0
piper17

Obama and his resume

Recommended Posts

Obama And Ayers' Annenberg Failure
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Education: The joint effort between Barack Obama and terrorist William Ayers to "reform" Chicago schools was a flop. After spending $160 million, Chicago's children were still being left behind.

It was, and some say still is, his only claim to have executive experience qualifying him for high government office. "My experience previous to elected office equips me for the job," Obama said in a 2000 televised debate during a failed campaign to unseat incumbent Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush.

Of that experience, Obama said: "I have chaired major philanthropic efforts on the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) that gave $50 million to prompt school-reform efforts throughout the city." It was an impressive line on anyone's resume. It was also a flop.

Obama ran the fiscal arm that distributed grants to schools and raised matching funds.
Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with grant recipients. They met and talked often.

Ayers was more interested in transforming Chicago's schools into vehicles for socialist revolution than in reading scores. He sought to use Annenberg's grant to fund his dream of radicalizing both teachers and students. Obama helped him toward that goal, gaining what he thought would be an important credential.

Like most efforts to improve the government monopoly by throwing money at it, the CAC was a failure, and a costly one at that. The grant was conditioned on raising at least twice that amount in matching funds. With the grant, CAC had $160 million to throw at the problem.

The CAC operated in 210 Chicago schools between 1996 and 2001. At the CAC's conclusion, an evaluation report was prepared and titled, "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future Final Technical Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project."

On page 14 of the executive summary we find that "the Challenge had little impact on student outcomes." On page 15, the report says: "There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain" and that "any improvements were much like those occurring in demographically similar non-Annenberg schools."

In 1998-99, just 36% of the Annenberg school students in grades three through eight were reading at or above national norms compared with 35% in Chicago schools citywide. In math, the results were similar. Some 43% of Annenberg students were at or above national norms versus 42% for non-Annenberg students.

High school graduation rates for both groups of students were the same at 40%. The Annenberg schools edged out Chicago schools in dropout rates — 35% to 36%. As the report said, there were no signs of improvement that warranted the expenditure of $160 million.

The CAC did not improve the schools, and in some ways made things worse. The executive summary also notes: "Classroom behavior, students' sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge."

The report stated: "In 2001, students in Annenberg schools were somewhat less inclined than in 1994 to respect each other, work well together and help each other learn." Neither student attitudes nor student achievements were aided by Obama's efforts.

Based on these results, Barack Obama would have trouble getting chosen as a high school principal. Yet he thought they were worthy of promoting him first to congressman and now to the presidency of the United States.

When Obama collected the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers, he told the teachers that support for alternatives to the education monopoly amounted to "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice" even though efforts like the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, unlike those of the CAC, have produced stunning improvements.

Not being left behind are Obama's daughters, who attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. There the tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school. When asked about it during last year's YouTube debate, Sen. Obama responded that it was "the best option" for his children.

They had a choice Obama would deny others.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, for fuck's sake; another one of your guilt-by-association threads? I ask you again: what part of "nobody gives a shit" do you not understand? Even my dog rolled her eyes when she saw it on the screen.



Its just more of the same...... what we got here is a nearly hairless primate.... flinging more poo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you missed the memo from McCain telling you that negative campaigning is turning off the voters.



So, bringing out the truth about a man's ACTUAL record, rather than listening to his constant chameleonist shifts and the media's messianic praise is negative campaigning. Interesting.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think you missed the memo from McCain telling you that negative campaigning is turning off the voters.



So, bringing out the truth about a man's ACTUAL record, rather than listening to his constant chameleonist shifts and the media's messianic praise is negative campaigning. Interesting.



Well, "truth" is clearly an adjustable commodity when it comes to the McCain campaign.

Snopes lists 27 negative lies currently circulating about Obama, vs 2 about McCain. The GOP's smear machine is in high gear.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, "truth" is clearly an adjustable commodity when it comes to the McCain campaign.

Snopes lists 27 negative lies currently circulating about Obama, vs 2 about McCain. The GOP's smear machine is in high gear.



Ahhh, nice shift. What the hell do Snopes myths have to do with the information in Piper's thread? If you have no argument, point to something else that's questionable?
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, "truth" is clearly an adjustable commodity when it comes to the McCain campaign.

Snopes lists 27 negative lies currently circulating about Obama, vs 2 about McCain. The GOP's smear machine is in high gear.



Ahhh, nice shift. What the hell do Snopes myths have to do with the information in Piper's thread? If you have no argument, point to something else that's questionable?



Well, we could discuss Iran Contra and the McCain connection, or maybe the Keating 5, if you think being negative will help.

Or maybe Palin and the abuse of power, and the Alaska Independence Party.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
====================
Negative campaigning by McCain appears to backfire, poll finds

By Michael Cooper and Megan Thee
10/14/2008 10:04:04 PM PDT

The McCain campaign's recent angry tone and sharply personal attacks on Sen. Barack Obama appear to have backfired and tarnished Sen. John McCain more than their intended target, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see McCain as waging a negative campaign than Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that McCain had spent more time attacking Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking.

