The Official US President Election Thread

[Falagar]

Got home early and managed to watch about half of it, and from what I saw it seemed like Kerry was pretty successful in weakening Bush's position. Perhaps not by much, but Kerry was as far as I could tell the strongest orator, he answered well and he managed to challenge Bush on the most important points while Bush fell back in defence.

Bush defended himself well enough (although he stuttered quite a lot and, compared to Kerry, often had to check his notes), but Kerry did the best job.

Of course, I'm not an American so my view may not count for much.

[Janny]

Two o'clock in the morning on Radio 4... to be honest, I can't say I recall much. I would have said a goal-less draw (to use a soccer term). Kerry probably had the better of Bush, but I don't think he made it stick.

I'm curious though. All I really remember was Kerry talking strongly about bilateral talks with N.Korea, which struck me as odd given his 'do not go alone' stance.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Janny

I'm curious though. All I really remember was Kerry talking strongly about bilateral talks with N.Korea, which struck me as odd given his 'do not go alone' stance.

Well of course. Becuase it basically boils down to Kerry's new stance and the stance of the democrats - if it's the way Bush did it - it must be wrong. You see the democrats are so blinded by hate - that no matter what Bush does - they feel it's wrong. Kerry wants mulit-lateral summit talks - where bush hasn't done that and bilateral talks where he's done multi-lateral talks. Kerry did of course make the comment that the US would need to match up with a "global test" to be able to use military action - shorthand for we'll need the approval of the world. If Kerry gets into the White House, we better get three more chairs and desks in the Oval Office, one for Chirac, one for Schroeder and one of Koffi Annan. And this accusation is based on previous comments he has made - not his recent statements where he's trying to back pedal and make it seem like he'd put America first.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yeah, and so's putting litter into bins instead of dropping it at your feet.

The difference, of course, is that you are not being asked to fundamentally change the way you do your job. It seems naive to attempt reform of an entire profession like this and expect it just to happen without proper funding.

To reiterate my view of the introduction of standards in the UK, they've only worked because there have been resources put behind them (for training, curriculum development and for teachers' pay). EVen then, many teachers feel they have to spend more and more time on paperwork and testing when they should be teaching.

In terms of "No Child Left behind" I don't see where funding is the issue. As far as I can see - that's an excuse by the teachers union. Teachers seem to just be purely pissed off because they are being held accountable for the quality of the education they give to students, something their states didn't always do.

Also - it isn't completely unfunded anyway if people fill out the forms to request the money they need I suppose.

No Child Left Behind in New Jersey

On June 11, 2002, the NJDOE submitted Consolidated State Application to the USDOE to receive over $425M in FFY 02 funds to serve the educational needs of New Jersey students through 14 distinct programs or services. On July 3, 2002, the department received notification that the state’s application was approved and funding is now available. This award represents a 28% increase from $306M in FFY 01.

I didn't hear any complaints in NJ regarding the amount of money we have received to support the requirements of No Child Left Behind, but then again, NJ had enacted most of the items that are required by No Child Left Behind many years before Bush was in office. I know from living in Seymour Indiana, that at least they can improve their school if they would transfer the millions spent on their sports to some education. They had already had the largest gym in southern Indiana, but then went ahead and built a practice gym. The gym is now almost larger than the rest of the school, while the library is little larger than a classroom.

My sister took Latin in Seymour for FOUR years, got straight A's, was on the honor roll. She tried to test out of Latin 1 in Purdue and ended up failing, she had to take Latin 1. How can a student who takes a language for FOUR years and get straight A's, possibly not be able to understand Latin 1? That's why people, particularly teachers are upset with this, because it puts pressure on inadequate teachers to actually perform and properly teach. Teachers then seem to complain about it in the classrooms, hoping to influence their students and then the students can go home and influence their parents into thinking that "No Child Left Behind" is crap.

[jerseydevil]

Most people don't even know anything about "No Child Left Behind" because they've never gone in to look at it for themselves. They've never gone in and checked to see if it will make their state's education better. They've never gone in to see if the complaints by teachers are valid or not. In my opinion - the teachers complaints are no more valid than when they complained about having to be tested every so many years.

