NCLB is a liberal's bill, so why do people hate Kerry for it?

[George_Bonanza]

You know, I wouldn't have a problem with this if people said, "NCLB is a bad bill by Ted Kennedy. John Kerry shouldn't have voted for it, even if it's a liberal's bill". Instead, they make some inaccurate statement like, "Kerry votes for every one of the Republican's bills, like Patriot Act, IWR, and NCLB".

NCLB is one of Ted Kennedy's most cherished bills, and he worked all his life to get it passed, only to get it trampled upon by the cheapskate Republicans who are more than happy to waste their money somewhere else. Why do people treat Kerry like a Bush-panderer when it would be way more accurate to say that he is a Kennedy-panderer?

[JohnKleeb]

1. I hope Kennedy isnt attacked :(

BTW I admit, I never really use endorsements for a point of reference but Ted Kennedy and his nephew, Robert F Kennedy Jr endorsing Kerry made me think higher of Kerry. I have the same comment for this as I did the other point with PA and IWR in the other thread George. I wont repeat myself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Because people have no legislative memory

They don't recall how the bill started out nor its various incarnations...they don't consider that education needed to be funded the following year..oh yeah..and they forget...we aren't the majority because people sit out elections when their single issue isn't addressed and it creates results like the mid terms.

[ibegurpard]

9. And therein lies the rub.

The vicious circle...people get pissed off and sit out and they continue to compromise to make up for the lost support. Where does it end?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Hate to tell you..it ends by getting at least one house back

by hook or by crook.

I'd think we'd all realize that. There are 3 pieces of cheese. They have three, we have none.

[sleipnir]

3. Re-read the bill and then come back and post postive about it

It's a major heinous act against the American Education system and was bastardized by Bush and his ilk.

When the teachers all over the country come out in droves to protest the bill, that should be a good sign.

Seriously, this is one of the worst bills, as currently written, that has been passed into our education system.

I'm not sure you've actually read the entire bill by the nature of your OP, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Did I mention that all H.S now have to surrender all addreses, phone numbers and names of all students to the Armed Forces Recruiting???? Sick indeed....

[aquart]

4. But really helpful if you're planning for endless wars

And need a draft.

[IndianaGreen]

5. What's liberal about the military contacting your child?

What's liberal about the military contacting your child with their recruitment propaganda while you and the school administrators are barred from having a say about it?

The military is looking for canon fodder in our grade schools, trying to get kids to start thinking of joining the military at an age in which they are the most impressionable.

Endless recruits for endless wars.

[lcordero]

6. No child left behind is an abomination

It's a piece of garbage and a trojan horse.
It is designed to cut away at the public school systems by using unreal expectations while at the same time providing no solution
I particularly don't like that it gave military recruiters access to student records either because it was an indicator of things to come.

[girl gone mad]

7. Maybe..

because it represents more of the same reckless compromise the grassroots has been begging our leadership not to partake in.

[ibegurpard]

8. What I can't figure out is why anyone would support the bill in its final

form considering the points raised below. Yeah, it started out great but then as it got bastardized why on earth wouldn't someone disavow it? Making a certain amount of compromise is necessary, I realize but look at what we ended up with.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. There was a great deal of denouncing by the democratic party

The Repubs had a vote...they control. Nancy Pelosi and David Obey had an alternate plan..it was rejected. We don't have the house NOR the senate.

Kennedy was pissed at what they did to his bill. AN education bill had to be passed.

[abburdlen]

20. Why?

How was this bill better than no education bill?

[sandnsea]

12. Dept of Ed too

Implementation is part of this too. There ARE measures in this bill to help failing schools improve. But when the Dept of Ed puts the emphasis on punishment instead of improvement, that's not a problem with the bill. This is alot like the Patriot Act, a different Administration would have had a completely different result. Like with our EPA laws and so much other stuff these people have assaulted in the last 3 years. "It's Bush, stupid," ought to be the meme this year.

Regardless, taking everything that's happened under Bush out on John Kerry is just crazy. Somebody called it misdirected anger and that's exactly right.

[bigtree]

13. "It's Bush, stupid,"

:+

[seaglass]

14. There are a lot of good things about this bill though

aren't there?

