Is the Editor at the Columbus Dispatch an idiot or a liar?
Hey Folks -
Whoever wrote the Dispatch editorial directly below must have been on drugs. Certainly he has a screw loose. The blatant insanity of his argument would shame a normal person into silence.
Basically, a woman running for the Columbus School Board, whose openly stated agenda meshes perfectly with the Republican agenda (AND that of the Dispatch), was not endorsed by the teachers’ union and was not funded by the Democratic party; and that infuriated the editor.
The woman’s clearly enunciated agenda supports Republican goals and tactics such as freezing salaries, privatizing (eliminating) union food and transportation jobs, eliminating seniority rights, and judging non-union charter schools superior to unionized public schools. The editorial calls all this “so-called" attacks on labor.
What in the world would the Dispatch consider “actual” attacks on labor? Even the woman’s husband, by her own admission, has said she behaves like a Republican.
The editorial claims it’s “Reprehensible” and "shameful" that Democrats chose not to fund a Republican. They furthermore claim that not supporting a Republican constitutes kowtowing to a union. In other words, not funding the campaign of a candidate focused on harming an important part of the Democratic constituency is “reprehensible.”
I guess the demented editor believes Democrats can best “demonstrate leadership” by funding Republicans.
Yes, a feeble attempt is made to justify this by claiming, “School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job,” but then they contradict themselves by deploring the fact that the Democrats won’t be including the Republican candidate on their Democratic sample ballots.
Ohio Supreme Court candidates are “nonpartisan” contestants, too. But anyone who thinks they are non-partisan races is deranged. The present (Republican) Chief Justice started his political career as a Columbus School Board member, and remember what wealthy Republicans tried to do to Justice Resnick.
As is their editorial practice, any interest other than their personal interest is labeled a “special interest”: “thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group.”
Well, it’s difficult for me to see why Democratic interests are any more “special interests” than are rich Republicans’ interests. Actually, it’s difficult for me to understand how an honest or sane person could have written such a clearly self-contradictory, irrational, and reprehensible editorial.
- Uke Man
Editorial: Reprehensible -
Rejection of school-board candidate is a shameful moment for Democrats, union
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Stephanie Groce was not the loser on Tuesday when the Franklin County Democratic Party kowtowed to the local teachers union and withdrew its endorsement of her for the Columbus Board of Education.
The biggest loser was the county party and its top officeholders, who had a chance to demonstrate leadership by standing on principle for an independent-minded and highly qualified candidate. Instead those leaders caved cravenly.
The other loser was the Columbus Education Association, which nakedly illustrated that the union's top priority is not the welfare of students but the protection of its members against any demand for accountability and fiscal responsibility within the Columbus City Schools.
As the district contemplates asking voters next year to approve an operating levy and, possibly, a bond issue for building new schools, this is a terrible message for teachers to send to taxpayers.
Union leaders are angry that Groce, an incumbent, would consider freezing teachers' salaries and privatizing food service and transportation as ways to help the district live within its means and adjust to the loss of revenue that has occurred as thousands of students have fled to charter schools.
County Democrats used these so-called attacks on labor to justify the political excommunication of Groce.
But Groce is rightly concerned that the district's food service, which runs in the red, and inefficient transportation operations are bleeding money away from the classroom and, therefore, hurting students.
Last year, she suggested that while the district is hurting financially from the transfer of students to charters, it should consider freezing employees' salaries.
She also recognizes that school principals could lead their schools more effectively if they had more say over who teaches within the buildings they govern.
Instead, the current practice, enshrined in the teachers contract, gives greatest weight in teacher-assignment decisions to seniority.
She thinks charter schools offer valuable alternatives to families and that traditional public schools should accept that charters are here to stay and should learn from them.
These aren't positions designed to win the approval of the teachers union, nor of the union that represents nonteaching employees. These are intellectually honest positions that seek to increase the chances that the district will face reality and do everything in its power to help its students succeed in the classroom.
But they interfere with the unions' fierce attachment to the status quo, and for that, Groce is being punished.
Before Tuesday's vote, County Democratic Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. had an opportunity to be a leader by standing against a wholly improper and selfish demand from a Democratic constituency.
He failed utterly. So did the many Democratic officeholders around the county who should have spoken up and didn't.
School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job. Candidates' party affiliations don't appear on the ballot. Still, party-supported school-board candidates' names are included on sample ballots handed out by party volunteers, and party faithful may be swayed by the exclusion of Groce.
On the other hand, thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group. For them, the shameful action taken against her might prove to be a selling point.
On Wednesday, The Dispatch gave its wholehearted endorsement to Groce. For the sake of fiscal accountability and the schoolchildren of Columbus, voters should retain her on the school board.
Whoever wrote the Dispatch editorial directly below must have been on drugs. Certainly he has a screw loose. The blatant insanity of his argument would shame a normal person into silence.
