State-chartered school proponents show a lot of brass
In his now-famous speech to the Democratic convention back in September, Bill Clinton noted, that “It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.”
By that definition, supporters of Amendment 1, the proposal to create a system of state-chartered schools around Georgia, have more brass than a 100-person Tijuana mariachi band. They are doing just what they attack their opponents for doing, and they are doing it with audacity and an official seal of approval.
As amendment supporters tell it, it is illegal for local school officials and state School Superintendent John Barge to publicly express opposition to the November ballot measure. Officials who dare to criticize the measure are engaging in taxpayer-supported advocacy, in violation of Georgia law.
Well, right about now that mariachi band ought to be strolling by, trumpets blaring. Not just because Gov. Nathan Deal, among other public officials, is openly advocating passage of Amendment 1. Because as Georgians are in the voting booth in November, trying to make up their minds about Amendment 1, this is the “unbiased” description that they’ll read on their ballot: “Provides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.”
Again, that language is printed on the ballot itself, and it is clearly intended as an argument in favor of passage. It represents taxpayer-funded advocacy delivered right at the moment of decision-making. Who would vote against “improving student achievement?” Who opposes more “parental involvement?” The preamble is a blatant effort to put a thumb on the scales.
Then voters will turn to the language of the amendment as it appears on the ballot, which is no more straightforward. In fact, it is downright deceptive. It reads: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?”
Reading that question, an unwary voter might believe — is supposed to believe — that the right of local school boards to approve charter schools depends on passage of the amendment. It does not. Contrary to the ballot wording, local school boards already have clear power to create charter schools; that authority is not at stake in this issue.
Why then does the ballot language include the words “to allow … local approval”? Purely and simply, to deceive people into believing that charter schools as a whole are under threat. And there’s evidence that the deception may work.
In a recent AJC poll, 45 percent of likely Georgia voters said they support passage of the amendment, while 42 percent oppose it. That is much closer than a poll conducted in July on behalf of supporters of the measure, which found that 58 percent of Georgians backed Amendment 1.
Conceivably, the difference could be explained by the fact that public attitudes have changed between July and October. But Bert Brantley, spokesman for pro-amendment Families for Better Public Schools, gave AJC reporters another explanation.
In the July poll, he pointed out, voters were read the actual language that appears on the ballot and that will guide their voting. The AJC poll asked the question more accurately than the ballot does: “Shall the state of Georgia have a special state commission that has the authority to approve charter schools that have not been approved by local school districts?”
If Brantley’s right — if the wording on the ballot does sway voter decisions to a significant degree — then the deception will have worked. But that in turn raises a crucial question.
With this proposed amendment, Georgia voters are being asked create an unelected state commission appointed by politicians. That commission would have the authority to create a system of state-chartered schools around the state, undercutting the authority of local systems and school boards but without the accountability of those boards.
That’s asking for a lot of trust, and voters ought to ask themselves whether those pushing this amendment are conducting themselves in a manner deserving of that trust. They aren’t being upfront about their motives, and they aren’t being honest about what they hope to accomplish.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
191 comments Add your comment
No artificial Flavors
October 17th, 2012
12:49 pm
It’s odd that the party of less government so vehemently supports stating up a new parallel school system bureaucracy with only appointed (read connected) figureheads.
barking frog
October 17th, 2012
12:51 pm
Old Physics Teacher
I saw the type charter
school you describe work
very well at Chattanooga
School for Arts and Sciences
that was controlled by a
local board of parents.
barking frog
October 17th, 2012
12:53 pm
Could Georgia establish a
Charter Legislature ?
AmericaShrugged
October 17th, 2012
12:53 pm
Will of the people? The state and counties have been ’stealing’ my tax dollars forever, providing a very inferior product for the money received. 49th in SAT scores, cheating on standardized tests to ‘make’ AYP, reducing gifted class offering to be able to have more ESOL classes? School board members have come and gone but the low achievement never chagnes.
TaxPayer
October 17th, 2012
12:54 pm
Dictator Deal has spoken and cons must obey.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
12:55 pm
Towncrier — “So I don’t think the Obama administration is going to split hairs as you have 3 weeks before the election. If Obama wants to claim he called the attack and act of terror on September 12th, then he has basically proven that – contrary to his claims last night of never sinking to the level of politicizing the deaths of 4 Americans – he and his entire administration has in fact lied about the reason for the attack (no one I know of calls an angry mob “terrorists”). And that means he politicized it.”
Absolutely and patently ridiculous.
Only the most ridiculously partisan of persons would claim that the President, in appearing before the country to decry a “terror attack” that day or the previous day, was somehow “politicizing” the matter. The honor of having politicized the matter clearly belongs to Mr. Romney in his late-night press conference.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
12:56 pm
About the “debate” last night – it was awful. I had to turn it off after 45 minutes. Aside from the undignified behavior of both Obama and Romney, I could hardly believe the presumptuousness of Candy Crowley, her felt need to show her importance by interjecting herself into the debate rather than letting the VOTERS in the TOWNHALL ask their questions. It seems she recognized her folly when the two candidates started acting like children – almost Bidenesque.
TaxPayer
October 17th, 2012
12:59 pm
Republicans politicize everything for a vote and they think that because they have no standards no one else does either.