Here is a summary of No Child Left Behind that NJ's website provides.

No Child Left Behind
The Consolidated State Application & New Updates

o Consolidated State Performance Report Part I
o Consolidated State Application September 1, 2003 Submission

"Our Work Has Begun"
The No Child Left Behind federal legislation was signed into law on January 8, 2002. (Go to http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/ for the NCLB P.L. 107- 110). This legislation essentially redefines the federal role in K-12 education to help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers based on four guiding principles:

* Increased Accountability for Results

* Increased Flexibility and Local Control

* Expanded Options for Parent

* Emphasis on Teaching Methods that are Proven to Work

The essential elements of the NCLB guiding principles are as follows:

Increased Accountability for Results:
* The new educational goal set for all schools receiving Title I funds is 100% proficiency by the year 2014.

* States are required to publicly report disaggregated data by race, ethnicity, gender socio-economic status, student status, such as: English language learners, students with disabilities and migrant students.

* School progress will be measured not only by the total school population, but also by each disaggregated subgroup to assure equity in educational achievement. Progress will also be measured annually on an incremental basis—commonly referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress.

* States must develop a single accountability system.

Increased Flexibility and Local Control:
* States have greater flexibility in how they design their implementation strategy, set standards and benchmarks for educational programs, establish eligibility criteria, etc. and have the option to transfer up to 50% of funds from other program areas to Title 1, if needed.

* The poverty threshold for school-wide programs has been lowered from 50% to 40%, thereby allowing more schools to exercise the flexibility afforded by this designation.

Expanded Options for Parents:
* Parents of low-socioeconomic status with children enrolled in low performing or persistently dangerous schools may exercise the choice option by requesting to transfer their child(ren) to another public school in the school district—which may include a public charter school, magnet school—that has not been identified as low-performing and in need of improvement.

* This expanded option must be provided at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year to all students in schools that have been identified for improvement (based on AYP under pre-NCLB) as of January 7, 2002. The exception being: state law prohibits choice, or a school in improvement on January 7, 2002 makes its second year of AYP based on 2002 assessment results, or limited circumstances—where no choice is possible because only one school with a particular grade level or all school at a grade level are identified for improvement. In this instance, districts are encouraged to establish cooperative agreements with nearby school districts.

* Parents have choice in selection of state approved supplemental education services/providers.

Emphasis on Teaching Methods that are Proven to Work:
* Research based practices focused on assuring all children are reading by the end of third grade.

* Teachers are appropriately certified for the classes and subject area they teach in.

* Teachers clearly articulate the content standards.

* Differentiated instruction

* Multiple measures/assessment instruments used to gauge student progress.

continued....

[jerseydevil]

New Jersey has begun to make many strides to ensure compliance with the NCLB provisions and the guiding principles. Examples of these efforts follow.

To ensure the state is in compliance with provisions related to data collection and reporting, the New Jersey Department of Education has taken the first step by publicly reporting all state assessment results, disaggregated by required subgroups. The NJDOE also identifies and notifies all low performing schools (274 schools) of their performance status. Through this data collection and reporting process, the department will continue to work with these schools on multiple intervention strategies to improve performance.

Additionally, the department has begun the process of aligning New Jersey’s standards and assessment system to meet the new federal requirements. The department has also begun to develop a prototype student level management information system/data warehouse to be piloted in five Abbott districts (Plainfield, Trenton, Elizabeth, Union and New Brunswick), with the ultimate goal being implemented statewide.

Regarding the provisions of the law related to public school choice, New Jersey law permits choice as evidenced by the establishment of 57 charter schools statewide as part of this state’s program of public education and the Inter-district School Choice Pilot Program. In the SFY 03 state budget, a total of $3.7M has been dedicated to this program and the 2001 - 2002 school year is the second year during which students are attending choice districts.

