All your children are belong to us

[meazza]

Wait, I never defended her statement nor meant to imply that I was in support of it. Unless I was posting and drinking again... and by drinking I mean smoking. All I said was:

 

 

Well you said the OP was ridiculous.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood. I've been drinking as well.

[We Come In Peace]

Well you said the OP was ridiculous.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood. I've been drinking as well.

Nope, my fault for not being clear -- I meant what she said in your original article was ridiculous, not the comment you were making on it.

[Just in Atlanta]

To hear the constant drumbeat from pop culture about the evil Fox News, and so many people eating it up like collectivist lemmings, makes me laugh.

 

MSNBC is so far to the left, it's to the right. I can't believe people, let alone pundits on a national stage, actually think like this twit. Her view of our children being society's is the cornerstone of any authoritarian society. Creepy to the core.

[Kellyto83TD]

"Kids Don't Belong To Their Parents, Kids Belong To Communities" And more from your Socialist leader Obama after this break...

[keepthefaith]

The democratic battle of ideas. They aren't right, and they don't have the moral high grounds, but there are more of them, and their numbers are growing.

 

Absolutely true. Election results, particularly when looking at 30 and under voters are all the data points you need.

[meazza]

Absolutely true. Election results, particularly when looking at 30 and under voters are all the data points you need.

 

As people get older they tend to vote conservative as long as the GOP stops putting its foot in its mouth about social issues.

[OCinBuffalo]

As people get older they tend to vote conservative as long as the GOP stops putting its foot in its mouth about social issues.

This is the screamingly understated fact that none of the "demographics" people ever include in the analysis. Reagan was elected, twice, despite supposed absolute polling data to the contrary.

 

I imagine spending all of my 20s under ObamaFAIL...would definitely move me towards, at the very least, being more objective in my 30s.

 

Too often "kids" are treated like idiots, or are taken for granted. No different than latinos or blacks have been. At some point there will be consequences for this, especially after years of FAIL. Consider: how many latinos can say "Thank God for Obamacare" today? They aren't stupid, despite liberal assumptions.

 

The MSM "denial of half of reality" approach has a shelf life. The right doesn't have to do much at all, other than watch them drive over the cliff. But, that takes patience, wisdom, and discipline...3 things that the right hasn't had a lot of recently.

 

I will say: if anybody has been showing these 3 qualities lately, it is Rand Paul.

[keepthefaith]

This is the screamingly understated fact that none of the "demographics" people ever include in the analysis. Reagan was elected, twice, despite supposed absolute polling data to the contrary.

 

I imagine spending all of my 20s under ObamaFAIL...would definitely move me towards, at the very least, being more objective in my 30s.

 

Too often "kids" are treated like idiots, or are taken for granted. No different than latinos or blacks have been. At some point there will be consequences for this, especially after years of FAIL. Consider: how many latinos can say "Thank God for Obamacare" today? They aren't stupid, despite liberal assumptions.

 

The MSM "denial of half of reality" approach has a shelf life. The right doesn't have to do much at all, other than watch them drive over the cliff. But, that takes patience, wisdom, and discipline...3 things that the right hasn't had a lot of recently.

 

I will say: if anybody has been showing these 3 qualities lately, it is Rand Paul.

 

Agree about Rand Paul and hope you are right on the rest but I feel otherwise. Since Reagan, the demographics of our nation have shifted along with attitudes. I saw it reported somewhere that under 30's in the 2012 election voted more (about 61%) democrat than in any election since Reagan and that the number has been trending up. Gotta hope the pendulum moves back the other way soon. Positive Liberal influences are everywhere in spite of the common sense view that their agenda is mostly terribly misguided.

[We Come In Peace]

Agree about Rand Paul and hope you are right on the rest but I feel otherwise. Since Reagan, the demographics of our nation have shifted along with attitudes. I saw it reported somewhere that under 30's in the 2012 election voted more (about 61%) democrat than in any election since Reagan and that the number has been trending up. Gotta hope the pendulum moves back the other way soon. Positive Liberal influences are everywhere in spite of the common sense view that their agenda is mostly terribly misguided.

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP. Right now to the 30 and under crowd the GOP offers nothing of interest to that demographic.

[IDBillzFan]

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP.

 

I disagree. A branding shift is needed, no doubt, but all it will really take is Republicans holding the house in 2014, because people have tolerated Obama up to now and are starting to realize he doesn't have even the slightest ability to pass a basic gun control bill which, in his own hissy fit words, is wanted by 90% of Americans.

 

He's a useless leader, and people are starting to realize that now.

 

If he's a lame duck while Obamacare schitts the bed and the economy continues to crawl as millions more give up looking for work...well, it will be a horrible time to be a liberal come 2016, especially going up against Rubio or Rand.

[We Come In Peace]

I disagree. A branding shift is needed, no doubt, but all it will really take is Republicans holding the house in 2014, because people have tolerated Obama up to now and are starting to realize he doesn't have even the slightest ability to pass a basic gun control bill which, in his own hissy fit words, is wanted by 90% of Americans.

 

He's a useless leader, and people are starting to realize that now.

 

If he's a lame duck while Obamacare schitts the bed and the economy continues to crawl as millions more give up looking for work...well, it will be a horrible time to be a liberal come 2016, especially going up against Rubio or Rand.

But you're forgetting that not all Democrats and certainly not all the 30 and under voters are liberals. Let's play out your scenario and know from the outset I am in no way attempting to defend Obama or disagree with your first paragraph. I'm merely playing out a scenario regarding the 30 and under demo, not the entire voting base.

 

If the GOP holds the house in '14, and I tend to think they will right now, that won't encourage any sort of internal debate within the party on the issues that matter most to that one demographic. I frankly think that's a dangerous game to play if you're trying to grow the party. You can't grow the party by throwing out half assed sweetners to the folks you're trying to convince to switch sides. You have to be bold and take control of the issues that matter to them.