JamVet
October 17th, 2012
1:00 pm
Randian, in the United States of America you gotta pay to play and give to get.
Unless “you” are a corporation.
Then you get to live an Edgar Winter song…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWpND8GhBuU
kawasaki kid
October 17th, 2012
1:01 pm
The very wording on the ballot is clearly deceptive in that it promotes the idea of for-profit, unaccountable private charter schools. Good-hearted voters will surely vote it in, unaware of the inevitable consequences. Ain’t American-style politics great?
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:01 pm
“Absolutely and patently ridiculous.”
I guess you missed my point.
“Only the most ridiculously partisan of persons would claim that the President, in appearing before the country to decry a “terror attack” that day or the previous day, was somehow “politicizing” the matter.”
That was not my claim. My claim – and the troubling thing since we all now know what pretty much happened – is that both Obama and his administration for up to two weeks after the assault was attributing it to a spontaneous reaction (which an act of terrorism is not) to a an offensive film. You CANNOT have it both ways – either it was a terrorist act or it was mob violence. If Obama MEANT to say it was an act of terror on September 12th then he was lying for two weeks afterwards.
Ahem
October 17th, 2012
1:03 pm
This being brought to you by Big Bird and Tickle Me Elmo, both drudgey cons
Romney won the second debate
Romney won the second debate
Romney won the second debate
By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.
Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his Vice President’s mistakes. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.
But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive:
1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama’s economic record and Obama’s rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.
2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.
3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.
4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses
5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.
6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone’s satisfaction.
7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.
Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.
But this debate goes to Romney. It seals his momentum and will lead to a big win.
Dick Morris is a Fox News contributor and author.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/17/romney-won-second-debate/#ixzz29ZnnVFFj
They BOTH suck
October 17th, 2012
1:05 pm
Ahem
Would that be Dick “McCain will walk away with this election” Morris or a different guy?
scrappy
October 17th, 2012
1:05 pm
“Will charter schools improve GA’s education ranking? IDK.
But I’m willing to try. It can’t get any worse that’s for sure.”
Different does NOT always equal better. Yes, it can get worse. And you can bet that once the board is in place, and all the people / corporations that are currently backing this amendment are racking in millions in profits, it will be impossible to un-do.
Erwin's cat
October 17th, 2012
1:07 pm
even in Obama’s quote…it reads like terror attacks in general…If he had said this terror attack or these terror attacks like Candy misquoted…Obama might have a point…and like what has been pointed out, if they thought it was a terror attack then why spend two weeks blaming the film..
I expect they knew it was a terror attack all along and wanted to play it down for political benefit
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:07 pm
“Dick Morris is a Fox News contributor and author.”
Morris’ opinions – despite his accomplishments and “trade knowledge” of politics – are invalid here because 1) he works for Fox News and 2) he is an albino Uncle Tom.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:08 pm
Towncrier — “I guess you missed my point.”
Perhaps you do not recognize the difference between missing your point and simply not *agreeing* with it.
“That was not my claim. My claim – and the troubling thing since we all now know what pretty much happened – is that both Obama and his administration for up to two weeks after the assault was attributing it to a spontaneous reaction (which an act of terrorism is not) to a an offensive film. You CANNOT have it both ways – either it was a terrorist act or it was mob violence. If Obama MEANT to say it was an act of terror on September 12th then he was lying for two weeks afterwards.”
Since you have already admited to having turned off the debate, perhaps you’re not aware of what was actually said. Mr. Romney accused the President of waiting for 14 days to refer to the Benghazi incident as a “terror attack,” at which point both President Obama and Candy Crowley *corrected* Romney.
Your position, such as it is, is not reflective of the situation that actually took place during the debate last night. Romney articulated something that was demonstrably incorrect, whereupon he was corrected.
Regnad Kcin
October 17th, 2012
1:08 pm
“Will WITCHCRAFT improve GA’s education ranking? IDK.
But I’m willing to try. It can’t get any worse that’s for sure.”
Why not?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
1:11 pm
Obama also referred to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” while campaigning in Colorado on September 13: Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week — we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.
And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare. (Applause.)
So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. (Applause.) I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
1:11 pm
GALLUP: R 51% O 45%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:12 pm
We should all know by now if the gop proposed it, it is usually a bad idea.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:12 pm
“I expect they knew it was a terror attack all along and wanted to play it down for political benefit.”
I suspect that as well. And that is why people feel he has been politicizing this issue – his solemn (and very creepy if he is lying) denial in the debate last night. Look – why should anyone believe a Chicago politician is not capable of lying through his teeth (knowing the history of corruption in that city)? I will stipulate that Romney has lied, because it is evident that he has. If you don’t think Obama has never lied, I have some real estate I’d like to sell you.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
1:13 pm
“Obama Says ‘When I Was President’ At Debate”
At least he is thinking ahead to November.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:14 pm
crier,
Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I did (sic).
The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror. And I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this, please.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
Owned.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
October 17th, 2012
1:14 pm
Towncrier:
It wasn’t a terrorist attack. Jay said so.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:16 pm
Perhaps you cons need to listen to him so you don’t look like fools like mitt.
Read transcripts not rw media lies.
Georgia
October 17th, 2012
1:17 pm
Those who saw the debate on television, Ipad, or Iphone thought Obama won. Those who saw the the debate on their Ipods, GPS screens or ebooks thought Romney won.
