Did anyone see the 60 minutes interview last night with John Boehner? I'm just curious what everyone's take on the soon to be speaker of the house is?
Some of what he said was interesting, but I just couldn't get past the fact that the guy just kept breaking down and crying. I'm mean really? I don't know much about his politics so that's my next step, but again I thought he just came off as weak.
The guy cares about his country and you know it's heartfelt as you can't fake those tears, unless you're Bill Clinton. I'll take guys like this any day compared to the cold calculating Chicago style politics of Obama.
The guy seems like a really solid politician that might actually care about America. I think he is ready to work to achieve policy goals that will help more average people, rather than many of the older folks there who would just rather get paid, on both sides of the aisle. That being said, this thread could have easily been posted in T-Replacement as Boehner seems to be suffering from some serious low T.
I think its absolutely ridiculous that Boehner gets a pass for being "weeper of the house" when if any female politician cried in public she would be called too weak and too emotional for the job! Double standard!
As for his politics... the guy flip flops... one minute he is for reducing the deficit the next minute he is raising it... says he cares about children yet is prepared to put forward major cuts to education.. makes no sense
Boehner states in the interview that he wants to provide children with the same opportunity he had - to achieve the "American Dream." He attended public school and paid his way through college during a time in the country when the public schools were comparatively some of the best in the world and college didn't cost as much thanks to the government... if he continues to cut education more he is setting up the American children (who he gets so weepy over) up for failure. I'm sure he likes kids... he just likes bankers, tobacco companies and insurance CEOs more.
I tend to agree, he talking out two sides of his mouth. You are either for public education or against, you cannot be for it and cut spending. You can look for improvements, make it more efficient, but if you say you are for it, you should not cut spending right off the bat,
You could however, defund the budget, declare bankruptcy in the department, get rid of the unions and start over with the ability to higher based on skills and ability. Force the system to perform it's main function, education. Not like the propagandist brainwashing babysitting service it has become.
That is if you believe in a tax paid public education system.
Actually he graduated from high school prior to Nixon taking office and slashing education funding. He went to school during the Kennedy years and was still reaping the benefits Roosevelt's "socialism" not yet undone by later presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush).
There is far less funding in the education system now which is why American schools are quickly being ranked lower and lower every year... its pretty sad actually.
The only over the top government involvement I see in American schools is sarah palin insisting students learn about creationism as a scientific theory.
Can you honestly say that poorly funded schools make better schools? I'm confused by the argument. I understand that obscene gov't intervention isn't good and clearly hasn't functioned properly. Ted Kennedy said that NCLB was one of his greatest mistakes, but to not want there to be a tax paid public education system is insane. It's an investment in the future, who do you think is going to paid you s.s and medicare if theres no functionally skilled workers?
As for "propagandist brainwashing babysitting service" maybe you should look in to the Texas board of Edu recent decisions to effectively change history, and add parts that blur or completely cross church and state separation lines.