Margiotta joins lunatic fringe

[Laurie]

I was shocked and disappointed to see that Ron Margiotta of all people has let himself be indoctrinated by far right wing nut jobs. Until now I thought he was the lone voice of reason on the school board. Margiotta wanted a school board vote on President Obama's speech to school kids about the importance of staying in school, working hard and getting a good education. Margiotta said, "I wouldn't care if it were President Reagan, or if Abraham Lincoln were resurrected from the dead. We just don't need political figures to take over our schools." Take over our schools? I would expect the school board to welcome and support a speech by the president telling kids to stay in school and work hard to get an education. We need this message reinforced over and over. With the minority graduation rate that WCPSS has, a black man who's father left, was raised by his grandmother, stayed in school and got an education, and is now president of the US is an inspiring story. Mr. Margiotta didn't even bother to read the speech after it was posted online yesterday. Instead he chose to get his information from the looney talking heads who spew lies and hate and fear. There is no room in our schools for petty partisan politics and utter lunacy. You can be as partisan, petty and looney as you want in your campaign for office, but keep it out of our schools. Mr. Margiotta has lost my support and my respect. This will be brought up many times in two years.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7004092

[chaboard]

I was shocked and disappointed to see that Ron Margiotta of all people has let himself be indoctrinated by far right wing nut jobs. Until now I thought he was the lone voice of reason on the school board. Margiotta wanted a school board vote on President Obama's speech to school kids about the importance of staying in school, working hard and getting a good education. Margiotta said, "I wouldn't care if it were President Reagan, or if Abraham Lincoln were resurrected from the dead. We just don't need political figures to take over our schools." Take over our schools? I would expect the school board to welcome and support a speech by the president telling kids to stay in school and work hard to get an education. We need this message reinforced over and over. With the minority graduation rate that WCPSS has, a black man who's father left, was raised by his grandmother, stayed in school and got an education, and is now president of the US is an inspiring story. Mr. Margiotta didn't even bother to read the speech after it was posted online yesterday. Instead he chose to get his information from the looney talking heads who spew lies and hate and fear. There is no room in our schools for petty partisan politics and utter lunacy. You can be as partisan, petty and looney as you want in your campaign for office, but keep it out of our schools. Mr. Margiotta has lost my support and my respect. This will be brought up many times in two years.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7004092

To paraphrase Monsieur Gump......"Wingnut Is as Wingnut Does".

This really should not have surprised anyone. But it is yet another piece in the puzzle that should wake people up and let hem know just what kind disastrous hackery we will get if WCSA and their GOP allies succeed in their stated goal of putting "more Ron's" in charge of our kids.

[ncary42long]

I was shocked and disappointed to see that Ron Margiotta of all people has let himself be indoctrinated by far right wing nut jobs. Until now I thought he was the lone voice of reason on the school board. Margiotta wanted a school board vote on President Obama's speech to school kids about the importance of staying in school, working hard and getting a good education. Margiotta said, "I wouldn't care if it were President Reagan, or if Abraham Lincoln were resurrected from the dead. We just don't need political figures to take over our schools." Take over our schools? I would expect the school board to welcome and support a speech by the president telling kids to stay in school and work hard to get an education. We need this message reinforced over and over. With the minority graduation rate that WCPSS has, a black man who's father left, was raised by his grandmother, stayed in school and got an education, and is now president of the US is an inspiring story. Mr. Margiotta didn't even bother to read the speech after it was posted online yesterday. Instead he chose to get his information from the looney talking heads who spew lies and hate and fear. There is no room in our schools for petty partisan politics and utter lunacy. You can be as partisan, petty and looney as you want in your campaign for office, but keep it out of our schools. Mr. Margiotta has lost my support and my respect. This will be brought up many times in two years.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7004092

To paraphrase Monsieur Gump......"Wingnut Is as Wingnut Does".

This really should not have surprised anyone. But it is yet another piece in the puzzle that should wake people up and let hem know just what kind disastrous hackery we will get if WCSA and their GOP allies succeed in their stated goal of putting "more Ron's" in charge of our kids.

I thought encouraging kids to stay in school, work hard to succeed, and respect your parents and teachers were the type of "family values" the GOP and social conservatives preach all the time.

