Buck vs. Board of Education, Anyone?

FRIDAY UPDATE: Now the front page discussion item in a number of well-trafficked locations.

Think Progress:

First of all, Buck’s claim that American schools are worse now than they were in the 1950s is laughably wrong. In 1957, less than half of white Americans and fewer than one in five African-Americans graduated from high school. By 2002, however, almost nine in ten white children and eight in ten black children earned their diploma.  Likewise, college graduation rates more than tripled during the same time period for both racial groups.  Our country has a long way to go before we build the education system Americans deserve, but Buck is simply wrong to claim that American schools haven’t made massive strides since the 1950s…

In the 1950s, much of America was an apartheid state. For millions of children, the black educational experience was a tale of crumbling buildings housing overcrowded classes taught by underqualified teachers who were paid a substandard salary.  Federal involvement broke this “airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society,” and Buck is wrong to ignore this history.

A video clip we were just forwarded, from an appearance last night by GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck before a group of CU College Republicans. Transcript follows–we’re running through various things like historical comparisons, etc. to figure out how he doesn’t mean…what he seems to mean:


Buck: He still has his recorder on right there… [points, laughter]

Question: [brief lead-in] What plans do you have to make public education better in America?

Buck: “Let’s talk about that [education] folks. In the 1950s, we had the best schools in the world. And the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education. [Pols emphasis] Where are we now, after all those years of federal involvement, are we better or are we worse? So what’s the federal government’s answer? Well since we’ve made education worse, we’re gonna even get more involved. And what’s gonna be the result?  It’s kinda like health care. We’ve screwed up health care–Medicare–we’ve screwed up all kinds of other things, so what are we gonna do? We’re gonna get even more involved in health care.  What are we going to do? We’re gonna get more involved in education.

Is this the “Rand Paul moment” for Ken Buck, folks? Most of the increases in federal funding for education, the federally-guaranteed student loans that Buck so famously wants to do away with, and other federal “involvement,” happened in the 1960s, not the 1950s: the federal Department of Education didn’t itself exist until 1980. In addition, before the 1965 federal student loan program we know today, which uses private lenders and federal loan guarantees, student loans were made directly by the U.S. Treasury. Is that his conservative vision?

We suppose it’s possible that Buck was referring to such programs as the GI Bill, or the National Defense Education Act (1958), legislation that played a role in American universities becoming worldwide destinations for scientific and technical research–including the same University of Colorado where Buck was speaking–but we kind of hope not. In any event, the actual boogeyman federal education “involvement” Buck rails against didn’t really exist until Lyndon Johnson.

Of course, there was that little matter of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954, later enforced by federal troops on a rather unwilling local government in Little Rock. Which would very certainly come under the heading of “federal involvement” in education, wouldn’t it? As a matter of fact, wasn’t that a big argument about “local control,” if you set aside the messy racist stuff?

Uh, oops–enjoy “Buckpedaling” this one. We’re guessing he’ll claim misspeech, wrong decade or something. Unfortunately, that won’t help him explain to senior citizens how their Medicare, uh, “screwed up” health care. Last time we checked, most of them don’t actually agree, no matter how well that line might play with College Republican frat boys!

Camcorders really suck, don’t they?

229 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Laughing Boy says:

    Is probably going to resonate with a majority of voters.

    With the political climate filled with so many voters that are pissed about Obamacare, any politician who questions how much government is too much will see nodding heads in the crowd except for grad student trackers.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      We really should have left Little Rock Central High School alone. What business is it of the guvmint that “the coloreds” in Arkansas go to different schools? Get the federal guvmint out of education, say the College Republican Stafford Loan recipients! Blargh!

      Just depressingly stupid. But as usual you’re not really defending it, just reminding how all those “other,” presumably more ignorant people, will agree no matter what. Lucky you have all those angry ignorant people who are not you on your side, eh?

    • H-man says:

      are some Bennetistas on Pols who think all republicans are evil bigots and should be replaced by a kind-hearted socialist.  If ColoradoPols thinks Buck’s talk is a Rand Paul moment they need to get outside, get some sunlight and talk to some real people.

      • GOPwarrior says:

        “Oh waaah, the Supreme Court said so over fifty years ago and you can’t change it or you’re a big fast racist! I don’t CARE what’s happened since then!”

        Really, I thought these were progressives?

        • H-man says:

          I thought the talk was appropriate, consistent with his stump speach, and hits upon the limited government theme that resonates with voters who are concerned with fiscal issues, as to which he currently leads Bennet 76% to 14% in the most recent polling.  

          • GOPwarrior says:

            There is going to be one overriding concern for voters this November, because none of the liberal’s politics of division and personal destruction matter when Colorado families can’t put food on their table or fill their gas tank.

            We will uplift everyone, regardless of their color because we don’t care what color they are, with freedom and prosperity for all. It’s right around the corner!

            • sxp151 says:

              I really thought everybody got over racial integration thirty years ago.

              You teabaggers are fucked. up.

              • GOPwarrior says:

                America IS racially integrated. I have neighbors of many races. And they are all great people.

                The only time racism comes into it is when Democrats need votes.

                • sxp151 says:

                  because the federal government made it happen (and that’s as true for housing as for schools). You don’t think the federal government should have made that happen. There’s only one logical conclusion, but you keep running away from it. Why?

                  • H-man says:

                    Seeking to minimize federal involvement and encourage local decisions is sound policy.  The most important indicator of student performance is parent involvement, not federal funding.  Buck knows this.  

                    Last week the polsters were criticizing his involvement in getting an assesment center for kids who have been in trouble.  Buck meets with them and their parents and emphasizes the importance of high school and college for their financil future.  It sells and works. Crime is down 50%.

                    Buck believes these things should be handled on a local level. Bennet on the other hand believes in more government control.  How is that federal reach for the top stuff workin’ for ya?  Sending Colorado tax dollars to help New York kids.  Does that even make sense to the bennetista crowd?

                    • sxp151 says:

                      I wonder why he did that. Certainly some Republicans seem to have thought he was talking about the Brown decision. I wonder if that was intentional.

                      Hard to fire up the base when the base is full of awful people.

                    • H-man says:

                      It must be very easy to operate if you are not required to think.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      And you call that thinking?

                      Do you think the schools are better off for having been racially integrated, or not?

                    • H-man says:

                      I am glad I was not forced to spend long hours going from one school to another.  I walked to High School.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      What’s your view on diversity, Alex: good or bad?

                      How would you have felt if your school commute had taken hours, Alex?

                      How did you personally commute to high school, Alex?

                      Or you could answer the question I actually asked. The federal government racially integrated the schools. Would the schools have been better off if this had not happened?

