That if you were reading The Seattle Times’ endorsement of Rob McKenna, and you came across this paragraph:
McKenna has an independent mind. He is willing to work with Democrats and he is willing on occasion to buck his party. He defended Washington’s top-two primary before the U.S. Supreme Court, despite pressure from his own party seeking to overturn it. And he won.
You might reasonably say to yourself that they got the bucking his own party bit out of the way, so it’s time for an example of him working with Democrats. The next paragraph will surely mention the vast amounts of working with Democrats he did.
No?
It’s just an awkward transition to complaining that Democrats have mentioned that he’s a Republican. OK then.
I dunno, maybe it’s because this article:
McKenna touts his bipartisan successes
In nearly eight years as attorney general, McKenna has developed a reputation for working across party lines — an asset he touts in his campaign for governor against former Democratic Rep. Jay Inslee. But he’s also shown a willingness to leap into politically charged battles with other leaders.
http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....ile7m.html
was published in the same paper on the same day.
I suppose they could have linked to themselves, but if editorializing and reporting are supposed to be separate, that wouldn’t be such a great idea.
I really don’t see what the problem is. From what I read on HA, Obama’s coattails are supposed to be so long, his glorious November victory over the infidel Mormon undoubtedly will extend down-ballot all the way to middle-school PTA elections.
Nice deflection Serial, why is it that Conservatives are so quick to use diversion and deflection as smoke and mirrors to hide what they do?
Yea, he sure showed independence and how to stand up to his own party in the lawsuit against the insurance reform act. The Republicans wanted to make sure there were 51 attorney generals on board the suit, and McKenna was more than happy to oblige, despite it being a total waste of money and against the wishes of the majority of people in the state, the Governor, and the Legislature.
But hey, it’s been pretty clear that the Times was going to back McKenna anyway. If there is the slightest chance he might turn into a union-busting governor like Scott Walker, the Blethens will be all for him.
@ 2
Nice deflection Serial, why is it that Conservatives are so quick to use diversion and deflection as smoke and mirrors to hide what they do?
Um, I thought I gave a specific answer to the question raised in the thread, not a diversion or deflection.
Unless the diversion was an attempt to make you read further down the page. For all you know, the editorial and the companion article @ 1 could have been on the same page of the fishwrap edition.
#3: Actually, make that “26 attorney generals”, not 51. They wanted more than half the states on board the lawsuit.
@ 5
As long as you are correcting yourself, try ‘attorneys general’, not attorney generals.
“In nearly eight years as attorney general, McKenna has developed a reputation for working across party lines….”
That’s just self-serving blather, not proof. Name some Democrats who agree with this assessment and offer proof other than hearsay that they feel this way about McKenna.
Maybe Peter Goldmark, commissioner of public lands, would be a good starting point.
re 6 — Not to put too fine a point on it, but wouldn’t the plural of attorney general be attornies general, not attorneys general?
re 6 — Don’t take this the wrong way, but you are just so f&*#king stupid.
@1 I have seen very little analysis indicating that Obama has any coattails, let alone long ones. It’s more like he’s got plumber’s butt and Ds are staying a long way away.
# 6: Merriam-Webster dictionary says that both “Attorney Generals” and “Attorneys General” are the correct plural form for “Attorney General”. I prefer the former, as the latter implies a collection of attorneys who have a general practice.
As for “reaching across the aisle”, when was that a requirement for an Attorney General? His job is to enforce the laws of the state and to defend it, and officers serving in their official capacity, in court. The only thing he is supposed to do as far as “reaching across the aisle” is to recommend some technical changes in law to the legislature, usually of a bi-partison nature.
I can’t give him kuddos for doing the minimum of his duty according to the law.
In our state’s Legislature, there’s plenty of “reaching across the aisle” in terms of both parties agreeing about thing that need to be done (particularly ending the long-running abdication of the obligation in our fair state’s Constitution to adequately provide for K-12 education). When it comes to agreeing about how to actually do any of those things…well, that’s another matter.
