to be, it is not a shock when it happens to them, but when it happens to a republican, it shows some sort of a betrayal and gives fodder to democrats when attacking us.
So what I am trying to say is that do we have to reinvent the Republican Party before we become so hyprocritical that no one will believe us when we take a moral stand on issues. Again both Ensign and Sanford were not afraid to criticize others when preaching morality, but forgot the well established tennet "practice what you preach".
Just wanted to share these thoughts and see what others thought.

Views: 88

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sandy,

You are on the mark with all you wrote. Frankly, it grows tedious to point out the very same things over and over for more than a year. You left out the Geat Financial Melt-Down caused by Democrats over the frequent, though feeble, objection of Republicans. But, that's understandable becasue there is so much to cover that the capacity to do so is overwhelmed in anything less than a manuscript at least equal to "Gone With the Wind" or "War and Peace."

The essential point that should be made and remembered is that it wasn't "hard line" or "uncompromising" conservative opinion that the Republican members were following in each of these instances. It was the "moderate" Republican "go along to get along" and "compromising" Republicans.
Yes George, it is very tedious to keep answering the same questions posed by moderates. It's as though they keep saying, well I'm socially moderate/Liberal but, I'm fiscally conservative, so am I still a Republican? I believe the best way to approach what party you vote for is figure out what your most important issues are to you personally, and then determine what party is closest to those beliefs or ideals. Neither party will ever be able to satisfy anyone completely. For those that consider themselves "moderates", they seem to be in need of afirmation for what they believe, that may not necessarily be a Republican value. Is that an attempt to assuage guilty feelings? You will never find utopia with either party, even though the Liberals try to promise it, and it just doesn't exist.

If, once again, being pro-abortion is that important to you, vote Democrat. They will always be there, supporting and promoting abortion, as a "right." If freedom, capitalism, and common sense approaches to the environment are your issues, vote Republican. Notice, I did not say fiscal conservatism belongs to Republicans, because the Bush Republican majorities were not fiscally conservative. That is why the Republicans are in the wilderness right now, in addition to running the most moderate Senator in the Senate for the Presidency. How did that "moderate" work out for Republicans?

From recent polls (for whatever they are worth) more than 40% of those polled consider themselves "Conservatives" while only 20 something percent consider themselves Liberals. There is little doubt in my mind that the current radically Liberal administration has most definately turned most into either farther right (Conservative) or farther left (Liberal). They have made the differences between the parties into the "bright" colors that Reagan talked about, thank the God Lord. The Independents, who voted for Obama mostly, are now leaning more to the right. The Conservatives now have the best opportunity to retake control in at least the House in 2010. I just hope they know what opportunity they have, and don't show up at the airport, when their ship comes in.

cite>George Daily said:
Sandy,

You are on the mark with all you wrote. Frankly, it grows tedious to point out the very same things over and over for more than a year. You left out the Geat Financial Melt-Down caused by Democrats over the frequent, though feeble, objection of Republicans. But, that's understandable becasue there is so much to cover that the capacity to do so is overwhelmed in anything less than a manuscript at least equal to "Gone With the Wind" or "War and Peace."

The essential point that should be made and remembered is that it wasn't "hard line" or "uncompromising" conservative opinion that the Republican members were following in each of these instances. It was the "moderate" Republican "go along to get along" and "compromising" Republicans.
I don't want to misrepresent Kim's position. As I understand it, she favors a democratic resolution of "social issues" at the state or local level. This, I believe, is in keeping with the Constitution and is therefore in support of conservative or "classic liberal" principles of government.
That to me is the bright line that divides (or should divide) Republicans from Democrats. If one believes that the Constitution is a "living document" that therefore has no meaning except for whatever meaning suits a statist position at any given moment in time, you may or may not be a moderate anything but you are certainly a leftist Democrat.
If, on the other hand, one accepts and supports the Constitution, then you are likely going to be a Republican but you are certainly a conservative (classic liberal).
So, as I see it, if one favors abortion and gay marriage (I think they are logically wrong) but favors political resolutions of those issues consistent with the Constitutional, I have no problem with their political position and if I had to apply a political label would call them politicaly conservative. The definition of integrity is supporting principle even when doing so may be in conflict with a personal interest. I hate this editor.
Sandy Cope said:
For those that consider themselves "moderates", they seem to be in need of afirmation for what they believe, that may not necessarily be a Republican value. Is that an attempt to assuage guilty feelings? You will never find utopia with either party, even though the Liberals try to promise it, and it just doesn't exist.