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I have wasted I don’t know how much time trying to get a direct answer to various questions from H-man and  have never succeeded.  Not once. Not worth the effort. H-man has no answers, just a grab bag of talking points.  The ones he pulls out generally don’t have anything whatsoever to do with the question asked. It’s like trying to have a discussion with BJ except H-man is coherent.  His answers, while not BJ style gibberish, are never an iota more relevant to the question actually asked.  Never.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      It must be very easy to operate if you are not required to think.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      In the past couple of days, what’s happened to our raging liberal blog? What’s with all the rightie posts, 75% of them from H-man alone? Just look at this thread. Are they just sick of dittoing each other on their own blogs or trying to take advantage of ColPols prominence. It’s nice having somone to argue with and make fun of but this is beginning to feel like a hostile take over.

                    • denverco says:

                      on right wing blogs. No right winger wants to hear,logic or truth or ideas. The real world with inteligent people is very scary to them.

                    • dwyer says:

                      It is time that “progressives” got into the fight.  This blog for too long has been a place where dems talk to each other about how smart we are, just waiting for the Four Horsemen to kick in with some “walk around money” and then the dems can recreate “08.”…not going to happen.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                      I think Pols has become a lot more interesting with the addition of more conservative voices. And a lot of Dems had gotten in to a mode of we deserve to win.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      you can’t really have discussions with the most of our newly relentless righties because they absolutely won’t engage, don’t answer questions, don’t address facts, just throw out the talking points.  There are exceptions like LB, Ali and Barron but they are long time regular frequent participants.  The ones who are suddenly posting a zillion times per thread don’t engage in the way the LBs, Barrons and Alis do.

                      Agree it’s nice not just talking among ourselves but with H-man and Co. it’s like talking to a brick wall or to Gov. Brewer (same thing), not all that much of an improvement. Such non-responsive responses, it hardly seems worth the exhausting, exasperating effort. Feels more like giving them a free ride on a million page view a month blog.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      Unfortunately, the endless talking points of H-man do not a contribution make and Basement Warrior is going to give the Ku Klux Klan a bad name if he doesn’t at least pretend to pretty up his naked racism.  It seems like the Buck shills moved in to fill the vacumn left by the withdrawal of Team Romanoff.  

                        Probbly won’t last, but we do have LB, Ali, Barron and other long-standing and esteemed true conservatives.

  2. Laughing Boy says:

    I think it’s a pretty sleezy jab to associate his name with Brown.

    What he’s talking about is not that kind of Government involvement, and it’s a total fake-ass way to label him a racist.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Stop crying butt-hurt and explain why it’s wrong.

      And I already know not to have my taxes done in Weld County because of Buck, so don’t bullshit me.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        How’ve you been?

        We’ve never spent more money on public education than we do now, and it’s never been (in the modern era) this bad.

        It’s a garbage insinuation that he’s somehow racist for pointing this out.

        He’s saying the more you get government involved with most things, the more poorly they perform, and I (and most of the voters in Nov., I’m betting) agree.

        • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

          I know a lot of Latinos in Weld County who would disagree with you. Things are not simply the truth because you troll them.

          And you know, I’m great! There have been lots of trolls around so I’m sorry we haven’t been spending as much quality time together. I’m actually kind of steady with Beej these days. Maybe you two manly men could battle for my affections?

        • GOPwarrior says:

          I’m with you, but you are beginning from a false assumption. There is a large school of conservative thought, including at least two Supreme Court Justices, who believe that Brown is a flawed decision and harmful precedent. Clarence Thomas is not a racist, is he?

          They can associate Buck with Brown all they want, and if Buck wants, he can come back with an excellent, lawyerly, and NOT RACIST AT ALL case for overturning Brown as part of a plan to end federal intervention in education.

          It’s the liberals who want to make opposing Brown equal racism, don’t let them have that premise.

          • sxp151 says:

            When Buck refers to schools being much better in the 1950s, some people don’t notice anything weird. Laughing Boy, I think, is honestly shocked at the suggestion that Buck is talking about resegregating schools.

            But GOPwarrior hears it loud and clear. That’s the intention. He’s expressing it perhaps a little too blatantly in mixed company, but the idea that the right-wing fringe wants to return to segregated schools shouldn’t be too surprising to anyone who’s paid attention.

          • raymond1 says:

            That’s a flat-out lie. Please offer a cite for your lie that two Justices oppose Brown. None do, because they’re not reactionary neanderthals like you. But thanks for clarifying that just as BJ opposes evolution, you, alone except for Klansmen everywhere, oppose Brown v Bd of Ed.

            • raymond1 says:

              Article documenting that while many think Scalia’s “original intent” theory is inconsistent w/ Brown, Scalia consistently has said (a) he would’ve voted with the anti-segregation dissenters in Plessy v Ferguson, and (b) he would’ve voted with the anti-segregation majority in Brown.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11

              What do you have to say for yourself, GOPwarrior?

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                You’re slowing down, Raymond.  Or did you spend six seconds laughing that BasementWarrior is such a buffoon?

                • raymond1 says:

                  … but really, all I did was google something like “Scalia Brown Board Education Plessy.”

                  So the point isn’t that I’m a research whiz; the point is that BasementWarrior asserts facts that an 8-second Google search could confirm or disprove.

                  Of course, the problem for Warrior is that if he did the search, he couldn’t declare that two Supreme Court Justices agree with him and David Duke.

                  Maybe he means two Justices of the Imaginary Supreme Court In His Fantasy, jurists appointed by Fantasy President Tom Tancredo?

          • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

            …What is the rationale by which at least two SCOTUS justices find Brown to be a faulty decision?  I love to read up on SCOTUS especially when I’ve got time to kill (on call this weekend) ever read findlaw.com?

            Until you provide links I call bullshit.

            p.s. Clarence Thomas is a pinhead.

            • Laughing Boy says:

              Did you know Clarence Thomas was black?

              Therefore any criticism of him is based in RACISM.

              You poor rube – you probably didn’t even know how RACIST you are!

              • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

                A black pinhead.

                And some of my best friends (wedding party) are black, and gay too!

                • Laughing Boy says:

                  You have “gay” and “black” friends?  Way to patronize minorities!!!!!!

                  I can’t believe how racist and homophobic you are!!!!

                  (disclaimer: I’m pretty sure you’re not, but how does it feel being criticized as something so serious as being a racist when you simply have a policy disagreement?)

                  • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

                    …Of course I was being sarcastic trotting out the “Some of my best friends” line.

                    But if you’re referring to the “Ground Zero Musque” nonsense, I’m still waiting to hear a rational explanation for why we should be sensitive for the feelings of the WTC families against the worship rights of ALL Muslims because of the crimes of a FEW.

                    That is the definition of bigotry, is it not?  No policy difference there, just “I’m uncomfortable.”

              • sxp151 says:

                You’re going to join in on the “Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided” bandwagon? Is that really the side you want to be on tonight? Is GOPwarrior really the guy whose defense you want to jump to?

                That’s fucking sad. I know you think you’re being funny, but this is beneath you.

                Whatever you may think of me and my opinions, anyone either

                1. supports Brown v. Board of Education, or

                2. is a goddamned racist.