How short our memories are. Where was President Bush the day we were attacked on 9/11? He was in an elementary school, reading to young children and encouraging them to stay in school, work hard and yes...respect their parents and teachers. Could it be? a conservative, Republican President espounding the same values as a Democrat? Yet we didn't hear of a single school district or parent banning his speech, calling him a Socialist, or refusing to let their children listen to him.

By the way, kudos to Laura Bush for admitting that President Obama is doing a good job given the mess he was left with, and for admonishing partisan politics.

Ruth

[JoeCiulla]

To paraphrase Monsieur Gump......"Wingnut Is as Wingnut Does".



To quote Dennis the Menace........."It takes one to know one."

Keep flinging your uninformed barbs, maybe someone will listen.

BTW, I had no problem with the President addressing students yesterday and was disappointed my son did not get to see it.

[Icorpse]

In my time, I have never seen so much hatred for a president in a casual fashion all around. It almost seems like 50% of the population is not even willing to give Obama a fair hearing.

Anyway, back to Ron Margiotta. I'd like for his defenders to state the whole story, assuming there is one.

[JoeCiulla]

In my time, I have never seen so much hatred for a president in a casual fashion all around. It almost seems like 50% of the population is not even willing to give Obama a fair hearing.

Anyway, back to Ron Margiotta. I'd like for his defenders to state the whole story, assuming there is one.

Icorpse,
What makes you think his "defenders" know the "whole story?" If you want to know the whole story, pick up the phone and call him.

[Icorpse]

In my time, I have never seen so much hatred for a president in a casual fashion all around. It almost seems like 50% of the population is not even willing to give Obama a fair hearing.

Anyway, back to Ron Margiotta. I'd like for his defenders to state the whole story, assuming there is one.

Icorpse,
What makes you think his "defenders" know the "whole story?" If you want to know the whole story, pick up the phone and call him.

He does not represent me...that would be Eleanor Goette. But since you called out Charlie, I thought there might be something more to it than what was reported by media. Trying to give him and his followers an opportunity before I make up my mind to agree with Laurie.

[JoeCiulla]

He does not represent me...that would be Eleanor Goette. But since you called out Charlie, I thought there might be something more to it than what was reported by media. Trying to give him and his followers an opportunity before I make up my mind to agree with Laurie.

You can think what you want of Ron, it matters not to me. But you are falling into the lame trap that Charlie tried to set, making a broad and wholly inaccurate assumption that those who support Ron on certain issues are "followers" (your words) like in some kind of cult, and thus agree with everything he does.

[Belle]

Kind of ironic, complaining about an elected official because he complained about an elected official.... that aside;

No surprise that a man who is so dedicated to giving parents choice and a voice in education would act to give them choice in this case.

Giving folks the option to opt out of what some parents believe is a controversial speaker is done all the time in the system. Parents have the choice to opt out of parts of the sex ed curriculum, opt out of speeches on suicide, opt out of R rated movies in high school. Any time there's something even a small number of parents might be concerned about, they are given an option to be dismissed. The point being that what one parent finds controversial another does not. Acknowledging that fact leaves judgement on content for that particular issue up to the family. You don't find the president's speech controversial, but many people do. Why is giving them a choice a problem?

Yes, he's the president, and yes the office deserves respect (at least apparently now it does), and yes there will always be people who are suspicious of presidents and their agendas. George H.W. Bush got the same response from the left when he spoke, and we all know what a polarizing figure he was. :angel5:

So, the issue at question isn't who is speaking and what they are saying, it's about who decides what's right for an individual child. Any answer to that other than "THE PARENT" gets an F in my book.

[dhyatt]

Kind of ironic, complaining about an elected official because he complained about an elected official.... that aside;

No surprise that a man who is so dedicated to giving parents choice and a voice in education would act to give them choice in this case.

Giving folks the option to opt out of what some parents believe is a controversial speaker is done all the time in the system. Parents have the choice to opt out of parts of the sex ed curriculum, opt out of speeches on suicide, opt out of R rated movies in high school. Any time there's something even a small number of parents might be concerned about, they are given an option to be dismissed. The point being that what one parent finds controversial another does not. Acknowledging that fact leaves judgment on content for that particular issue up to the family. You don't find the president's speech controversial, but many people do. Why is giving them a choice a problem?