The more things “change”, the more they remain the same.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:17 pm
Ahem — “1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama’s economic record and Obama’s rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.”
However, Romney again failed to articulate specifics about his own plan. Assuming he actually *has* one, that is.
“2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.”
China’s a net loser of an issue for Romney, given his ties to big business and big finance. He’d do better to avoid touching that subject.
“3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.”
Except that that’s not why prices have gone up. As nations like China and India have developed, their national appetite for energy has increased, and thus world petroleum prices have increased. We now have significant competitors for the petroleum resources we buy on the world market; that wasn’t true 20 years ago.
“4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses”
Not effective at all. Romney had no reply whatsoever to the charge that his advisory committee is full of Bush advisors, staffers and hangers-on.
“5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.”
Saying ‘you, too’ isn’t a rebuttal; it’s an implicit admission that the attack was factual in the first place. I noticed that Romney failed to mention that his blind trust is run by his personal attorney; do you think there’s a reason for that? I do.
“6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone’s satisfaction.”
Romney did neither.
“7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.”
Romney asserted something that was factually untrue. Obama and, Crowley corrected Mr. Romney, and the transcript proves Romney wrong.
“Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.”
The Vegas assertion has been thoroughly debunked many times and in many places. Bringing it up again won’t make it true.
“But this debate goes to Romney. It seals his momentum and will lead to a big win.”
At which point cons will wake up and begin crying as they realize it was all a dream and that they’ve still lost.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
1:17 pm
Oh Senior Digits… you lie! But typical wingnuttery to take a portion of a statement out of context and try to claim it means something different.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:20 pm
“Since you have already admited to having turned off the debate, perhaps you’re not aware of what was actually said. Mr. Romney accused the President of waiting for 14 days to refer to the Benghazi incident as a “terror attack,” at which point both President Obama and Candy Crowley *corrected* Romney.”
Exactly – at which point Romney should have asked the question “Then WHY did both you and your administration for two weeks attribute the attack to a film?” Why he did not, I don’t know – perhaps he was too emotional and not thinking well. You cannot have it both ways, as I have said.
“Your position, such as it is, is not reflective of the situation that actually took place during the debate last night. Romney articulated something that was demonstrably incorrect, whereupon he was corrected.”
I have seen clips of the exchange. And you apparently have still failed to grasp my “position”. Hint: it only tangentially has to do with the debate.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:20 pm
Obama/Biden are pit bulls in the last two debates.
The numbers will correct to our President.
This one is over.
Cosby
October 17th, 2012
1:21 pm
Just look ad Dekalb County Schools and Fulton County Schools and then ask youself if sometime local authority needs to be overidden – opersonally bring on the vouchers and then require accountability!!!
bigbill
October 17th, 2012
1:22 pm
Glad you mentioned the pro-amendment Families For Better Public Schools (Edward Lindsey, Chairman; Rick Thompson, Treasurer) in this column, Mr. Bookman. This organization has filed two very interesting campaign contribution disclosure reports with the Georgia Government Transparency And Campaign Finance Commission (formerly known as the State Ethics Commission). Click here to review the reports:
http://media.ethics.ga.gov/search/Campaign/Campaign_Name.aspx?NameID=17639&FilerID=NC2012000048&Type=committee
It always amazes me how an organization like this can be set up very quickly and in no time at all hundreds of thousands of dollars flow in to support a constitutional amendment like this one. The report reveals that so far this group of “families” who support the Georgia Charter School Amendment have raised $508,535.00.
Here is a listing of some of the larger contributions all from out-of-state corporations or persons: Alice Walton, Bentonville, AR, $250,000.00; K-12, Inc., Herndon, VA, $100,000.00; Charter Schools USA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, $50,000.00; National Heritage Academies, Grand Rapids, MI, $25,000.00; J.C. Huezenga (the founder and CEO of National Heritage Academies), $25,000.00; Education Reform Now, New York, NY, $6000.00; Students First, Sacramento, CA, $6000.00; Davidson Companies, Great Falls, MT, $5,000.00, Edison Learning, Knoxville, TN, $2,000.00.
Why are these out-of-state individuals and corporations so eager to have this amendment pass? Maybe Ed Lindsey, Rick Thompson, or Bert Brantley could tell us.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:23 pm
“It wasn’t a terrorist attack. Jay said so.”
His “definition” was an interesting way out of the dilemma I think Obama is in on this issue. Give him credit: it was better than sheer denial.
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:24 pm
Towncrier — “Exactly – at which point Romney should have asked the question “Then WHY did both you and your administration for two weeks attribute the attack to a film?” Why he did not, I don’t know – perhaps he was too emotional and not thinking well. You cannot have it both ways, as I have said.”
No, you can’t have it both ways. And neither can Mr. Romney. Opportunity lost on his part.
“I have seen clips of the exchange. And you apparently have still failed to grasp my “position”.
I grasp your position just fine. You apparently have still failed to grasp that I *disagree* with it.
“Hint: it only tangentially has to do with the debate.”
Hint: reading what you’ve written and understanding it does not imply that a reader will automatically agree with you.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:24 pm
First, Americans unite to show patriotism and resolve to get the terrorists after a attack and not attack to get our President.
Our President did say it was a terror attack but the media and gop kept attacking him.
