Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: RELIGION MARGINALIZED

Opinion William F. Buckley

RELIGION MARGINALIZED
Tue Oct 2, 7:58 PM ET

Pity John McCain, for whom everything has gone sour in the past period, taking him from lead candidate for the Republican nomination to the cellar. Some years ago, after hearing what John McCain withstood in North Vietnam, I pledged never to write a negative word about him, and over the years it has required very few beads of charity to stand by him. His latest difficulty started out sounding worthy of another medal of honor, to wear alongside the one he earned through the efforts of the North Vietnamese torturers.

What happened was that Sen. McCain was a guest on the Web site Beliefnet.com. He was there to answer questions about his religious beliefs, and his answers were recorded on video and are available for those who seek to examine the gods of presidential candidates.
The interviewer started off by asking: How important should religious belief be in a U.S. presidential contest?

Well, answered the senator, "I think the No. 1 issue people should make (in the) selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

When asked specifically about a Muslim candidate, he said: "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith."

Gasp. Within one day, poor Sen. McCain had called the Beliefnet people back and said he needed to amplify his answers to yesterday's questions. Now he added: "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values."
That was fast going but not fast enough.

What is happening is the reification of a civic conflict of the most fundamental order. We have for many years, in the talkative corners of the world, pretty much agreed not to emphasize in public the distinctive qualities of our own faith. The implication is that, just to begin with, there are no (important) differences between Protestants and Catholics. For reasons bloodily baptized in World War II, we threw in the Jews -- no differences, really. This didn't mean that there could not be a survival of Jewish theology, or seminaries devoted to explaining and glorifying the Dominican understanding of the deity. But it was saying something on the order of: We pledge the freedom of religious practice and admire those institutions working along similar lines to our own.

What John McCain said on the Beliefnet program was not quite in line with this orthodoxy. He recognized this almost immediately and took the opportunity to retrench. He resorted to the First Amendment parachute, which is that Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor denying to anyone the free practice thereof.

Analyses have been written, but not I think pondered by civil servants, that one way to ignore religion is to deprive it of singular meaning. When the Mormons decided in the 19th century that polygamy was required by their religion, prosecutors in various places worked to stamp out the practice. But as time went on, interest in the remaining polygamists died down -- at least until a Mormon, Mitt Romney, declared for president.

It is all very well for Sen. McCain to say that he would have no problem voting for a Muslim for president if he or she was the best candidate. Surely qualifications need to be placed on such effusions of equality. Would it violate the First Amendment for a state to ordain that any Muslim running for public office would have to endorse votes for women? Would have to abjure the commandment that any Muslim defector be executed?

Christianity is supposed to be a way of life, and it was a way of life that Sen. McCain initially spoke of in his Beliefnet interview. Islam is a way of life -- there is nothing in Islam excepting a way of life. We're at about the point when Christians have to admit that we were there when they crucified Our Lord.

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: Giuliani Aide Tout Rudy's Electability

By PHILIP ELLIOTT – 3 hours ago
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Go home, Mitt Romney. Give it up, Fred Thompson. And John McCain, you missed your chance. In a memo and electoral maps — designed to show perceived strengths and play down others' potential — Republican Rudy Giuliani's campaign tells voters there is only one alternative to a second Clinton administration.

No surprise: It's Giuliani.

"There is no candidate that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats fear more in the general election than Rudy Giuliani," Giuliani strategist Brent Seaborn wrote to supporters Tuesday.

And he says recent poll numbers show Giuliani will be the strongest Republican candidate in the general election. A series of maps comparing how Giuliani would fare against Clinton, compared with his Republican rivals, support Giuliani's electability, he argues.

One hypothetical electoral map gives the former New York mayor a guaranteed 210 electoral votes against Clinton, 60 short of what's needed to become president.

Seaborn maintains that if Giuliani and Clinton go head-to-head in November 2008, Clinton will be guaranteed wins in only Massachusetts and Vermont, and will have to devote resources in traditionally Democratic-leaning state and less time in states like Nevada, Colorado and Iowa.
"If Rudy is the nominee, Democrats will be forced to spend money in California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Washington — states that they have spent almost no money in over the last few election cycles," Seaborn writes.
A Clinton spokeswoman dismissed the Giuliani campaign's analysis. Polls show Clinton leading Giuliani in many states in head-to-head contests, including their shared home state of New York.

"What we're seeing across the country and in New York is that Hillary Clinton continues to beat Rudy Giuliani because he continues to embrace the failed policies of the Bush administration," Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said.

Giuliani's prediction in a Romney-Clinton match assures Republicans a failure even if Romney turns every swing state projected in that scenario, the Giuliani memo maintains.
A Romney spokeswoman said voters will turn away from Giuliani when they look at the mayor's complete record.

"We're going to make the case to voters that Governor Romney is the best candidate who can unite the party with a focus on fiscal conservatism, strong national security policies and strong families," said," said Romney spokeswoman Sarah Pompei.

Giuliani continues to see strong national name identification. He appears about even with Romney in key voting states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. But Seaborn focuses on a general-election strategy.

The strategist goes on to predict Sen. John McCain's recent uptick has reached its end after a disastrous stretch of lackluster fundraising and staff departures.
"Senator McCain has rebounded from his summer lows but seems to have a limited potential for growth," Seaborn writes, despite a new poll in New Hampshire that shows a close, three-way race for the nomination.

