Liberal messiah sending his daughters to ritzy private school
posted at 8:32 pm on November 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Michelle believes very strongly in the value of public education, mind you. Just not for her kids.
Lelyveld said that while public schools were considered, the Obamas felt that a private school was in the best interest of their children. The two girls currently attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where Michelle Obama is on the board.
Michelle Obama went to public schools on Chicago’s South Side, and undestands the importance of strong public schools, Lelyveld said, and the administration plans to work hard on that issue…
The quality of the school and its extra security make Sidwell Friends a good choice, said Letitia Baldrige, who was Jackie Kennedy’s social secretary and chief of staff during the Kennedy administration. Caroline Kennedy attended first grade in a makeshift third-floor classroom inside the White House.
I’d say something snarky but I’ve been informed by my betters that it’s wrong to criticize The One for hypocrisy on this point because, and I quote, “none of us knows what it’s like to be a president of the United States of America or a president-elect.” There’s video at the link; do bear it in mind the next time you get the urge to object to anything he says or does.
Chelsea Clinton went to this same school, incidentally, which is perfectly in keeping with the blueprint Obama’s followed thus far. Here’s an actual e-card I sent to our favorite liberal a few days ago. Share it with a Democrat you love.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I understand your frustration, and it is late and I’ve had a glass or two (or three) of wine. I DO get this point of yours, but I don’t think that this is the best use of our energy with regard to the education issue.
I can see us saying, “You don’t support vouchers yet you choose to send your kids to Sidwell Friends.”
I can make a very reasoned arguement for your side of this arguement, so I’m NOT disagreeing with you. However,
I think you’re missing my point my friend: I just don’t see how snarking at the Obamas for doing what all of us would have done,and then getting all shocky and claiming that because they have lauded and applauded public education is hypocritical on their point is a winning issue. I feel this way because I could easily argue the other side. (Which I have in previous posts, so we won’t digress.)
I think there are much bigger fish to fry, policy wise, and this issue just makes us look as petty as we did when it was raised when the Clinton’s chose to send Chelsea to the same school. What’s the old saying????? Keep the Eyes on the Prize?
Chewy the Lab on November 22, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Is there a link to that e-card?
I’ve recently had an acquaintance start rubbing my nose in Obama’s win.
NoamSayin on November 22, 2008 at 12:42 AM
No need for the e-card. I think you’re going to have the last laugh, Sayin.
HornetSting on November 22, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Chit, just saw I had the words “My friend[s]” in previous post. Am Sooooooooo sorry. Gulp.
Chewy the Lab on November 22, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I would never criticize Obama for putting his children in a private school. I would hope he wouldn’t send them to a public school just for the sake of politics. Family should be more important than looking good politically, even for the president-tentative.
But it’s absolutely fair game to ask why he won’t allow anyone else that freedom, and how he can justify fighting against vouchers when he himself doesn’t send his children through public education.
I would note though that Clinton stood up very publicly and announced he would send Chelsea to DC public schools, then turned around and sent her to a private school.
I was encouraged that Clinton put his daughter ahead of his politics. Ironically, about the only really good thing I could say about him was that he was a hypocrite on this issue for the sake of his daughter. Very faint praise.
I’m impressed that Obama managed to get elected without pledging to send his daughter to public schools. I guess when the press is more your propaganda wing than an independent press, you tend to get away with these things.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 22, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Well done. And Hornet – I have no qualms about signing up with his Manliness in the buff. Might get a rash, I suppose, but I’ve had worse.
Jaibones on November 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I would certainly agree that there are bigger fish to fry. I don’t agree that this makes us look petty as long as this criticism is accomplished with the appropriate approach and commentary. This is not *the* thing, it is *a* thing. It will be the accumulation of these small things, appropriately publicized that can be used to defeat the statists coming into power. The big things are important and we need to fight those battles, but we can’t ignore the little ones either.
The key is to not be snarky in the criticism; we don’t want to come across looking like the Huffington Post or Kos. However, it is not snarky to point out what we have pointed out in this discussion. It is not snarky or tin-foil hat to point out that there were significant election law violations committed by the Obama camp that are real, verifiable, and factually correct. It is not snarky to point out the fact that the Obamas exercise privileges that they seek to deny to others. Pointing out hypocrisy both small and large will go a long way toward shattering the myth that Obama and his minions stand for “the little guy” and are “champions of the middle class”. These are the kinds of things that need to be pointed out, publicized and vocalized to the point that the MSM can’t ignore the outcry (which is what they did and are doing thus far).
AZfederalist on November 22, 2008 at 1:01 AM
And yet, he’ll do everything in his power to keep every other black kid in the country in the same crappy public schools his children will never have to attend again.