Sandy - I neither want nor need affirmation for anything I believe and I'm well aware that I won't find everything I want in a party or a candidate. I also don't give one hoot what Obama did or did not vote for. I care what the Republican Parties position on issues are, and I'm not sure anyone could tell me, and that worries me.

I care what our position on Education is. Short of support for vouchers, I can't tell you what the party does and does not support.

The cost of higher education has skyrocketed in recent years. What's the GOP's plan to control the cost of higher education or to make sending your kids to college more affordable for American families?

US businesses need kids with math, science, and engineering backgrounds but they can't find American kids with those skills. So they shop outside the country. What's the GOP's plan to ensure that the Colleges and Universities in this country are graduating students with skills the work place desperately needs?

This past year, for the first time ever, US colleges and Universities had more foreign students enrolled in engineering, science, and math dependent programs than American students primarily because the American students aren't capable of completing the program of study. What is the GOP's plan to fix the education system so that kids who are interested in engineering or science have the necessary education to complete an engineering or science program of study?

I haven't seen any suggestions by the party to address these issues. All I've seen is - this is why we need vouchers. Vouchers are wonderful and I'd yank my kids from the public schools in a heartbeat if I had a voucher to use to help cover the cost of private school, but just supporting school choice isn't enough. Because of that the Democrats rule the day on Education issues, at the federal, state, and local level, and we've got failing schools and the federal government about to dictate academic standards and assessments to every public school in the country.

Until Obama was elected and the Democrats took over both houses at the federal level, I couldn't have told you what the GOP's strategy for addressing the problems in the health care industry was. I doubt many people who haven't followed the issue closely could tell you either. Did you know the GOP has a health care bill that's stalled in committee in the house? It's HR 3400 and I think it has a much greater probability of addressing the problems in our health care system, but unless you were following the issue closely you wouldn't even know it existed.

Immigration is a huge problem and only getting worse. McCain cobbled together a bill that stunk and thankfully the bill got buried. But that's as far as we went. We buried his bill and then didn't offer an alternative and nothing to fix the problem. Now, with the Democrats in control, we may get stuck with amnesty and I blame the GOP for failing to do anything.

There are problems facing this country. Huge problems that need solutions that give power back to individuals and put government back where it belongs. What are the GOP's solutions? I can't tell you what they are. Moaning that the Democrats are in power and it doesn't matter is a cop out. If we offer conservative alternatives to the problems facing this country then we give the people something to believe in and something to fight for.

President Bush and his band of brothers never saw a spending bill they didn't like. I'd be hard press to tell you what he and his cronies believed. Yes, he was a good man, but he wasn't a conservative - not by any stretch of the word.

But ask yourself which you'd rather have in the party (a) strong fiscal conservatives who believe government is the problem and not the solution, that the Constitution is our guiding document and that powers not expressly granted in it ought not be taken by any branch of the government, but might support more liberal social policies at the state level; (b) strong social conservatives who don't flinch at expanding government programs to address the problems facing this country; or (c) strong fiscal and social conservatives. Now look at the party - which do you see more of? I see lots of (b)'s, some (c)'s, and very few (a)'s. I don't think we should toss the (b)'s because we need the moral compass they provide, but it'd be nice if there were more (c)'s and maybe a few more (a)'s.

All I'm saying, or attempting to say, is that I don't think all is well with the party and that blaming those problems on the moderates when we can't even define what a moderate is, won't solve our problems.
Kim- I am (not surprisingly) confused. What is the Federal government's constitutional responsibility with respect to the cost of higher education? Knowing that might suggest what the Republican Party's position should be.

Kim Simons said:
Sandy Cope said:
For those that consider themselves "moderates", they seem to be in need of afirmation for what they believe, that may not necessarily be a Republican value. Is that an attempt to assuage guilty feelings? You will never find utopia with either party, even though the Liberals try to promise it, and it just doesn't exist.

Sandy - I neither want nor need affirmation for anything I believe and I'm well aware that I won't find everything I want in a party or a candidate. I also don't give one hoot what Obama did or did not vote for. I care what the Republican Parties position on issues are, and I'm not sure anyone could tell me, and that worries me.