Basically, a woman running for the Columbus School Board, whose openly stated agenda meshes perfectly with the Republican agenda (AND that of the Dispatch), was not endorsed by the teachers’ union and was not funded by the Democratic party; and that infuriated the editor.
The woman’s clearly enunciated agenda supports Republican goals and tactics such as freezing salaries, privatizing (eliminating) union food and transportation jobs, eliminating seniority rights, and judging non-union charter schools superior to unionized public schools. The editorial calls all this “so-called" attacks on labor.
What in the world would the Dispatch consider “actual” attacks on labor? Even the woman’s husband, by her own admission, has said she behaves like a Republican.
The editorial claims it’s “Reprehensible” and "shameful" that Democrats chose not to fund a Republican. They furthermore claim that not supporting a Republican constitutes kowtowing to a union. In other words, not funding the campaign of a candidate focused on harming an important part of the Democratic constituency is “reprehensible.”
I guess the demented editor believes Democrats can best “demonstrate leadership” by funding Republicans.
Yes, a feeble attempt is made to justify this by claiming, “School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job,” but then they contradict themselves by deploring the fact that the Democrats won’t be including the Republican candidate on their Democratic sample ballots.
Ohio Supreme Court candidates are “nonpartisan” contestants, too. But anyone who thinks they are non-partisan races is deranged. The present (Republican) Chief Justice started his political career as a Columbus School Board member, and remember what wealthy Republicans tried to do to Justice Resnick.
As is their editorial practice, any interest other than their personal interest is labeled a “special interest”: “thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group.”
Well, it’s difficult for me to see why Democratic interests are any more “special interests” than are rich Republicans’ interests. Actually, it’s difficult for me to understand how an honest or sane person could have written such a clearly self-contradictory, irrational, and reprehensible editorial.
- Uke Man
Editorial: Reprehensible -
Rejection of school-board candidate is a shameful moment for Democrats, union
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Stephanie Groce was not the loser on Tuesday when the Franklin County Democratic Party kowtowed to the local teachers union and withdrew its endorsement of her for the Columbus Board of Education.
The biggest loser was the county party and its top officeholders, who had a chance to demonstrate leadership by standing on principle for an independent-minded and highly qualified candidate. Instead those leaders caved cravenly.
The other loser was the Columbus Education Association, which nakedly illustrated that the union's top priority is not the welfare of students but the protection of its members against any demand for accountability and fiscal responsibility within the Columbus City Schools.
As the district contemplates asking voters next year to approve an operating levy and, possibly, a bond issue for building new schools, this is a terrible message for teachers to send to taxpayers.
Union leaders are angry that Groce, an incumbent, would consider freezing teachers' salaries and privatizing food service and transportation as ways to help the district live within its means and adjust to the loss of revenue that has occurred as thousands of students have fled to charter schools.
County Democrats used these so-called attacks on labor to justify the political excommunication of Groce.
But Groce is rightly concerned that the district's food service, which runs in the red, and inefficient transportation operations are bleeding money away from the classroom and, therefore, hurting students.
Last year, she suggested that while the district is hurting financially from the transfer of students to charters, it should consider freezing employees' salaries.
She also recognizes that school principals could lead their schools more effectively if they had more say over who teaches within the buildings they govern.
Instead, the current practice, enshrined in the teachers contract, gives greatest weight in teacher-assignment decisions to seniority.
She thinks charter schools offer valuable alternatives to families and that traditional public schools should accept that charters are here to stay and should learn from them.
These aren't positions designed to win the approval of the teachers union, nor of the union that represents nonteaching employees. These are intellectually honest positions that seek to increase the chances that the district will face reality and do everything in its power to help its students succeed in the classroom.
But they interfere with the unions' fierce attachment to the status quo, and for that, Groce is being punished.
Before Tuesday's vote, County Democratic Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. had an opportunity to be a leader by standing against a wholly improper and selfish demand from a Democratic constituency.
He failed utterly. So did the many Democratic officeholders around the county who should have spoken up and didn't.
School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job. Candidates' party affiliations don't appear on the ballot. Still, party-supported school-board candidates' names are included on sample ballots handed out by party volunteers, and party faithful may be swayed by the exclusion of Groce.
On the other hand, thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group. For them, the shameful action taken against her might prove to be a selling point.
On Wednesday, The Dispatch gave its wholehearted endorsement to Groce. For the sake of fiscal accountability and the schoolchildren of Columbus, voters should retain her on the school board.
1 Comments:
Hi Tom,
You are exactly right!! The Columbus Dispatch is run by a bunch of IDIOTS. They hate the Columbus Schools including the teachers (and probably the kids since so many of them are NOT sweet little WHITE kids whose parents have lots of MONEY) and the administrators. They REALLY want the schools to be privatized which would mean NO UNIONS. Well, I think they'll play hell pulling that off EVEN if they get Groce the Gross elected. Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home