Not all the facts are in, the CIA are involved and they never tell the truth and we have ongoing operations with troops going after the terrorists.
When will the gop and you cons support our troops?
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:25 pm
“Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?”
Clinton is not “my” SoS – I would say she is “ours”, but since I didn’t vote for Obama I cannot claim her as “mine”.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:26 pm
crier,
Liar. He said the buck stops with him. The gop never say that.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:28 pm
When will you support our troops in Libya?
Are you not Americans?
Joseph
October 17th, 2012
1:29 pm
Poor Bookman… Your like the little kid that gets beat up on the playground everyday.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:29 pm
“I grasp your position just fine. You apparently have still failed to grasp that I *disagree* with it.”
Well, then, please explain to all of us how one can know the attack on the consulate was a terrorist act the day following but then contend for two weeks it was the result of a “spontaneous” reaction to a film. I am all ears.
Joseph
October 17th, 2012
1:31 pm
Whats so laughable about Bookman writing a blog like this is that he thinks it will make a difference. Jay you must realize that the folks who do read your tripe or either avid far left cool aid drinkers like you or Conservatives that just get on here to make libs howl…..
UNCLE SAMANTHA
October 17th, 2012
1:31 pm
RAY
GA consistently ranks in the last 5 on educational measures WITH LOCAL CONTROL………….
do you really think that the LOCAL CONTROL that has put us AT THE BOTTOM will LEAD US TO THE TOP
or would you prefer to see change from outside that LOCAL CONTROL……………
CHARTER SCHOOLS are not wanted by LOCAL CONTROL because if they SUCCEED…… they show how INCOMPETENT LOCAL CONTROL is.
indigo
October 17th, 2012
1:33 pm
Erwin’s Cat – 12:31
Georgia is at the heart of the Bible belt. Did you not hear what one Georgia Congressman (a doctor,no less) said about evolution and the big bang? Do you have the bigoted view that only Muslims can be crazed religious zealots? Are you naive enough to think “it can’t happen here”?
You’d better open your eyes, sporty, and see what’s really happening in the American fundamentalist Christian world.
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:33 pm
crier,
Stop lying and support our troops.
Act like an American.
UNCLE SAMANTHA
October 17th, 2012
1:34 pm
IRONY
proponents of TSPLOST who wanted state and regional governments to run transportation are opponents of that state and regional control of education
opponents of TSPLOST who didnt want state and regional govt running transportation are proponents for state and regional run education
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
1:34 pm
Towncrier — “Well, then, please explain to all of us how one can know the attack on the consulate was a terrorist act the day following but then contend for two weeks it was the result of a “spontaneous” reaction to a film. I am all ears.”
Why? I didn’t make the argument. I simply pointed out that Romney made a claim that was factually incorrect, whereupon he was corrected by both the President and the moderator.
If you’ve got an issue with the President’s position and behavior, then perhaps you should take it up with him. Better yet, send Romney some e-mail and tell him that he needs to hit Obama with that argument again at the final debate — and to not f**k it up this time.
Regnad Kcin
October 17th, 2012
1:35 pm
I agree with Uncle Samantha!
Demand Federal control of our schools!
Erwin's cat
October 17th, 2012
1:39 pm
indigo @ 1:33
and that rant has to do with charter schools exactly how?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
1:42 pm
Joseph: Jay you must realize that the folks who do read your tripe or either avid far left cool aid drinkers like you or Conservatives that just get on here to make libs howl
Well I see that Joseph being a con is playing with his special purpose again and admits he is incapable of intelligent discussion. Joseph is making a run up the pompous arse posting leader board.
Mike
October 17th, 2012
1:43 pm
I voted “NO” yesterday.
St Simons- island off the coast of New Somalia
October 17th, 2012
1:44 pm
Keep Up – that was the only one I’m sort of neutral on.
But I am against long term liabilities at the state level.
Leases of longer than 12 months must be booked
as ‘long term liabilities (except for the immediate 12 months due)
Revenue cycle = 1 yr
Liability cycle = should in my opinion reflect that wherever possible
Opponents of this pt of view could rightly argue “hey butthead indian,
I’ve got a 5 yr capital lease on my copier, why not buildings?”
mrsstsimons says i’m anal
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:46 pm
“Why? I didn’t make the argument. I simply pointed out that Romney made a claim that was factually incorrect, whereupon he was corrected by both the President and the moderator.”
You said you *disagreed* with my argument. So, tell us why.
“If you’ve got an issue with the President’s position and behavior, then perhaps you should take it up with him.”
ROFL. Do you have his cell phone number? Absent that, I will take in up here and in conversations I have with others.
“Better yet, send Romney some e-mail and tell him that he needs to hit Obama with that argument again at the final debate — and to not f**k it up this time.”
I have submitted recommendations to Romney’s campaign but it would appear they have gone unheeded. And I wouldn’t use the vulgar language you suggested – why did you use it?
Alright, everyone – since JHM has declined to answer the question I posed @1:29, does anyone else wish to offer a plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy?
getalife
October 17th, 2012
1:47 pm
Our President set the record straight on Libya and we have troops there going after the terrorists.
Lets support them.
Smokey
October 17th, 2012
1:47 pm
Regarding state amendments, I try to do my homework on what is being proposed ahead of time. If I still don’t understand it completely come election time, I always vote no.