Current data clearly indicates that many children throughout the state, from the suburbs to the cities, are not successfully reaching acceptable literacy levels by the end of third grade. Research also indicates these children will have greater difficulty learning in the years that follow and that few of them will ever reach their full potential. For this reason, Governor McGreevey has launched a very aggressive early literacy initiative to develop literacy standards, frameworks and best practices for teacher from pre-k to fourth grade. The Governor has also established the Teacher Advisory Committee to identify best practices and innovative programs operating across the state aimed at improving learning in the classroom.

There is no doubt that New Jersey is well positioned to implement the programs reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act for several reasons. At the most basic level, the infrastructure needed to support these programs is already in place and the guiding principles embodied in NCLB are the same principles articulated by the McGreevey Administration. The Governor has called for the department to develop and implement state initiatives focused on improving literacy standards (e.g. creating a Early Literacy Initiative, an Early Literacy Task Force and dedicating $10M to establish Reading Coaches); teacher quality (e.g. establishing a Teacher Advisory Committee and investing in professional development); enhancing accountability (e.g. supporting the design of a student level information management system/data warehouse in partnership with five Abbott districts as a pilot); and working with business leadership (e.g. establishing career academies centered on the labor market analysis of the major projected growth industries in NJ) to develop a highly skilled workforce; full implementation of Abbott; and the state’s existing investment in standards based reform, early childhood education, school choice (e.g. charter schools, inter-district school choice pilot program, magnet schools) as well as creating school climates that are safe and conducive to learning (school safety and character education).

Damn new VB - I can't just post a damn quote so I had to type this.....

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

we better get three more chairs and desks in the Oval Office, one for Chirac, one for Schroeder and one of Koffi Annan

Good idea, though I think they could just use the ones that Halliburton etc left behind, as long as they were properly cleaned.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Good idea, though I think they could just use the ones that Halliburton etc left behind, as long as they were properly cleaned.

That's funny. The problem is that Halliburton has been involved with rebuilding countries in war torn areas for decades, they have the experience. So why was it never an issue before? Why only is this fact mentioned in passing on the news? Halliburton was even used by Clinton.

[Insidious Rex]

Because the current VP is their former CEO perhaps? Might have something to do with it. Oh and dont forget the chairs for Cheneys oil buddies and wall street fat cats too so they can make more environmental and energy policy.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because the current VP is their former CEO perhaps? Might have something to do with it.

So that's it. Now that Cheney, their former CEO is VP - Halliburton, the most qualified company to handle this, is no longer able to do this? That makes A LOT of sense.

Oh and dont forget the chairs for Cheneys oil buddies and wall street fat cats too so they can make more environmental and energy policy.

Explain to me how that is any different than the Clinton Administration? Different adminstration, different people. That is all.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because the current VP is their former CEO perhaps? Might have something to do with it. Oh and dont forget the chairs for Cheneys oil buddies and wall street fat cats too so they can make more environmental and energy policy.

Yes, it must be pretty crowded in there. Just as well Dubya doesn't need a chair, just a parrot cage.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, it must be pretty crowded in there. Just as well Dubya doesn't need a chair, just a parrot cage.

I guess that statement demonstrates the intelligence of the liberals such as yourself if that's what you resort to to back up your views. Sounds like something a 1st grader would say.

[The Gaffer]

Unlike to "he's a flip-flopper", which is something a PhD in Political Economy would say.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unlike to "he's a flip-flopper", which is something a PhD in Political Economy would say.

That doesn't even come close to Kerry's "W stands for wrong" slogan. He seems to have stopped using that - I guess because after he used it, even liberal media were attacking that as being stupid.

As for flip-flopper, it describes what Kerry has done throughout his campaign. Depending on who he's talking to - that's how he feels. One minute he's saying he supported the war, the next minute he doesn't. The greatest thing I think was "was the war worth it?" question - which he answered - "I guess that would depend on the outcome." That's a good answer there. Only 2-3 months ago Kerry said that knowing everything he knows now he would have still have voted for war.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I guess that statement demonstrates the intelligence of the liberals such as yourself if that's what you resort to to back up your views. Sounds like something a 1st grader would say.

friendly...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So that's it. Now that Cheney, their former CEO is VP - Halliburton, the most qualified company to handle this, is no longer able to do this? That makes A LOT of sense.

interesting how we jump immediatly from Halliburton having corrupt business practices (proven) and too much influence because of Chaney to them not being aloud AT ALL to bid on work on the middle east. Quite a chasm you crossed there without a blink.