SuperCool on November 22, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Jenna Bush actually spent two years teaching in the DC public school system; I believe at a charter school which caters to poor Latino and African American students.
Illinidiva on November 22, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Oh, just an OT example of journalistic malpractice: for a time on Foxnews this afternoon, the headline for the 500 point rise in the Dow today read: “Obama Rally?”. The analysis for the stock rise was his pick for Secretary of the Treasury. Funny, since the market is forward looking and prices are set in anticipation of what will happen in the future, the press never saw fit to headline the market plunge from November 5 until now as the “Obama Crash”.
Not like we need any more evidence of MSM bias
AZfederalist on November 22, 2008 at 1:07 AM
What do you think the reaction would have been if Gov. Sarah Palin did the same thing?
…………… Yeap, second coming of Christ because she would have been crucified.
Why not just not link to any media stories for at least the next two years, HA? We can make it up as we go along like the best of them…………..
Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2008 at 1:12 AM
You have any medicated ointment? :)
HornetSting on November 22, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Fox tries to get the best ratings. Sometimes that means lovin’ the left or leaving the claws in when they take swipes.
I know you guys have seen that on O’Reilly.
And this funny, several writers above have been worrried about the security of The One’s daughters.
I have read numerous reports of the love for that family (among blacks in particular) and the threat that the US will burn if we try to dump him. Now what exactly is going to happen to his daughters — I mean just ’cause they are in a poor school? As opposed to “Friends”.
The only risk is the lousy education in the DC system that spends more per student that most systems. But he can’t talk about that without offending the NEA. Who also have several of their execs in private schools around DC.
IlikedAUH2O on November 22, 2008 at 1:31 AM
what’s the big deal, NObama’s kids were in a “ritzy” Catholic prep school from day one in Chicago. NObama’s an elitist and NO ONE in the MSM made crap about it, or will.
mathews on November 22, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Looking in mirror. Yep I’m the same old redneck I was before I read the thread. Barry gets a pass on this one.
He’s POTUS, for crying out loud, or soon will be. Do YOU want the POTUS’ kids in some Blutarski Public School? I sure as hell don’t.
Guess that makes me another of those, you know, RINOs!
Limerick on November 22, 2008 at 2:09 AM
SUPRISE…
One of many yet to come, I’m sure….
But don’t worry Obama supporters. That check to pay for private shools, your mortgage, your credit card bills, and any other bill that may be in the mail, that check is also in the mail.
Just one minor difference, only one of those mail deliveries will make it to your house. Care to guess which one?
Yes it sucks being suckered. It’s happened to me, when I bought my first car on my own. They saw me coming from around the block. It sucks. I understand. Hope you learn something from it.
Your kids in a private school? You can’t afford it? Well that doesn’t seem fair, does it?
Hog Wild on November 22, 2008 at 2:26 AM
This actually does help Michelle’s kids, right? But, what will the public school teachers’ unions think? *gasp*
CP on November 22, 2008 at 3:10 AM
It is interesting that one of the primary effects of the wall of media bias we now have is how it allows the left to wallow in hypocrisy.
That a tool of the teachers’ unions like State Sen Crackhead won’t send his kids to a public school should be producing a scandal. But I guess the media is more outraged that Palin went to a turkey farm where they, shockingly I know, turn turkeys into food.
18-1 on November 22, 2008 at 3:17 AM
Michelle could have homeschooled her children.
She is more than qualified (eg: no one would dare argue that she didn’t have the background or education to do it, as many homeschool parents are accused of being), she would have all the resources in the world at her fingertips, and her children would have opportunities to learn things they would *never* otherwise encounter, even at the Sidwell school.
My child has been to foreign school, private school, and public school. Now he is homeschooled. His world has opened up now that he is homeschooled.
It is a choice to spend time with one’s children at a level that the generation of “you can have it all, and you can have it all at once” generally find disconcerting. I know, I went through it. It takes a mind shift to decide that one’s social security statement / economic value to society in terms of cold cash means nothing if one is “raising” the next generation to be socially deviant.
Institutions shouldn’t be raising children; people should be raising children. Dropping a child off at school on the way to work, and picking them up after work only to eat dinner and put them to bed 4 hours later is not “raising” them. Six hours out of 24 is not raising.
It will be interesting to see how the Obama children end up. Amy Carter ended up very strange. Chelsea Clinton seems to be quite elegant; but we know her mother was very involved with her.
I’ll get off my soapbox.
asta
(*and yes, I know that there are people who have to work for economic reasons – I’m not an idiot. My own mother was a single mother, and we all attended public schools. However, in *my* little family, we have chosen to do without a great many things so that I can remain home to raise this child. It is a choice to not buy, not have, not consume.)
asta on November 22, 2008 at 3:34 AM
If they’re honest with themselves, they’ll think, “Smart choice, ’cause we really suck at our jobs!”