A McCain spokeswoman said Giuliani misunderstands the electoral map.
"John McCain's strong grassroots campaign is clearly gaining momentum," said spokeswoman Crystal Benton. "His consistent conservative record, unmatched experience and demonstrated broad appeal make John McCain the best candidate to win in the general election."
Seaborn was less kind to another GOP rival.

"We have yet to see if Fred Thompson will try to compete as a regional or a national candidate," he writes. A Thompson spokesman did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: Tension Between Legislature, State School Board Grows

Last Edited: Tuesday, 02 Oct 2007, 7:11 PM MDT
Created: Tuesday, 02 Oct 2007, 7:11 PM MDT

SALT LAKE CITY -- By BROCK VERGAKIS
Associated Press Writer

A lawmaker seems even more committed to getting school districts to consider a year-round calendar, after a state school board member said the proposed remedy to Utah's teacher shortage is "a little bit in dreamland."

The rift highlights the growing tension between the Republican-dominated Legislature and the nonpartisan state Board of Education, a conflict that erupted when the board refused to implement private-school vouchers while the legality of the program was uncertain.

The latest dispute comes over a plan designed to increase teacher salaries, attract more people into the profession and send high-school graduates out earlier -- all without raising taxes.

The proposal by a Washington School District official in southwestern Utah is embraced by Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, co-chairman of a committee that focuses on teacher shortages and compensation.

Under Lyle Cox's plan, schools would create a school calendar with three semesters. High-school students would pick at least two, but some could attend all three and graduate early. At the elementary level, students would attend three semesters but for half a day.

Teachers would earn about 60 percent more because they would be working more, Cox said.

Schools would be able to afford higher salaries because they would need fewer teachers. Classes would be smaller. In growing districts, money would be saved by using buildings all year instead of building new schools, Cox said.

"It seems to me to be a no-brainer," Stephenson said during a committee meeting last week.

But the details make the plan more difficult.

Cox's proposal depends on an equal number of high-school students in each semester. Some might be forced to attend during a semester they don't want. Students who take Advanced Placement courses could go months between the end of class and their national exams.

Parents of younger children would have to give up traditional summer breaks, and teachers would have to be willing to work more hours.

"The Lyle Cox model is a little bit in dreamland. We need to use realism," school board member Debra Roberts said. "Yes, it might be very good for five districts, but we have 40 districts. ... I think even Lyle himself would say there are problems with this model."

Cox doesn't dispute that more work needs to be done with his proposal. It also needs a public-relations campaign, he said Tuesday.

"The only way you can really do it is to change a mindset that's been around for years and look at this in a totally different way -- and that's not easy," he said.

Stephenson and committee co-chairman Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, are livid with Roberts for her comments during the hearing.

"What I'm learning is that the die-hard education advocates have a different goal than the public. Their goal seems to be simply to get more money as opposed to using that money efficiently," Stephenson said.

"When a proposal will improve teacher pay, improve productivity, increase the use of our school buildings and actually reduce the need for additional buildings, the education community is suddenly cold to the idea and instead pushes proposals to raise taxes and increase spending," he said.

Roberts, however, didn't propose higher taxes and didn't say she was opposed to testing the year-round calendar.

She said she didn't think it was a good statewide model, particularly in low-growth, rural districts where cost savings would be difficult to achieve. Roberts said there would be additional costs, such as air conditioning in the summer and maintenance work at night.

Phone messages left for Roberts were not returned Tuesday.

Hughes said he didn't know if Roberts' comments were the result of bad blood between the school board and Legislature.

"I thought some of her comments were inappropriate for constructive dialogue," he said. "Reform in public education does not come easily. When you even explore radical changes or different ideas, there's an inherent opposition to that."

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: Vouchers may boost turnout, upset races

Analysis
Vouchers may boost turnout, upset races
By Steve Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 10/02/2007 01:19:34 AM MDT

This could have been a boring election year. No presidential vote. No gubernatorial chase. No congressional clash. Not even a legislative duel. Sure, there is a mayor's race in Salt Lake City, but no Rocky Anderson on the ballot. On its face, the Nov. 6 election - focused mainly on low-profile, nonpartisan city runoffs - would seem like a time voters might stay home in droves and wait for 2008. But then there is that whole education thing: the statewide voucher skirmish and the potential breakup of Utah's largest school district. How might those big issues - with big money behind them and potentially even bigger impacts on the future of schools - affect council contests in, say, Herriman or Holladay? "The good news about the vouchers, and all the money going into it, is that it will absolutely increase voter turnout," said Kirk Jowers, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. "Odd election years are always difficult to get people out, as opposed to a presidential election year like 2008, which should be an exciting year. "So the real question is: Who does it turn out?" Help or hurt incumbents?