Yes, he's the president, and yes the office deserves respect (at least apparently now it does), and yes there will always be people who are suspicious of presidents and their agendas. George H.W. Bush got the same response from the left when he spoke, and we all know what a polarizing figure he was. :angel5:

So, the issue isn't who is speaking and what they are saying, it's about who decides what's right for an individual child. Any answer to that other than "THE PARENT" gets an F in my book.

Wow! Nicely done :-) You get the first ever "CP Debate Point of the Day" award. I'll have to find an appropriate badge or ribbon for such a thing :-)

[chaboard]

You can think what you want of Ron, it matters not to me. But you are falling into the lame trap that Charlie tried to set, making a broad and wholly inaccurate assumption that those who support Ron on certain issues are "followers" (your words) like in some kind of cult, and thus agree with everything he does.

I made no such assumption. I relied on the explicit statements by *many* of your fellow travelers over on WakeEd that what need is more board members "like Ron". And on the simple fact - amply demonstrated yesterday on this issue - that the Ron they wat new members to be like is a hack who puts politics ahead of the kids.

[chaboard]

Yes, he's the president, and yes the office deserves respect (at least apparently now it does), and yes there will always be people who are suspicious of presidents and their agendas. George H.W. Bush got the same response from the left when he spoke, and we all know what a polarizing figure he was. :angel5:


All due respect...that statement has not the slightest relationship to the truth. I don't think you can find any serious example of anyone who matters on the left objecting to Dubya speaking to schoolchildren (or of the national broadcasts into schools that Reagan and Bush I did). There was flack AFTER the fact for his lack of response in the
classroom on 9/11....but I never heard ANYONE seriously suggest he had no business being in a classroom in the first place. That's just plain insanity.

Bush did NOT get the same response. Not even remotely. On this, or pretty much anything else. The crazy going on right now is many orders of magnitude beyond *anything* we saw during the last administration.

Let's stick to the facts and not make stuff up.



So, the issue at question isn't who is speaking and what they are saying, it's about who decides what's right for an individual child. Any answer to that other than "THE PARENT" gets an F in my book.

Total bull. This is a non-partisan message to schoolkids from the President of The United States. A parent has no more right to make the decision here than they would say, to insist that their child must get an hour for lunch or to insist that their child not be taught by anyone other than females aged 30-35.

[dhyatt]

Yes, he's the president, and yes the office deserves respect (at least apparently now it does), and yes there will always be people who are suspicious of presidents and their agendas. George H.W. Bush got the same response from the left when he spoke, and we all know what a polarizing figure he was. :angel5:


All due respect...that statement has not the slightest relationship to the truth. I don't think you can find any serious example of anyone who matters on the left objecting to Dubya speaking to schoolchildren (or of the national broadcasts into schools that Reagan and Bush I did). There was flack AFTER the fact for his lack of response in the
classroom on 9/11....but I never heard ANYONE seriously suggest he had no business being in a classroom in the first place. That's just plain insanity.

Bush did NOT get the same response. Not even remotely. On this, or pretty much anything else. The crazy going on right now is many orders of magnitude beyond *anything* we saw during the last administration.

Let's stick to the facts and not make stuff up.



So, the issue at question isn't who is speaking and what they are saying, it's about who decides what's right for an individual child. Any answer to that other than "THE PARENT" gets an F in my book.Total bull. This is a non-partisan message to schoolkids from the President of The United States. A parent has no more right to make the decision here than they would say, to insist that their child must get an hour for lunch or to insist that their child not be taught by anyone other than females aged 30-35.

Charlie,
She was referring to Bush I and the speech he gave at a school in 1991. The Dems went crazy and had a Congressional investigation over it. Her comparison to that event is spot on.

[chaboard]

Charlie,
She was referring to Bush I and the speech he gave at a school in 1991. The Dems went crazy and had a Congressional investigation over it. Her comparison to that event is spot on.

Sorry, I misread that..

But I still think it's blindingly obvious that the response here is many orders of magnitude more hysterical...and definitely not "the same". In 1991 I don't think anyone tried to get Bush's speech out of the schools ahead of time - all of the adverse reaction came afterwards. And as far as I recall it was *all* about the appropriateness of the amount of money spent on it. (For example, the NEA press release emphasized the fact that the tapng cost more than had been cut out of the school lunch budget for that very same school) . I don't recall anyone saying that the very *idea* of a Presidential address to schoolchildren was invalid.