I care what our position on Education is. Short of support for vouchers, I can't tell you what the party does and does not support.

The cost of higher education has skyrocketed in recent years. What's the GOP's plan to control the cost of higher education or to make sending your kids to college more affordable for American families?

US businesses need kids with math, science, and engineering backgrounds but they can't find American kids with those skills. So they shop outside the country. What's the GOP's plan to ensure that the Colleges and Universities in this country are graduating students with skills the work place desperately needs?

This past year, for the first time ever, US colleges and Universities had more foreign students enrolled in engineering, science, and math dependent programs than American students primarily because the American students aren't capable of completing the program of study. What is the GOP's plan to fix the education system so that kids who are interested in engineering or science have the necessary education to complete an engineering or science program of study?

I haven't seen any suggestions by the party to address these issues. All I've seen is - this is why we need vouchers. Vouchers are wonderful and I'd yank my kids from the public schools in a heartbeat if I had a voucher to use to help cover the cost of private school, but just supporting school choice isn't enough. Because of that the Democrats rule the day on Education issues, at the federal, state, and local level, and we've got failing schools and the federal government about to dictate academic standards and assessments to every public school in the country.

Until Obama was elected and the Democrats took over both houses at the federal level, I couldn't have told you what the GOP's strategy for addressing the problems in the health care industry was. I doubt many people who haven't followed the issue closely could tell you either. Did you know the GOP has a health care bill that's stalled in committee in the house? It's HR 3400 and I think it has a much greater probability of addressing the problems in our health care system, but unless you were following the issue closely you wouldn't even know it existed.

Immigration is a huge problem and only getting worse. McCain cobbled together a bill that stunk and thankfully the bill got buried. But that's as far as we went. We buried his bill and then didn't offer an alternative and nothing to fix the problem. Now, with the Democrats in control, we may get stuck with amnesty and I blame the GOP for failing to do anything.

There are problems facing this country. Huge problems that need solutions that give power back to individuals and put government back where it belongs. What are the GOP's solutions? I can't tell you what they are. Moaning that the Democrats are in power and it doesn't matter is a cop out. If we offer conservative alternatives to the problems facing this country then we give the people something to believe in and something to fight for.

President Bush and his band of brothers never saw a spending bill they didn't like. I'd be hard press to tell you what he and his cronies believed. Yes, he was a good man, but he wasn't a conservative - not by any stretch of the word.

But ask yourself which you'd rather have in the party (a) strong fiscal conservatives who believe government is the problem and not the solution, that the Constitution is our guiding document and that powers not expressly granted in it ought not be taken by any branch of the government, but might support more liberal social policies at the state level; (b) strong social conservatives who don't flinch at expanding government programs to address the problems facing this country; or (c) strong fiscal and social conservatives. Now look at the party - which do you see more of? I see lots of (b)'s, some (c)'s, and very few (a)'s. I don't think we should toss the (b)'s because we need the moral compass they provide, but it'd be nice if there were more (c)'s and maybe a few more (a)'s.

All I'm saying, or attempting to say, is that I don't think all is well with the party and that blaming those problems on the moderates when we can't even define what a moderate is, won't solve our problems.
Kim- I think the reason you don't see what the Republican positions are/were is because you refuse to open your eyes. It's very easy to just keep saying "I don't know", "I can't figure it out."

"I also don't give one hoot what Obama did or did not vote for. I care what the Republican Parties position on issues are, and I'm not sure anyone could tell me, and that worries me"

You should give a hoot about what Obama voted for/against, as it gives you a view on where he is trying to take Healthcare in this country right now. Did you read what the bills (mentioned in my above post), written by Republicans, were proposing to do? It's not hard to see that the Republicans were making every attempt to take care of individual issues with respect to Tax Benefits, HSA expansion, and competition which would lower health insurace costs. I think I can safely say that the Republicans are/were trying to take care of the problems that most Americans have with the current Health Ins. delevery system, mainly the cost issue. You seem to forget that the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. They have blocked any bills being offered by Republicans, not even allowing them to come out of committee, let alone votes on them. You also seem to forget that the media has been in bed with the Democrats for a long time, and have made everything Republican seem to be evil and twisted. If you are confused, you need to do your own research, and stop depending on the MSM for your info. For example, when you say "when Obama won, and the Democrats took over both houses" you have not paid attention to the fact that the D's took over Congress in 2006.