Some voters could show up at the polls determined to cast their "yea" or "nay" on vouchers or the proposed east-side split of the Jordan School District only to be surprised by a list of no-name council candidates. These voters could leave those ballot spots blank or, more likely, they could make random selections. That, in theory, could hand challengers a boost over incumbents. "It may be marginal," Jowers said, "but I think the lesser-known candidates are much more likely to be inadvertently impacted by the voucher turnout." Jowers said incumbents especially could falter if too many voucher-focused voters cast ballots in council races. "Sure, the incumbents should have an advantage on name ID, but, the truth is, a lot of these new voters may not even recognize the incumbent candidates below the office of mayor," he said. "The less known the candidates, the more possibility for surprise." Brigham Young University political scientist Kelly Patterson isn't so sure. "Incumbents possess a great deal of advantages in these elections," he said. "Even with this kind of issue [vouchers] on the ballot, it's still hard for challengers to break through. It shouldn't dramatically alter that dynamic." So, added Patterson, whether turnout is 25 percent or 35 percent, the results would tend to favor the same kinds of candidates. Weighty side issues won't necessarily change the winners, just the number of votes they get. "Generally speaking," Patterson said, "the individuals most likely to vote in off-year elections . . . would have a higher level of education, higher level of income, more leisure time and a higher level of political interest and knowledge." University of Utah political scientist Matthew Burbank said it is difficult to predict how vouchers and the proposed district split will affect the fall balloting since both issues were absent from the Sept. 11 primary. "I'm not sure it has a clear, decided impact on any candidate," he said. "There's no partisan campaign, so indeed there is an advantage to incumbents due to name recognition. But, on the other hand, there won't be a huge effect because if you're motivated to go vote, it's probably because you really feel strongly about vouchers. And that's an indication you're pretty well informed." Grass-roots campaigning Jowers noted most council candidates don't have the money to microtarget specific populations, so their strategies probably will come down to the basics: knocking on doors. "Candidates are going to want that favorable name ID," he said, "when these new voters start marking the ballot on things other than the vouchers." And that's exactly what the candidates are doing - at least in West Jordan, where voters will say whether they want vouchers and whether they want to establish their own citywide school district. While District 4 council candidates Clive Killpack and incumbent Lyle Summers aren't taking formal positions on the district split, both are welcoming an expected influx of voters and using their normal strategies to maximize their name recognition. "I've been using door hangers and have made sure people who vote on every election get a mailer or two from me," Killpack said. "I guess being listed first on the ballot does have its advantages, but I'm just hoping the people will have the chance to read the material they get and vote intelligently." Summers agreed - the more voters the merrier. "I have name recognition, and there's the fact that I've got a good campaign planned for the rest of the season," Summers said. "It'll reach a lot of people, and I think the more that come, the better chances I will have." Ballot drop-off In the past, Jowers said, political strategists have taken advantage of headline-grabbing referendums to demand attention, diverting it from controversial politicians who get re-elected by a burst of single-minded voters. "Both parties know there are certain issues that motivate certain segments of the public to get out and vote and become active in elections," he said. "And a lot of these issues hit more of the fringes of their parties, but these are people who are typically pretty reliable to vote straight ticket for one party or another." Patterson said some council races could be affected, but usually "one-issue voters are single-issue voters - they often don't participate where they don't have a lot of information." That, he said, could lead to hefty "ballot drop-off," leaving a large gap in the number of voters who speak up on the voucher issue versus those who weigh in on down-ballot council races. Burbank says the idea of single-issue voters is misleading. ''People who vote are almost never motivated solely by a single issue," he said. ''But this could motivate people who are not that interested in the candidate elections, but would be very interested in the voucher issue or school-district split.'' He said committed voters typically show up in off-year elections. But this fall could see a surge in sporadic voters, casting ballots in races they know little or nothing about.

''They'll figure, 'I might as well vote for them while I'm here,' '' Burbank said. ''But it's not clear who that will benefit.'' sgehrke@sltrib.com

Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program

Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program

Posted by Connor on September 28th, 2007Perhaps the most divisive political topic in Utah over the past few months has been the issue of state-sponsored educational vouchers. Lawmakers, organizations, reporters, and bloggers have all been sounding off in an attempt to sway voters to their side. In the commotion, facts have been glossed over, propaganda has been hyped up, money has been thrown at advertising both sides, and people on both sides have dug in their heels for the upcoming battle at the ballot in November.But which side is right? Should Utahns pass the voucher bill this fall or not?The basic facts of the voucher program are as follows:

Read Full Story: http://vouchernews.blogspot.com/2007/10/weighing-in-on-utah-voucher-program.html

Former LA Mayor Backs Giuliani

Former LA Mayor Backs Giuliani
By ROBERT JABLON – 4 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president Friday, then suggested the one-time New York mayor is too liberal for conservative voters in the California primary.

Riordan, a moderate Republican who was elected to two terms as Los Angeles mayor, spoke as Giuliani campaigned in the city and visited Riordan's famed restaurant, The Pantry.
"Rudy Giuliani is too liberal for the solid, right-wing Republicans in California, that part of the party," Riordan said. "But I do believe, when it comes to the presidency and the national election, these people may put that apart and look at him as the type of leader our country needs."

Riordan said some conservative voters "are going to have litmus tests on everything from gun control to abortion to other things. He's going to be hurt there."
The key for Giuliani, according to Riordan, is to emphasize how his experience as New York mayor would make him a good president.

"He did a fabulous job running New York City and of course in 9-11 he showed that he has the feel of a great leader," Riordan said.

During a campaign stop, Giuliani faced questions as to why he skipped a debate Thursday focused on minority issues. He said that he would like to do away with all planned debates and focus on fundraising because the Democrats are doing better.

"I get invitations to a dozen debates" and cannot make all of them, Giuliani said.
The top four Republican presidential candidates — Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney — cited scheduling conflicts in declining to attend the debate.
Other GOP candidates criticized the decision, with Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback calling it "a disgrace to our country."

Giuliani said he attended events that had been planned weeks and months in advance. He also said he would rather not take part in any debates to focus on raising funds to fight the Democratic presidential contender next year.