In 2009 the entire GOP machinery started screaming endlessly more than a week ahead of time, demanding that children not be "exposed" to the President and arguing that the very idea is wrong. I'm sure somebody somewhere has hit the finincial appropriateness argument....but it hasn't been front & center.

The reaction by (a few) Dems in 1991 was not one of their brightest or best moments. But sorry, regardless of which Bush you're referring to it's pretty obvious that there is no basis for saying they got the "same response". It's simply false in every single detail from every single aspect.

[d4vendel]

Bryon York of the Washington Examiner provides some historical perceptive on Bush...thiis was the first President Bush by the way.





The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

[Belle]

Yes, he's the president, and yes the office deserves respect (at least apparently now it does), and yes there will always be people who are suspicious of presidents and their agendas. George H.W. Bush got the same response from the left when he spoke, and we all know what a polarizing figure he was. :angel5:


All due respect...that statement has not the slightest relationship to the truth. I don't think you can find any serious example of anyone who matters on the left objecting to Dubya speaking to schoolchildren (or of the national broadcasts into schools that Reagan and Bush I did). There was flack AFTER the fact for his lack of response in the
classroom on 9/11....but I never heard ANYONE seriously suggest he had no business being in a classroom in the first place. That's just plain insanity.

Bush did NOT get the same response. Not even remotely. On this, or pretty much anything else. The crazy going on right now is many orders of magnitude beyond *anything* we saw during the last administration.

Let's stick to the facts and not make stuff up.



So, the issue at question isn't who is speaking and what they are saying, it's about who decides what's right for an individual child. Any answer to that other than "THE PARENT" gets an F in my book.Total bull. This is a non-partisan message to schoolkids from the President of The United States. A parent has no more right to make the decision here than they would say, to insist that their child must get an hour for lunch or to insist that their child not be taught by anyone other than females aged 30-35.

Charlie,
She was referring to Bush I and the speech he gave at a school in 1991. The Dems went crazy and had a Congressional investigation over it. Her comparison to that event is spot on.

Hence the H. W. :-)

As for the other, I absolutely do hold the right and the responsibility to decide and direct the education of my own child. If I insist on a three hour lunch (one hour would be far too short), that's my prerogative. I pick the kid up and we go for a three hour lunch. EVERY DAY. If I want to insist on only 58 year old guys with long brownish hair be their teachers, I can make that choice. Might find me a while to make arrangements outside of WCPSS, but it is absolutely my freedom to do so.

Unfortunately, many in the system have forgotten that they have a customer. That customer has delegated their own responsibility to educate their child to the schools and given their tax dollars to the cause. If I don't like the service I'm getting, I have a responsibility on behalf of that child (and others) to let them know it should be better or to do it myself.

For the record, I was sad my kid's elementary class couldn't broadcast the speech. But I don't have the right to decide if my kid hears from a particular teacher/president/speaker? Sheesh. Give me a break.

Perhaps you mean I don't have the right to impose my view and decision on others? Indeed, I would say no one has that right.

[Belle]

Charlie,
She was referring to Bush I and the speech he gave at a school in 1991. The Dems went crazy and had a Congressional investigation over it. Her comparison to that event is spot on.

Sorry, I misread that..

But I still think it's blindingly obvious that the response here is many orders of magnitude more hysterical...and definitely not "the same". In 1991 I don't think anyone tried to get Bush's speech out of the schools ahead of time - all of the adverse reaction came afterwards. And as far as I recall it was *all* about the appropriateness of the amount of money spent on it. (For example, the NEA press release emphasized the fact that the tapng cost more than had been cut out of the school lunch budget for that very same school) . I don't recall anyone saying that the very *idea* of a Presidential address to schoolchildren was invalid.

In 2009 the entire GOP machinery started screaming endlessly more than a week ahead of time, demanding that children not be "exposed" to the President and arguing that the very idea is wrong. I'm sure somebody somewhere has hit the finincial appropriateness argument....but it hasn't been front & center.

The reaction by (a few) Dems in 1991 was not one of their brightest or best moments. But sorry, regardless of which Bush you're referring to it's pretty obvious that there is no basis for saying they got the "same response". It's simply false in every single detail from every single aspect.

For the suave politician that he is, he certainly didn't do a very good job timing things. I'm pretty sure this should have been predictable, given the current climate.