                There ain’t no middle ground here.

                • Laughing Boy says:

                  I can hear the dog whistle in your argument.  Can you please stop showing your true colors in your opposition to Justice Thomas’ viewpoint and just get it over and admit how totally racist you are?

                  • sxp151 says:

                    Except your version doesn’t make any sense. Try again.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Thomas is black.

                      If you oppose him in any way, you are a FLAMING RACIST and it doesn’t matter what the particular issue is.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Hope that doesn’t make your post sound stupid OH SORRY guess it does.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Toward black people with each word you write.

                      Are you (hopefully) starting to see how silly it sounds when you equate philosophical criticism with racism as a kneejerk reaction?

                    • sxp151 says:

                      is your problem, not mine.

                      Your comfort mechanism seems to be that there aren’t really any Republican racists, because once you heard a false accusation. You’re deceiving yourself if you think that.

                      Is Buck a racist? Maybe, maybe not. Is GOPwarrior a racist? Clearly. He’s explicitly stated he thinks we’d be better off without Brown v. Board of Education, i.e., if schools were still segregated. I’m not going to apologize for calling that view racist.

                      So whatever you think you’re accomplishing by treating me like your three-year-old, you might as well give it up. You had a choice to either refudiate local racist GOPwarrior or to laugh it up with him.  

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      HE is African-American.  Calling him black only proves how racist you are, Laughing Boy.

                      (Hey, this game is easy and fun;-)

                    • BlueCat says:

                      And I’ll tell what’s not bull.  Speaking with reverential nostalgia about the buttoned down, segregated, women in the kitchen, June Cleaver serving breakfast in a shirtwaist and pearls, lily white clubs and stylish suburbs with no minorities allowed 50s is dog whistle for those who think good enough should have been left alone and who long for a return to those good old days. That’s what I believe sxp is alluding to while you use nonsense to tap dance around the elephant in the rightie room because you aren’t a racist and you don’t want to face what the right has become and fed on ever since the southern strategy, which you’ll probably say is a myth.  

            • raymond1 says:

              … by insisting that Thomas agrees with his lunatic anti-Brown view. Thomas and Scalia are NOT anti-Brown; see my comment citing an article quoting scalia as consistently pro-Brown. i could do a cite for Thomas too but yawn, once i documented that GOPw is bullshitting, i figure im done

      • Michael Dorsett MD says:

        You have to be joking.  Try turning these comments into an ad charging racism.  Even the most creative genious would have a hard time making a convincing ad.  Good luck with that.

        You should really make sure your tin foil hat is secure too.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      That Brown was the good guy.

    • Old Time Dem says:

      one assume that the bigoted Buck is dog whistling to racists when he invokes state’s rights arguments and sheds a tear for the halcyon days of the 1950s?

      • H-man says:

        Buck is a bigot?

        Everybody that believes in state’s rights is a bigot?

        You are an idiot.

        • GOPwarrior says:

          Another way liberals have subverted the debate about our country’s future. It’s what this whole post is about.

        • Old Time Dem says:

          Bucks “high heels” comment and his blatant prosecutorial overreach makes him a bigot.

          • H-man says:

            Buck’s high heels comment was a joke and he had a warrant to go after taxpayer files of illegals and the appellate court decision was split so all the judges who agreed with Buck were bigots, too?  You are beyond an idiot.  Their brain activity is at least measurable.

            • Old Time Dem says:

              The “I’m not a bigot, I was just joking” defense.  We hear that one a lot.

              And the “I can’t be a bigot because prosecutorial discretion is so broad” defense.  That’s a much rarer specimen that we’ll have to treasure.

        • dwyer says:

          Old Time Dic _

          Buck is a bigot?

          Everybody that believes in state’s rights is a bigot?

          You are an idiot.

          The 14th amendment guaranteed to citizens of the United States civil rights which states could not deny based on the notion of “states ‘rights.”

          States can not segregate their school systems or their public accommodation or their voting systems by claiming that “separate is equal,”  and then claiming the right to enforce that belief under the banner of “states’ rights.” The Supreme Court of the United States said “separate is inherently unequal”  and no state has the right to pass laws based on the “separate but equal” premise.

          So, H-man, what aspect of “states’ rights” are you talking about?  

          If you, like Mike Rosen, think Brown was wrongly decided, then speak up.  If you don’t answer then  I will call you out as having bigoted opinions for which you lack the courage to claim.   You will earn what  sxp151 has so brilliantly identifed:  the  ”dog whistle”

          • H-man says:

            to the extent I disagree with Brown, and as to the decision itself I am not in disagreement, but some later decisions which used it as precedent and some of the remedies carved out based on it.

            To the extent I used states rights I did not intend to be understood as rights in violation of the 14th amendment or supremacy clause.  Rather the concept that rights not specifically enumerated were retained by the states.  

            The federal government in my view should be more limited in scope. Not everything decided at a state level historically should be preempted by the national government.

            • MADCO says:

               How about marriage?

              Is it a state’s right to prohibit marriage between siblings? or cousins?

              Is it a state’s right to prohibit interracial marriage?

              Is it a state’s right to prohibit any marriage?

              How about federal lands?

              Would it be a state’s right to either condemn, aquire or otherwise alter the ownership interest of any federal land within it’s borders?

              Would it be a state’s right to declare that since higher  education worked so much better when it as single sex that its universities are going to disallow women?

              Should states have been allowed to determine when it is ok for a woman to terminate a pregnancy?

              Should states be allowed to define mathematical identities such as pi*?

              Should they get to decide to embrace pastafarianism and teach according to the CFSM?

              And so on.

              Where is the line between states rights and federal obligation to  form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ?

              *Indiana House Bill No. 246, 1897 : The Indiana Pi Bill

  3. Palmer Bartlett says:

    In the 1950′s A Republican was President.

    His Name was Dwight Eisenhower and we had the best schools in the world because we funded them with one of the most progressive tax agendas in the history of this country.  But I guess we should just continue to cut taxes, and that will somehow magically create 1950′s level schools.

  4. Old Time Dem says:

    During the early part of the 1950s, less than 60% of 17 year-olds were high school graduates.  That statistic peaked in the 1960s at nearly 80%.

    College enrollment was lower than in the 1960s.

    A substantial number of Americans attended truly horrible, segregated schools.  Rural schools were a disgrace.  Opportunities for girls were restricted, as well.

    What exactly is it that Buck likes so much about the 1950s?

  5. GOPwarrior says:

    Brown vs. Board of Education has been legitimately criticized over and over again. Buck doesn’t have to say it was a mistake. I’m not saying it was or it wasn’t, because I am not a mindreader, but if it was not a mistake, here are some things you liberal witch hunters should consider:

    Brown v. Board seen as a failure for blacks

    http://wvgazette.com/News/Brow

    Derrick Bell, a New York University law professor, offers readers an engaging, harsh critique of how the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision failed blacks.