"Their fundraising has been phenomenal. And ours has been good, compared on prior models, but we still haven't stepped up to the kind of fundraising they're doing," Giuliani said.
Combined, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have raised more than $100 million. Giuliani has raised more than $33 million, with the third-quarter fundraising deadline ending Sunday.

The Current Opinion Of Fred Thompson

U.S.A 9/27/2007 2:37 AM GMT (FINDITT - Top Story)

With the late start of his run as president, Fred Thompson has certainly raised a few eyebrows and created some late night banter for television hosts. Though this has ruffled feathers amongst other presidency candidates it is not that big of a concern to the American people. With a fresh face to political polls and a well-known presence as an actor on the hit television show “Law and Order”, Fred Thompson is already been in the public eye.

With a current rating of 20% in a USA Today/ Gallup Poll on http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ and other public opinion statistics Fred Thompson is either liked by the American people or voters are still unsure. A recent chart found on CNN.com shows that 32% of people find Thompson to be favorable. He is seen, as Unfavorable by 21% and 47% are unsure. The former Tennessee senator understands the disconnection between the people of this country and Washington.

With a well known presence as an actor and solid connections as a former senator Fred Thompson may be what the voters of today are looking for. With voters having lost confidence in the administration and the desperation for change, Fred Thompson may be the change that the American people need. If he continues to be unique in his approach and true to himself and the American people, great things may be in store for this long awaited desire for change and truth. Perhaps we will find a president who means what he says and doesn’t just speak of change but follows through.

Campaigns prepare for big spending spree

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 25, 4:13 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Presidential campaigns are hoarding money for a coming advertising blitz — mostly in Iowa and New Hampshire — during the final three months of the year on airwaves already saturated with candidate commercials.

The candidates are in the midst of a last-minute fundraising push, eager to have significant amounts of cash on hand by Sunday, the end of the third quarter and a milestone for measuring financial strength.

The first two quarters of the year, a gauge of fundraising and organizational ability, saw the leading candidates raise whopping sums and build vast networks of donors. But the next three months will be big-spending ones. How much candidates have in the bank will signal how well positioned they are to compete.

"The bigger the wallet the more spots you'll be able to buy," said Evan Tracey, who tracks political advertising as chief operating officer for TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Popular air time for ads is local newscasts, but it's too early yet for candidates to lock in their advertising slots. Campaigns that are advertising have placed orders only through the beginning of October.

So far, Democrats have been more aggressive at using the airwaves.
Altogether, Barack Obama leads the field with more than $2.7 million in ad spending in Iowa alone, according to data compiled by other presidential campaigns. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has spent nearly $2 million and Hillary Rodham Clinton has spent more than a $1 million. Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards also have aired ads.

Mitt Romney is the only Republican to buy television time. He has spent more than $6 million, with at least $2.7 million in Iowa and $1.7 million in New Hampshire, according to totals compiled by Tracey. Those numbers will increase as a result of new buys of air time in the two states through Oct. 2. Romney also is buying time in Florida and South Carolina and has spent at least $2 million on national advertising.

His advertising has largely been underwritten by his own wealth. The former Massachusetts governor, who has said his assets are worth between $190 million and $250 million, pumped nearly $9 million into his campaign in the first six months of the year and has said he has lent it more this quarter.

Lately, Romney has been branding himself as the scold of the Republican Party, calling in one ad for the GOP to embrace lower spending, higher ethics and tough immigration policies. He sits atop the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, though nationally he trails Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain.

Calculated attack ads by candidates seeking to shake up the field are likely in the next three months.
"The thing about the Republican side of the coin is that virtually every single one of the candidates has a glass jaw," said GOP pollster and strategist Tony Fabrizio. "The question becomes when the punches start flying who is the guy who's going to be able to put back together his glass jaw."

McCain, trying to rebound from a dismal second quarter, is likely to devote his money to New Hampshire, where he won the presidential primary in 2000 and remains popular. But he is up against Romney and Giuliani, both of whom lead him in statewide polls. What's more, his bank ledger needs to be in the black.

McCain's fundraising has not met expectations, and exorbitant spending left the Vietnam veteran's campaign all but broke by July.
"McCain needs to show that he has stabilized his spending and that he can still afford a middle seat on a commercial airline," said Scott Reed, a GOP strategist who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.

Giuliani and Thompson might advertise in Iowa or New Hampshire to stay close to Romney. But they also are counting on later primaries.
Thompson is banking on South Carolina and Florida. Giuliani is looking to Florida and the Feb. 5 primaries in expensive media states like California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York.
"A lot of that would be spent after Jan. 1, because even if you had $20 million cash on hand, those states eat up a million dollars a week or two million," Fabrizio said.

Democrats, on the other hand, are pouring resources into the early states, a sign that only more will come.
Obama has outspent every other candidate in the field in Iowa, but Clinton sits atop various state polls with Obama and Edwards close behind. Richardson's ad spending has pulled him out of obscurity and into fourth place there.

Clinton has used her recently released health care plan to cast herself as an agent of change and get out from under the cloud of the failed health plan she championed in 1993-1994. In an ad now airing in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton portrays that debacle as a turning point that "changed our thinking."

Obama has countered with his own health ad and has issued calls for public empowerment that evoke the failed 2003-2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean.
Edwards, meanwhile, hasn't spent much on advertising in Iowa, though he campaigned there more than any other candidate. He came in second in the caucuses in 2004, behind John Kerry. A well-timed ad blitz could give him a surge.