Explain to me how that is any different than the Clinton Administration?

Did the Clinton administration refuse to disclose the fat cats and oil company CEO's that they brought in to dicuss energy policy and environmental policy with? Dont think so. And was Al Gore the former CEO of the same company that the government paid millions of dollars to drive empty trucks back and forth? Dont think so...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

interesting how we jump immediatly from Halliburton having corrupt business practices (proven) and too much influence because of Chaney to them not being aloud AT ALL to bid on work on the middle east. Quite a chasm you crossed there without a blink.

How is it a chasm- you seem to have a problem with Halliburton being used at all - "Because the current VP is their former CEO perhaps? Might have something to do with it." You didn't say anything about them being able to be used - you stated why they shouldn't be used though.

Did the Clinton administration refuse to disclose the fat cats and oil company CEO's that they brought in to dicuss energy policy and environmental policy with? Dont think so.

Clinton had a lot of backroom deals. You must have lived through the Clinton adminstration with your eyes closed.

And was Al Gore the former CEO of the same company that the government paid millions of dollars to drive empty trucks back and forth? Dont think so...

Did Halliburton get fined and has to pay back millions? I worked in several Departments of the government - you don't have to have an association with the VP to get away with wasting millions. Halliburton didn't get away with it either.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for flip-flopper,

So, name-calling is all right as long as you agree with it!

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

it describes what Kerry has done throughout his campaign.

Now, if you substitute "Bush" for "Kerry" and "administration" for "campaign", you've got a perfect justification for why it's apt to satirise Bush as a parrot.

He is taught his few lines, then repeats them over and over regardless of the circumstances. Witness last week's debate.

[The Gaffer]

I find it interesting to contrast the experiences of certain voters of a non-white persuasion who are denied a vote because of their criminal record, with those of Halliburton, who get caught with their hands in the till yet get to keep their job!

Anyhoo, there are two issues here: one is the underhand way the contracts were awarded without a tender process (which is illegal in the UK, for example); the other is the far bigger one of who is really running the Bush administration.

Now, let's see::
- Vice President is former CEO of a company that makes money out of rebuilding war-torn countries
- VP is still receiving an income from said company
- VP's administration starts a war on a false pretext
- VP's administration hands multi billion dollar contracts to said company behind closed doors prior to the war starting

I appreciate that lots of people disagree with the "false pretext" statement above, but can you not understand why, for many people, this stinks to high heaven? Personally, I can't believe that they have got away with it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, name-calling is all right as long as you agree with it!

No - it's just what kerry does. He goes back and forth on the issues. Everyone has words or slogans which they try to use against their opponent.

He is taught his few lines, then repeats them over and over regardless of the circumstances. Witness last week's debate.

Your argument has no bearing - it's called staying on message - which even liberals have said Kerry is unable to do. Hence his tendency to flip-flop. That is one of the reasons Clinton's campaign advisers were brought in - to keep Kerry on message. I agree the debate wasn't good - I would have actually have had the foreign policy debate second, that way Bush could have had one debate to warm up on. But his advisers felt it was better to have that one first.

Even during the debate Kerry went back and forth - one minute he's saying that he wouldn't be tied down by the world when making decisions in regards to national security - then he says that decisions have to pass a "global test". So I want to know - which countries he thinks have to agree with it, does that just include their government - or does that include their citizens, and so forth. I'm not basing my vote on whether the debate was good or bad - I'm basing it on who I agree with more on the fight against terrorism. I agree with Bush more.

You're not from the US - so I would like to know how many US Presidental Campaign advertisements you get in Britain. Yet you have this attitude like you know EVERYTHING that goes on here.