Speaking Of Fact-Checking, Part II
By Mitch Berg
We get it – the “elite” of the regional left has the victorian vapours that some “Tenthers” would suggest that local pre-emption of federal laws, to say nothing of secession, might be legitimate manifestations of popular revulsion at government overreach.
So – does DFLer Matt Entenza’s plan to “get rid of No Child Left Behind” – a federal program – mean that he is the moral equal of a slave-owner?
It gets hard to follow these people.
(Note: I oppose NCLB too – but not the same reasons Entenza does. The teachers unions hate NCLB because it holds them accountable for their failures; I oppose it because, among other things, it holds them accountable for the wrong things)
July 28th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Mitch, we are in agreement with what is wrong with NCLB, that republican originated, republican bi-partisan sponsored and voted-in legislation. It definitely holds them responsible for the wrong things, and there is a problem that it results in teachers teaching to the tests, not teaching better substance.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
After the facts that Learned Foot and I gave you in the other thread, I’ll translate your comment:
“My ears are plugged, and I’m going nya nya nya nya nya nya nya nya.”
Happy to help out.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Really, Dog Gone? Blathering on about how it is “pure W” and “republican blah” says “I’ll believe anything liberal partisans say, especially if it is politically expedient”. Notice that nobody is really denying the part that “W” and Republicans played?
On the other hand, holding people accountable for the job they do is a good thing, right?
If so, why do teachers unions, nationally and locally, want to do anything but hold teachers accountable?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
What teachers want or don’t want doesn’t alter who was behind NCLB. It was a Bush project, he modelled it after his Texas legislation – not Kennedy’s; he campaigned on it – not Kennedy; he mentioned it in his first speech to Congress as his – not Kennedy; the legislation was introduced by Boehner, and had a greater percentage of votes in the Senate from Republicans. If it walks and quacks and swims and lays eggs like it came from Bush…….it’s a Bush-baby (obviously, not the African fauna variety).
Actually Troy, I believe that the statements made DO underplay significantly the part Republicans played, while improperly attributing too much credit / responsiblity to Kennedy instead of others, like, oh…John Boehner, among others.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Very off topic, but the decision is out as a win for the feds in the AZ immigration law challenge.
I only skimmed it earlier, but it appears on all major points, the feds win, and the indications are they are likely to win as well in the final lower court decision and it appears to be written in expectation of appeal.
Apologies for going off-topic.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The Obama gov’t will lose in the end. Previous court decisions have ruled that a state can enforce Fed’l laws if the law breakers are hindering the states ability to do business.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
And why not sure Rhode Island as they have the same law and are enforcing it? Is Obama racist against Arizonan-Americans?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
DG says:
“and had a greater percentage of votes in the Senate from Republicans”
the breakdown of the senate vote
R – Yea -44
R – Nay – 3
R – abstain – 2
D – Yea – 43
D – Nay – 6
D – abstain – 1
I – Nay – 1
1 – thats your greater percentage?
A more Honest description would be “evenly bipartisan”
July 28th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I’m curious, Dog Gone — have you read any conservative legal criticism of Judge Bolton’s decision?
Here’s one such criticism: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyZmVkMmUzYWIxYTAzY2QxOTA0ZDg5OWQyYzg1MzQ=
Written by this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
If you can’t intelligently respond to McCarthy’s critique, you really have no idea what any court will decide about the AZ law.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Oh since DG is interested in sources I got my numbers for the NCLB vote from her own impeccable source of talking points the Daily Kos: and had a greater percentage of votes in the Senate from Republicans
– the actual Senate Roll call was slightly different
July 28th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
sorry cut an paste failed me here’s the daily Kos Link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind
July 28th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
No, Kel. I didn’t use the Daily Kos, rarely read it.
I like gov track.us
There are much better sources for information.
You have yet to refute that the NCLB was based on Bush’s promoted legislation in Texas, his campaigning on passing it, his first speech to Congress claiming it was his idea, his project. Or Boehner introducing it in the house before it went to the senate. Or that of the house sponsors, there were 85, with Boehner at the top. Of the other 84 than Boehner, 1 was a democrat, James Trafficant.
left behind.
