I just find it interesting that NCLB came from a conservative, Republican president. One would expect a greater deference to federalism, where education is supposed to be the province of the states, not of the federal government. But I guess that went out the window a long time ago.

Well, MysticCat, it's really hard to make the argument based on anything he's done really that Bush is a truly conservative president who defers to federalism.

He may be religiously and socially conservative, but for restraint and federalism, he is not the right guy.

(He may have ended up getting justices through who will support it, so his legacy may end up different than the actually presidency.)

I agree though the progress from Republicans wanting to get rid of the federal Department of Education to NCLB is bizarre. (And no doubt, it's one of the reasons why some people believe that NCLB isn't REALLY about reforming education: for them, it's about declaring all the public schools failing.)

Vouchers. Discuss.

I agree completely. I guess my facetiousness was too subtle.

Fiscal conservatism is dead. Unless Thompson or Romney wins the presidency, then maybe we'll have a shot, who knows.

On the other side, you have Edwards running a robin hood "steal from the rich" campaign.

Sorry, I guess it was for me.

I know too many people who don't know what conservatives really are or should be. I work with someone active in the Republican party who wanted to see laws regulating what previews could be shown at G rated movies because the last time she took her kid to a movie, the previews were too scary. The idea that maybe we didn't need the government to regulate movie previews hadn't occurred to her, I guess. (Surely, this is an area where private pressure could accomplish the desired end without governmental regulation.)

Vouchers: I doubt they will really amount to a net improvement, but it wouldn't bother me to try them. But it's very hard to find anyone who can clearly articulate how a voucher system would work if every kid was entitled to one.

Would we privatize all aspects of what had been public school? If so, how?

People who want to ban what can be shown in theatres are the same ones who would burn you at the stake if they could.

There is much talk about how people feel.

Please explain to Me the difference of:

1. Liberal.
2. Concervative.
3. Moderat.

There seems to be a problem about whom people are?

........with spelling.

Here Tom

Liberals- love animals, love the environment, hate religion, hate war, love controversy, love minorities, love women, hate white men, hate SUV's, hate the rich, love the poor, hate capitalism, hate guns, are sympathetic to criminals, hate personal responsibility...

Conservatives- like to eat animals, love religion, like war, disregard the poor and minorities, love suv's and trucks, love capitalism, love personal responsibility, love offending people, love guns, hate criminals, hate academia, love Israel...

Moderates- Like E entertainment television, read USA Today, care about the Anna Nicole saga, don't know what capitalism is, agree with whatever the media consensus is on the status of the Iraq war, will decide who they're voting for in 2008 based on what ties the candidates wear at the debates...

Hope that helps.

Tom, you can boil down shinerbock's definitions pretty easily:

Conservative - Good
Moderate - Bad
Liberal - Worse

Not sure where I fit in, though. I love to eat animals and I love religion, SUVs, trucks, but I also love women. Hmmm.

But seriously, it would take a lot more than can be accomplished in this thread to explain these terms. "Conservative" and "liberal" just have too many meanings, and everything depends on context and who is using them. And then there's "moderate," which really only means "somewhere between conservative and liberal."

For example, "conserative" can mean, among other things, "fiscal conservative" or "social conservative." A person can be a fiscal conservative but libertarian (meaning the government should stay out of it) or even liberal on social issues. Some say that is the problem Giuliani will have.

Or to use the example of this thread, Bush has shown himself to be socially conservative but not fiscally conservative.

Actually, my descriptions fit more into

Conservatives- heartless but with backbone

Liberals- Spineless but intelligent

Moderates- All around pathetic

^^^ LOL! I stand corrected and enlightened.

Thanks I think.:(

Never mind!:eek:

I've run two different campaigns, and have volunteered/consulted on others - after what I've seen can happen even in a state house race to family members, threats, etc....

I'd never run for office in all likelihood. Not that I wouldn't mind serving my country (again), but...not sure I'd put my family through the wringer to make it happen.

Current take on WH bids: Look for Obama and Hillary to engage in a true epic, knock-down drag-out bloodbath for the nomination - it could get so bad that the rest of the country is turned off by the eventual winner. GOP - I have a suspicion that Fred Thompson (yes, that guy from Law and Order) will run and give Rudy or Mitt a run for their money...and I like Thompson a lot - so/so on Mitt and Rudy right now....