Obama and Clinton, the top fundraisers in the entire presidential field, can afford to spend plenty in the state. But Iowa is crucial to Edwards and Richardson, and Dodd and Biden would need strong showings there to remain viable.

"The candidates who are making Iowa their first and last stand are all going to want to make their one spot count," Tracey said. "Some of the time that everybody wants is going to be a little bit harder to get."

Link to Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ads_money

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: EIA on Covering Teachers Unions: Close But Not a Full Cigar

A Very interesting article and was released by the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media. Titled From Contracts to Classrooms: Covering Teachers Unions, the 40-page study is a primer for education journalists on the ins and outs of reporting about teachers' unions. Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Largely written by Joe Williams of The Chalkboard, with enlightening contributions from others in the field, the report is filled with excellent tips, quotes, anecdotes and shortcuts – just the right kind of approach to interest a new journalist a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of digging through collective bargaining agreements and contract negotiations. But there are tidbits for the rest of us, too:

Read the full story: http://vouchernews.blogspot.com/2007/09/eia-on-covering-teachers-unions-close.html

Voucher debate gives taste of both sides

Voucher debate gives taste of both sides
Doug Radunich
25.SEP.07

BOUNTIFUL — Davis County residents became well informed on both sides of the voucher issue at the Bountiful City Library last Thursday, as Leah Barker and Joel Briscoe battled head-to-head against one another over the school voucher program awaiting voter approval on Nov. 6.The “Debate on Referendum 1” was presented by the United Women’s Forum and featured a two-hour-long debate between Barker, a pro-voucher spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education, and Briscoe, a Bountiful High School Teacher siding against vouchers.

United Women’s Forum member Debra Poulsen gave the welcome and introduction, and Lauralee Christensen served as the moderator. By way of a coin toss, Briscoe began the debate by mentioning he wanted to stress three things in his debate, which were the affordability, accountability and advisability of the voucher bill. “For a voucher, people would receive $500-$3,000, but the average price of a private school education is $8,000, so how will some families cover the cost?” Briscoe said. “There are very little accountability measures in HB 148.”Barker said vouchers would help public schools, put parents in the “driver’s seat” and be able to choose what’s best for their children, and turn parents into customers, meaning they could give their children a good education even if they lived in a low-income neighborhood with poor-performing schools. “I’m convinced that vouchers will serve as a lifeline for an equal playing field, where not just the rich will have access to a good education,” she said. “If you can’t afford a good education and you’re stuck in a low performing school because of your zip code, the voucher bill can be the solution. Utah also has the highest class sizes and the lowest per pupil funding in the nation, but Referendum 1, the voucher bill, will actually increase per-pupil funding.” Barker, who now lives in Sandy, also mentioned how she lived in Rose Park (part of Salt Lake City’s west side) for a long time and saw how many students there, mostly low-income or minority, were not making it to college or graduating from high school. She said vouchers would give kids from that area, as well as others from elsewhere in Salt Lake County, the opportunity to go to a school that could help them more effectively in receiving a good education and getting on their way to college.“There are parents out there who will sell their car, work an extra job or will do whatever it takes to make sure their kids have a good education because they know they’re not going to make it in life without one, so this program is for those parents feeling trapped, desperate and like they’re randomly assigned by zip code to a low-performing school,” she said. “Every child has to have good access to a good education, and with $3,000, vouchers can go a long way and provide so many options. Parents need to be in the driver’s seat, and there are research studies out there to show that this program is great.”Briscoe pointed out that some private schools may not say yes to accepting all students with vouchers, or that some may not even accept vouchers.“Some may discriminate against students based on religion, ability to pay, English proficiency and other things like that,” he said. “The money to pay for vouchers also comes from your taxes, and the high and middle class families are the ones who benefit the most. The stakeholders in all this are the children involved, parents and families, schools, both public and private, and the taxpayers and society in general.”After the debaters had said what they wanted, a number of questions were asked toward them and answered appropriately; to close the debate, both Barker and Briscoe contributed final summations on where they stood and why. “Vouchers are really all about parent choice, and no amount of money that the NEA (National Education Association) brings into Utah will be enough money to convince Utah parents that they’re not smart enough to choose a good education for their kids,” Barker said. “This is what this is all about, and to me it’s pretty critical. The attendance tonight was amazing, with us running out of seats and making people have to stand in the back, and I think that right there was a testament of just how much parents care deeply about education, regardless of which side they stand on.”Briscoe was also pleased with the amount of people who came, and was also thankful for the United Women’s Forum for putting on the debate.“We don’t do enough of these kinds of things as citizens, and I think it’s a more constructive way to get a point across than using radio or TV ads,” he said. “The face to face contact is much better, and I’d say these public meetings are also better than using the Internet to find information. I’d be happy to talk about this more in future meetings because it’s something I believe so strongly in.”

dradunich@davisclipper.com
http://www.clippertoday.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=23170&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1005&hn=clippertoday&he=.com

Supreme Court to Hear Voter ID Case: Supporters Say Law Combats Fraud; Others Charge It Unfairly Impacts Poor,Minorities

Supporters Say Law Combats Fraud; Others Charge It Unfairly Impacts Poor, Minorities
(ABCNEWS)

By DENNIS POWELL
Sept. 25, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case that will raise the question of whether requiring a voter to have a government-issued photo ID will unfairly impact poor and minority voters.

