Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Care and Feeding of Your New Politician

No, folks, I don’t think that snafu about the satellite Q+A between Bush and those soldiers is all that significant. What is intriguing is how much significance has been attached anyways. This is what you get, I think, when folks believe your candidate’s presence is terminally stage managed.

As a movie fan, I’ve observed and experienced the difference in how people react to a creative work and one that’s just formulaic, by the numbers. The ideal for all storytellers is full, hearty, and sincere love of your work. That, though, requires a full, hearty and sincere effort on the storyteller’s (or politician’s) part.

Bush is nothing if not repetitive. Catchphrases abound in his speeches. We know all about his telling us to stay the course, fight the terrorists who hate our freedoms, about not cutting and running and fighting the terrorists overseas so we don't have to fight them over here. For supporters, it's like having an instant argument. For frustrated, annoyed opponents of Bush, it is the beginning of an instant argument.

We hear about new speeches, and they invariably contain next to no new content. Thing about this invariance of material is that it makes it very difficult to develop warm feelings in one's heart for a policy if you already disagree with it, and it can wear thin over time. It gets worse if people think you're lying to them, or if they think you're deluded about something. Repetition can intensify bad feelings, especially since we association people repeating points to us with people underestimating our intelligence. You repeat things to a child, a mentally deficient person, a person with brain damage, a senile senior citizen. You don't have to repeat yourself to full grown adults with intact mental faculties.

There's soemthing to be said for being a lively presence, or at least one who changes over time. In a Democracy, there is much to be said for a candidate who responds well to the world around them and who expresses that quality people want out of their leaders: an active, dynamic mind that understands the current situation of the country. We don't want a figurehead in this day and age, a person who just keeps the chair in the Oval Office warm. We need an active president (in more than the cardiovascular sense), who is on top of policy, and able to sort these things out, and make quality decisions.

Bush has been an president obsessively interested in the control of his image. John Dean's book Worse Than Watergate chronicles much of that, the tough measures on leakers, the hiding of files and the legal battles waged to limit disclosure. He has hired marketing firms to sell his policies, and promoted his political consultant to a leading position in his White House, even despite a cloud of controversy over that person's actions.

Clinton was not immune by any stretch of the imagination, either. We all know how much thought he devoted to his legacy, and much of a poll-follower he was. Bush 41 was so rehearsed and catchphrased away that it became the joke of anybody doing an impression of him. Reagan was big on his photo-ops. Bush 43 is regarded as more stage managed than these folks because of the degree to which he has been an image-based president.

The trouble with any such approach is that people think and imagine without the say-so of the politician, and if enough has leaked around the edges of the politician's image management, only substantive action or change of policy will effect any difference.

A professor who gives the beginning classes on Film and Electronic Media Aesthetics in my college, who I will call Dr. K., has a set of rules that he posts about the film and video business at the start of the course. One of his big rules there is this: A difference, to be a difference, has to make a difference. It's no longer enough that Bush or other Republicans make themselve better understood. They've made damn sure that people have understood them. No, the problem is that people understand and either didn't agree in the first place, or they've stopped agreeing with them. Nows not the time to do new marketing, but to engage in a new strategy.

I will not be so naive or foolish as to expect these folks to enact liberally-oriented changes of policy, but I am pretty sure that there are other policy directions possible within conservative principles, and that the GOP needs to seek out those. Whatever they do, it has to be a change from the old and busted approaches. New marketing will only serve to give people the impression that the GOP doesn't (or shouldn't) want people to have: that the quality of their policy matters less than their marketing of it. The American people want and deserve more.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #85798

Actually following traditionally conservative pricipals would be a start… Smaller government, reduced spending etc… He did do the tax cuts but without the other ideals they are not very helpful to the overall shape of the Federal government… Vetoing just 1 bill because it contained too much pork would be a start!

Posted by: BradM at October 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Comment #85804

When they release the Bush Years DVD, I expect to see that Q&A sequence in the “Making Of…” mini movie. I also expect a commentary track from the director and producer (Rove and Cheney?).

My favorite scripted Iraq event was the 2003 plastic turkey episode. I even liked how thay made up an encounter with a British airliner that supposedly identified Bush’s plane over an open mike — it gave the just the right illusion of danger.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 14, 2005 12:40 PM
Comment #85811

Here’s a good website that documents a lot of the repetition.

Posted by: Burt at October 14, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #85913

Steve and Pundit

I agree with Stephen that the president is terribly stage managed.