And some of the folks are missing the point of the critism in this post. We’re not criticizing The Big 0 for sending his kids to private schools, what we’re criticizing is his “Private schools for me but not for thee” opposisition to school choice for other people’s kids.
People like Obama argue that public schools fail because they’re “underfunded”, and that it has nothing to do with the incompetant tenured union teachers who, in spite of their rank incompetance, are damn near impossible to fire and replace with someone who might actually work harder to make sure their students get a proper education.
DC’s public schools are amongst the highest funded in the nation, so, by the NEA approved Obama argument, they should be amongst the best in the nation.
Reality is, they’re amongst the worst, and anybody with the ability to send their kids elsewhere does it without a second thought.
Personally, I think it’s because lefties fare so poorly in competitive environments. Only way they have a prayer is by keeping the field of competition small. Can’t have everyone else’s kids competing with theirs, so they keep that quality education field extra small.
SuperCool on November 22, 2008 at 4:00 AM
Well, I do think that some within the AAmerican community will feel the snub. And, I do think that in our conservative outreach to these communities, we need to CONTINUE our our push for competitive markets, even within the school system and push for vouchers or some other means for school choice. We could show them the DECADES of fed $$$ pouring into the system with little to no progress and we could highlight how the obama’s urge folks into the public school system for indoctrination rather than education, per se.
What kills me is her interview when asked about the school situation, she said (in essence) “We reserve the right to make the choice we think as parents to be best for the girls.” Basically, she says the same thing most parents who homeschool, private school, or long for more choice for their own kids. The hypocrisy is RICH with these folks, I tell you. If they had not made such a stink about community organizing and pushing a communistic educational worldview, I might be more inclined to give them a break.
Let’s just tuck this away until the day his fingerprint (or administration’s) is on homeschool crack down legislation. For now, I applaud her (seemingly) staunch support for parents’ rights for school choice.
Mommypundit on November 22, 2008 at 6:53 AM
I only read this page of comments, so forgive me if this came up before. But the President’s children would make a rather engaging target for someone who wanted to harm the country. So, either the public school would have to enact security systems on the public dime to protect his kids, or a private school would do so in a more contained environment.
I agree with those who beleive that this is a silly thread.
mugged by squirrels on November 22, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Why is this a surprise to anybody here?
abcurtis on November 22, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Every time homeschooled kid wins the National Spelling Bee or scores a perfect 800 on the SAT, the liberal’s mind goes into convulsions as he shores up layers and layers of self deception to explain what’s going on.
Here’s what’s going on. The libtard utopia planned in the 19th century didn’t materialize. Public education naturally turned into leftist propaganda to keep the cover story viable (pay no attention to the world around you, collectivism really does work, really it does!)
So Real Americans did an end run around leftist institutions. We started our own schools, and our students kick the asses of little Park Avenue preppies and the children of the Massachusetts elite.
That’s right libs, we kick your ass in every competition that matters in America. And you have to expend lots of energy to prevent this knowledge widespread dissemination.
Obama just blew your cover. The mask came off, however briefly.
jeff_from_mpls on November 22, 2008 at 8:24 AM
This shallow nature of The One’s argument is laughable. So, he’s sending his kids to private school because of the added security? Aren’t gubmint schools safe in this day and age? Do we have unknown people running around the halls all day? I guess all the folks in DC need to pull their kids out of the unsafe gubmint schools.
This is about liberal elitism. The One’s children cannot associate with the street urchins of the huddled masses. Terrorists, black supremests, and crooks, not so much a big deal.
csdeven on November 22, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I want his kids on food stamps and walking through crack infested neighborhoods to get to a crumbling gang infested school…just like every other DC kid.
Alden Pyle on November 22, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Obama just looked into the eyes of Big Government Education, that big buxom whore with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth, gave her the finger, and planted a big French kiss on the younger and far more attractive Private School maiden.
Careful, Planned Parenthood, and you aging, wretched NARAL hags, Obama seems to have a more expansive, more intelligent, more nuanced idea of choice than you do.
jeff_from_mpls on November 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Of course it is hypocritical but since they sent their girls to private schools in Chicago it shouldn’t be a suprise. It does smack of “my children deserve the best but yours don’t.” But I also don’t blame them – what caring parent would willingly chose a sucky public schools district in DC over an excellent private school?
If the Obama’s are such proponents of the public school system they could have made it work security-wise. With all the protection available to the Obamas to pretend that they would be so unsafe at a public school denigrates their security details.
katiejane on November 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I agree. The Obama daughters should experience the fruits of the Obama’s labor. Drug addiction, bastardism, and general lack of any responsibility for anything have been the result of the “progressive” movement over the last couple of generations.