You seem to have also missed my earlier point that a Republican president signed No Child Left Behind into law. It was a Kennedy "compromise" bill, again with the Democrats getting everything they wanted, and the Republican positions on the losing end. It was just another way for more "civil rights, affirmative action, social engineering" that the Democrats have always incrementally pushed for. I agree, Bush was not a conservative, except for social issues. You may have missed it, in your confusion, that Bob McDonnell is for Charter Schools. It will be very very difficult for the education system in the US to change any time soon, as it has been completely and totally infiltrated by the Liberals, and at all levels of education. I suggest Home Schooling, while it is still legal. Take responsibility for your own children. And, as George said, what is the financial responsibility of the Federal Government with respect to higher education? I believe the role of government in education is in grades 1-12.

You are very correct when you say that all is not well within the GOP. There is a definite divide between the moderates (those that don't hold fast to the Reagan 3 legged stool, fiscal, social, national defense) and the conservatives (those that do hold tight to the Reagan 3 legged stool, and don't change their principles for matters of convenience or expediency, and don't believe that the Constitution is a living document, which should change with the times).

It is curious that you are so unaware of what seemingly any Republican positions are, and want to get your answers now. Did you question those positions when the Republicans were in control, or are you new to politics? For me, my biggest concerns are in stopping the overthrow of our entire governmental system by the far left radical liberals. In other words, "fundementally changing the entire country" into a Fascist nation. That should be your focus as well. Do you really think for a minute that any Republican ideas would even see the light of day right now?
Sandy Cope said:
You should give a hoot about what Obama voted for/against, as it gives you a view on where he is trying to take Healthcare in this country right now.

I'm not putting this well, and I apologize.

I was discussing where the party was headed and what it's objectives were. I believe it is necessary to focus on what we stand for as opposed to what we stand against. In that regard, in my opinion, President Obama's voting record isn't terribly relevant. His voting record and past statements are important, in my opinion, in determining the intent behind his proposals and how we fight them, but not in determining what we stand for.

The party, since the Democrats took over Congress, has been reacting to what the Democrats propose as opposed to proposing solutions on their own. We've become reactive instead of proactive.

Did you read what the bills (mentioned in my above post), written by Republicans, were proposing to do? It's not hard to see that the Republicans were making every attempt to take care of individual issues with respect to Tax Benefits, HSA expansion, and competition which would lower health insurance costs.

The bill the Republican's have proposed is HR 3400 - the Empowering Patients First Act. As I mentioned in my comment, I think this bill addresses the problems with the health care system in the US without trampling on the Constitution. It expands competition by allowing membership organizations and associations to offer health insurance to their members. It removes the obstacles to inter-state commerce by insurance companies while still respecting state's rights to regulate commerce within their state. I have read the bill, and think it's a pretty solid suggestion. I've written to my Congressman and both Senator's suggesting that they consider it instead of Obama's bill. None of them have responded - no big shock as they're all Democrats.

Until recently I hadn't heard much about the Republican's proposal. Even now, outside of Fox and conservative blogs, you aren't going to hear about it. That's an issue.

I think I can safely say that the Republicans are/were trying to take care of the problems that most Americans have with the current Health Ins. delevery system, mainly the cost issue. You seem to forget that the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. They have blocked any bills being offered by Republicans, not even allowing them to come out of committee, let alone votes on them. You also seem to forget that the media has been in bed with the Democrats for a long time, and have made everything Republican seem to be evil and twisted.

You seem to forget that the Republican's had Congress and the White House before 2006.

Republican's have made it easy for others to characterize them as evil and twisted. In my opinion, part of the reason the Democrats took over in 2006 (and increased their margins in 2008) is because Republican's didn't discuss the problems facing this country and certainly didn't suggest solutions to those problems.

The media has been in bed with the Democrats since long before 2006. Complaining about it won't change it. Nor will beating ourselves up over past mistakes. But if the GOP wants to succeed, we need to admit that we made mistakes, figure out what we stand for, and figure out how to get that message around the media filters.

If you are confused, you need to do your own research, and stop depending on the MSM for your info. For example, when you say "when Obama won, and the Democrats took over both houses" you have not paid attention to the fact that the D's took over Congress in 2006.