Overview
Sponsor: Rep. John Boehner [R-OH8]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors:
Richard Armey [R-TX26]
Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Richard Baker [R-LA6]
Cass Ballenger [R-NC10]
Bob Barr [R-GA7]
Judy Biggert [R-IL13] Henry Bonilla [R-TX23]
Mary Bono Mack [R-CA44]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
Richard Burr [R-NC5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA43]
David Camp [R-MI4]
Michael Castle [R-DE]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA8]
Michael Collins [R-GA3]
Larry Combest [R-TX19]
John Cooksey [R-LA5]
Ander Crenshaw [I-FL4] John Culberson [R-TX7]
Randall Cunningham [R-CA51]
Nathan Deal [R-GA9]
Thomas DeLay [R-TX22]
Jim DeMint [R-SC4]
Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R-
Cosponsors:
Richard Armey [R-TX26]
Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Richard Baker [R-LA6]
Cass Ballenger [R-NC10]
Bob Barr [R-GA7]
Judy Biggert [R-IL13] Henry Bonilla [R-TX23]
Mary Bono Mack [R-CA44]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
Richard Burr [R-NC5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA43]
David Camp [R-MI4] Michael Castle [R-DE]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA8]
Michael Collins [R-GA3]
Larry Combest [R-TX19]
John Cooksey [R-LA5]
Ander Crenshaw [I-FL4] John Culberson [R-TX7]
Randall Cunningham [R-CA51]
Nathan Deal [R-GA9]
Thomas DeLay [R-TX22]
Jim DeMint [R-SC4]
Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R-FL21] David Dreier [R-CA28]
Vernon Ehlers [R-MI3]
Robert Ehrlich [R-MD2]
Ernest Fletcher [R-KY6]
Vito Fossella [R-NY13]
Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11] George Gekas [R-PA17]
Paul Gillmor [R-OH5]
Porter Goss [R-FL14]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC3]
Kay Granger [R-TX12]
Mark Green [R-WI8
James Greenwood [R-PA8]
Melissa Hart [R-PA4]
Dennis Hastert [R-IL14]
Robin Hayes [R-NC8]
Van Hilleary [R-TN4]
David Hobson [R-OH7] Stephen Horn [R-CA38]
John Isakson [R-GA6]
Darrell Issa [R-CA48]
Samuel Johnson [R-TX3]
Ric Keller [R-FL8]
Jack Kingston [R-GA1]
James Kolbe [R-AZ5]
Steven LaTourette [R-OH19]
John Linder [R-GA11]
Scott McInnis [R-CO3]
Howard McKeon [R-CA25]
John Mica [R-FL7] Dan Miller [R-FL13]
Gary Miller [R-CA41]
Anne Northup [R-KY3]
Charles Norwood [R-GA10]
James Nussle [R-IA2]
Thomas Osborne [R-NE3
Doug Ose [R-CA3]
Michael Oxley [R-OH4]
John Peterson [R-PA5]
Thomas Petri [R-WI6]
Charles Pickering [R-MS3]
Robert Portman [R-OH2] Deborah Pryce [R-OH15]
Adam Putnam [R-FL12]
George Radanovich [R-CA19]
Marge Roukema [R-NJ5]
Edward Royce [R-CA39]
Bob Schaffer [R-CO4]
Edward Schrock [R-VA2]
Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
John Shimkus [R-IL20]
John Sununu [R-NH1]
John Sweeney [R-NY22]
Todd Tiahrt [R-KS4] Patrick Tiberi [R-OH12]
James Traficant [D-OH17]
Frederick Upton [R-MI6]
Watts [R-OK4]
Curtis Weldon [R-PA7]
Frank Wolf [R-VA10]
Gosh, that sure looks more Republican sponsored than Democratic / Kennedy.
Want to play more fact-checking games anyone?
July 28th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
sorry – there appears to be a duplicate in my cut and paste.
Boehner was the initiating sponsor.
There were 84 co-sponsors.
1, James Trafficant, Ohio was the only Dem in the House.
Ball is in your court, gentlemen.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
In our court? No, DG, you keep slamming it into the net. Over and over and over and over and over. You have basically emphatically supported my case, although I suspect you don’t realize it yet.
You have yet to refute that the NCLB was based on Bush’s promoted legislation in Texas, his campaigning on passing it, his first speech to Congress claiming it was his idea, his project.