JamVet
October 17th, 2012
1:48 pm
mike/joseph, just don’t go all Timothy McVeigh on us when Team Money Boo Boo loses, OK?
Georgia
October 17th, 2012
1:50 pm
The Koran has the virgin birth story of Jesus. It’s part of the Islamic doctrine of truth. I didn’t look this up and am relying on a history channel marathon about biblical archeology. Could be bs. Dont care enough to look it up even if my comment does ignite yet another crusade.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
1:50 pm
St Simons, thanks. The only article I am finding is http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/voters-to-decide-if-georgia-should-have-mutli-year/nSdtt and it suggests that there would be a clause in leases to state subject to annual budget appropriations.
In general long term leases technically should be at a lower cost than short term but with escalators and other clauses, who knows what games are played by these politicians. But are they any different than what is done with short term leases.
I am still up in the air on this one.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:52 pm
“Mike/joseph, just don’t go all Timothy McVeigh on us when Team Money Boo Boo loses, OK?”
Curious comment. I haven’t heard any reports of Romney supporters threatening violence should he lose the election. But I have heard reports of Obama supporters threatening that.
Vote No On Amendment One
October 17th, 2012
1:54 pm
[...] Jay Bookman wrote in the AJC, Reading that question, an unwary voter might believe — is supposed to believe — that the right [...]
bigbill
October 17th, 2012
1:54 pm
More puzzling information from the (inaccurately and misleadingly named) Families For Better Public Schools’ Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report: a startlingly large number of attorneys and employees who work at the politically influential McKenna, Long, Aldridge law firm in Atlanta have opened their checkbooks to make contributions to this pro-charter amendment “family group.” Here are their names and positions in the McKenna Long law firm: David Baskerville, Senior Advisor; Benjamin Keane, Attorney; Thomas Lauth, Attorney; Alan Moore, Managing Director; Eric Tannenblatt, Senior Managing Director; and Ben Vinson, Attorney. Odd that so many of these McKenna Long folks happen to be so interested in expanding charter schools in Georgia. Or is it because their clients have a direct financial interest in seeing that this amendment passes? Click here to see the Families For Better Public Schools campaign contribution disclosure report:
http://media.ethics.ga.gov/search/Campaign/Campaign_Name.aspx?NameID=17639&FilerID=NC2012000048&Type=committee
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
1:54 pm
Towncrier: I haven’t heard any reports of Romney supporters threatening violence should he lose the election.
For someone who claims to be “all ears”, there seems to be a lot of deafness.
Ekim56
October 17th, 2012
1:54 pm
Erwin’s cat
October 17th, 2012
11:53 am
My favorite was Amendment 1 a few years ago “making GA more competitive” when if fact it gave employers the ability to force employees to sign blanket non-compete agreements which could keep you from seeking other employment in the state with a “competing” firm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, I got fooled into voting for that one. I was ashamed, swore it would never happen again. Now I read more and don’t make decisions in the booth, no matter how attractive it seems.
I too can’t wait until I retire so that I can move to a blue state.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:55 pm
“For someone who claims to be “all ears”, there seems to be a lot of deafness.”
Please…don’t keep me in the dark. Provide evidence.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
1:58 pm
ROFL:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330742/bizarre-coincidence-democrats-get-more-time-all-three-debates-katrina-trinko
St Simons- island off the coast of New Somalia
October 17th, 2012
2:01 pm
its just a good idear to vote NO on all attempts to change the
Constertushern.
out of respect for the strict constertutionalistic cons, yknow
Peadawg
October 17th, 2012
2:02 pm
“But I have heard reports of Obama supporters threatening that.”
Link?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
2:04 pm
Here you go crier………. google is your friend.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803
http://www.scoop.it/t/littlebytesnews-election-2012/p/2748928019/terrorism-analyst-u-s-ignores-threat-of-violent-right-wing-extremists-the-raw-story
http://crooksandliars.com/tags/right-wing-violence
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 17th, 2012
2:05 pm
Here you go crier………. google is your friend.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/94803
http://www.scoop.it/t/littlebytesnews-election-2012/p/2748928019/terrorism-analyst-u-s-ignores-threat-of-violent-right-wing-extremists-the-raw-story
There are more if you want to do your own work
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
2:09 pm
The plot thickens. According to Kerry Ladka, who asked Obama about the question about Benghazi, the president apparently privately “clarified” his answer after the debate.
For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/presidential-debate-libya-questioner-says-obama-didnt-answer/2012/10/17/7109898e-1867-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html
If that is so, then again, WHY did Obama and his administration attribute the attack to a a response to a film for two weeks? Why not just say “we think it might have been a terrorist attack, but we are still investigating” and be done with it? It sure looks like Obama and his administration have gotten caught lying.
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
2:14 pm
“Here you go crier………. google is your friend. There are more if you want to do your own work.”
Well, thanks for the Homeland Security general warning regarding potential “right wing” violence. But I said this: I haven’t heard any reports of Romney supporters threatening violence should he lose the election. So, again, where is the evidence?
JamVet
October 17th, 2012
2:15 pm
The Uncle Sam haters don’t advertise. They just blow up federal buildings and kill tons of innocent men, women or children. Or stroll into a church in Knoxville and kill innocent people. Or set off bombs in Olympic parks and kill an innocent woman. Or stroll up to a congresswoman and try to kill her and kill several others.