JonRoss on November 22, 2008 at 9:12 AM
SO let’s distill Obama’s warning. Might he not have just said:
“I wouldn’t send my kid into a public school even if he had armed guards around him.”
Why, President Obama, would you force others to do so?
jeff_from_mpls on November 22, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Hillary’s response to critics when she sent her child to the same school was “people just have to understand the security issues”. Duh freaking yeah ! We, the riff-raff, experience daily the crap that they created and exempt themselves from.
JonRoss on November 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM
did anyone expect the chosen ONE’s daughters to hang out with you hoi poloi??
some pigs are more equal than others!!
be like the rest of the obamabots…learn to love big brother!! whatever he does is right by definition…
oh and that tattoo goes on your hand or forehead… :smirk:
right4life on November 22, 2008 at 9:33 AM
The One should have absolutely no concerns about his daughter’s safety attending the wonderful public schools in Washington, with all those laws restricting the possession of firearms within the District.
And what city usually leads the nation in murders per year.. oh ya… ;-)
/sarc
Again, it’s the hypocracy of the argument. Public schools are ok for YOUR children, but MINE need to go to Sidwell due to security concerns.
And yes, they are valid concerns. Someone is going to try to take a shot at President Obama, Michelle-my-belle, or the two rugrats. And I hope that our LEOs stop the plot before it occurs. He is our President, whether or not we voted for him. Loyal opposition are the watchwords. Let us not decend into ODS for the next 4 years like the KosKiddies did with President Bush.
ajrystad on November 22, 2008 at 9:43 AM
After 50 + years of following our political process I am not sure I agree with this anymore. The ODS seems to have served the Obamas well. Compromise with the clique of criminals which control the Donk party is no longer a viable option.
JonRoss on November 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM
oh please, the secret service can protect those kids in a public school…and if they can’t then doesn’t that tell you something about the public SKOOLS??? sigh…
this is such obvious hypocrisy..but the democrat lemming voters don’t care…they’re a bunch of stooges…and thats an insult to the real 3 stooges…
what plot??? take off your tin-foil please. sigh.
right4life on November 22, 2008 at 10:00 AM
I should have said the “BDS” has served the Obamas well. And at which point do we decide the Constitution is a suicide pact ?
JonRoss on November 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Yeah and the teaches union supported Barry! LOL!!!
grapeknutz on November 22, 2008 at 10:57 AM
They didn’t seem to mind that the kid’s spiritual education was provided at the Rev Wright cult. I guess reading writing and rithmetic is more important to them than the eternal state.
CertainVictory on November 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM
and Obama’s agains vouchers? He’s a joke.
marklmail on November 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
P.S. See the timing of this? Going into the weekend. Trying to bury this disgrace.
marklmail on November 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM
The key to understanding the O’Bummer is to realize that anything he says is ‘JUST WORDS–JUST SPEECHES”–in his own words. He stated that we should all learn Spanish–but he didn’t bother to do so. We should all send our children to public school–but he won’t. Don’t do as I do–do as I say.
***
A person’s actions and accomplishments stand far above his words–particularly when they do not agree with each other. The Messiah is sadly deficient in the truth / core values areas–despite the LWM (not MSM) whitewashing of the truth.
***
John Bibb
rocketman on November 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM
As much as I can’t stand the guy I don’t blame him
KBird on November 22, 2008 at 11:47 AM
It isn’t just vouchers.
As others have pointed out, his kids go to private schools now, so the security argument is just window dressing.
But when he sends his kids to $15,000 and $28,000 private schools, I really don’t want him putting someone in charge of schools that believes in “social justice” teaching or a centuries-long buildup of “educational debt”. Paying outrageous prices to keep the rifraff out of your school hardly seems like the road to educational and social equality.
I really don’t want him putting someone in at Education that
kowtows to the teachers’ union when his own kids are never going to be touched by their decisions.
He’s never sent his kids to public schools, and I don’t want him treating kids that go to public schools as a lab experiment for some interest group that helped get him elected (in Chicago and nationally).
MayBee on November 22, 2008 at 11:57 AM
There is no way they would have sent their kids to the failing black schools in DC… HA
reshas1 on November 22, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I think they should be sent to DC public schools and forced to wear McCain Tshirts.
marklmail on November 22, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Completely at taxpayer expense I assume? Just like we’ll be footin’ the friggin bills for all Hussein’s glitzy parties and the bitter half’s wardrobe (which will make Palin’s look like K-mart apparel).
Will the leftward media be nickel-and-diming Hussein like they did Palin? I won’t hold my breath…
ErinF on November 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Same load of manure year after year from liberals. Sure, we LOVE public schools.
For YOUR kids.
drjohn on November 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM
So?