The overall vision of having both students, teachers and schools accountable for performance I think is a good thing. As a MA resident, both of my kids have been tested since elementary school and they are required to pass the 10th grade MCAS in order to graduate.

I know NCLB is not adequately funded, I get the impression that it is punitive more than supportive - I haven't read the bill. I would hope that if Dems get control of Congress they would implement changes to the more egregious items noted above and then fund it.

[ldoolin]

15. Teachers union opposes NCLB. Military recruiters love it.

NCLB was so full of bad provisions that any Democrat worthy of the name should have voted against the final version, no matter where the original idea for the bill originated.

Example: The rider attached at the behest of Virgil Goode (R(ight wing loony) - formerly D-VA) requiring all schools receiving federal aid to turn over student records to military recruiters, and to allow recruiters full access to campuses. But then again, Kerry long ago betrayed and abandoned the peace movement he was once a part of, in favor of an obscene pro-"national service" based platform that borders on reinstating slavery, so the Kerry of today would be all for this part of NCLB.

It also would help to note that NCLB was strongly opposed by teachers and the teachers unions, which would mean that Kerry, Kennedy, Lieberman, and the other Democrats who supported NCLB are anti-union, or more to the point, SCABS. Real Democrats like Feingold, Wellstone, and Kucinich voted against it, and Howard Dean has made a point of speaking out against it.

[salin]

16. I certainly woudln't call this "Kennedy's Bill"

First - much of it was modeled after measures taken in ... Texas (the "houston miracle" which has turned out to be the "houston mirage"). Kennedy was not involved in Texas legislation in the 1990s...

Second - the issue of 'educational standards' being set by the feds goes back to Bush1 after the famous governors conference in either 1989 or 1991 where the goal of setting 'world class goals' for all schools was first pushed. His initiative was either called "Goals 2000 or American 2000". I get the names mixed up - because the initiative was picked up and tweaked by Clinton and given the other name. The sticking point in the Clinton bill was that they wanted to add "opportunities to learn" standards - e.g., that all students were given the opportunties to take certain classes (eg that even poor school would offer advanced math).

While both of these initiatives had incentives - I don't believe either tied as much punitive measures that is included in the current law.

Sen. Kennedy - worked on some aspects of the bill. He has NOT spent his entire career working to pass NCLB. He has spent a great deal of energy during his career to try to improve funding for schools and try to increase educational equity. It was natural for him to be involved in the initial drafting of this legislation - but its form is NOT what he pushed for. He is not only angry at the lack of funding for the law - but for the draconian way it was twisted that seems to have a secondary agenda (pushing towards privatization.)

I think that manner in which the question has been framed in this thread is a bit disingenuous.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. But as I recall you and I BOTH had watched Nancy Pelosi

and David Obey's impassioned pleas for the funding gaps in this bill and we BOTH knew there was a problem with votes NOT because of Kerry, but because of the VERY LITTLE leverage we have in the HOUSE where appropriations are concerned. So why is it legit to say Democrats HANDED this to Bush (specifically Kerry) when we BOTH paid attention at the time and saw how little leverage they had?

[salin]

24. what in the heck does that have to do with my

post? I am not mentioning Kerry at all.

I am objecting to the initial post's characterization of the bill as one that Kennedy has been working for his entire career - and was giving context on that point.

[sandnsea]

22. Kennedy backed this

He has wanted a good education bill for years and worked with Bush on this. It's as much his bill as it is Bush's. I don't blame Kennedy for it, there's alot of reasons this bill isn't doing anything it should have and the finger points right at George W. Bush.

[salin]

25. I agree

with most of what you say - including where the blame lies. Kennedy was certainly a key mover in its initial formulation. But the provisions kept morphing - it appears now to look more like the texas plan with an emphasis on punitive measures - and the part of the equation that leveraged more resources to schools in order to improve... was stiffed. Hence no longer Kennedy's bill.

[slinkerwink]

17. look at the ads saying why this bill is harmful

100K
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~gsbarkin/Dean100.wmv

300K (click my name for this one)
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~gsbarkin/Dean300.wmv

[mikehiggins]

18. Another weapon handed to Bush by people who should have known better.

This is actually a good complement to the IWR, even though it was originated by folks like Kennedy.