There is nothing to refute, really; NCLB is an amalgamation of ideas from Texas’ system among others. Liberals loved it because it created centralized authority and money distribution; conservatives supported it because it not only talked about “accountability”, but gave it teeth (the ability to shut programs that continually fail).
Paradoxically, liberals (the teachers union) hate it becuase of the teeth, and conservatives because of the centralization. And everyone with a brain hates it because it has had the “unintended” consequence of forcing teachers to teach to the test – but then, if our unionized education system could do the job, there’d have been no bipartisan push for NCLB in the first place.
So you can stomp your feet and bellow “IT’S TEH BUSH PROGRAM” until your dogs call the paramedics out of concern for your well-being, and you’ll be simultaneously correct and deeply misleading. The law would not have passed, much less passed by the sort of bipartisan margin it had, without liberal support.
There’s a reason Bush had Ted Kennedy standing by his side as he signed the bill.
I like gov track.us
Perhaps. But your opinions have a sense of, er, “synchronicity” with the “Netroots”, down to the last groupspeak opinion and unsupportable canonical generalization, that does not, I suspect, come from “govtrack.us”.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Okay, I’ve got my archeologist’s pith helmet on, my sifter and a toothbrush. Brushing lightly and carefully now. Ah-ha! I believe I’ve uncovered the original, long-lost point of this post: Matt Entenza apparently believes that as a governor he would have standing to supercede the administration of Federal law. Since we are being told that the only reason a State would claim that is so that it could re-introduce slavery, does this mean Matt is the equivalent of a slave-owner? Or does it mean that both liberals and conservatives see greater value and benefit in local control over federal control?
Discuss among yourselves.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
govtrack.us is a non-partisan source — it is quite different from the Daily Kos. You can find the same info through the library of Congress or other primary sources.
I neither know nor care what Netroots has to say on the matter. Their synchronicity doesn’t alter my observation informed by those primary sources. It certainly doesn’t change the information available from the primary sources.
Bush may have had Kennedy by his side when he signed – I don’t deny Kennedy was a supporter. However this was not KENNEDY’s bill; Kennedy was recruited by Bush to push through Bush’s agenda. You could as easily point to any number of others – like Lieberman.
You also have conveniently ignored the 84 out of 85 Republican sponsors in the House, which I would respectfully suggest outweighs any contribution by Kenendy in promoting this bill. THEIR NAMES are on the bill. That makes it far more republican in origin than democratic.
I’m not claiming this didn’t pass with bi-partisan support, clearly it did.
I’m pointing out that you are pretty conveniently, and erroneously, pushing the credit for this bill on Kennedy when conservatives decide after passing it that they don’t like it.
THAT is revisionist history.
You also seem to have ignored that I’m AGREEING with you about the legislation holding people accountable for the wrong things. Or won’t you give me credit for that either? Sheesh, you make saying you are correct a challenge, my friend!
Terry – you can find reviews of Bolton’s decision either way if you shop for one. ToE was kind enough to email the decision to me within a few minutes of it being available. It gutted the enforcement of the law. Go to the original source, not opinions. I’m hoping our new contributing author who actually practices specializing in immigration law will find the time to post something for us on Penigma.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Mitch, gentlemen. I would like to politely take issue with something I see here as a pattern. I have respectfully provided items that are not second-hand opinions to support my assertions. I can’t say that you have done the same in this discussion. Kennedy standing next to Bush when he signed NCLB is hardly definitive proof of anything other than he was someone Bush wanted around to demonstrate bi-partisan support.
I have sought out neutral sources, original sources like the library of congress and the congressional record. If you want to know my source for anything – ask. Please don’t assume. I’ll be happy to provide it.
However – and on this I fault you most Mitch – you seem to make a habit of dismissing any opinion with which you disagree as being a parroted view from partisan sources. If you wish to disagree with those sources – please do, by all means. But please do not assume that one of those sources is MY source, unless I clearly indicate so. There can be many ways to arrive at the same ocnclusions.