Chelsea went there and they will have the best security.
getalife on November 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Perfect timing to bring up the “Vouchers” arguement…………..
……………. shove it right back in his face!
Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Hypocrisy at its finest. “Change” what a load of crap, I hate that word now, I’m striking it from my vocabulary.
eaglesailor72 on November 22, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Gubmit skhule in D.C. knot gud enughf 4 yur kidz?
Ya gunna chainz that 1 tue?
Amendment X on November 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM
If I was a parent with a child in a DC public school I would be glad not to have to deal with a presidential child at the school. Just going in to get your child out for a dentist appointment would be a matter of “national security”.
darcee on November 22, 2008 at 2:16 PM
nothing shocking here.
the Fool sending his children to private school is in the long tradition of Liberal Hypocracy. It’s no worse than Reverend Wright using the millions he stole from his “congregation” to build a palace in a gated white community. Or the criminal Ted Kennedy fighting tooth and nail to keep wind power away from HIS neighborhood.
Commissars have never felt it necessary to live in the manner of the meager lives of the subjects they exploit.
notagool on November 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM
The most rank hypocracy and racism. Why is the half-white Obamessiah avoiding all black schools? Aren’t black teachers good enough for his quarter-white children? Are other black children too dangerous to be near his quarter white children? While the Obamessiah might be ashamed and embarrased by his whiteness, it looks like he fears black people much like his grandmother feared black homeless bums. This is what leftists call racism. They routinely attack whites for moving to gated communities and using private schools; claiming it is evidence of racism. Better security? You mean fewer black people.
federale86 on November 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The kids in the local elementary schools are probably the wrong kinds of blacks from the Obama standpoint. They are not destined for greatness — or else they wouldn’t be in those elementary schools in the first place. And, to ensure the manifest destiny of these competitors to the Obama kids, Barack will resist allowing them to use vouchers to break out with every ounce of his being.
Michelle and Barack’s behaviors are consistent — they sent their kids to private school in Chicago, and they will continue to do the same in Washington.
I hear that Sidwell will be renamed shortly — to Obama Oreo.
unclesmrgol on November 22, 2008 at 2:45 PM
“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Jesse Jackson
progressoverpeace on November 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM
While I don’t blame them one bit for sending the girls to a private school, I do find it hypocritical.
if it was safe to send them to a DC public school I suspect it’d be an eye opener for all concerned.
Bob's Kid on November 22, 2008 at 3:51 PM
The President’s kids never have to worry about being safe. The secret service makes sure that they are safe anywhere they go. The safety argument doesn’t work for BHO. Not one little bit.
progressoverpeace on November 22, 2008 at 3:58 PM
The teachers union doesn’t care if the Obamas send their kids to private schools, they understand that the elect must be truly educated to think so that they will be capable of leading the duly indoctrinated plebian masses who they have made sure are qualified to follow.
Renae on November 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM
How is Obama restricting anyone from sending their kids to a private school?
mycowardice on November 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM
You call yourself mycowardice? Are you Senator kerry? — On how The One keeps kids out of private schools — I shall try to explain
The One will not allow vouchers. This is something you should look up. There is a rumor that DC is trying them again since unionized teachers don’t want to work there. I am not sure.
He also supports the ‘Taj Mahal building and strong union’ theory of public education that soaks parents with high property taxes and makes private schools a non-option. But it does take care of local builders and the teacher’s union, which are both good sources of Democratic party support.
He openly gets money from NEA (teacher union) and affiliated organizations to run for office and spend on showing his supporters very well produced propaganda. He is evil.
Anyway people pay to help his supporters and the kids get a public school education — and NO choice like vouchers.
IlikedAUH2O on November 22, 2008 at 6:22 PM
This strikes me as a non-issue. They’d be fools to send their kids to Washington, DC’s public schools. i moved to a town with a great school system for my kids.
I’ll give the Obama’s a pass on this one.
baruchadam on November 22, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Obama is able to send his kids to school without vouchers. What is preventing you from sending your kids to public school?
The tuition where Obama is going to be sending his daughters to is around 29000 dollars per year. Please explain to me how much school tax you are paying and how much difference it makes in preventing you or allowing you to send your kids to such a private school?
mycowardice on November 22, 2008 at 7:01 PM
First, the safety argument is ridiculous because as I posted above, Jenna Bush actually taught in the DC public school system. The Secret Service apparently thought it was safe enough for her to teach in the schools, so why wouldn’t it be safe enough for the Obama girls to attend school there. The real reason why the Messiah’s precious spawn are going to Sidwell and Friends is because the Obamas understand how crappy the DC public school system is just like they understood how crappy the Chicago Public School system is. It is their right as parents to do so with their money. What many conservatives object to is the Obamas’ indifference to the plight of poor Latino and African American families that don’t have the same means through his refusal to support vouchers and choice.
