Campaign strategy taken over by weak statistics
From John E. Gabor
Received: Oct. 6
Romney’s 47 percent problem is a good example of what happens when you value and use !#$%&! statistics.
He was obviously just talking about campaign strategy — that he was not expecting to get the votes of people who believe in the redistribution of wealth. His blunder was that he used that 47 percent statistic, which includes military, civilian, and Social Security retirees who do not necessarily believe in the redistribution of wealth. Then Romney compounded that error by stumbling around trying to explain what he had meant by his comments.
He should have just said, plainly and simply: “I was only talking about campaign strategy. That I don’t expect to get the votes of people that believe in the redistribution of wealth. I wasn’t saying I don’t care about these people. I was just saying I don’t expect their votes”. The liberal media was shocked that President Obama didn’t bring up Romney’s 47 percent problem during the debate. But I think the President was correctly advised not to do so because the video of Romney’s comments was made in violation of the law. That video is a little Watergate in itself.
The conservative media was shocked that Romney didn’t bring up the Libya massacre and alleged cover-up during the debate. That could turn out to be much bigger than Watergate. Romney probably couldn’t talk about those events because they are being investigated by Congress.
It will be interesting to see if these issues come up in future debates — whether or not the candidates go medieval and scorched earth on each other.
Whatever the case, the government has this country in a big mess. We need a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton. I’m not sure that President Obama or Governor Romney are up to the task.
We shall see...
Takeover talk deserves attention
From: Julian Smith
Received: Oct. 8
In Superintendent Tony Bennett’s recent State of Education speech, if any misinformed legislator or citizen held the mistaken belief that the intent of school takeover was to improve a struggling school then return it to the local governing board, such notion should now be laid to rest.
We heard that poor performing schools are systemic of poor performing corporations. And should he win a second term, the present superintendent intends to expand the Indiana Department of Education’s power to allow for the takeover of whole corporations.
Two years ago legislators shared with what seemed to be paranoid public-school advocates that there were no plans to “take over” schools, they were merely to be “turned around.” They also shared that if schools were to be taken over, it wouldn’t affect their communities and constituents because they had “good schools” in their districts. One representative, sharing two years ago today, has two “D” high schools and an “F” middle school in his district. That puts them on the short list not to be turned around, but taken over.
We now know when a school is taken over by a for-profit consortium, the new entity is not only entitled to the real estate but the hardware, assets and historical artifacts within the building. Not only does the for-profit company get the trophy case, they get the trophies as well.
I would question whether local communities really believe that an out-of-state, for-profit group can come in and do a better job of educating their children. And should that happen, would they approve of their local property-tax dollars that built their schools being funneled to groups that have no stake in their community other than the dollars that will line pockets as they take their profits back to their home state?
We now know, beyond doubt, that Tony Bennett wants to see more takeovers even though the five that have already occurred have been riddled with problems and are by any measurement less than successful. Not only does he want to see more, he wants to accelerate the process. We know he has his eye on entire corporations for the profit-generating potential that can be directed to the very out-of-state business interest that has filled his campaign coffers to overflowing.
Now that we are clear on intentions, motivations and initiatives, the choice is clear. If one believes for-profit companies should take our tax dollars out of state as they laugh all the way to the bank, then vote for your man. But, if you prefer local control and think it advantageous that your tax dollars stay within Indiana to educate kids, and that our schools belong to our communities and their stakeholders rather than to some hedge fund manager in a far-off land, then vote Glenda Ritz on Nov. 6.
Get to know who candidate really is
From: Basil Fritsch
Received: Oct. 8
Who is Mike Pence?
He is our 6th district Congressman; Republican candidate for governor of Indiana; a conservative voice in politics; a family man and my stepson.
A few years back, I came to Columbus to marry into the Pence family and was ensconced in Republican politics as expected. I was confused about the importance of politics in people’s lives. There was no confusion about politics in Chicago; everything was as expected.
My position as a newcomer in the family was focused on getting to know the people in my new family and “The Hoosier Common Sense” that Mike often refers to. I came to realize that during this campaign for governor that Mike truly has a plan for our state to excel.
Of particular interest is Mike’s conversations about our high school seniors being prepared for college and/or careers. As college becomes more of a financial challenge for many, other ways are needed for young adults to enter the work force. Preparations for a career with programs for technical and vocational education may well be the answer for many.
This is one of many ideas that Mike has focused on in his six attainable goals that will measure the success of his administration.
Do you know Mike Pence?