Nothing to see in terms of violence addiction in our fascist right wing. Move along…
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
2:18 pm
Towncrier — “You said you *disagreed* with my argument. So, tell us why.”
I don’t recognize your authority to speak for “us,” whoever “us” is. And as far as ‘why’ goes, read on.
“ROFL. Do you have his cell phone number? Absent that, I will take in up here and in conversations I have with others.”
You can get started here. Teh Google is your friend.
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/white-house-phone-number.html
“I have submitted recommendations to Romney’s campaign but it would appear they have gone unheeded. And I wouldn’t use the vulgar language you suggested – why did you use it?”
You seem quite upset that Romney didn’t exploit the clear opportunity you seem to think he had. You’re being quite cross with me over an argument I didn’t make and a position that wasn’t at issue in the debate, but the one person you’re not blaming for *their* mistake in all this is Governor Romney. I think you need to consider that *he* fell short in what you apparently expected and wanted him to do, and that’s neither my fault nor the President’s. This is ‘why’ I disagree with you — because Romney’s failure to exploit an opening for attack isn’t my fault and it isn’t the President’s fault. It’s Romney’s fault, but you have apparently refrained from placing blame there.
Why?
“Alright, everyone – since JHM has declined to answer the question I posed @1:29, does anyone else wish to offer a plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy?”
(giggling)
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
2:21 pm
““But I have heard reports of Obama supporters threatening that.”
=http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-fans-well-riot-leave-u-s-if-mitt-wins/
=http://www.westernjournalism.com/thomas-sowell-race-riots-if-obama-loses/
=http://www.infowars.com/obama-supporters-threaten-to-kill-romney-if-he-wins-election/
Towncrier
October 17th, 2012
2:36 pm
“You seem quite upset that Romney didn’t exploit the clear opportunity you seem to think he had.”
Thanks, Dr. Phil. But I am not. You have misjudged the reason for my upset.
“You’re being quite cross with me over an argument I didn’t make and a position that wasn’t at issue in the debate, but the one person you’re not blaming for *their* mistake in all this is Governor Romney. I think you need to consider that *he* fell short in what you apparently expected and wanted him to do, and that’s neither my fault nor the President’s. This is ‘why’ I disagree with you — because Romney’s failure to exploit an opening for attack isn’t my fault and it isn’t the President’s fault. It’s Romney’s fault, but you have apparently refrained from placing blame there.”
Well, JHM, you have just now proven your inability to comprehend clear English prose (and consequently my position). Romney’s failure to exploit Obama’s admission was and is not my concern. Nor was the debate per se. Obama’s lying on this issue is – because, you know, he is the sitting POTUS and I can see no explanation for it other than political advantage (which means he was solemnly lying last night when he claim he would never politicize such a tragic event and that means he is not your run-of-the-mill liars).
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
2:43 pm
Towncrier — “http://www.westernjournalism.com/thomas-sowell-race-riots-if-obama-loses/”
Where, precisely, are the *threats* of violence in that?
Someone *guessing* that someone else will commit violent acts doesn’t strike me as a “threat.”
Joe Hussein Mama
October 17th, 2012
2:55 pm
Towncrier — “Thanks, Dr. Phil. But I am not. You have misjudged the reason for my upset.”
Fine. Then please elaborate on the reason.
“Well, JHM, you have just now proven your inability to comprehend clear English prose (and consequently my position).”
Well, Towncrier, you have just now proven your inability to write clear English prose (and I also refer back to our first meeting, when you berated me for holding a position that I didn’t hold). There’s nothing so magical about you and your writing that everything you post will be completely understood by the reader with absolute clarity and with 100% of your intent arriving intact.
If you’re looking for a polite discussion, then act like it and be more collegial. If you’re going to be a Richard and pizz and moan, then I don’t care to continue pursuing this topic with you.
“Romney’s failure to exploit Obama’s admission was and is not my concern.”
What admission? Romney made an assertion that was factually incorrect. He was then corrected by Obama and the moderator.
“Nor was the debate per se. Obama’s lying on this issue is – because, you know, he is the sitting POTUS and I can see no explanation for it other than political advantage (which means he was solemnly lying last night when he claim he would never politicize such a tragic event and that means he is not your run-of-the-mill liars).”
I stand by my charge that Romney and his supporters are the ones politicizing this matter.
After terror attacks, Americans should pull together behind the President instead of fractiously criticizing him. We should present a united front to our enemies and to those who would attack us. Despite the fact that I didn’t vote for President Bush, I did not criticize him in the days and weeks following 9/11 because *we as a country* were attacked and because *we as a country* should stand together at those times.
If you truly feel that Benghazi was a terror attack, then I find your behavior inexplicable and inexcusable. And the same goes for Romney. I recognize that he wants to get elected, but if crapping on the President after a terror attack is the way he wants to achieve that, then my opinion of him is going to drop several notches lower than it already is.
And if you can’t bring yourself to at least grudgingly refrain from using a terror attack against our people and territory as an opening to attack our President, then my opinion of you is going to drop a few notches as well.
I don’t care what party our President’s from — when we suffer a terror attack against our people and/or our territory, we owe it to our President and to OURSELVES to drop the silly political bullspit for at least a little while and pull together. I’m able to do that. Perhaps you’re not.