Illinidiva on November 22, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Huh, I didn’t think the children of the Messiah needed to go to school. Were they not born with all of their parent’s worldly knowledge?
Wyznowski on November 22, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Restrictions can be by money, which is why Obama is sending his kids to the school he’s sending them to — the financial bar keeps the “riffraff” out.
We Catholics have something called a Sin of Omission. It means that you sin whenever you could aid someone but deliberately fail to do so. Obama’s track record on vouchers is somewhere out there, isn’t it? He claimed in Milwaukee (which has an operating voucher program which allow children to take their children’s awarded tax dollars to private schools of a parents’ choice) that he was open to vouchers, but he hasn’t said that anywhere else — certainly not in Chicago, his political base.
I see a big Sin of Omission attached to Barack Obama, in that he has failed to act when he had the power to do so. He recognizes the evil — which is why his kids are not going into the DC public schools. He sins when he allows that evil to corrupt children not his own.
unclesmrgol on November 22, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Those kids are going to have security no matter where they go to school.
Put your vouchers where your mouth is Obama.
First Kids-Elect Get a New School
GinaE on November 22, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I’m not sure I quite follow you. How much do you expect the voucher to be for? How much is the private school?
Also, could anyone get a voucher? Should people that don’t have kids be able to stop paying school tax?
I’m trying to get a good feel for how substantial your solution is. So far it’s hard to see what precisely is a voucher.
mycowardice on November 22, 2008 at 7:46 PM
School vouchers allow you to invest your school tax money into whichever school you wish. It would force failing, terrible public schools to get better or be gone. It would also allow those of us who wish to send our child to a Christian school to have a credit towards said investment. Some of us who live in high-tax, high-failure rate public school districts can’t afford both school taxes AND private school money. This is just another way they make sure the middle and lower classes have crappy education.
Doppleganker on November 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM
All those inner-city parents aren’t rich politicians and don’t have God-knows-how-many potential kidnappers eyeing their children.
Dark-Star on November 22, 2008 at 9:17 PM
The public schools are unmitigated failures. Period. The NEA has driven them into the ground. No one should have to pay one cent for them. Our public schools have reached a point where they do more damage than good. That’s why parents, untrained in teaching, do much better jobs with homeschooling than any of our expensive wastes of public education.
BHO is in the pocket of the NEA and is a huge proponent of the public school system – not to mention his love of the government doing everything, up to and including deciding how wealth should be distributed through the US.
Further, the only bills BHO could ever point to, as evidence of his “work” are on public education. That’s also the field he teamed up with terrorist traitor Ayers and Ayers’ homicidal maniac of a wife Dorhn.
If you need it explained to you that BHO is a big-government moron and how that relates to public school, then you are even dumber than he is. No wonder you can’t figure out why he is a hypocrite for not sending his kids to public school (not ever, I don’t think).
Personally, I think the reason he’s not sending his kids to public school is neither because of security, nor educational, issues. He’s not sending his kids to the sh!tty DC schools so that no one has a chance to focus on what fabulous failures they are.
progressoverpeace on November 22, 2008 at 9:27 PM
I think every situation is different. Some people kill themselves to be able to afford a house in certain neighborhood because the public schools there are very good, while I am sure some places have terrible public schools.
I think that there should be a public system for education. One that every kid can attend for free. How it is financed or how it is structured I think should have flexibility. But fundamentally that system should be in place.
Unless you are willing to give vouchers that more than they are paying in school taxes, I don’t see how any school vouchers will have any significant impact on the system.
I also don’t buy the untrained parent argument.
mycowardice on November 22, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I hope you all don’t mind my pointing out what a bunch of bitter and hateful hypocrites most of you are.
By show of hands, how many of you who have kids would not send your kids to a school like Sidwell if you had the means to do so? How many of you who do have the means to send your kids to a school like Sidwell are not doing so?
How many of you who have kids and did not raise your hand in response to one of the above questions are filthy liars?
There are a myriad of things you people are going to be attacking President Obama over in the next eight years, but attacking him for wanting to do the best he can by his kids is not really your best battle plan.
Len on November 22, 2008 at 10:54 PM
It’s either that or Ayers. :)
mycowardice on November 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM
To Answer Mycowardice,
My kids both go to private schools although I do not live in DC.
And how does The One keep kids out of private schools?
1) He fights vouchers.
2) I pay $8,000 a year in property taxes and the public school portion of that could probably pay for one or even two kids in religious (Roman Catholic is prominent) and some secular private schools. After the property taxes are paid, who has the money for private schools? And where does the lottery money go?
3) Nearly all colleges have bought into the Affirmative Action and diversity programs so fully that private school kids are somewhat unwelcome. This helps the egalitarian goals of The One and hurts private schools.