    Bell, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund during the 1960s, later came to believe the abstract principle of school integration is much less important than guaranteeing good schools for all black children.

    Seeing racism as a permanent fixture in U.S. society, Bell believes excessive devotion to integrationist principles actually hurts black children.

    The legal principle of racial neutrality, which is inseparable from racial equality, is not well served by the Brown vs. Board of Education. This isn’t a racial issue. Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia have severely criticized the Brown decision, and I believe it set the stage for overwhelming federal intervention in education. Ken Buck is 100% correct that federal intervention in education has failed to produce better results.

    This is not something we should be squeamish about as conservatives. Too many well-meaning decisions have had terrible consequences! Liberals try to make people emotional instead of listening to when Ken Buck, and yes, Rand Paul, are saying.

    • sxp151 says:

      are no longer afraid to be openly racist. For too long you’ve had to hide your fear and loathing of black people behind a facade of political correctness, but now at long last you can let it all out. Don’t be afraid any more, white man. Break the chains that have oppressed you, and hate with all your heart. I’m sure it’ll win you elections.

      • GOPwarrior says:

        This is not racism. This is bad policy.

        • sxp151 says:

          In your own words, tell me why integration is a bad thing. We all want the schools to be better, sure. Why are separate schools for white kids and black kids likely to produce better results? Be specific, and try not to be racist when you answer.

          • GOPwarrior says:

            It’s about forcing local school districts to make arbitrary choices based on race. It won’t even matter someday, in the age of school choice Brown is an anachronism.

            • sxp151 says:

              would they be better than they are?

              Why?

              • GOPwarrior says:

                Yes.

                Why must everything be a trap?

                • sxp151 says:

                  That’s what we did about racism, right? Or are you referring to something other than Brown v. Board of Education?

                  It only feels like a trap because you’re still a little embarrassed about your racism. You are well aware that the schools would have remained segregated without federal intervention. And you know it’s impossible to honestly argue your position without resorting to racism.

                  In the end your position is, “Things would be better if schools were still allowed to keep white kids and black kids separate.” Justify that position. Don’t run away from it. You’ve posted it a dozen times in this goddamned thread, now justify it you racist little coward.

    • raymond1 says:

      Where have Thomas and Scalia severely criticized Brown?  I think you made that up because you assume that, as conservatives, they agree with all of your (crazier) conservative notions.

      • raymond1 says:

        http://www.coloradopols.com/sh

        I miss the days when his only comments were “HA HA YOU LIBS WILL LOOSE IN NOVEMBER!” I’ll take a juvenile trashtalker over a lying segregation apologist any day.

      • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

        I’ll look for a link, don’t take it as gospel until I produce one unlike GOPweenie here.

        I’m pretty sure somebody once accused Scalia of this and he refuted it, though. So he’s wrong on at least that.

        • raymond1 says:

          This is from Thomas in Parents Involved v Seattle (2007):

          My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan’s view in Plessy: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (dissenting opinion). And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown. See, e.g., Brief for Appellants in Brown v. Board of Education, O.T.1953, Nos. 1, 2, and 4 p. 65 (“That the Constitution is color blind is our dedicated belief”); Brief for Appellants in Brown v. Board of Education, O.T.1952, No. 1, p. 5 (“The Fourteenth Amendment precludes a state from imposing distinctions or classifications based upon race and color alone”)…

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      The basic thesis is that in the finding that “separate but equal” was not equal, the SCOTUS should have focused more on the equal than the separate, i.e. maintaining segregation while increasing quality for black schools would have been the better option.  

      I still don’t find the crux of your argument, that Brown is a faulty decision which constitutional scholars disagree with.

      Bullshit call still in effect.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      LB, any thoughts on your buddy GOPweenie’s substantially undermining your affected outrage? I’m standing by.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      I think it’s time the Liberal Press started talking about the Good Things about slavery.  The KKK has long proven that the emancipation proclamation led to degeneracy like inter racial mariage and even, gasp, bicycle-sharing.

      It’s good that true Americans like you are speaking up to put those inferior races in their place!

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      A memo that clerk Rehnquist wrote for Justice Jackson in 1952 on the school desegregation cases then before the Court, including Brown v. Board of Education, came back to haunt him at both his own Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

      Entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” the memo argued that the attack on school segregation should be rejected and the separate-but-equal doctrine the Court had endorsed in the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 “was right and should be reaffirmed.”

      “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my ‘liberal’ colleagues,” Mr. Rehnquist wrote to Justice Jackson. He also wrote that “in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.”

      The memo, which remained in Justice Jackson files, caused a furor when it surfaced during Mr. Rehnquist’s 1971 confirmation hearing. Both then and during his 1986 hearing on his nomination to be Chief Justice, he said that the memo did not express his personal view, but had been drafted at Justice Jackson’s request as a summary of the Justice’s views.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09

      “it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are”

      Nice!

      • raymond1 says:

        He also, around the same time, opined that Texas Democrats could have a whites-only primary election – a position the Sup Ct rejected 9-0, as in Brown. So if BasementWarrior wants to keep the company of deceased folks who sided with the segregationist south 60 years ago… well, congrats to him, but I’m not sure non-insane conservatives like Laughing Boy and H-Man really want to associate with folks who affirmatively reject Brown v Bd (GOPwarrior), who deny evolution (BJ), etc. — just as I avoid consorting with JO and the like.

  6. dwyer says:

    Concern about American education was an issue in the 50s.

    When the Russians put Sputnik up in the Fall of 1957, the country was surprised and angry.   The US educational system was blamed.  The high school branch of the National Forensic League had as it debate topic for 1958-59 was:

    Resolved:  The United States should adopt the British Educational System.

    The elements of the British Education system were federal funding for education; ability grouping and the 11+ exam.

    It was easy to find articles to cite because there was such public debate/discussion on the issue.

    Admiral Rickover was a leading critic of American education.

    See Widipedi:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H

    The National Defense Educational Loan program, offering loans and scholarships in Math, Science and Language, was passed in the winter of 1959.

    However, I think that Buck may well be referring to Brown v. BOE/Topeka  and the resultant Keys case in Denver.

    I have heard over and over again for many years that DPS was a find educational system, one of the best in the country, until the federal court intervened and ordered busing.  I think it would be worthwhile to question Buck more.

    HOWEVER, dems, remember that a lot of voters absolutely would agree with Buck and vote accordingly.

    • GOPwarrior says:

      Please continue being honest: can you name ONE benefit that Denver’s forced busing system measurably had on students? ONE?

      • GOPwarrior says:

        That’s right. Should have spent that money in the classroom, but what would the bus driver’s union say?

      • Froward69 says:

        I was bussed across Denver…

        1) homework was finished by the time I got home.

        2) the friends I made aided me throughout HS and College.

        3) some of those friends went on to other parts of the country and world.

        Most of those friendships endure today and some are profitable.

        4) I learned about people, cultures and how diversity is Americas strength. America does not have a single defined culture but many.

        How reality does indeed have a Liberal bias.