The issue
October 17th, 2012
4:03 pm
Bookman’s article is exactly right – the whole purpose of this amendment has nothing to do with Charter Schools and everything to do with getting around the Supreme Court decision. All of you talking about failed public schools has yet to bring up the fact that since 2003, the legislature has not funded the formula that is in law to provide a basic education. There is a formula based off student count. Right below the amount to be funded is an “Amended formula adjustment”. This line has amounted to almost $5 billion since 2003. That doesn’t even include the fact that operational costs have not been changed for inflation since QBE started in the 1980s. So it is a real slap in the face of every educator when they are massively underfunded and then told you aren’t doing well enough so we are going to create a parallel school system not responsible to the local tax payer. People are so anxious to read the word charter and think this is about charters (with the cherry on top being the opinion in the preamble). It is also amazing that comparing statistical data, the results are even with public schools – yet EVERY charter school has been found to have a significantly lower percentage of free and reduced meal students as compared with the county they are in. Factor in this fact that admission is selective, I wonder how even the stats would be. Systems have approved many charters – I repeat, it has nothing to do with charters. In our county, one reason why a charter petition was denied was because they did not include payroll taxes in their financials, which would have made them run red. The State charter commission doesn’t care about feasibility.
There should be two questions everyone should be asking. First, with every department at the State level massively cut (10% a year for most, $1.1 billion for education this year), where in the world do the funds come from to start a new state school system? The closest answer found is that the funds will follow the students – which would be fine if students came in packages of 30. But they don’t so the scattering of students that would be lost would change an existing class from 32 to 30 (which are high due to the massive cuts), the transportation costs would be there, the teacher would be there, and the maintenance and utilities would still exist. Second question – if you have an issue with one of these schools, who would you go to? The charter commission is appointed by the Governor. Why in the world would they care what you have to say? With this amendment, one person can get your local tax dollars for their school in a time when every other agency has been massively cut. Where is the money for this?
If you would like to see how much your school system is currently being cut, go to this link: http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/ and click on QBE reports. This is what systems use to get their allocations. Choose the year you want to see (current year is 2013). Press Set FY, then a dropdown box appears. Click on QBE003 System Allotment Sheets. Choose the county you are interested in seeing. Blow the sheet up to be readable, look for the line QBE Formula Earnings in bold. a couple of lines above that is Amended Formula Adjustment. This is the amount in the current year where the legislature says we are not going to fund the law by this amount. These have occurred since 2003. It’s not hidden. Again, the question is – with massive cuts, where is the money to create a new system? Were the cuts intentional to try to be able to say your system isn’t doing well, so lets create a new system?
Tea Party Bob
October 17th, 2012
4:14 pm
What takes the cake for me is that this thing is going to cost tax payers OVER $400 Million!!! Where the heck is Debbie Dooley on this one?
Watch this video – it about make me toss up my lunch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxOnNLdfdkE&feature=youtu.be
Mighty Righty
October 17th, 2012
4:55 pm
Why do liberals oppose any change to the present education system that improves ducation of children? Vouchers? No! Charter schools? No! I don’t understand. Anything that improves our educational system should be a yes vote. I will vote yes on this amendment and I hope you will as well.
RF
October 17th, 2012
5:22 pm
As I’ve said before, I’m all for change and innovation and improving- and God knows we need it in Georgia. What I’m against is an appointed commission (3 members appointed by the governor, 3 by the lt. governor, and 2 by the speaker of the house- lack of respectful captialization fully intended). Tell me that won’t be political and convince me…
I’m also against this because the state has cut it’s share of education funding to an average of 38%, shifting the lion’s share to local systems. That’s fine, but should they be allowed to create schools and demand all the accountability for curricula they write using tests they commission for that percentage of funding? I wish I could get my utilities at my house fully serviced for 38% of the total I actually use. Talk about a sweet deal.
Lastly, the state legislature will openly admit they haven’t fully funded the legislature’s own funding laws for schools in over twenty years, and have cut funding drastically, even before the recession. If they refuse to fund current LAW, how will we know they will fund anything else they promise? Do we really want MORE schools they’ll end up defunding down the road? Is that even sensible to consider? I don’t think so.
I agree we need to make changes- places like APS and Dekalb make that all to clear. But I absolutely disagree with giving the big three under the gold dome unfettered power to create schools when their politics clearly indicate that their loyalties lie beyond their constituents and the children of this state. They are loyal to their big money friends and family. Vote NO in the election unless you foolishly think the state deserves more control and power over another area of our lives. SHEESH!
OhReally
October 17th, 2012
6:04 pm
Jay, tell us what public school you send your children to? Tell the truth. You would not send them to existing public schools. But you can afford options. What about people that can’t afford private schools or to move to areas with better schools? Is it just tough luck for them? Is there no concern for children who need better opportunities in public education? As to the language of the amendment, it is crystal clear to anyone who has been reading the news–including the AJC. What do you want it to say: “A terrible lying amendment that will ruin public education, destroy families, and forever ruin society as we know it?” Get real.
Jay
October 17th, 2012
6:12 pm
“Jay, tell us what public school you send your children to? Tell the truth. You would not send them to existing public schools. But you can afford options.
We sent our two daughters to Atlanta Public Schools, grades K-12, and they went on from there to attend two of the best universities in the country and now have good careers underway in their chosen fields.