Stage management is crucially important in contuining to maintain a specified image,and the president gets a failing mark here.

I think back to the first Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960 when sweat poured from Nixon’s lip as one of the deciding factors in that election(Plus of course,Keddedy’s daddy stuffing the ballot boxes in Chicago with Richard Daly’s help)

President Bush’s PR machine has been so bad since he was elected the first term and then continuing on to his second term that his message on terror has nearly been lost.

I say this too as a Bush supporter.

The turkey picture is classic.

I have it saved to the computer along with John Kerry’s from- a -bottle-orange-suntanned face debate photo and Mike Dukakis’s tank photo.

Monica drooling over Bill and George Bush I puking on the Japanese premier rank up there too,along with Italian leader Silvio Berrlisconi putting up rabbit ears on the Spanish(?) president’s head at a EU conference two years ago.

However,nothing beats Hanio Jane’s photo op,unless you want to count Mike Moore’s performance at last year’s DNC…but that would qualify under the movie version category,I guess

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at October 15, 2005 7:32 AM
Comment #85967

Illinois had 27 electoral votes in the 1960 election. Kennedy won the count by 84. Chicago Chicanery, real or not, did not give Kennedy the election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #86013

Well,throw in voter fraud on Texas too then and you’ll have it.According to the article you sited,if you deduct the 450,000 votes that Daly and his henchmen stuffed in the boxes,in all probability then Nixon wins the popular vote in the election.

Plus,he didn’t ask for a recount in any state that he narrowly lost nor did he nationially.

In any case,the point was about PR and I remember I was a kid back then(only 10) but inhigh schools and college the way that election was run PR-wise was always pointed to as an example of media manipulation.

By the way,Nixon learned from that experience and became a master manipulator.

Geez,I loved that guy.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 16, 2005 6:57 AM
Comment #86044

Ok…I’ll argue Nixon (again)…haven’t done that in 20 years.

The major screw up that Nixon had was that he got caught.

Then once caught,he lied to cover it up.

However,the Democrats during that era were just as bad if not worse.

Nixon to me did two things that influenced history(iother than Watergate).Number one ,on his watch relations with China thawed and dialogue began.
This (then and to this day )had been his testament.
Give the guy his due here.

Number two:Vietnam.Say what you want,but ground forces were committed there by Kennedy(advisers) and then Johnson.
When Nixon got sworn in,there were …what…half a million ground troops there?

As opposed to now,Both China and the (then) USSR
were monsters at the doorstep…two super-powers every bit as strong as the USA.

Nixon had perhaps the best grasp of foreign policy than any president since Roosevelt.

I miss old trick Dick.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 16, 2005 3:35 PM
Comment #86118

I don’t buy the moral equivalence argument. There’s a reason the country took the whole things so badly- most people didn’t know this kind of stuff went on. That kind of corruption is something we can and should be moving on from.

Nixon’s screwup is not that he got caught. That’s what ensured that he paid for his real screwup- being party to felonies designed to thwart the will of the American people. He lied about it because he knew the American people at that time would hardly look well on what he had done. Why else lie? If people were so accepting of things being done that way, he could have just come out and said it.

It puzzles me that you people can be so morally relativistic on this matter as to claim that what Nixon did was not wrong. It was fundamentally wrong. He was, at the very least, a party to covering up a burglary. As somebody on the committee investigating the matter said, part of the rule of law is that even a King cannot enter a man’s home without his leave.

Put another way, unless you want a Democratic Party President to be able to invade your home when it suits your political purposes, you have to stand for the principle that Nixon was wrong to have been a party to those burglaries.

But it was worse than that- he was having these people actively sabotage the elections of his opponents. Again, if your principle would be that a Democratic president should not have the power to sabotage Republican Challengers, the same principle must be observed.

As for Vietnam, there’s saying you want to end the war and get out, and there’s actually doing it. Nixon was elected in 1968, and campaigned on cleaning up that mess, something he called Peace With Honor. During that time, though, tens of thousands of Americans would die, and the fighting would be maintained at furious levels. This is what Kerry Haters blithely forget- The war was long lost by the time he came on the scene. His campaign was not to get in the way of a winning war, which would have been unconscionable, but to to hasten the end of a losing war, which was only just.

Nixon, though, proceed with his plan, and his successor carried out the remainder of it: result? We lost anyways, for the same reason we had been losing the war up to that point.