        I am sure you have eaten lots of different foods never giving a thought to their true origins.

        white bread gets Boring to me GOPsqaw.  

        • Laughing Boy says:

          If you believe that, everyone Froward knows is now filthy rich and happy beyond belief due to the brilliant policies of the kickass Obama team!!!

        • dwyer says:

          I mean it respectfully, are you white or black or hispanic?

          The reason I ask is that I think that white students did benefit from “diversity.”  Based on my limited experience with DPS, white students were almost automatically identified as “gifted and talented” and were given extra incentives to stay in the District.  That really helped the old ego.

          Also, the kids I know who went through DPS, regardless of color, are more tolerant and knowledgeable about different cultures. I consider that a real plus.

          The problem DPS has, IMHO, is that it has a political culture, not an educational one.  And, minority students are hurt the most.  I don’t know if things were better in the 80s than they are now.  I also think that the influx of non-English speakers who are also children of undocumented people has impacted DPS negatively and that is not the District’s fault.

    • Old Time Dem says:

      A very significant federal involvement in public education is IDEA, which requires an adequate free education for disabled students.

      Returning to the 50s–or even the 60s, 70s, or 80s–model of public education means depriving disabled children of an adequate education.

  7. Ralphie says:

    I was one of the kids who benefited from NDEA.  I was eight years old when it passed.  If it hadn’t been for NDEA, I would never have been nurtured in science, and I never would have had a career doing something I love.

    But I’m an anomaly.  Most of the children of boomers who now control elections have no freakin’ idea about what inspired their parents.

    No matter how wonderful NDEA was, there aren’t a whole lot of people who know about it.

    Given today’s dismal math and science scores (and BJ is a shining example of what kind of know-nothing can get into grad school these days), we could sure use another NDEA to help us stay on top.

  8. koop says:

    A common logical fallacy.  Our schools were great; then the feds got involved; now our schools are bad;  therefore fed involvement made our schools bad.

    As with all logical fallacies it has a surface appeal but falls apart when examined.  You need to ask the next question.  ”What did the feds do that ruined the schools?”

    • GOPwarrior says:

      The federal government has spent so much money. Ken Buck asks, what do we have to show for it?

      Michael Bennet answers, “Nothing!”

    • H-man says:

      If we spend a lot more money it will be better.  As to some things that may be true, as to others it may not be.  We have previously indulged ourselves into thinking that was true as to everything and if we were not sure, no problem.  We can’t afford that indulgence any more.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        When a system is screwed up, usually throwing more money at it gets it even more screwed up.

        We need to fix K-12. I don’t know what the answer is. But I can say I don’t care what approach we take as long as it’s a significant change and has a credible argument that it will be better.

        • Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

          The public school system built in the Progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th century worked precisely as Buck seems to admire/desire, because it was designed to SORT and SERVE a select population scored on psuedo-scientific notions of IQ-based academic merit.  Testing sorted, and the system rewarded.  

          That the tests were biased is now beyond question, but that was not an assumption that went in to Brown.  Instead, the assumption was that the structural segregation of the schooling experience was the bias.  Change the structural experience, and the bias would go away.  This was wrong, and is, in part, a basis of the argument advanced by critics of Brown.  The system was, and remains designed to segregate.  Integrating that system won’t change the outcome.  You have to change the system.  

          Not that I’m one for heaping praise on the Bush Administration, but one thing NCLB realized is that we’re not in the “sorting” game any more.  Every child needs to succeed if we’re to remain competitive in the global economy, it’s simply a question of demographics.  Buck wants to restore a system of pseudo-scientific meritocratic sorting that would benefit a few while depriving the  country of the educated labor force it needs.  That may have worked fine for those “select few” when America had a virtual economic and educational monopoly in the world.  Let’s be clear, though:  it never worked well for the majority, as well into the 1960s fewer than 20% were “selected” on to the ultimate reward of a college degree.  Today, however, it’s not just a backward vision socially, it’s economic suicide.

          In sum, Education is not a bloated and failing example of Federal incompetence.  It costs more today, and REQUIRES national guidance like the Common Core standards, because we are trying to do something entirely different for our young people than sort them into “successes” and “failures.”  We’re actually trying to educate all of them.  

          Perhaps it would be better to debate the way to achieve that goal, rather than its merits?

          • dwyer says:

            Perhaps it would be better to debate the way to achieve that goal, rather than its merits?

            I agree with this.  However, I would like to add more to your historical perspective, and also ask a question.

            The G.I. Bill opened up a college education to all veterans of WWII.  It helped to build a strong middle class and its impact  cannot be diminished.

            Now then, this is my question in regard to your statement:

            population scored on psuedo-scientific notions of IQ-based academic merit.

            Are you asserting that everyone is capable of learning at a college level?  Or, do you accept that intelligence varies and is distributed along the traditional bell shaped curve?

            I don’t dispute that IQ tests have a cultural basis.  But, I do believe that intelligence varies among the population and that a school system which does not take this into account

            has unrealistic expectations and ultimately hurts kids at both the high and low end of the curve.

        • ajb says:

          What if we cut class size in half by hiring more teachers?

          I’m just asking. No snark.

          Here’s a reference that says it works:

          http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Reduci

          • MADCO says:

            I had twice as many kids in my classes and I turned out ok.

            Class size is irrelevant. The problem is the parents just want free daycare and have someone else raise their kids.  Fine- but daycare providers generally make minimum wage.

            How about instead we close half the schools, furlough the staff and faculty and double up?

            • sxp151 says:

              “I turned out fine, so everybody should turn out fine with what I had.” It’s not too hard to get from there to the actual Republican platform plank: “Fuck you, I got mine.”

              (Article XI, Section A, paragraph 2. Look it up.)

              • MADCO says:

                OMG

                It’s just so much funnier when I say it goofing around.

                When people really think that way, it stops being funny.

                • sxp151 says:

                  but that makes me feel much better.

                  (It’s not unusual around here for otherwise rational liberals to go absolutely bonkers when it comes to education.)

                  • MADCO says:

                    But it still surprises me when I go as far toward crazy land as I can imagine, and the border just seems to stay halfway to the horizon.

                    My grandmother used to tell a story about her father being generally skeptical about why she bothered to go to school rather than stay home and help on the farm.   Her younger years were mixed grades 1-5ish, and 6ish-8, but all in one large room.  And when I was a kid whenever she would see my school, she would shake her head and wonder what went wrong that we spent so much and so on.  Until I was about 14 she used to include the part about getting two pencils on the first day of school that her father would insist were supposed to last her the school year. And that her mother would secretly give her two more for Christmas.

                    Now, I think it was part walking both ways to school, uphill, in the snow, with hand me down shoes kind of story. And based on the farm “house” my g-grandfather built, partly true.