Jm
October 17th, 2012
7:10 pm
Too bad Machiavelli wasn’t at work on the tsplost
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (aka "Knuckle-Dragger")
October 17th, 2012
8:24 pm
If these schools are no good, nobody will send their children, and they will close. If they are good, parents will send their children. Why oppose exactly what public school systems need, which is more competition? I can answer my own question – if they are successful, they will lessen union clout in the state, which is what your opposition is really concerned with, not the children. Shame on you.
yuzeyurbrane
October 17th, 2012
10:59 pm
Jay—you have a naive belief that Georgia is a democracy run by principled elected officials. It is a plutocracy run by corrupt politicians and moneyed interests. Once you understand that then everything makes sense.
Broome
October 18th, 2012
5:54 am
@skipper: There are already 13 APS approved charter schools operating in the district now. The first was approved in1999. The present system works for establishing these schools. We do not need this new politically appointed board to do this.
catlady
October 18th, 2012
11:18 am
Rule of thumb: Vote NO on every amendment. They are all written so that someone can profit with YOUR tax monies.
John Konop
October 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Enter your comments
The following are important taxpayer protections that should be added to the charter school amendment:
• School board members are forbidden from being a consultant, owner, or employee of the charter school management company or its vendors within the past two years. They must provide full disclosure of any such prior affiliations.
• Officeholders that vote on public or charter school legislation and/or funding must fully disclosure any affiliations with any charter school and/or vendors providing services to charter schools. They must also disclose any relatives that are affiliated with charter schools and/or vendors.
• No charter or public school board member and/or officeholder may have any interest in the real estate underlying any charter or public school.
• Charter school board meetings must be publically listed 30 days in advance and must be held after 7 pm (note: short-term notice, unannounced date changes, and inconvenient meeting times have been used to reduce public participation and oversight).
• Every privately managed charter school with over 750 students must secure a bond that compensates the school district if the charter school closes before the end of a school year.
• If a charter school’s private owners/management company owns an interest in the real estate underlying the school, that property must be put up as security to repay any free taxpayer money the school received (e.g. grants or loans) in the event the school fails.
• The contract between the private management company and the charter school must be fully disclosed.
Taxpayers have too often been left holding the bag for failed publically funded private businesses. The above are, for the most part, common requirements in the private sector. We taxpayers deserve these minimal protections.
here
Georgia’s Bitter Charter Battle | Bear Market Investments
October 19th, 2012
11:05 am
[...] a narrow margin, with 45 percent of likely voters approving the measure and 42 opposing it. But, as the AJC columnist Jay Bookman notes, that poll asked voters how they felt about the substance of the measure, by asking whether they [...]
Light Comes Late
October 23rd, 2012
10:52 am
Okay. The amendment reads: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?”
It’s taken me a week of ruminating following a meeting on charter schools in Dekalb County (sponsored by the Emory LaVista Parent Council) to fully grasp what I now believe to be the intention of the framers of this amendment.
First, please note that the amendment’s wording makes no mention of a state created and operated commission to approve charter schools outside the purview of the established state Board of Education (BoE).
Second, the wording makes no mention of what parameters are meant by local (although I believe most would assume that to be the local school board; and in most cases in GA, that would mean the county school board, since the state constitution limits pubic schools to counties and not cities, with a few cities grandfathered in – Decatur, Marietta, etc.).
Third, no mention of funding or allocation of resources, either financial or as capital assets (school buildings, etc.), is included.
So, let’s go from the wording “…. to allow state or local approval…..” to what’s proposed: a state commission with members appointed by elected state representatives with powers outside of and unaccountable to the established state BoE. And let’s say that this interpretation and implementation of the amendment is legally challenged and upheld by our state Supreme Court.
Okay, now you’re ready for the pump fake.
Would it not be a logical extension of this interpretation and implementation, now legally upheld, to be copied at the local level. Ah, but how have we defined “local?” Could it be a city? For argument’s sake, let’s take the recently established City of Dunwoody (and it’s only a happy coincidence that this new city is also the home of State Senator Fran Millar, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Youth, which may have something to say about state amendments on charter schools and its interpretation and implementation). The duly elected city representatives of Dunwoody see that this amendment allows “state” to establish charter schools. Well, gracious, the City of Dunwoody is “local,” so let’s establish a “local” committee to approve charter schools (just like the state did). And let’s approve all the schools in the city as charter schools. And since “local communities” can approach the state commission, let’s make that happen – as the local community of Dunwoody. And for extra funding (since that is not specified – and we certainly don’t want to be forced to raise taxes if it’s not absolutely necessary), let’s make sure that the city’s charter schools (now separated from the Dekalb County School District) receive the 1% SPLOST tax collected within the city for it’s schools – just like the Decatur City Schools and the Marietta City Schools.
Within no time, an amendment for which all of the focus is the impact at the state level has been massaged to create separate city school systems, funded by the state and the local SPLOST. Of course, since they’re still within the county BoE district, they would be open to anyone in the county who wished to apply and attend. Just provide your own transportation – and best of luck enjoying the daily commute through the traffic to get there (anybody been to Perimeter Mall before 9:00am recently?).
Voila. A return to locally-controlled, community-exclusive, public schools. With all the other noise, who’d a thunk it?