If we want to fix what ails this party we need to stop attacking our supporters and start listening. You seem perfectly content to attack me and toss baseless accusations at me, but seem completely unwilling to discuss the problems in the GOP. That tendency, in my opinion, is part of the reason the GOP lost ground in 2006 and 2008.

You seem to have also missed my earlier point that a Republican president signed No Child Left Behind into law. It was a Kennedy "compromise" bill, again with the Democrats getting everything they wanted, and the Republican positions on the losing end.

The Republican's should have opposed NCLB because it expanded federal power and undermined states rights by dictating AYP on schools in order to receive funding for education. The net effect of NCLB and it's increasing AYP requirements is that states have dumbed down their academic standards and made the tests easier and easier. That trend is underscored by our students increasing scores on state assessments while their performance on the TIMMS, SAT, and ACT has continued to decline.

Interestingly, Bush did do something right in education. He convened the National Math Advisory Panel to develop high level objectives to reverse the declines in math skills among American students but left implementing those standards to the states. Unfortunately it went nowhere and now we've got the Common Core State Standards Initiative which is backed by the Obama Administration and will nationalized academic standards for math and English and require states to adopt at least 85% of them if they want to continue to receive federal funding for schools. The CCSSI is even developing a national assessment to go along with their national standards. And 48 states, including Virginia, have singed on.

You may have missed it, in your confusion, that Bob McDonnell is for Charter Schools.

I know Bob supports charter schools. I think that's wonderful. My county has 2 charter schools. Unfortunately the charter schools are still under the purview of the county public school system and have to follow state and county academic standards. The net effect is that those charter schools are little more than public schools with uniforms.

What I don't see in Bob's statement on education is an honest assessment of the problems and challenges within the public school system in Virginia or even an admission that there are problems. I see lots of platitudes and lots of band-aides, but nothing admitting that there are real challenges facing our public schools and we need real solutions to them.

I see nothing to indicate that he's even aware of the CCSSI and what impact it will have on what Virginia's children learn, how they learn it, and when.

It will be very very difficult for the education system in the US to change any time soon, as it has been completely and totally infiltrated by the Liberals, and at all levels of education.

I totally agree. But I don't think that hiding from the problems solves anything. Education is the largest line item in the state's budget. It's more than 50% of my local taxes. As a party, at the state level, we need to have a more cohesive strategy for addressing the problems in Virginia's education system. That starts by admitting that there are problems.

I suggest Home Schooling, while it is still legal. Take responsibility for your own children. And, as George said, what is the financial responsibility of the Federal Government with respect to higher education? I believe the role of government in education is in grades 1-12.

I already teach my children math and reading at home because the programs at my county public schools don't meet my expectations.

Fifty years ago the US provided the best and brightest math and science minds in the world. We don't anymore. Businesses that depend on math and science experts don't look to the US for qualified candidates. There are fewer American's enrolled in graduate level engineering courses at American colleges and universities than foreign students.

I believe that's one of the biggest challenges facing our country today - from an economic and national security standpoint. On a national scale we need to figure out why that's happening and develop suggestions for reversing that trend.

It is curious that you are so unaware of what seemingly any Republican positions are, and want to get your answers now. Did you question those positions when the Republicans were in control, or are you new to politics?

Yes, I did. I didn't get answers then either.

For me, my biggest concerns are in stopping the overthrow of our entire governmental system by the far left radical liberals. In other words, "fundementally changing the entire country" into a Fascist nation. That should be your focus as well. Do you really think for a minute that any Republican ideas would even see the light of day right now?

I think part of the reason we're facing a potential overthrow is because we sat back on our laurels and didn't remain proactive in identifying and suggesting solutions to the problems facing this country. When we were in power we ignored immigration, ignored education, ignored health care, and ignored energy independence.

I think the party needs to do it all now. We need to argue down the Democrats policies based on the consequences of their proposals and we need to articulate our vision for solving the problems we face.