                    But she stopped bringing it up all together when I was in college and the light came on for me – having a one room school house with 15-20 kids and one teacher with occasional helper through 8th grade would have been awesome.   I sort of rudely pointed out to recreate her school experience would require roughly a 2500% increase in funding. And I’d be in favor, even if it meant each kid had to get guilted for life over a few pencils.

                    (Yes, she still talks to me. I kind of toned down the crazy as I got older)  

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            It’s not that more money never helps. And in many cases it can help a small amount. But it almost always puts off fixing the system. And when it does help, it usually is small improvement at great cost.

            To quote from the study you reference:

            Slavin found that reduced class size had a small positive effect on students that did not persist after their reduced class experience.



            At the same time, they cautioned that positive effects were less likely if teachers did not change their instructional methods and classroom procedures in the smaller classes.

    • ScottP says:

      I wonder if anyone is going to answer it.

    • CastleMan says:

      Right, koop.

      There are lots of explanations for the decline, to the extent there’s been a decline, in American education.

      Putting aside the question of whether our schools are better or worse than they were fifty years ago, I would argue that at least three factors have affected schools far more than any federal involvement.

      First, there has been a long and contentious debate about the proper goals of education and about educational methodology. Some of the techniques and philosophies have worked, some have not.

      Second, our society has become more fractured on a number of social and political issues, which in turn has affected the ways that schools prioritize topics and goals.

      Third, the exposure of children to the mass media, the breakdown of the nuclear family,  the lessening of traditional pressures for one parent to stay home with the children, and increased economic pressure on families and local communities has probably affected educational achievement.  

  9. H-man says:

    The lead in, which was omitted was to the effect “one out of three students drop out before they (should) graduate, 70% of 8th graders cant read at the 8th grade level”, What plans do you have to make public education better in America?  

  10. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    It’s kinda like health care. We’ve screwed up health care–Medicare–we’ve screwed up all kinds of other things,

    Big mistake after the 527s get done with this.

  11. RedGreenRedGreen says:

    Because the rest of the world’s schools sucked.

    Same as having the best auto industry in the world — before the federal government (and Ralph Nader) got involved. It doesn’t make sense unless you know what the rest of the world had.

    All that said, I doubt this is Buck’s “Rand Paul” moment or that what he’s saying has anything directly to do with Brown.

  12. ScottP says:

    Who ruined education? The Federal Government!

    Who ruined healthcare? The Federal Government!

    Who is taking away your freedoms? The Federal Government!

    Who left the empty OJ container in the fridge? The Federal Government!

    “So elect me, Ken Buck, so I can become a part of the Federal Government. I will work harder than anyone else to ruin education, mess up healthcare and take away your freedoms faster than you can say, ‘Wait what?!’. I will do these things because THAT is what the Federal Government does.”

    /sarcasm over

    Buck isn’t racist. He’s not a political strategist. He’s probably not even sexist. He’s just parroting talking points and trying to please ALL the conservatives at the same time by pandering to whatever group he’s in front of. It’s not working and he’s just looking like a fool.

  13. dwyer says:

    Disclaimer:  I think that kids learn best when their teachers love them or at least have a stake in the future of the kids…black teachers in black schools cared a whole hell of a lot about the future of those kids.  I don’t think that can be legislated.  Black kids were bused to schools where a lot of white teachers/students/parents didn’t want them.  I grew up in the military.  I am so thankful that I was educated in a integrated, well run school system, where we were all cared about in  the same way.

    Policy:  In Brown v. Topeka BOE, the Supreme Court found that “separate by equal” was inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional.  

    Strategy:  Busing was the remedy which the court ordered to correct the abuses of segregation.  I think that one can deplore the use of forced busing and yet absolutely agree with the finding in Brown v. Topeka.  The court could have ordered other remedies; such as, reparations, equalize the educational facilities and resources for black kids, and ordering the removal of  all barriers to enrollment by black kids and protecting their right to enroll where they wished.    I believe that action by the federal government was absolutely necessary.

  14. bjwilson83 says:

    Buck said schools were great in the 50′s before federal involvement in the 60′s. In your rush to include at least one article bashing Buck today (I guess today was bash Maes day) you made up a completely nonsensical argument. And yes, post people do agree that the federal government has screwed up health care with Obamacare.

  15. raymond1 says:

    Seriously, even if he’s not attacking Brown (which I don’t think he is — only lunatics like GOPwarrior do), he’s saying that a decade when schools were still segregated was when “we had the best schools.” And you can look it up: even in Colorado, intentional segregation lasted into the 1970s (see the Keyes v School District #1 case from 1973).

    Analogy: You know when the voting population was best? The 1950s, the decade before the Voting Rights Act lessened the massive exclusion of blacks from the ballot box.

      • According to USGovernmentSpending.com…

        The Federal education budget in 1950 was $2.8b of a total $44.8b federal budget, or 1/16th of the total budget.  Total government education spending in 1950 was $9.6, so the Federal government amounted for 29+% of government education funding.

        In 2010, the Federal education budget was $149.5b of the total $3591.1b federal budget, or about 1/24th of the total budget.  As a percentage of the $1018.8b total government education spending in 2010, the Federal government only provided ~14.7% of total government education spending.

        So performance to federal funding – I think it’s time to return to 1950′s funding levels (and tax levels to pay down our debt…).

        • MADCO says:

          First OTD provides some real metrics for the idealized 50′s,

          Then more than one poster highlights the relevant funding levels form the era, including this eloquent and reasonable post from you.

          This is ColoradoBennetBuckbashing Pols!!!! dammit.

          We want flame-on ideological, certainty and passioante if factless discourse. I know you said it drove you away in the primary- but the primary is over and game on boyfriend.  If you continute to stay reasonable and facty, it will go badly for you.

          Passion and emotion, especially when discussing the kids or seniors or vets or you know, stuff. Here’s a hint – cutting and  pasting and youtube vids.

  16. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    It’s been really fun watching the local conservatives play a little bingo.

  17. dwyer says:

    There are three Supreme Court decisions which have impacted American education significantly.  Buck, the lawyer, the officer of the court, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, should be challenged to speak specifically to each decision.

    1) The most significant is Brown v. Topeka, Board of Education.

    2) The second significant decision, which I don’t have the name for, in 1974, held that children with disabilities could not be excluded from public schools. And that furthermore, they had the right to be in the least restrictive environment.

    That decision has been extraordinary expensive.  Before that, kids with disabilities, kids who were retarded, were routinely excluded from public schools.

    3) The third significant decision was that children here illegally were entitled to a public school education.

    I don’t think that Buck should be allowed to get away with the catch-all phrase “the federal government.”  If he disagrees with any of these decisions, he should be made to say so.  If on the only hand, he doesn’t like No Child Left Behind, he should say so.  That was bipartisan legislation passed during the Bush administration.

    The federal government has three branches: executive, judiciary and legislative.  Buck needs to say which actions from which branch of the federal government with which he is in disagreement.