As for the China/Soviet situation? Nixon took the opportunity to exploit the Sino-Russian split that the Republicans would have never allowed the Democrats to take advantage of. The Republicans insisted that Communism was a global conspiracy, and took China experts and Far East Experts who thought there might be some divisions out of the loop. So, instead of turning Vietnam against China and Russia at the beginning, we fought a war to try and prop up a tired colonial government.

And don’t talk to me about that constituting making a pact with evil governments, because we supported some pretty demonic right-wing governments. We could have done ourselves a favor and co-opted the socialists. Instead, we gave them grist for the mill. Americans are much better off supporting the will of the people in these countries, rather than opposing it. After all, we are supposed to be the light of Democracy and the leaders of government by Republic.

I think it should be pointed out that contrary to the sense that Republicans might try to convey, this nation began and won the Cold War under legislatures that had Democrat majorities, and with a public that I think it’s fair to say were much more liberal in their stances.

America is not quite as conservative as Republicans would like to think it is. It is only because their leadership skews so far to the right, that Republicans think that America does, too. If so, why is it so difficult to get rid of social programs and civil liberties concerns? Why can’t the Republicans manage to match the majorities once held by Democrats, at their lowest point of decline?

There’s a lot of propaganda laced into the Republican worldview, and Republicans are paying the price for it in leaders that betray the trust that voters put in them. If the only crime is to get caught, sooner or later, you’re going to see a lot of Republicans caught, and it will be too late to change things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #86154


Whoa boy,hold on a minute.

The whole Watergate thing should not have happened because Nixon was in the process of trouncing George McGovern…I think by the largest plurality of the twenthieth century up until that point…and an “intelligence” break in was just about the stupidiest thing his adviser-dolts could have done.

Major brain lock is more like it.

At the time,Nixon was a big picture guy and according to everything I have read on the subject didn’t plan the thing at all,rather reacted to it after Halderman,Colson or whoever advised him of the screw up.

At that point he got involved and things went downhill from there.

I am not defending his actions…it was stupidity at its highest,but the guy was a foriegn policy genius otherwise.

Believe me,Watergate was THE watershed issue of the 70’s and a lot of liberal dems are pretty much lineal decendants of the general house-cleaning that went on in Congress afterwards.

That’s what bothers me about the left.

Ford was a dolt…kinda like a goof-ball type of president that fell a lot,tied up his tongue while talking a lot,and as a result of the Nixon-Ford debacle (throw in Agnew resigning and Rockefeller flipping the bird at someone and you have the reasons for the party entering politicial limbo for a while.

As for Vietnam,believe it or not,Stephen,despite the fact that some here refer to me as a neo-con,in those days I was dead against the war.

However,I was immature then.

I was a kid then and was interested in getting laid and smoking dope at the nearest peace rally because that’s what Eastern college kids did back then.

Kent State,Jackson State,The Chicago Seven,SDS,Black Panthers…the mindset that developed between 1969 -1972 really split the country in two.

Our troops then were professionals and draftees and the dissension here spilled over to the esprit di corps there.

We had fragging going on,and all the stuff that nightmares are made of going on.

However,I never thanked the troops for their valor,their courage under fire,their sacrifice whether they were profesionial or draftees…both died and were wounded for their county.

That omission has haunted me for over 3 decades.

I was a jerk college punk-hippe who didn’t know shit but thought that I had all the answers.

In retrospect I was dead wrong.

That era is still very much in my mind and probably is the major reason that,over the years politicially i drifted the other way.

As for Dems doing anything afterwards,please.

Carter was pathetic and it wasn’t until Regan showed up the tide started to turn ….his build- of our military forced the Soviets into bancruptcy and grew testicles back on to the country.

Like Nixon,I liked Regan a lot too

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 17, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #86202


“Ford was a dolt…kinda like a goof-ball type of president that fell a lot,tied up his tongue while talking a lot,and as a result of the Nixon-Ford debacle (throw in Agnew resigning and Rockefeller flipping the bird at someone and you have the reasons for the party entering politicial limbo for a while.”

You know, change the names and it sounds like things haven’t changed as much as we would like to think.

Posted by: Rocky at October 17, 2005 7:36 PM
Comment #86253

You may very well be correct.

The Republicians are in the process of repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot,head and heart.

I say this as a Republician.

I am sure that this is a year that the Republicians want to hurry up and finish.