Mitch has been kind enough to instruct me that the exchanges here are between personas of our real selves, sometimes more sometimes less like that real person I would have hoped Mitch that you at least would recognize that I wouldn’t presume to disagree with you on your own blog without better reason than a second hand opinion, even if others didn’t know me well enough to realize it.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
When Entenza was in Winona recently, he also said that EVERY student should apply for college before being allowed to graduate from high school. He dislikes NO CHILD left behind and wants EVERY CHILD to succeed in college. How are those two prospects different?
It amazes me how politicians can toss about such absolutes and even have them made into law aand beleive that they are clear thinkers!
To make matters even worse, Entenza supporter Gene Pelowskli believes the revenues lost by opting out of No Child Left Behind can be made up by not spending time preparing for the tests! Hmmm, are we going to shorten our already too short school year? If we are going to opt out of NCLB, the state legislature better come up with the money to replace that revenue because we won’t save a penny.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
So Entenza admits that the Democrat engineered and managed secondary education system does not prepare its student for the job market and he wants to double down.
I reckon he’d like the minimum-wage earning fast food workers to have a culinary degree and paying off $40k in student loans.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Either DG has an insane WPM typing ability or she spends most of her working hours commenting on this site. Obsessed much?
July 29th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Doggone still hasn’t figured out the meaning of the word “coauthor”. Why are we not ignoring this midget troll?
July 29th, 2010 at 8:09 am
DG,
Sorry if you’re feeling dismissed. With all due respect, part if it may be that while you have given us some third-party, ostensibly neutral sources, it’s been to provide information that happens to reinforce a point that is just plain wrong. I wrote extensively about the inter-party effort to pass NCLB; it was in all the headlines back then; it was one of the top stories of the Bush Administration before 9/11.
Part of it is that you seem to be unclear on some basic facts; as Foot notes, co-authorship does not mean what you seem to think it means. But bi-partisan sponsorship, especially of a big as big and significant as NCLB, is unusual and significant.
Kennedy standing next to Bush when he signed NCLB is hardly definitive proof of anything other than he was someone Bush wanted around to demonstrate bi-partisan support.
Please take this as constructive criticism, since this is a constant problem on Pengima as well.
In isolation, the photo means nothing. Why, we don’t know from the photo that Ted Kennedy didn’t just happen to stumble into the signing in a drunken haze! It’s possible that the morning after, he looked at the photo and bellowed “Heavens to, ah, mahtagroid! People throughaaat this, ah, great nation will believe that I, ah, consent to this monstraaaahsity”. It’s possible! I mean, it happens! I could be walking down the street and a Klan rally could walk past me, and someone could take a picture and post it and people would start yelling “Look! Berg is in the Klan!”, even though I just happened to be in the same place when the photo was snapped.
Except people who know me know that I’m not in the Klan (Penigma’s assertions about conservatism’s ineluctible racism notwithstanding 🙂 ); and people who follow education, and were following this issue in 2001, know that Ted Kennedy was balls-to-the-wall for NCLB; he engineered the bipartisan support for the bill, which enabled it to pass with 80-odd percent of the vote.
Trying to draw a conclusion from carefully-selected facts in isolation from other context (or – and you may protest but this is an issue! – selected to fit a narrative) is risky; it makes people draw faulty conclusions, and then burn a lot of energy defending them.
I was following NCLB very closely, and wrote about it a lot (in those pre-blogging days); many of us in this comment section have been focused on education for a long time.
And so perhaps you’re getting dismissed because many of us know this issue very well, and are very informed about it because we were paying attention at the time, and we know better.
But if it’s sources you want, a quick sashay through one page on Google showed us this bit from a conservative black columnist at the liberal SF Examiner, , as well as this from Dan Brown at the liberal HuffPo, and this bit of Kennedy-hagiography from liberal Time Magazine. I could get more…
…but why? the fact is, it was bipartisan. You want to shake the Dems loose from it, and who can blame you? It’s the narrative the DFL is pushing today!
But history is not on your side on this one, no matter how you try to make the context fit.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:18 am
But history is not on your side on this one
Just this “one”? How about “ever”?
July 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Silly Berg! Next thing you’ll assert the economy wasn’t a complete shambles during all 8 years of the Bush regime.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
” Why, we don’t know from the photo that Ted Kennedy didn’t just happen to stumble into the signing in a drunken haze!”
PRICELESS!!