    • raymond1 says:

      … I think #2 is a federal statute rather than a Sup Ct decision. The “Education for All Handicapped Children Act” (EACH) of 1975, later renamed and amended as the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA), protects the right of special ed kids to a Free & Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), including “mainstreaming” by placing kids in the least restrictive setting possible. A good law, but underfunded by the feds.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      sxp had a great point above about dogwhistle politics. I guarantee those whitebread frat boys didn’t miss it.

    • I doubt “Buck” N’ “Bennet” will say anything but general political rhetoric.

      I mean what’s Buck trying to say about the Department of Education? Get rid of it? Its Unconstitutional? What?

      Dwyer, You have a point, where’s the specificity?

      From, my perspective,

      “No Child Left Behind” has to go.

      The “Dream Act” is garbage also………

      Congress can change Plyler v. Doe and then let the high court settle this matter.

      Even so can they enforce the laws? When the Federal government not the states enforces the federal immigration laws.

      So, I am wondering can the CU College Republicans clarify, that they are for the “Republican Party?” or for what?

      If so, are they supporting the one REP on the Governor race?

      Also Raymond1 has a good point, the funding or lack of issue, regarding disabled kids, same ones abandoned by the No Child Left Behind crap.

  18. We, the College Republican at CU, filmed this moment when Ken Buck spoke at our meeting as well.  We will post his full answer on our website http://www.republicanbuffs.com through YouTube tonight.  We would like to create a diary here through this account as well.  Only showing a snippet of his answer is misleading to say the least.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      I love frat boys. I mean, what the hell do you need Medicare for, anyway? So young and virile and all that. Mmm-hmm.

      I’m pretty sure there is a waiting period for new accounts to post their own diary (trollspamlibel prevention), but there are lots of GOPers around waiting to help you, and you can post your video right here too. I’d love to see how he walks trashing Medicare and 60 years of progress back!

      Until then, fellas!

      And no, I’m not buying your beer. That’s against the law.

      • Currently, none of the leadership of the College Republicans at CU are part of fraternities unless you count co-ed honors fraternities.  Apparently, we did not film that portion of the event, which is unfortunate because he goes on to say that communities and school boards should have more control over their own schools.

          • ardy39 says:

            No RepublicanS.

            We, the College Republican at CU, …

            The message above is very clear. There is a single Republican at CU. (And, oddly, this single R refers to him?self using the royal ‘we.’)

            And does this R really think we have time to watch an entire recording? Of the Buckpedaler? Whatever …

            • RealJessJohnson says:

              I thought I had the footage of his whole answer but I turned off my camera just as he started speaking.  It is really too bad that I don’t have it and that ColoradoPols released only a snippet of his answer.  It only a minute more at most.  It just goes to show that ColoradoPols has an agenda when covering this race.

              We had a great turnout for the event as you can see..

              • ardy39 says:

                It is really too bad that I don’t have it …

                Maybe you should be more careful. And maybe you should refrain from accusing others of ill intent when you don’t have the evidence to back you up.

                It’s not like the CU College Republican might have an agenda (or something).

                But welcome to CO Pols. Really (no snark). I hope you stay and engage. It would really be nice to have a bright young Republican or two contributing here.

                • Democrat Orientated ?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

                  • ardy39 says:

                    to ask whether CO Pols is

                    Democratically Oriented?

                  • RealJessJohnson says:

                    This is obviously a blog and Colorado Pols can write and promote whatever diary he wants.  The Denver post is very objective in their reporting.  

                    But it is clear that the video abruptly cuts off when he is still talking, so you know he continues to speak on the subject.  I turned off my camera just when he started answering the question.  I thought I might have captured the whole answer but I was mistaken.  It would just have been nice if they actually uploaded his full answer but politics is never nice.

                    • Post: the interpretive thoughts here….

                      Or what you can actually transcribe as accurately as possible…. like this.

                      Buck (contines): erm, what I mean, really, what I was saying, about that, when I meant to say what I was referring to, is this….  Just so you don’t misunderstand, what I said before on that point, where we all have to go to make things work right in the Federal government, you know.

                      Kinda like that…you know…. so we all can figure out what he is saying…

                    • sxp151 says:

                      http://coloradoindependent.com

                      “You see the guy in the back with the blue shirt on? He’s got a hidden microphone and he works for the Democratic Party and he usually films me wherever I go. Luckily all the cameras are turned off today,” said Buck.

                      College Republican President Gregory Calrson then approached media, including the Colorado Independent, and requested video taping stop.

                      Sounds like you and Gregory Carlson need to get your damn story straight.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      So to sum up: your group is calling Colorado Pols biased because they didn’t post the full video of Buck’s answer, in spite of the fact that your group and Buck explicitly ordered all cameras off so that there wouldn’t be any evidence of what Buck actually said?

                      Gotcha.  

                    • Anytime, bring me in, leave the tape running.

                      If fact (PLUG COMING) you can view my last three radio shows live at : (Plug coming) –>

                      Press Release Talk Radio Program, http://wp.me/PUAuu-aD You can listen to my Radio Shows at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/c

                      -

                      fact is: Jess, you have to be careful what you wish for. Neither the Buck n’ Bennet show offer you or the future any real hope.

                      Now all you have is the same-o-same-o political drama which goes nowhere except to drive further the nail into the its “out of control” coffin, that both Buck N’ Bennet dug.

                      So, invite me to speak, since I was the VP of the “Federalist Society” at DU, maybe I can offer some “true republican” insights.

                      But be warned, I was also the main liaison for “Alliance for Justice” at DU. You see, Unaffiliated is about not “lock stepping or goose steeping” to the party lines…

                      food for thought.

                    • RealJessJohnson says:

                      is that we have only a two party system and it will be that way for awhile.  One must find the issues that are most important to him/her and work within the party that is closest to those ideals to advance their own ideology.  I personally like the idea of Washington state’s top 2 primary as it brings a more diverse degree of opinion and elects more moderate candidates.

                    • The top two primary system does not encourage diversity of opinion so much as it encourages party unity – the major party having the fewest candidates gets to the final round; under the top 2 system, even a strong majority party can find itself blocked out of the general election if they field too many good candidates while the opposition fields only two.

                      If you want moderate candidates, endorse Rank Choice Voting or some other Condorcet voting method.  They generally produce the “least dislikable” candidate as the winner.

                    • RealJessJohnson says:

                      But wouldn’t Colorado’s caucus system prevent that?  At most, a party can have only 3 candidates on the ballot, which is unlikely.

                    • No limits.  If you change the law on primaries, you could easily do something “bad”.  Understanding voting systems and their consequences is something I think this country doesn’t do nearly enough of, from the consequences of not voting and/or not being involved, to the consequences of having a plurality voting system in an era where better choices are available.

                      (BTW, in a top 2 primary, even a race that’s 2 GOP vs. 3 Dem can come out bad for Democrats if everyone is a competent candidate.  Or imagine 2 Dems, 3 GOP, 1 incompetent Green, and a competent Libertarian and ACP candidate…  The results of such a race may very well be 2 Dems making it to the November ballot and no conservatives…)

                    • you have 5 others on the ballot, there is a BOX for me Charley Miller “Unaffiliated.”