“…adequately provide for K-12 education…”
Which I think we do so very well, if we measured our efforts in terms of money transferred to government for the purposes of education. It’s in the classrooms and in the attitudes of parents where our education system is failing. Simply throwing more money at the teachers’ union isn’t going to improve education one bit, and parents treat the school system as a form of babysitting.
The sooner we get serious about teachers doing a good job and kids being held accountable for learning by their parents, the sooner we’ll have a good system of education in Washington.
@14
Nailed it.
@14, 15: you get what you pay for. Want the best teachers? Offer the best pay! Sure, place high performance standards on teachers/schools – just make sure the teachers/schools have the resources to meet those standards! One measure of seriousness is the level of investments….
re 14 — “The sooner we get serious about teachers doing a good job and kids being held accountable for learning by their parents, the sooner we’ll have a good system of education in Washington.”
That seems correct to me.
Teaching, however, is less a science than an art. And, as we all know, art is particularly resistant to objective analysis. Success is often in the eye of the beholder. Metaphorically speaking, you may be asking Frederick Remington parents to judge the results of a Jackson Pollack teacher.
Parents holding their kids responsible for learning presupposes that the parents understand what that means.
@ 17
Teaching, however, is less a science than an art. And, as we all know, art is particularly resistant to objective analysis.
How convenient.
IOW ‘Shut up and give us more money.’
Well, we’re getting pretty sick of more money, more teachers, no results.
Jay Greene: The Imaginary Teacher Shortage
For decades we have tried to boost academic outcomes by hiring more teachers, and we have essentially nothing to show for it. In 1970, public schools employed 2.06 million teachers, or one for every 22.3 students, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s Digest of Education Statistics. In 2012, we have 3.27 million teachers, one for every 15.2 students.
Yet math and reading scores for 17-year-olds have remained virtually unchanged since 1970, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress. The federal estimate of high-school graduation rates also shows no progress (with about 75% of students completing high school then and now). Unless the next teacher-hiring binge produces something that the last several couldn’t, there is no reason to expect it to contribute to student outcomes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....53548.html
I think what I’d like from the education system is a kid (the product) that can read and write reasonably clearly, understand verbal and written instructions without having to have a remedial class in paying attention, and a product that can at least add 22 and 18 in his or her head and come up with 40 as the answer.
I recently asked a 13-year-old to add 14 and 4 in his head. His answer? 22! Why are we paying for our school system to turn out so much inferior product? Yes, some kids do well, but the vast majority of them are under-preformers. (I’m being kind here – I could have said a lot worse than “under-performers”.)
i aint voting for Jay but Bobbie Mac is a liar and a crook that refused to do his job in his last position.
you gotta give Bobbie’s people credit for making him look ‘moderate’ in those foolish ads.
when i place my wager on this race i gotta bet on Bobbie…people are fools and will buy up that “prefers such-and-such party” on the ballots. the people are too stupid to know he is an elephant and he brings all the elephant platform with him.
i cry for my state…and nation.
re 18 — “Well, we’re getting pretty sick of more money, more teachers, no results.”
The crux of the matter is that you do not know for certain what results you are getting because the modes of measurment are so inexact.
However, I think that you are less interested in measuring the results of public education than you are in torpedoing public education in general and teachers’ unions specifically.
How convenient for you that you have this issue that is so easy to demogogue in the guise of caring about children.
re 19 — I share your concerns and am very much a readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic oriented person, myself.
There is a lot of room for teaching more in the way of basic life skills (like how to make change for a customer without the aid of a computer).
That being said, whenever schools try to teach critical thinking skills, they generally run into a lot of blowback from conservative parents. Conservatives generally believe that one arrives at the correctness of a thought or action by referring to a set of ‘principles’ that obviates the need for any critical thought.
You can verify this yourself by referring to the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill. His thought was influential on the founding fathers and his main criteria for what was politically moral was that the action needed to positively impact the most people, whereas conservatives merely refer to their little list of ‘principles’ to determine the correctness of an action. That is most certainly the lazy man’s approach — although they attempt cloak it in the majesty of eternal right and wrong.
@18
Too bad you didn’t learn how to cross check your facts…