Obama and school vouchers. Really?
February 16, 2008 by libertyisforme
So, the new buzz is that Obama is jumping on the school voucher wagon. But I don’t buy it!
His Track Record
In 2002, he said this: “I do not believe in vouchers.”
Folks, his words not mine.
Then in a 2004 debate, he said, “He opposed government vouchers and tax credits to attend private schools because they would undermine efforts to improve the public school system.”
Do you still think he is really for vouchers?
Is he now being Romney Jr. - a flip flopper? No.
The poor guy now supports vouchers because he needs an edge. With this, every free market wonk would lean closer to supporting Obama because…frankly, McCain is a piece of work.
Let’s face it, he is trying to make himself electable. He is not being sincere.
Hmmm, it’s certainly ballsy considering the fact that the NEA hasn’t given its endorsement yet. I mean really ballsy:
“[Vouchers] are despised by teachers unions, powerful players in Democratic politics.”
So I question how you think this makes him more electable. In the general yes. But, at this point in the campaign — with the nomination not in the bag — this could really hurt him.
Maybe it’s just thoughtless sincerity.
First, nothing that Obama has done has been thoughtless. He has played this primary very strategically matching the Clinton machine move for move. This is evidenced by how well he has been able to flip any jab from Hilary, whether it is on experience, race, etc., and transform it into a positive for his campaign. I believe this comment is just as strategic.
In his words about “supporting vouchers,” he did hedge his answer by saying that he would do so if research showed that it works. See, that’s the catch. Every single education group has research, it’s just a matter of which one you’re going to agree with. Reg Weaver can wax poetic for months about how vouchers fail (he’s wrong of course). Obama previously told the NEA he doesn’t support vouchers. And in all honesty, what’s said publicly and what’s said behind closed doors can vary greatly.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I do hope that his comment was a true reflection of his beliefs. After toiling in the education reform world for so long, it would be refreshing. But, I’m a realist. On a separate note, he’s not the first Democratic presidential candidate to “support” vouchers as many “education analysts” have claimed (see Joe Lieberman).
So, does this make him more electable? Absolutely.
The NEA originally planned to endorse a candidate after Feb. 5, but put it off because there was no clear front-runner. See, they want to back the party winner because they don’t want to be wrong either. My money is on the NEA not endorsing a candidate until the Democratic nominee is a sure thing.
And don’t worry Obama fans, the NEA or AFT won’t leave his side, even with his “support.” Since 1990, only 7 percent of the NEA and 1 percent of the AFT’s contributions have gone to Republicans. The NEA ranks 6th and the AFT ranks 16th on the list of all-time campaign contributors. And in all reality, the majority of their funding goes to congressional and senatorial candidates. By the way, the NEA had given Obama $8,700 for his senatorial campaign, while Clinton received $28,500 for her two senate campaigns (the AFT averages out close to equal).
So then, where’s the strategic upside? The primaries.
With Republicans having selected their candidate (sorry Ron and Mike), there could very well be an influx of Republicans switching to Democrat in order to cast a vote in state primaries. With the race for delegates as close as it is, this could good carry on for some time. And for many Republicans this comment could help move Obama into the column of the lesser of two evils.
Also, if Hilary loses Pennsylvania, Ohio or Texas, her campaign will be written off as one of the most spectacular, fiery political crashes of all-time. You school choicers know what’s interesting about this. Pennsylvania and Ohio both have large statewide, school choice programs. And Texas has debated school choice for years and even featured the largest school choice rally ever when over 6,500 people marched the capitol. A vast majority were Hispanics – a group Hilary has been touting as supporters of hers.
So, does this all amount to more strategic positioning from Obama? It seems that way to me. And if Obama wins the nomination will he still get the NEA endorsement? Hmm, well McCain supposedly wanted to create a voucher program spending $5.5 billion for a million kids to have educational freedom. My money is on yeah.
Comments from two “wonks”…one of which likes a certain odd-sounding animal. The other lives on a pond and shared a drive with Paulita:
#1:
Wow. The audacity of perspicaciousness. Or was it the perspicacity of audaciousness? In any event, a bold and characteristically non-commital statement of incontrovertible principle (”you do what’s best for the kids” — mmm, that’s brave) from a man who put the ‘tude in “empty platitude.”
I wonder if his camp has decided (or knows) that NEA’s endorsement is going to Hillary after all and this is a shrewdly calculated move to pick up some of the more free-thinking Dems out there. Or could this be, I don’t know, an actual statement of principle, God forbid?
#2:
“To be all things to all men is the Holy Grail of every politician.”
Timmy, I totally agree with your query about whether or not Obama knows the Clinton campaign is going to get the nomination.
In 1997, the AFT gave $116,028 and the NEA gave $59,442 to Hilary’s husband’s Presidential Inaugural Committee, which covers the funds for the presidential inauguration. And in 1993, each lent $100,000 to the cause.
In addition, with Hilary coming from New York, which is home to what is considered by many to be the most powerful and influential chapter of these unions, it is not unreasonable to assume she’ll garner the support she needs.
I do hope that this is a true statement of principle… at least it was better than the generic “I support education” tag so many politicians utter.