A federal appeals court upheld a 2005 Indiana law that would require all voters to show ID before being able to vote. Judge Richard Posner said it would be impossible for a person to exist in society today without an ID, saying, "Try flying or entering a tall building."

The National Committee on Election Reform said that 6 to 10 percent of eligible voters don't have valid IDs -- perhaps as many as 20 million Americans. Most of them are poor, getting by with no identification at all. They don't drive, they don't have bank accounts and they don't fly.
Only a few states have voter identification laws but the Indiana Democratic Party -- one of the petitioners -- said that Indiana's requirements are the most restrictive.

To get an ID in the state, you must have a validated birth certificate and two other forms of identification. An Indiana state employee has testified that as many as 60 percent of applicants for IDs are turned away because of improper documentation.

Those arguing for the voter identification law say that they are concerned about inflated voter registration lists and nationwide reports of in-person voter fraud.

They cite a 2000 Indianapolis Star report that found 300 dead people on the registered voter list, though there is no evidence of anyone having been prosecuted for impersonating a registered voter.

An article in the Michigan Law Review said that the number of voters that would fail to show up with IDs would be several times higher than the number of fraudulent voters.

Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union, who will argue the case before the court, asked, "Why are we imposing these restrictions on a minority group, when there is no evidence of voter fraud?" The ACLU's petition can be viewed by clicking here.

Full Article: http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3648184&page=1

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: Sutherland Institute Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Katie Christensen, Sutherland Institute
kchristensen@sutherlandinstitute.org
(801) 355-1272


Data Shows Utah’s Private Schools are as Diverse as Public Schools

Current Voucher Programs Helping Struggling Minority Students Most

Salt Lake City, UT – September 25, 2007 – Independent research conducted by the non-profit Sutherland Institute shows that Utah’s private schools are as broadly diverse as its public schools. Considering the students that vouchers are primarily intended to serve – low-income and minority students – the Institute anticipates that private schools are likely to become even more diverse if HB148 becomes law.

“Our survey results, collected from more than 60 private schools around the state, found no significant difference in racial diversity between private and public schools,” said Derek Monson, Sutherland Institute policy analyst.

Actual minority enrollment as a percentage of total student body for the 2006-2007 school year was 24.5 percent for voucher-eligible private schools and 24.8 percent for public schools. The federal data from 2003 shows Utah’s private schools have a slightly higher proportion of minority students compared to the public school system.

“A common misperception we hear is that vouchers will lead to segregation,” said Monson. “The data shows this is not true. Wherever voucher policy has been implemented in the U.S., low-income, struggling minority students – not affluent white students – are the ones leaving public schools and switching over to the private alternative. This trend suggests that private schools will only become more diverse with the implementation of HB 148.”

Carmen Torres, a single mother of three from West Valley, noticed how quickly her children were assimilated into their private school in Park City. “My oldest daughter was very nervous about attending a private school because she is shy and was worried if she would fit in as a Hispanic. But her worries were erased after just one day at the school. In fact, all three of my children feel much more comfortable at private schools, because they feel accepted for who they are and have many friends.”

The Missing Voucher Column - Choice: A Fundamental Freedom

Recent Post from
Utah Rattler
September 25, 2007
The Missing Voucher Column
Filed under: Education — utahrattler @ 11:38 am
For some unknown reason, the column (”A Minute For Parents”, September 11, 2007) is not available on the Clipper website (all of Ms. Hamilton’s other columns are, however). So here’s her column:

Choice is a fundamental freedom. In November you get to vote for or against the voucher system. I guess you have to decide if you want to be in charge of your children or if you want the Board of Education and the Utah Education Association in charge of your children’s school environment and education. Frankly, I have more confidence in you – not because public schools are not doing an excellent job in most instances, but because children don’t all fit into the same category.

I had a single mother friend whose oldest boy entered junior high in Davis County and started running with friends she did not approve of. She wisely pulled him out of the public school and put him into a private school. He stayed there two years and then when she put him back into the public school, he did just fine. I can’t imagine how she did it financially.

This parent saw a need and somehow scrounged up the money to solve it. In my opinion we need to vote for vouchers and allow parents to choose the most appropriate educational setting for each of their children. In the vast majority of cases parents will choose a public school. However, we all know children who march to a different drummer and need something that the public schools can’t provide, whether it be more discipline, a more challenging environment for high achievers, a new approach for low achievers or a way to get children away from the “wrong crowd,” whether that be drugs, gangs or for moral reasons.

I personally know educators in high places who are very much for the voucher program. A Utah State University study estimated that this arrangement would potentially save the state more than $1 billion over 13 years. That money could be used to increase public school spending and help fund the education of the 150,000+ new students projected to enter Utah’s schools in the next decade. Parents need to understand that even though a child attends a private school under the voucher system, about $2,500 will go to the public school allowing more funds for the school to use on the students who are there.

It is parents who have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children. It is constitutional. See Utah Constitution Article X, Section 2 where it says, “The public education system shall include all public elementary and secondary schools and such other schools and programs as the Legislature may designate.”

The number of children attending Utah charter schools has doubled nearly every year since 2002, and school enrollment will have grown from 537 students in 2001 to an estimated 20,000 in 2007, with thousands more on waiting lists. This shows parental desire for something different than the public schools can offer.