                      Hmmmm…looks like alot of people running all across the board, what does that tell you?

                    • That without an instant runoff or other ranked choice voting system, the other three people on the ballot almost always get a look and a pass, because people figure they want to be part of electing someone, not part of sending a message by voting for a candidate they believe will almost certainly lose.

                      Third party candidates in IRV type elections get more support than they would otherwise because people aren’t worried about “throwing their vote away”.

              • H-man says:

                Forgive many of the people on ColoradoPols.  They have acceptance issues. Some of them still think this is 2008.

                I am attaching a link to your site, http://www.republicanbuffs.com… so they can see pictures of the 24 students that Senator Bennet had show up.  

                Polsters, remember our talk about an enthusiasm gap?  Republicans out drawing Dems in Boulder?  The peoples republic of Boulder?

                Ouch.  It must really suck to be a Dem in 2010.

                 

                • sxp151 says:

                  it’s big news. Not too surprising he got some attention for it. Everybody wants to know what Buck’s latest position is.

                  Too bad Buck refused to allow anyone to record his words that night, huh? Why do you suppose that is? Is Buck still embarrassed by tea party people? Does he wish nobody had ever recorded his earlier positions on student loans and abortion?

                  If I’d been a CU student, I probably would have shown up to see Buck as well, to ask why he wants to eliminate Stafford loans and make students pay more for the loans they can get. His policies would suck for lots of students, even Republicans.

        • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

          Sure, little man, like the Topeka, Kansas school board for example.

          #FAIL – That’s your language, right?

          • RealJessJohnson says:

            Doing what the Topeka, Kansas school board did and many other school boards did at the time did is not only illegal now but morally wrong.  He simply stated that school boards are more responsive to those who care the most, the parents, than a politicion in Washington.

            • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

              And I understand why you cannot see the relationship that is so clear to everyone else here, because you are a clueless College Republican frat boy.

              Don’t you have a Stafford loan? Or are Mom and Dad writing the checks?

              • RealJessJohnson says:

                I know how to spell Politician.  JeffcoBlue, don’t be so condescending or assuming about who I am.  I have some loans and I get grants to go to school.  I am a big supporter of funding higher Education and assisting those who can’t afford to go to college but deserve to go.

                • sxp151 says:

                  The only people who would be able to get loans under Buck’s plan are people whose credit is good enough that they don’t need loans. Buck thinks you students have it too good. At best your rates would go way up, and at worst you wouldn’t have a loan at all.

                  Do you get a lot in government aid? Sure. Do you pay a lot in taxes? Nope. So you’re a Republican because you deeply represent people like yourself?

                    • RealJessJohnson says:

                      Buck has never said he wants to end student loans, but he has made comments on how Congress has handled student loans. In March, Congress passed legislation making some changes to the nationwide health care law. In that legislation, Congress ended to practice of banks offering student loans with federal money. Students can continue to receive loans from banks, but without assurance from the federal government. In an e-mail to 7NEWS, Buck’s spokesman, Loftus wrote, “Ken believes that student loans should be guaranteed by the federal government, but he doesn’t believe that the federal government should push out private lenders. Buck is in support of students loans.”

                      http://www.thedenverchannel.co

                      I’m done with this topic.  Talk to you all some other time.  Going to work on my music blog now.  It is much more fun.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      For a bunch of people expecting such good results, you Republicans seem awfully sensitive.

                      And thank you for posting Buck’s newest position on student loans. It’s about two months until the election, so I think Buck has time for another 6-8 positions on this issue. I look forward to seeing them all.

                    • RealJessJohnson says:

                      I have a lot of work to do today.  http://www.republicanbuffs.com still needs a lot of work and I have a lot of posts I need to make for my music blog since the school week keeps me pretty busy.

                  • H-man says:

                    There is a reason people don’t believe Bennet.  He is a liar.  Repeating those lies is not very becoming.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      because he said it in his own words. This isn’t hard. Buck wanted to eliminate all federal involvement in student loans. He’s too dishonest to actually say that in front of a bunch of students at a state school. Why is your candidate such a coward, and why do you keep lying to defend him? Do you think Republican students are stupid?

                      What’s his latest position on student loans, anyway? And when does the next one come out? I guess Monday is too early because of the holiday, but maybe Tuesday?

  19. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    Any federal cuts cannot be made up in Colorado due to Tabor.

    Buck’s ideas would cause social chaos.

    Sen Bennet’s commitment to children not being held back due to zip code showed true

    values.

  20. Republican 36 says:

    Mr. Buck, without be specific, rails against federal involvement in education. He needs to answer a few questions about what specifically he thinks the federal government has done that harms education:

    1. Does he believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Bd. of Education /i> was wrong?

    2. Does he believe President Eisenhower was wrong to send troops in to enforce a court order desegregating Little Rock’s schools?

    3. Does Mr. Buck believe the federals student loan program should be terminated (that’s right the one that made it possible for millions upon millions of American to obtain a college degree and from that a better life materially and intellectually)?

    4. Does Mr. Buck believe the GI Bill was wrong because it, in part, allowed hundred of thousands of service men and women to attend college?

    5. And finally, what areas of federal policy in education does he think we should retain?

    Just railing against federal education policy and making the blind unfounded assumption that it is at fault for any existing problem in the education field is silly. Mr. Buck needs to tell us what he means and if he can’t, then we can only conclude he was grandstanding.

    • dwyer says:

      Who are you, really?

      • H-man says:

        btw. Has Bennet said where he stands on Card Check?  Cap and Trade?

        • You’re getting close to the Line That Shall Not Be Crossed At ColoradoPols.  (aka “outing”)

          Lots of us here are like R36 – former Republicans who left when the party took a sharp right turn.

          And, oh – you want to start a diary on Bennet’s vague stands, go ahead – I’ll join you over there.  This thread is about what Ken Buck believes we should do with our education system.  Apparently it involves going back to the 1950′s way of doing things “when the Federal government wasn’t so heavily involved” – which is odd, because the Federal government was a larger part of government education funding back then (though more loosely regulated), and the standards of education weren’t nearly as good.

          We’ve got statements here from some Republicans saying it really is about Brown, others saying Ken Buck wants to return the Student Loan program to what it was before reforms were passed this year – i.e. banks got to bilk the Federal government for “overhead” to service the loans.  We’ve had Republicans claiming what they really mean by this is getting rid of the Department of Education and having the Federal government just provide research and recommendations on effective teaching (which is largely what the DOEd does…).

          What does Ken Buck really want to see?

        • Republican 36 says:

          Mr. Buck isn’t specific in the video about what he dislikes about federal education policy but, according to him, he certainly wants us to go back to the 1950′s before the federal government was involved. By not being specific but clearly wanting to return to the 1950′s the questions are legitimate. He needs to answer each one.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.