Next year will be worse….I think we are headed into a recession…and with this bird-flu thing looming on the horizon…

Trouble is,as bad as things are on the,things are far worse on the left.

By next year,McCain or Guilianni will begin to paint a fresh new face of the right.Bush officillly become a lame duck.

With the ratification of the constitution in Iraq(that is unless a ballot box stuffing incident doesn’t explode in the next few days) and an election there in December,maybe…jusy maybe..a new government there coupled with a continued build-up of Iraqi security forces means that some of our brave heros can return home.

However,the left has no leader as I see it.

Kerry is thinking about a re-run,and that spells trouble for the left.

New blood is needed there and I don’t think Hilliary is the answer.

Hillary or Kerry running again would quickly re-unify the right (If you go under the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” theory.

Big issues in ‘06 as I see it right now:Recession,Bird Flu,continued high energy,terror war,North Korea,Iran,Isreal….enough to keep the bloggers on fire all year,I think

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 18, 2005 7:56 AM
Comment #86261

I was born a full four years after they took that helicopter of the roof of the Saigon embassy. I was raised pretty much in the Reagan/Bush Era, and spent my teenage years in the Clinton Era.

The older I get, the more I read about Vietnam, the more I’m convinced that the discord was a secondary effect of a strategic screw-up of massive proportions.

In essence, to drum up support for a war that couldn’t be justified on the grounds that it was making strategic progress, LBJ and elements of the Republican party started trying to quash rising dissent by making it a patriotic duty to support the war.

They forgot one altogether simple fact: people know what they’re seeing with their own two eyes. They can see and remember the trend of things over time. Folks can tell when the people telling them things are full of it. You can’t eternally chime that victory is around the corner, yet have people continue to die without forward progress.

Experience plays a very big role in how people’s opinion changes.

I don’t blame the soldiers. They are both the victims of this policy, and the heroes of this story, all at once. Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz would tell you that you can’t expect the soldier to win the war for you. The soldiers are going to do what they are ordered to do, as they are obligated. If the orders are crap, the soldier’s efforts are going to be wasted, and only luck will bring something positive out of the battle.

You can talk about honoring their sacrifices, but I don’t think that includes dignifying the stupid errors of their superiors. They didn’t die to protect the idiocy of those higher up the chain of command. They died serving their country, and that should be remembered, and not merely used a bludgeon in debate against those who oppose Bush’s policies, and fault his choice of battlefield.

That’s just emotional blackmail. Speaking for myself, were I a soldier, I would vastly prefer to fight and die in a well-chosen battlefield, where my sacrifice could pay for permanent, not ephemeral gains.

Bush did not exercise the care or honesty in choosing Iraq that is worthy of our soldiers. You don’t go into a war knowing your evidence to justify the hell you are about to send your soldiers into is so thin. You don’t send them in with the risk that the cause they are set to fight and die for may not even exist. Bush never verified it, nor allowed it to be verified.

When our soldier’s boots hit the ground, it became a matter of whether they would be lead properly in this war. Even if Bush had admitted that folks had screwed up some months down the line, he could have done us the favor of having it be a moot point, made so by the successful conclusion of the war.

But this is not a war that ended, like he supposed it would. Part of it is that in his zeal to decapitate rather than capture Saddam’s government, he destroyed the opportunity to have a leader of some kind hand over the authority to us, a move that could have simplified and prevented unrest.

That would have probably required surrounding the place, though.

What also could have kept things fairly quiet is if we didn’t give them places to go where they could move and prepare unobserved and unhindered by our soldiers. If we had maintained law and order, it would have been easier to do just about everything else we need to do.

Unfortunately, Bush has been more interested in avoiding having to admit to a mistake, than taking care of the mistake.

Such behavior is not unique in our history. And we all know the consequences of the inability of LBJ to admit that he was wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2005 8:54 AM
Comment #86264
Nixon had perhaps the best grasp of foreign policy…

Don’t forget detente, SE. Nixon was also the first president post-WWII to embrace the USSR and say “Why can’t we all just get along?”

it wasn’t until Regan showed up the tide started to turn ….his build- of our military forced the Soviets into bancruptcy and grew testicles back on to the country.

Oh. Then you probably hated Nixon for detente. Never mind.

BTW, that whole ‘Reagan forced the Soviets into bankruptcy’ thing is a myth. Soviet military spending actually declined during the 80s, and the Soviets never even tried to match us on Star Wars (why should they, when Reagan was willing to share SDI technology with them, right).

Posted by: American Pundit at October 18, 2005 9:00 AM
Comment #86318


Speaking of detente, weren’t Rumsfeld and Cheney tied to the effort to disprove Nixon’s efforts on the treaty associated with Soviet’s WMDs?

Posted by: Rocky at October 18, 2005 9:25 AM
Comment #86447

I believe they were part of the group that broke Kissinger’s power at state during the Ford Administration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2005 1:33 PM
Comment #86603

No…I think detante was terrific and yes I probably like my version of the truth better than yours,so …..I will stick with the bankrupting the Soviets thing.

However,Regan showed at least some grit when he took office…weren’t the Iranian hostages freed around the time of his inaguration?

He scared the bejeeez out of them….the original they called him.

Nixon ended up a statesman after his forced exile….Ford,Carter,Regan,Bush Sr.,…even Clinton…all consulted him at one time or another….

We don’t have statesmen today……someone whom,when he talks…everyone listens…and it’s not the party line that he is spewing.

In my view,we haven’t had a statesmen since Kissinger…maybe Baker during Bush sr’s term…but zero since,I think.

That’s what we need today…statesmen….that would be the subject for an excellent piece for you or Stephen.


I don’t equate Vietnam with Iraq at all.Here’s why:

1.I don’t hear the same type of stories from returning servicemen that I heard back then.Mant servicemen believe in the mission.I may be off base,but I detect a much better elan and esprit now that then.

2.The are no lurking superpowers who the USA has to tip-toe around.No China or Soviet fears.
Nixon would have bombed Hanio into rubble in 2 seconds if China wasn’t such an ally.As a matter of fact,the mining of Hiapong harbor then really got the North Vietname attention big time.

3.If you think Iraq is corrupt….the Vietnamese created tthast artform and took it to never before seen levels.

4.The biggest reason though is that some of us feel that what we are doing there is necessary.Back then,not many did that.

By the way,you are one of the first to site the Dems as a cause of discourd there.


Posted by: SicilianEagle at October 19, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #86698


“However,Regan showed at least some grit when he took office…weren’t the Iranian hostages freed around the time of his inaguration?

He scared the bejeeez out of them….the original they called him.”

Sorry, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan took office because the Iranians wanted to stick a thumb in Carter’s eye.
Don’t you remember Carter’s “Rose Garden” campaign during the “hostage crisis”?

The Iranians were pissed at Carter for making the mistake of giving the Shah assylum.

Posted by: Rocky at October 19, 2005 6:37 PM
Comment #86755
I probably like my version of the truth better than yours

Facts are facts, SE. As Democratic Senator Daniel Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

However,Regan showed at least some grit when he took office…weren’t the Iranian hostages freed around the time of his inaguration?

LOL! You bought the whole whopper, didn’t you SE. I’m surprised you don’t think it was the way Reagan slapped down the air traffic controllers that scared the Commies straight. :)

I bet you think Bush’s invasion of Iraq scared Libya into giving up its nuclear program. Never mind the decade of sanctions and negotiations that preceeded it and the fact that US troops in Iraq weren’t going anywhere else.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Comment #86760

AP & Rocky

If nothing else,at the time Regan gave to America an “illusion” if you will of strength……something the country desperately needed back then.

History is written by the victors as the saying goes and plenty of Iranians then and now believe they helped drive Carter from office and that America had become a paper tiger.

Who can forget those two downed helicopters in the Iranian desert in that unsucessful “rescue” attempt and charred American bodies getting poked by one of them?

If nothing else,as I said,Regan grew testicles back on America.

As far as the air traffic controllers strike…since Regan,how many air crashes were attritrible to his firing the whole lot?

Zero,I think or close.

That was an example of a a president acting in the nationial interest against an out of control union….something I wish this president would do.

Today,the NEA needs a whipping I think.Nationially 50% of blacks and latinos drop out of high school before graduation.

The system is broke and money (which is usually what everybody wants) isn’t the answer.

Yesterday on CNN a report came out that test scores nationially are rising….No Child Left Behind,which the left has crucified the administration on,has to be at least a tiny bit responsible for this despite what you say.

Accountability and the tenural system are the key.

PLUS,here is one major stumbling block that really needs to be fixed:

In Massachusetts say I’d like to leave $1 million to the Boston Public Schools in order to start an endowment to buy textbooks and equipment for students.

I can’t.

Generally that money goes into the General Fund not the educational system.

Yet private schools are free to form endowments…even public colleges and universities.

Elementary schools and high schools need the most help,yet if a Jack Walsh type of guy wants to help set up a fund to help his old elementary school,he can’t.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 20, 2005 6:56 AM
Comment #86765


“Today,the NEA needs a whipping I think.Nationially 50% of blacks and latinos drop out of high school before graduation.”

50% drop out of school because of what they can make in week selling drugs is greater than most folks monthly salary.
Why work your ass off for peanuts?

That isn’t the fault of the NEA, it’s the parents that need to be bitch slapped.

Look, I voted for Reagan in his second term.
The world doesn’t need a cowboy sheriff. Our form of government is only the best because all other forms are even worse.

Posted by: Rocky at October 20, 2005 7:35 AM
Comment #86769


Wait a minute….kids are the victim of their environment.

Kids are molded at an early age…in every inner city there used to be parochial schools where their performance on standard exams blew the publics away.


Because they instilled intellectual discipline at an early age..stressing the 3 r’s..and making sure kids learned.

Today,a significant “minority” of teachers…especially the grissilied veteran teachers re so burned out that they really go through the motions.

Ther is no need giving a teacher a salary of $55,000 and not be able to afford the 3 grand or so for the class books.

PLUS,now a days,everyone takes a bus to school.Transportation except in the most extreme cases should be paid for by everyone.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at October 20, 2005 9:00 AM
Comment #86914


“Kids are molded at an early age…in every inner city there used to be parochial schools where their performance on standard exams blew the publics away.


Because they instilled intellectual discipline at an early age..stressing the 3 r’s..and making sure kids learned.”

I went to Parochial Schools during the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. We got good grades not only because it was stressed at school, we got good grades because our parents supported the teachers. Our parents gave a shit whether we had our homework done before we did anything else. Our parents were members of the PTA, and went to the meetings.
Both my parents worked because they wanted to send the kids in my family to Parochial School, and both still had the time to make sure we kept up on our studies.

And all this with no vouchers.

Yes, there may be more lax teachers now than then, but I doubt that the percentage of good teachers has changed much over the years.

I place the blame squarely in the lap of parents that don’t take the time to care as my parents did.
Parents that don’t give a rat’s ass, are going to raise terrible students, students that are more likely to fail and drop out.

Posted by: Rocky at October 20, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #86941


I agree with you completely.

Parents,teachers….and a whole new MTV generation is born.

Back in the late sixties and early seventies (my high school and college years),was the time spot to me that changed things.

When I started high school in 1965,pot was something whith which mom used to cook.Then came Vietnam and the morality of the nation changed…at least for me it did.

By the early seventies,I was pretty much one of them.

Thankfully I grew out of it.

Anyway,we spend what now nationially…$4500 per student….or more annually?

With a 50% drop out rate with Blacks and Latinos it seems to me that more….even dragging in the parents more aggressively to their kids lives..can and should be done.

I too went to parochial school,and the days I dreaded most were the days of a teacher conference.

Many a night my dad came home with a bad report about me and there was hell to pay.

Even though I don’t consider myself a deeply religious person…in those days we all went to Mass every Sunday with no exceptions except illness acceptable.

If nothing else,I was exposed to the Bible and to decent Church philosophers.

As I get older,sometimes I wish that the young go to work and the old timers like me get to go back to school to learn what we didn’t learn the first time.

I just finished Plutrach’s ancient book….something that we studied in Latin IV over 35 years ago.

In reading it after all these years it occurred to me that I hadn’t really read it the first time I read it.

Then,I always said “They’re dead Roman guys”.
Today,after re-reading Cato the Elder,I thought that he would have been a great fiscal conservative Republician hawk.I swear.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 20, 2005 8:16 PM
Comment #86980
That was an example of a a president acting in the nationial interest against an out of control union….something I wish this president would do.

God, I wish the unions were out of control. Nowadays they just roll over and go along with every pay and benefit cut that management wants, even as the CEOs make tens of millions in bonuses for putting the company into bankruptcy.

No Child Left Behind,which the left has crucified the administration on…

Whoa there pardner. That bill was written by Senator Kennedy. Democrats love NCLB. I wish President Bush would fund it like he promised he would. There’re about fifteen states who aren’t implementing it because they can’t afford it.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 21, 2005 7:55 AM
Post a comment