Overall, the poll found that if the election were held today, 53 percent of those determined to be probable voters said that they would vote for Obama and 39 percent said they would vote for McCain.
=================

By all means, post more attacks on Obama! Let's see if you can help get get McCain below 30 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, for fuck's sake; another one of your guilt-by-association threads? I ask you again: what part of "nobody gives a shit" do you not understand? Even my dog rolled her eyes when she saw it on the screen.

Well I give a shit! What makes YOUR opinion or submissions any better than everyone else? Is it possible for people to respond to the issues and not be abusive and demeaning?
Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, we could discuss Iran Contra and the McCain connection, or maybe the Keating 5, if you think being negative will help.

Or maybe Palin and the abuse of power, and the Alaska Independence Party.



Go right ahead. If a candidate has a "negative" issue in their record, then it's fair game to bring it up. This notion that we should only listen to Obama's rhetoric (and believe it) or his non-commital sound bytes (and swoon over them) or risk being considered "negative" is assinine. Truth is - Obama is a very charismatic man and there are vast numbers who won't look further than that. Many of us who do look at his (negative) history find not a reformer but at best a typical politician and at worst a typical Chicago politician with ties to radical left wing organizations and radical left wing extremists.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, we could discuss Iran Contra and the McCain connection, or maybe the Keating 5, if you think being negative will help.

Or maybe Palin and the abuse of power, and the Alaska Independence Party.



Go right ahead. If a candidate has a "negative" issue in their record, then it's fair game to bring it up. This notion that we should only listen to Obama's rhetoric (and believe it) or his non-commital sound bytes (and swoon over them) or risk being considered "negative" is assinine. Truth is - Obama is a very charismatic man and there are vast numbers who won't look further than that. Many of us who do look at his (negative) history find not a reformer but at best a typical politician and at worst a typical Chicago politician with ties to radical left wing organizations and radical left wing extremists.



My niece thinks that there are monsters under her bed. It isn't true, but she really believes that it is, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Much the same as the big to do about nothing called the "Obama Ayers" connection.

Oh, the horror!!!
They were part of a group of people who worked to improve inner city schools.
Those bastards!!! What were they thinking?
It surely doesn't get more terroristic and un-american than that. What kind of evil people try to use Republican foundation grant money to improve inner city schools? The clear answer is "domestic terrorists", that are surely unfit to hold public office.

Do you righties have any idea how utterly and completely ridiculous y'all seem to those of us with IQs over 140? How can you be so stupid and gullible? It really is amazing... sad, but amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you righties have any idea how utterly and completely ridiculous y'all seem to those of us with IQs over 140? How can you be so stupid and gullible? It really is amazing... sad, but amazing.



Apparently, a generous dose of naivete and self aggrandizing comes with that stellar IQ. No true public servant will work with self proclaimed, unrepentant anti American terrorists on any board, even if the REAL reason were improving schools. A look at Ayers' past and radical history makes me question that motive. If you guys think he used to blow up Americans and now he has changed and wants to help American children, I question such wide spread triple digits.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Do you righties have any idea how utterly and completely ridiculous y'all seem to those of us with IQs over 140? How can you be so stupid and gullible? It really is amazing... sad, but amazing.



And who says liberals are condescending elitists? I sure hope my poor little <140 brain can keep up.

All we ever hear from the Obama campaign is "ignore the man behind the curtain." Rev. Wright didn't mean what he said. ACORN isn't committing voter fraud, it's voter registration fraud. Ayers was just a misunderstood domestic terrorist...

Please let me know when something happens with Obama that I should take seriously.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Apparently, a generous dose of naivete and self aggrandizing comes with that
stellar IQ.

Your one warning.



Quote

And who says liberals are condescending elitists?

And yours. Please, everyone, knock this shit out. I know everyone's emotions are running high because of the election, but the rules apply here as always.



You can't be serious??? We need a new "Candy Ass" forum where we can go to blow Obamessia sunshine up each other's ass.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[ Obamessia



Just to mention, Obama isn't the "messiah". He may just look that way by comparison to where we've set our standards. We apparently want a President who you want to get drunk with and a VP who you can identify with at a church supper or a shooting range. I can only imagine what today's right wing would call a Thomas Jefferson. "He's too smart, he's elitist, he's too popular, he's arrogant, him and his two dollar words he probably thinks we're low life scum". Ok, that last one, he might. When will we expect more, and demand more from our leaders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Apparently, a generous dose of naivete and self aggrandizing comes with that stellar IQ. No true public servant will work with self proclaimed, unrepentant anti American terrorists on any board, even if the REAL reason were improving schools. A look at Ayers' past and radical history makes me question that motive. If you guys think he used to blow up Americans and now he has changed and wants to help American children, I question such wide spread triple digits.



Apparently a hell of a lot of the christian religious right are incapable of forgiving peoples past... things they did in the 1960's when they were far younger... I guess they must not really be christian after all.
Many of the radacals of the 60's and 70's changed and became productive members of society.. and actually lived lives that Jesus Christ would certainly have approved of.

Is the religious right capable of walking the walk or do they just talk the talk??


Why is that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0