IlikedAUH2O on November 22, 2008 at 11:51 PM
To Len:
You defend The One and call us filthy liars? OK…
How many of us would have our kids attend a school like Sidwell Friends?
I think quite a few. I think the parents in DC would love better schools. Do some research. There was even a 60 minute segment on the success of vouchers. And as for me…
I pay over $80,000 for private boarding high schools. One of my kids just hated her high school. The other was on a path to nowhere. The private schools have their problems but they are far better. That makes my statement on public schools.
IlikedAUH2O on November 23, 2008 at 12:00 AM
A voucher is a way of making tax dollars awarded to the education of a student be portable. The money follows the student to whatever school the student attends — either public or private. The amount may vary depending on the needs of the student (special education students may, for example, need more money). Sadly, most voucher programs give the students far less than what the local public school gets for educating the same student.
Substantial enough.:
Now, imagine the opportunities if we gave, say $6,000 (or some amount nearly the same as the local public school gets) per student.
It certainly wouldn’t come close to meeting the $30,000 per year tuition at Sidwell, but would give students less advantaged than Obama’s a better shot at college [pro-voucher site].
See here for the down side from an anti-voucher site. The down side from the article (which covers the Milwaukee voucher system) that private schools may cease operations unexpectedly, and there are no standardized testing (a ‘la No Student Left Behind) to gauge the effects of the voucher system across schools. It seems that the voucher system has started an industry which is only partly regulated via accreditation. [The "suddenly closed" schools were not run by either Catholic or Lutheran churches, both of which have strong school systems in Milwaukee].
I note that the pro-voucher site mentions a much higher matriculation rate of the voucher students at private schools vs. the population of public schools. If they are learning equivalent stuff, that’s an interesting statement in and of itself. The proof of the pudding is the percentage of voucher students going on to college, as opposed to the total percentage of public school kids from the same neighborhoods going onward.
Sadly, there does not appear to have been a US study detailing the gains due to vouchers (one is ongoing for Milwaukee), but there is a study about a nationwide voucher program in the country of Columbia. The Columbian program indicates that voucher winners (they have a lottery) are more apt to matriculate and to go on to college than their public school peers.
unclesmrgol on November 23, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Well property taxes are larger than school taxes… I seriously doubt that vouchers are the solution to what you all describe as a problem. I have to admit I am not against vouchers, if done right. For example, I would be against vouchers if they are given to anyone, regardless of how much money they make. If it is to help people at the bottom get access to great schools, I would be all for that.
Also, I would also send my kids to private schools… Just like I would send them to all sorts of places or activities that are good for their education.
mycowardice on November 23, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it, and in the case of public schools, someone is paying far too much for it.
The system SUCKS! It does not do its job, and, worse than that, it passes kids along who have no business being passed – thereby killing the value of the diploma for those who did do the work and have the skills. I’ve taught enough classes at city universities to get a full look at the products of our very, very expensive public school systems. You know what, we have people in college, having come out of city schools, who are working at the 3rd grade level. It is a bad joke and a ripoff to those who are actually prepared and able.
Oh please. People should get something to keep their kids out of the hellholes of ignorance (and worse) that are our public school systems.
But vouchers are nothing, compared to the damage done by the NEA. But BHO loves the NEA, which means that he favors unionization and jobs for icompetents over the needs of children (except that his children don’t have to worry about that). Great guy, he is.
Look at the stats. They speak for themselves. Most people can do better jobs than the retards who comprise the bulk of our public school teachers and administrators. And we haven’t even gotten into the pathetic curricula or the lies that are drilled into kids while they are held captive in government schools.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2008 at 1:08 AM
The One has a right to his opinions — like public education for all. It is just somewhat hypocritical to opt out of it for his own family. It also raises a doubt about the probability that he can provide a “world class” primary and secondary education for all youngsters or a “reasonably priced or free college education”. The doubt is whether he meant it even when he promised it.
The most absurd thing about The One’s plans for education and attacks on President Bush is spending. President Bush increased spending substantially and the proportion of money spent on education (primary and secondary) by the feds is tiny. Local government pays for it and operates it.
But The One wants to transform it in a period of current deficits and grand plans in health insurance and about 11 other areas.
His announced plans to rebuild the schools hasn’t been supported by any teacher I know…including one who had taught in the Manassas and DC systems. The things those schools need wouldn’t help the con man get elected.
Slightly smaller classes. Parents who cared every evening. Performance related teacher tenure and pay. And finally, better security in DC — FOR ALL THE KIDS.