School reform is vital and NCLB is one approach. Unfortunately, it was a tool easily used by Bush to attack public education by simply denying funding but requiring compliance. If Bush could see that, why couldn't Kennedy?

IWR gave Bush authority to invade Iraq as long as he made an attempt to generate international support for the move. After a few perfunctory and offensive overtures, Bush dropped the diplomacy in favor of dropping bombs and launched the invasion. Why didn't Congress see that coming?

Is this what we are looking forward to? Our supposed best and brightest being played by a bungling, inept failure from Texas? The record of the Bush administration is its own worst problem in seeking re-election. The record of stupidity and credulity on the part of the Senators opposing Bush is theirs.

All America knew we were going to invade Iraq. How can Kerry claim he didn't know?

Everyone paying attention knew Bush couldn't be trusted to honor his promises. How can Kennedy now be outraged by that very fact?

Senators are not leaders. They are debaters and discussers and talkers who want to have "conversations" with everyone and come to a happy world of consensus and agreement. Everyone knows that is not what this time needs. How come Kerry doesn't?

[IndianaGreen]

21. Excellent post, mikehiggins! The Democrats don't know how to oppose!

Senators... want to have "conversations" with everyone and come to a happy world of consensus and agreement. Everyone knows that is not what this time needs. How come Kerry doesn't?

A political party is not supposed to function like a social club. A political party is either an opposition party or a coalition party. A political party either opposes the government and its policies, or finds itself by deed or by inaction in coalition with that government.

How come the Democrats as a party don't get it? Well, why would they get it? The Democratic party establishment is in agreement with Bush on his policies goals. The dispute that establishment candidates such as John Kerry have with Bush is one of tactics. Kerry is not against Bush for what Bush does, Kerry is against Bush because he disagrees with the way Bush does things!

This disagreement on tactics explains why Democratic candidates such as Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman do not want an outright repeal of PATRIOT Act, preferring instead to make enough cosmetic changes to PATRIOT to provide them with a fig leaf they can use in defending themselves against civil libertarians.

If the DLC succeeds in securing the 2004 nomination for one of its candidates, it is an almost certainty that this will lead to defeat in November!

The question then would be whether progressives should continue to throw good money after bad by continue to support a political party that is in the death-grip of the same corporate forces that control the GOP.

The Greens are not the answer either as the following article illustrates:

The Greens play a reactionary political role, opposing the development of a socialist movement based on the working class in favor of the formation of a third capitalist party. As the record of the Green Party in Germany has demonstrated, once the Greens begin to achieve influence in bourgeois politics they quickly discard their initial radicalism. The former pacifists in the German Greens paved the way for the first overseas deployment of German troops since World War II. In California, Green candidate Peter Camejo backed the right-wing-inspired recall campaign and ended up tacitly supporting a vote for the main Democratic candidate, Cruz Bustamante.

In the 2004 campaign, these left-talking politicians will once again seek to put off the critical question of establishing the political independence of the working class from both big business parties. They will seek to divert the mass opposition to Bush behind whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic nomination contest. They all subscribe to the position of “anyone but Bush,” as though Bush were the only weapon of American capitalism, rather than one of many instruments of the ruling elite.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

A real opposition party would be demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the prosecution of Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice for their roles in a campaign of WMD disinformation. General Tommy Franks should be prosecuted as a war criminal for launching a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. That's what a real opposition party would do, instead of this:

Democrats cover up for Bush lies on Iraq WMD
By Patrick Martin
31 January 2004

Powell blurted out the mechanism of the US tactics in provoking war with Iraq. The Bush administration demanded that Iraq “prove the negative”, i.e., the absence of weapons, precisely because it was inherently impossible. Every attempt by the Iraqi regime to comply with demands from the US and the United Nations became the starting point for new efforts to declare Saddam Hussein in violation of yet another UN resolution.

The Washington Post, like Kay an all-out supporter of the war, wrote of his revelations: “In an extraordinary five days since resigning as head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Kay has provided interviews and testimony that have returned the Iraq weapons issue to the center of the national debate.” But in South Carolina, the Democrats generally evaded the issue.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/dems-j31.shtml

[George_Bonanza]

23. Add Dean and Clark to that list of "Patriot Act supporters"