 

And honestly, there are a host of social issues that are ripe for the plucking by the right. The biggest one is legalizing marijuana. I can't believe the right hasn't grabbed onto that one yet to be honest as it can be polished into a metaphor for some of the cornerstones of conservatism and libertarianism. But they gotta do it before the midterms for it to have a real impact on '16.

 

The chances of a Democrat winning in 16 is slim to begin with (just by the nature of our country's political ebb and flow) so the GOP might win by default without any real change or rebranding as you suggest. That's entirely possible. But then what happens in 20? By then the 30 and under crowd will move into the meat of the voting base in terms of numbers and influence and by then it'll be too late for the GOP to do an about face on some of these issues.

[IDBillzFan]

But you're forgetting that not all Democrats and certainly not all the 30 and under voters are liberals. Let's play out your scenario and know from the outset I am in no way attempting to defend Obama or disagree with your first paragraph. I'm merely playing out a scenario regarding the 30 and under demo, not the entire voting base.

 

I genuinely don't disagree with anything you're saying here. What I am debating is your original comment that it won't go back without a shift from the GOP. I read that as an exclusive statement, and all I'm saying is the pendulum CAN go back without a shift because the simple truth -- in print or not -- is that we have, what? 70 million people who just stopped looking for work? If that number continues to rise over the next three years while Obamacare continues to increase health care costs, the pendulum will swing as long as the GOP doesn't do something stupid...which is never a guarantee.

[We Come In Peace]

I genuinely don't disagree with anything you're saying here. What I am debating is your original comment that it won't go back without a shift from the GOP. I read that as an exclusive statement, and all I'm saying is the pendulum CAN go back without a shift because the simple truth -- in print or not -- is that we have, what? 70 million people who just stopped looking for work? If that number continues to rise over the next three years while Obamacare continues to increase health care costs, the pendulum will swing as long as the GOP doesn't do something stupid...which is never a guarantee.

My apologies then, I did not mean it as an exclusive statement in that context because I do believe you're right that the GOP can and most likely will hold the house after the midterms with or without any massive shift.

 

I'm just speculating in the second post because I'd like to see the GOP be more inclusive towards that particular demo because it will only help the entire political discourse in the nation -- and I don't mean that to sound in any way like a slight.

[IDBillzFan]

My apologies then, I did not mean it as an exclusive statement in that context because I do believe you're right that the GOP can and most likely will hold the house after the midterms with or without any massive shift.

 

I'm just speculating in the second post because I'd like to see the GOP be more inclusive towards that particular demo because it will only help the entire political discourse in the nation -- and I don't mean that to sound in any way like a slight.

 

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. You can now return to pissing off.

[RkFast]

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP. Right now to the 30 and under crowd the GOP offers nothing of interest to that demographic.

Bullschtein. The GOP has never been about the under 30 crowd, for the most part.

[B-Man]

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP. Right now to the 30 and under crowd the GOP offers nothing of interest to that demographic.

 

Untrue.

 

People of all ages are interested in protecting the rights of the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[We Come In Peace]

Untrue.

 

People of all ages are interested in protecting the rights of the individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

And yet, on the social issues which that demo cares most about, the GOP embraces the rights of the state -- not the individuals. Or at least that's how they're perceived. So that's a hard pony to sell.

[keepthefaith]

It won't go back without a massive shift in branding of the GOP. Right now to the 30 and under crowd the GOP offers nothing of interest to that demographic.

 

I've got a big one for you. The 30 and unders should be the group most concerned with our debt and deficits. They will shoulder the largest burden as the boomers exit the workforce and bloat the medicare and SS programs. Frankly they should be kicking and screaming about this and they should be overwhelmingly supporting politicians who are fiscally conservative. They should also be royally pissed at the older generations for having a big ole expensive party and leaving them the bill.

[B-Man]

La. Teachers’ Union President: School Choice ‘Taking Our Children From Us’

 

Amidst a controversy over the widespread education-reform project Governor Bobby Jindal has begun in Louisiana, the head of the state’s largest teachers’ union has essentially claimed that children belong to teachers’ unions as much as they do their parents. Criticizing the program in

on April 29 with Baton Rouge’s WBRZ, she said ”There isn’t anything fair about using something like that only against the public schools and then taking our children from us, and sending us where we don’t know what they’re getting.”

 

Jindal’s education-reform program for Louisiana, which I wrote about for NRO last year, is one of the nation’s most comprehensive efforts to offer parents the greatest choice possible in their children’s education. It will extend vouchers for private and religious schools to hundreds of thousands of Louisiana students who attend poor-quality schools, though the exact extent of the program is still being considered in court. Haynes’s group, the Lousiana Association of Educators, is well aware that that such a sweeping measure will be harmful to its interests, since it would lead to a significant number of students’ leaving the state’s public schools (a shift that already occurred, into charter schools, in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina) — and the radically left-wing notion that children belong to an entire community as much as they do their own parents (this is, of course, not the first time teachers’ unions paid more attention to far-left ideas and interests than the parents and children they are employed to serve).

 

{snip}

 

Haynes’s words seem especially timely in light of the controversy regarding MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry’s criticisms of the “private notion of children.” In a commercial for the network, Perry explained that “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.” They also, apparently, belong not just to their teachers’ — but their teachers’ union. Harris-Perry, as Deroy Murdock noted on the Corner recently, happens to live in Louisiana, and chose to send her daughter to one of New Orleans’s most expensive private schools — apparently she didn’t mind taking her child away from the teachers’ union.

[DC Tom]

 

Gotta be the NEA. Even AFT isn't that stupid.