For example, the Democrats health care proposal is bad because it'll deepen the cycle of dependency, it'll cause the cost of health coverage for all American's to increase by large margins, it'll give the federal government control over health care, it won't fix what it claims it will and will actually provide less of a benefit to lower income individuals than the Republican's bill, and it's tramples the Constitution. Which argument do you think will be the most effective at inspiring the masses to rise up against the Democrats bill?
You two are both swearing fealty to the Constitution while discussing the merits of Federal education programs and apparantly oblivious to the lack of any Constitutional mandate for Federal involvement. Improving education in the United States should start with closing down the Department of Education. Unless the numbers have changed in recent years, 72% of education funding comes from local real estate taxes, 22% from state government and 6% from the Federal government. Reduce the Federal burden and let localities manage their affairs without interference.

So, I remain confused. Is there a complaint from Kim that the Republican Party lacks ideas and proposals for a Federal role in education for which there is no Constitutional mandate?

If so, then please explain to me how that position is reconciled with vow to uphold the Constitution?
George- You are absolutely correct, the Education issue belongs at the State/Local level. Whatever is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution goes back to the individual states, the Federalist approach. Thank you for keeping the discussion grounded, and for starting with the basics. You can also say the same thing about the Healthcare issue, as there are no "rights" to healthcare written in the Constitution. Again, that should be at the state level. Is it the Federal or State Government that has mandated that you cannot buy Healthcare Ins. across state lines?

It seems to me that Kim wants to put the toothpaste back in the tube. There is no question that both parties have played major roles in the growing of the Federal Government, and the powers it has given itself. At present, with the Liberal majorities in the Congress, and a very radical president with a fawning dishonest media, I am happy to see the Republicans just keep being the party of NO. Unfortunately, it is the Conservative think tanks, and a few Conservatives like DeMint that are trying to educate the public as to the costs and trickery associated with the proposed Liberal bills being written. The Liberals are trying to ram through their Liberal agenda as fast as possible, and they are leaving no issue behind. To me the 2010 elections are the most critical ever. I have fears that those elections may turn into what we saw in Iran not long ago, except for us it will be with our legislators. It is imperative that we stop the march to Fascism first, and then we can worry about holding the Republicans feet to the fire.



George Daily said:
You two are both swearing fealty to the Constitution while discussing the merits of Federal education programs and apparantly oblivious to the lack of any Constitutional mandate for Federal involvement. Improving education in the United States should start with closing down the Department of Education. Unless the numbers have changed in recent years, 72% of education funding comes from local real estate taxes, 22% from state government and 6% from the Federal government. Reduce the Federal burden and let localities manage their affairs without interference.

So, I remain confused. Is there a complaint from Kim that the Republican Party lacks ideas and proposals for a Federal role in education for which there is no Constitutional mandate?

If so, then please explain to me how that position is reconciled with vow to uphold the Constitution?
George Daily said:
So, I remain confused. Is there a complaint from Kim that the Republican Party lacks ideas and proposals for a Federal role in education for which there is no Constitutional mandate?

Do you honestly believe that the federal involvement for education amounts to little more than 6% and is only isolated within the US Dept of Education?

Ever use a textbook when you were in school?

Where do you think the funding to develop new textbooks and educational ideologies come from? Who funds programs to influence school districts to buy the textbooks containing the new educational ideologies? Who gives grants to school districts to buy those textbooks and send teachers to college level programs to become experts in teaching the new ideology? Who provides funds so that assessments can be developed and sold to school districts which demonstrate how effective the new ideology and textbooks are?

I'll give you a hint - it's not a state or local agency, it's not some private foundation, and it's not the US Department of Education.

Here's another one.

Who sets the standards that dictate what goes into textbooks and establishes children in a state learn and when? Who develops assessments to determine how well students have learned what they're supposed to learn?

Right now, it's the state. But next year those standards will be set by the federal government. States will be required to select at least 85% of the federal standards. And every student will be required to take the new federal assessment.

Sure, there's no power enumerated in the Constitution which grants the federal government the authority to do these things. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening, right now. So go ahead a claim that the GOP doesn't need a federal position on education because such a mandate isn't explicitly articulated in the Constitution. Go ahead and ignore these two relatively simple issues and hide your head in a hole papered with the Constitution. Meanwhile the Democrats will continue to use the schools to advance their social policies.

Stopping the Democrats from trampling on the Constitution requires recognizing where they've trampled on it, how, and why. Simply proposing to close the Dept of Education without knowing what they do and do not do may be the typical Republican knee jerk reaction, but it won't solve anything.