[chaboard]

Bryon York of the Washington Examiner provides some historical perceptive on Bush...thiis was the first President Bush by the way.





The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."



Thanks Dave. See Don...even a rightwing operative like Byron York must concede that the response was not "the same" in any meaningful way. As I pointed out he notes that there was no controversy beforehand and he only points to a few financial propriety questions after the fact rather than a week of wall to wall hysterical ranting against the very idea. Here's an experiment.....go into Lexis/Nexis and see how may media hits you get in the 2 weeks leading up to and after Bush's speech. Then search the last week. The latter number will be literally orders of magnitude larger. Guaranteed.

But we're losing the point here. It's not about whether response in 1991 and 2009 was the same.

It's about the fact that a CURRENT member of the Wake County School Board - indeed the one member the "opposition" most frequently cites as their model - IS IN THE THICK OF THE CRAZY HYSTERIA. Even IF the Dem reaction was over the top and/or comparable in 1991 (and it wasn't) it doesn't change the inappropriate insanity from a current elected official.

[chaboard]

As for the other, I absolutely do hold the right and the responsibility to decide and direct the education of my own child. If I insist on a three hour lunch (one hour would be far too short), that's my prerogative. I pick the kid up and we go for a three hour lunch. EVERY DAY. If I want to insist on only 58 year old guys with long brownish hair be their teachers, I can make that choice. Might find me a while to make arrangements outside of WCPSS, but it is absolutely my freedom to do so.


(I added bolding to your quote to emphasize that we're talking different things....)

Well sure...as long as you're willing to forego use of the public school system (or accept whatever penalties may be levied against our child if you hold them out) in order
to achieve your ends. But it is absolutely NOT your right to insist that the public school system give your child three hour lunch breaks or to insist that the public schoopl system ensure that only 58 year old teachers teach your child or to insist that the public school system not expose your child to appropriate messages from the President of the United States.

And what we're talking about here IS the views of a member of the board of the public school system about how the public school system should conduct itself.

[Belle]

As for the other, I absolutely do hold the right and the responsibility to decide and direct the education of my own child. If I insist on a three hour lunch (one hour would be far too short), that's my prerogative. I pick the kid up and we go for a three hour lunch. EVERY DAY. If I want to insist on only 58 year old guys with long brownish hair be their teachers, I can make that choice. Might find me a while to make arrangements outside of WCPSS, but it is absolutely my freedom to do so.


(I added bolding to your quote to emphasize that we're talking different things....)

Well sure...as long as you're willing to forego use of the public school system (or accept whatever penalties may be levied against our child if you hold them out) in order
to achieve your ends. But it is absolutely NOT your right to insist that the public school system give your child three hour lunch breaks or to insist that the public schoopl system ensure that only 58 year old teachers teach your child or to insist that the public school system not expose your child to appropriate messages from the President of the United States.

And what we're talking about here IS the views of a member of the board of the public school system about how the public school system should conduct itself.

I believe my original quote was that the parent ultimately has the right to decide if a child hears a speech. To which you said Bull. To which I said double bull.

It is entirely appropriate for the public school system to conduct itself in a way that respects parents who may have an issue with this, and allow them to opt out. I still don't get why you think Ron standing up for parents' choices is a problem, but I have a feeling we won't convince each other on that point, even if we discussed it until, well, the bulls came home.

[JoeCiulla]

You can think what you want of Ron, it matters not to me. But you are falling into the lame trap that Charlie tried to set, making a broad and wholly inaccurate assumption that those who support Ron on certain issues are "followers" (your words) like in some kind of cult, and thus agree with everything he does.

I made no such assumption. I relied on the explicit statements by *many* of your fellow travelers over on WakeEd that what need is more board members "like Ron". And on the simple fact - amply demonstrated yesterday on this issue - that the Ron they wat new members to be like is a hack who puts politics ahead of the kids.

Well, Ron likes to wear Hawaiian shirts, so you could make the equally-valid assumption that we are expecting no less from the candidates we are supporting.

[d4vendel]

Even IF the Dem reaction was over the top and/or comparable in 1991 (and it wasn't) it doesn't change the inappropriate insanity from a current elected official.

So when do the hearings on the Hill for Obama start?

I agree 100% with Belle that giving parents a choice is always the right thing to do.