There is accountability in the voucher program. It is scaled as to household income and household size. Participating private schools must use testing, have teachers with specified education, disclose accreditation status and be audited. Money is given directly to the school and there are other regulations. It disturbs me when I read that this is not true.
Again, the school system offers a great education for a lot of students, and I believe they will continue to do so, but I believe concerned parents need other alternatives. In other states, the whole system improves when competition is a factor.

For more information see http://www.choiceineducation.org/.
Kim Burningham, the state BOE chair recently responded to the column (you’ll note that his long response is available on the website) . For the most part, Burningham runs the same, tired arguments illustrated in “Nanny State Knows Best?“.

Burningham starts by saying that vouchers won’t help choice as no one will afford the private schools anyway. I bet the single mother illustrated above begs to differ as do many of us who’ve actually bothered to call private schools to inquire about their tuition rates. Burningham also makes a poor assumption that private and public educational facilities will remain static ignoring the law of supply and demand by also stating that there aren’t very many private schools. With demand, the supply will go up and tuition rates will decrease as supply increases. I find it very likely, that the supply will be naturally biased to those in low to middle incomes as they hold the greatest amount of funding opportunity for a private school and are the emerging market - the high income market has already been met (no new growth opportunity there).
Burningham also tries to hit the “accountability” argument by focusing on government programs/methods, again, indicating that he puts more weight on a bureaucrat/big company/third party analysis over the judgment of the child’s parent (see: “Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor” and “Parents Know Their Children Best“).

On the lighter side, I found a couple of funny comments in his letter. First, is the argument that private schools will only take good, able bodied students and leave the physically challenged etc in the public schools. Maybe he should check out the Carson-Smith Scholarship which the “education union” opposed. Check out the “student eligibility requirements”, the voucher amount, and list of private schools. Note: Carson-Smith is taxpayer (NOT private) money. Carson-Smith was passed in early 2005. This also goes back to the supply and demand stuff I mentioned above. Second, I chuckled at his ‘limited enrollment slots” and “preferred children” (siblings) line. Charter Schools have limited enrollment slots and enrolled siblings make it much more likely that their siblings will be accepted. Schools also have limited slots for transferring students (but usually aren’t exceeded, I believe).

Ok. I’ll quit there, this is long enough. Again, the bottom line is parents will make the best decision for their child’s education and are the superior auditor.

Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

September 25, 2007
Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance
By Cal Thomas

I would not be as bothered by Columbia University's decision to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Columbia and other universities had a consistent policy toward those they invite to speak and the rules applied equally to conservatives and liberals; to totalitarian dictators and to advocates for freedom and tolerance.

Any conservative who has ever tried, or actually succeeded, in speaking on the campus of predominately liberal academic institutions knows it can resemble to some extent the struggle experienced by African Americans when they attempted to desegregate lunch counters in the South during the civil rights movement.

In the 1980s, I spoke at universities from Smith College in the East to the University of California at Davis in the West. At Smith, lesbians sat in the front row kissing each other while the rest of the crowd shouted so loud no one could hear me (NPR's Nina Totenberg witnessed the riotous behavior, prompting me to remark, "I hope you're getting this on tape, Nina, because this is what liberals mean by tolerance.").

Former U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo has been among the chroniclers of the demise of free speech on many college campuses. Writing in last winter's issue of the publication City Journal, Leo noted that Columbia University officials prevented a large crowd from hearing Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who is now an anti-jihadist. The reason given was security, which as Leo pointed out is a frequent excuse for restricting speech. Had Shoebat remained a PLO terrorist, Columbia might have allowed the students in, because anti-Jewish rhetoric of the kind Ahmadinejad delivers always seems welcome on too many campuses. Only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to hear Shoebat speak.

Why would Columbia expect Ahmadinejad to answer what they promised in advance would be "tough" questions? Have they not seen him interviewed by America's best reporters? He doesn't answer questions. He uses the interviews to lecture America and make his propaganda points. The exercise is useless, except to him because he scores points at home for standing up to "the Great Satan," or whatever the preferred term du jour for the United States is at the moment.
Last October at Columbia, a mob of students stormed a stage, curtailing speeches by two members of the anti-illegal immigration group known as the Minutemen. The students shouted "They have no right to speak," which was revealing, given the "academic freedom" argument that is used to defend liberal professors and their frequent anti-American rants when conservatives attempt to shut them up.

As John Leo wrote, "Campus opponents of (Rep.) Tom Tancredo, an illegal immigration foe, set off fire alarms at Georgetown to disrupt his planned speech, and their counterparts at Michigan State roughed up his student backers. Conservative activist David Horowitz, black conservative Star Parker, and Daniel Pipes, an outspoken critic of Islamism, frequently find themselves shouted down or disrupted on campus." The number of instances involving censorship of conservatives on college campuses and denial of honorary degrees to people who don't toe the liberal line could fill a book.

There is something else about Columbia's decision to admit Ahmadinejad and that is the notion that by exposing a tyrant and religious fanatic to a liberal arts campus -- a man who believes he has been "called" to usher in Armageddon -- might make him less genocidal and students and the rest of us more understanding. We understand he and his legion of murdering thugs wish to kill us and are contributing to the death of Americans in Iraq. What part of mass murder do they not understand at Columbia, or don't they have time to study history these days?
Ahmadinejad is probably using his visit to case our country, like a bank robber does before a big heist.

Before we allow more of our enemies into America and give them a freedom unknown in their own countries, we should at least demand reciprocity. Their president gets to speak in America? Our president gets to speak in Iran.