And turning a blind eye to the problems facing our nations schools means you don't think there are any problems facing our nations schools.

Your argument, Sandy and George, that we don't need a policy at the federal level for health care because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government that authority, is part of the reason we're now trying to stop the Democrats from nationalizing the health care industry. Had the GOP, at the federal level, recognized that there were issues in health care and implemented programs like they've proposed in HR 3400 when they were in power then it's unlikely we'd be facing this fight now.

Hiding your head in the sand because the Constitution doesn't tell you pull your head out, isn't wise.
Kim,

Here's the question once again:

"So, I remain confused. Is there a complaint from Kim that the Republican Party lacks ideas and proposals for a Federal role in education for which there is no Constitutional mandate?

If so, then please explain to me how that position is reconciled with [your] vow to uphold the Constitution?"

Am I to infer from your reply that the answer is "political expediency"?

I just want to know so that we understand the basis for the conversation gong forward.
Hey George- What flavor is your sand, since we have both been told that that is where our anterior ends are residing.

Kim- You are getting very cynical, angry and sarcastic with your posts. You started out arguing that the Constitution should be our guiding document. You claimed to believe that many of the most important issues should be handled at the state level. You keep asking what the GOP's positions are on those issues. I suggest that you read the 2008 Republican Platform-

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

While I don't agree with all that has been adopted by the Republicans, this document is pretty specific, and includes solutions to the problems facing the country. My biggest problem is when they seem to rely on big government, federal solutions, rather than sending those decisions back to the states. If you read this document, you will no longer be able to say things like "What is the GOP position, because I sure don't know." Here are your answers. I don't agree with all that has been written, however, it beats what the Liberals are doing. With every post you come up with, you seem to be in favor of the Republicans coming up with better federal government solutions, yet you started out claiming to be for states rights, and the Constitution as the guiding document. So, my question to you is- Do you favor Republicans just coming up with better big government solutions just because that's where the Liberals have taken the issue to? You have me terribly confused with what you write, because in one sentence you manage to contradict yourself, at least once.


Kim Simons said:
George Daily said:
So, I remain confused. Is there a complaint from Kim that the Republican Party lacks ideas and proposals for a Federal role in education for which there is no Constitutional mandate?

Do you honestly believe that the federal involvement for education amounts to little more than 6% and is only isolated within the US Dept of Education?

Ever use a textbook when you were in school?

Where do you think the funding to develop new textbooks and educational ideologies come from? Who funds programs to influence school districts to buy the textbooks containing the new educational ideologies? Who gives grants to school districts to buy those textbooks and send teachers to college level programs to become experts in teaching the new ideology? Who provides funds so that assessments can be developed and sold to school districts which demonstrate how effective the new ideology and textbooks are?

I'll give you a hint - it's not a state or local agency, it's not some private foundation, and it's not the US Department of Education.

Here's another one.

Who sets the standards that dictate what goes into textbooks and establishes children in a state learn and when? Who develops assessments to determine how well students have learned what they're supposed to learn?

Right now, it's the state. But next year those standards will be set by the federal government. States will be required to select at least 85% of the federal standards. And every student will be required to take the new federal assessment.

Sure, there's no power enumerated in the Constitution which grants the federal government the authority to do these things. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening, right now. So go ahead a claim that the GOP doesn't need a federal position on education because such a mandate isn't explicitly articulated in the Constitution. Go ahead and ignore these two relatively simple issues and hide your head in a hole papered with the Constitution. Meanwhile the Democrats will continue to use the schools to advance their social policies.

Stopping the Democrats from trampling on the Constitution requires recognizing where they've trampled on it, how, and why. Simply proposing to close the Dept of Education without knowing what they do and do not do may be the typical Republican knee jerk reaction, but it won't solve anything.

And turning a blind eye to the problems facing our nations schools means you don't think there are any problems facing our nations schools.

Your argument, Sandy and George, that we don't need a policy at the federal level for health care because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government that authority, is part of the reason we're now trying to stop the Democrats from nationalizing the health care industry. Had the GOP, at the federal level, recognized that there were issues in health care and implemented programs like they've proposed in HR 3400 when they were in power then it's unlikely we'd be facing this fight now.

Hiding your head in the sand because the Constitution doesn't tell you pull your head out, isn't wise.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service