IlikedAUH2O on November 23, 2008 at 6:33 AM
It is lunacy to find fault with sending the president-elect’s children to private school. I’m glad the Obama girls are going to private school. Imagine the disruption to school life that would occur at a public school due to the security measures that would be needed to protect them. This is good for the Obama girls and good for the other public school children. The safety of all children is paramount in todays society.
kanda on November 23, 2008 at 6:51 AM
I don’t blame the Obama’s for wanting the best education for their children, what I do hold them responsible for is pretending they were considering public schools.
Also stringing their girls and voters along with the dog promise.
Barack Obama’s first campaign promise was a dog for his girls. That promise turned into a campaign pledge. “we are going to adopt a shelter dog”. “One kid has allergies so we are looking at purebreeds”. “The girls have earned the dog that is moving into the White House with us”. “We are going to settle in before getting a dog”…. What’s next the promise that girls are getting a dog in Obama’s second term ?
If Obama can’t/won’t keep a promise he made to his children, it looks to me like we are going to get strung along with empty promises for the next four years.
.
philly_PA on November 23, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Cowardly has a web site about how he loves Obama–so you can ignore him. But for the record–vouchers are used to help poor families choose better schools for their kids–especially Catholic run schools that are not as expensive as Sidwell-Friends.Rich people are not even offered vouchers in most parts of the country.
He also compares Sarah P buying clothes to campaign with as the Obama school choice issue. What a dope you are—not allowing vouchers (which is how Obama supports the Teachers Unions) only hurts the underprivledged. I do not think the story about the clothes was true.
mainliner on November 23, 2008 at 8:55 AM
O.K., so you’re going to do private school- your decision. But please Barry, be up front and tell your cult minions what you, (them) are paying for it- The actual tuition, the book fees, the activity fees, all the “required donations”. We had our kids in private school when we lived in a less than desireable city, and the costs are outragous. Joe Q. Public has no idea what the Obama’s are spending to avoid those nasty public school kids. Hypocrisy squared, Obama.
anniekc on November 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM
you obama cultists are very spooky people. is there ANYTHING your messiah could do wrong? are all your shirts brown?
like all liberal dems, obama is a hypocrite. having a few secret service agents in any public school would improve the security for all the kids there…since the DC schools are such hell-holes…but easily led fools like you keep supporting dems, no matter what. so live in your squalor, while you support your saviors who keep you there.
pathetic.
right4life on November 23, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who thought that the puppy issue was a little creepy. What was he going to do if he lost? Not buy the girls’ the puppy?
Again… Jenna taught in the DC public school system at one of the charter schools during her dad’s second term. And that turned out just fine.
Also, nobody is saying that the Messiah shouldn’t be able to put his children in a ritzy private school. What we are pointing out is the hypocrisy of putting his children in a better school while opposing the DC voucher system which provides poor minority parents with a choice.
Illinidiva on November 23, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I have no objection to the Obama kids going to a good private school. I just wish everyone else had that opportunity. Charter schools for all!
rbj on November 23, 2008 at 3:04 PM
the safety issue is a non-starter. the secret service can protect them at a public school just as easily as at a private.
and if safety is “paramount” then home school them. Michelle is a very educated woman and they can bring in tutors to help if need be.
chasdal on November 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM
What rotten hypocritical elitism is this.
Obama, Man of the People. Who the hell do they think they’re fooling?
petefrt on November 23, 2008 at 5:07 PM
What I like best about your comment is you resort to personal attacks without knowing anything about me. It truly amazes me when a bigot reveals themselves for what they are. I don’t think you should be calling anyones shirt brown my friend….Since you know it all, how will the “secret service agents” in a public school impact the other students and parents? Of course you are too blind in your prejudice to see the reality of what would happen. You think the world simply conforms to your unrealistic view. Sorry if looking at yourself in the mirror is scarey, it’s your face..
kanda on November 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM
The same as they’re going to in the private school. Of course, if the Obama kids went to a public school, there would be stories about how pathetic the public school is and how bad their teachers are and how most of the students there can’t read or write … But, I’m sure the public school parents are happy that their kids’ public school will not be known as the famous one that the President’s kids go to. That would be hard on them, I’m sure.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM
you told me all I want to know about you, thanks! and it ain’t pretty.
I’m a ‘bigot’ because I dare say anything against your messiah…Obviously you are a racist. in addition to be ignorant, bet you’re fat and ugly too!
about the same as they’d have in a public school… :rolleyes:
its ‘prejudice’ to point out the hypocrisy of your savior? oh this is too funny..whats scary is you’re for real. such stupidity has to hurt.
at least I don’t break em ‘honey’
right4life on November 23, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Ha Ha you’re too funny my friend. heh heh heh
kanda on November 23, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I love the half measures. If you want to really give EVERYONE access to good private schools, similar to the one that Obama is going to send his kids to, you will need massive socialism and redistribution.
mycowardice on November 23, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »