Two Views on 'Ahnold' And California Recall
Regarding last week’s column ["Schwarzenegger’s California: No Longer Cutting Edge"], I am morally opposed to abortion, I am not goofy over the environment, I am against special rights for homosexuals, I am not anti-gun, but I will vote for Schwarzenegger because he can win!
It seems to me that Democrats seek office because they want to ride the gravy train; when they get into office, they pander to special interests to keep them there. And when there is a political crisis they close ranks and band together because they understand the importance of power. Without power one can do nothing.
Republicans like to ride the train, too, but that is not their only raison d’etre. Republicans are driven more by ego. They often have ideologies and visions. They think they have programs that will make the world a better place and consequently, make their names illustrious and prominent.
Unfortunately, Republicans fail to understand that you have to win before you can implement your programs.
Republican State Sen. Tom McClintock would make a fabulous governor, but he won’t win. Neither will Simon (aka Bob Dole). Keep in mind that "Ahnold" will not be going it alone.
He will be elected to get rid of the arrogant, sleeping, do-nothing dodos who have a Democratic stranglehold on this state; and he will have plenty of help from the likes of McClintock, Simon, Pete Wilson, Riordan-Republicans of all stripes-to do the job if they have the sense to join him and not factionalize, as has been their wont in the past.
This is no ordinary election. It is not about ideology, morality, or any other peripheral thing. It is about getting California back on track by attracting businesses, keeping the ones we have and not taxing the middle class out of existence. It is about 55 electoral votes and the White House in 2004.
You have to win; you have to get the power first, and then when you have that power, you can negotiate and persuade and educate about abortion and amendment rights and special interest rights and whatever else you want to do from a position of power.
Just read Mr. Gizzi’s article on the CRA endorsement of Tom McClintock ["California Republican Assembly Endorses McClintock"]. Good show (and it got me looking around your site for the first time-don’t know how I missed it).
My gut instincts as a Republican were to support Mr. McClintock but I was led down the primrose path to support Schwarzenegger because of the "he’s the only one who can win" logic. We do need a win, for God’s sake.
My perspective is a little skewed since I have lived in San Francisco for over a decade now (becoming a Republican only in 1994, thanks to Bill Clinton and the perfidious Democrats). Prior to that, I was a moderate Democrat, attorney and pro-tem judge from Simi Valley in Ventura County, Mr. McClintock’s home turf. I met Tom only once, and he was very young, but smart as could be, I liked him immediately, and couldn’t blow too many holes in his logic.
"Ahnold" has now opened my eyes. In one weekend, he turned me from a "hold your nose and vote for the Terminator" conservative, to an anti-Ahnold enthusiast. Three names, in rapid succession, did it. Buffett, Shriver and Lowe (Rob Lowe, for God’s sake?!).
I’m back where I belong-behind Tom McClintock. And to misquote the Bible, I would rather be a handmaid in the house of Tom McClintock than to reign with Ahnold in Sacramento.
Good article, Mr. Gizzi, and kudos (as they say in Hollywood) to the CRA.
On Violence, Expulsions And Educational Choice
You were kind to limit your observations only to reported crimes ["Depends on What the Meaning of ‘Expelled’ Is"]. I live in Los Angeles, and many incidents of violence and intimidation do not make it into the statistics. One basic problem is using expulsions as the definition of a high-risk school. This statistic is controlled by school administrators, whose interests are not to have their schools so designated.
This same desire to manipulate outcomes to the detriment of students is seen in the public school establishment (teachers and administrators) being opposed to real, objective measurement of what their kids are learning. Until these things are taken out of their hands, we will see no progress.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am an advocate of school choice. Public schools have no motivation to improve where meaningful steps run counter to incompetent teachers and over-abundant administrators. The current system has broken trust with the taxpayer, and only the marketplace will provide a suitable set of incentives for change.
Schlafly Exposes NEA’s Hidden Political Agenda
Phyllis Schlafly accurately reports ["NEA Gears Up To Elect Democrats"] that the National Education Association brass declared its hostile intentions toward No Child Left Behind (NCLB) at its recent New Orleans convention. Has the NEA had a change of heart, and flipped-flopped from its long advocacy of federal intervention in K-12 education?
Hardly. What bothers the teacher union bosses is that NCLB for the first time puts the power of the federal government on the side of parents instead of the education establishment.
If children are stuck in chronically failing government-run schools, parents are entitled to move their children to a better-performing public school (if one can be found) or to use their federal subsidy to purchase the services of a private tutor.
Thanks to NCLB, the bilingual/multicultural vested interests within Big Education no longer can contain limited-English-proficient (LEP) children in linguistic ghettos indefinitely. They must give parents annual reports on progress in teaching their children English and getting them into mainstream classrooms free of crippling labels.
NCLB also requires that schools put a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom by 2005. The NEA bigwigs don’t like that because NCLB will not judge teachers to be qualified according to how many credits they have racked up in schools of education run and accredited by educationist think-alikes
Instead, what will matter most is that the teachers know the subjects they will be teaching. That sensible approach is threatening to the NEA because more independent-minded teachers may come into education from liberal arts colleges or the working world, and they may rebel against being forced to join a monolithic union.
The NEA leaders are targeting those and other NCLB provisions because they sense their monopoly to be shaky and in danger of falling. About that, they are right.
Senior Fellow, Lexington Institute
Arlington, Va.