Their president has access to our media? Our president should have access to their media. And while we're at it, how about for every liberal who gets to speak on campus, the school must also invite a conservative.

CalThomas@tribune.com
(c) Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Another Nail in the Coffin

Another Nail in the Coffin
Posted Sep 24th 2007 6:36AM by NixGuy
Filed under: President 2008, Money Trail, John McCain

With apologies to "Star Trek," let me just say this about John McCain's presidential aspirations: "It's dead, Jim".Over the weekend, David Freddoso at NRO traveled to the Michigan GOP confab at Mackinac Island where just hours earlier John McCain lost his Michigan chairman. Yes they were both there:

If he intended to embarrass Sen. John McCain, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox could not really have done it more effectively than he has. His announcement Monday that he was stepping down as McCain's state chairman came just in time for this weekend's Republican retreat here, which every major GOP presidential candidate was scheduled to attend.That's a pretty big hit. Some of us recall that in 2000 John McCain won a surprising and huge victory in the Michigan primary If he has any hope at all (and he doesn't) he needs to do the same thing in 2008. That's not going to happen when your main man in Michigan decides to jump ship. But then again, McCain was able to convince a lot of Democrats and independents to come over and vote GOP (and for him) instead of the boring and decided Democratic nomination. This year, Hillary Clinton is not quite anointed yet, and Democrats will probably choose to vote on the Democratic side.See more at the Detroit News.

McCain still has some potent Republican fundraisers on his Michigan team, but many of them acknowledge that it's tough to excite donors to write checks.
He has lost his campaign plane and has to travel commercial, making him less mobile -- and less able to cram in fundraisers.

He has to fly commercial?! It's definitely over.

Oh-eight (D): The Hillary filibuster

Oh-eight (D): The Hillary filibuster
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:07 AM by Domenico MontanaroCategories: Democrats, 2008
CLINTON: The New York senator hit all the Sunday morning shows yesterday, including NBC’s Meet the Press. The Washington Post says that she “demonstrated a particularly senatorial skill: the art of the filibuster… Above all, though, in a morning of appearances that yielded virtually no news, Clinton illustrated her ability to talk. And talk. And talk.”
The New York Daily News called it “TV’s Tour de Hillary.” On Meet the Press, Clinton touted her ability to withstand Republicans’ “withering attacks.” “I think I've proven that I not only can survive them but surpass them," she said.
The Sunday New York Times had a CW-setting piece about Clinton's place in the campaign. "She has been challenged for fund-raising supremacy and news media attention by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina beat her to the punch in introducing big policy proposals. But nothing that her main rivals have done has so far has derailed Mrs. Clinton, leading them to begin rolling out aggressive new strategies aimed primarily at her, including courting black voters in South Carolina and stepping up attacks."

Full Story http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/24/376385.aspx

"It's All About the Union Stupid"

As was so aptly spoken in the Clinton/Bush battle for the White House, the focus of the voucher war has nothing to do with our kids education.

http://vouchernews.blogspot.com/

We All knew Holly Mullen was just a Teachers Union Hack, but to erase any doubts

From: Holly Mullen [mailto:hmullen@slweekly.com]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:41 AM
To: thenry@effwa.orgCc: alexockey@comcast.net
Subject: Op-ed: National Teachers' Union Fighting School Choice In Utah

Ms. Ockey:If you’re heart is aching so much for Utah’s school children should vouchers fail, why don’t you move back here where you “return every year” and work to improve our schools?

I find it greatly ironic that you are chastising the NEA and teachers unions as “outsiders.” In what category would you put yourself?Thanks but no thanks. I’m a newspaper editor, with children in Utah’s public schools. I will gladly vote against vouchers come November. I believe in democracy and I believe in putting ALL my tax dollars into public schools.

Holly Mullen
EditorSalt Lake City Weekly

Here was the Op-Ed
http://vouchernews.blogspot.com/2007/09/national-teachers-union-fighting-school.html

Top Hillary Clinton backer rips Rudy Giuliani's personal life

Top Hillary Clinton backer rips Rudy Giuliani's personal life
Thursday, September 20th 2007, 4:00 AM

Hillary Clinton has avoided taking potshots at Rudy Giuliani's personal life - but one of her top boosters last night showed no such restraint.
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack went off on Rudy Giuliani's family foibles in a televised interview, saying Giuliani has "lots of issues" voters may not know about - yet.
"I can't even get into the number of marriages, [and] the relationship he has with his children," Vilsack said on New York 1, describing the ex-mayor's past as "interesting."
Vilsack, who joined Team Clinton after abandoning his own presidential aspirations, was to appear at a Manhattan fund-raiser for Clinton last night.
The Giuliani campaign had no immediate comment.

Mark Towner's Spyglass Spots: Reductio ad NCLBsurdum

Reductio ad NCLBsurdum
Today's award goes to Roger Biles, chairman of Illinois State University's history department. Presented with the news that college students, including the ones at ISU, were deficient in their knowledge of U.S. history, Biles had this response:"He believes part of the problem is the No Child Left Behind Act put too much emphasis on students in elementary and high school doing well on multiple-choice standardized tests."How do we know that college students are deficient in their knowledge of U.S. history? You guessed it. They were given a 60-question multiple-choice standardized test.I encourage you to take the test yourself. It's not an easy one. I'm happy to report I scored a 54 out of 60 (90%).
Posted by Mike Antonucci on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 09:34 Permalink