Pell Grants for Kids is a good idea

I use a term to describe my politics and my blog as newliberal.

Basically the newliberal approach starts with a fundamental love of the USA, the greatest country ever created. Starting from there, we should use our God-given talents to solve problems to the best of our ability based on facts and logic.

You might think most people do this, but in fact many approach politics from an emotional vantage point, while others are purely ideological. Much of Senator Obama's support is based in emotion. While much of John Edward's support is ideologically Left wing. In both cases, the person has a strong pre-disposition and then seeks out facts to confirm and bolster their conclusion.

Newliberals will start with as much an open mind as possible, study all relevant facts, and come to a conclusion that is best for America.

That is why, I support Hillary Clinton for President because on balance she is the most qualified to lead this nation going forward.

As an aside, I personally like her, and admire her willingness to truly fight for what she believes in.

Overall I probably agree with Hillary and most Democrats about 60% of the time on issues.
I wish she and other democrats believed in many ideas that are truly "progressive" and newliberal as I coin them.

Last night President Bush offered "Pell Grants for kids" to offer school choice to struggling families. It is not only the right thing to do policy wise, but politically it would be a benefit to the African American community.

First of all, I think we should have universal vouchers for everyone. I reject the notion that the government should determine whether a school is good for or failing a child. The parents should determine whether a school is proper for their child, and demonstrate their preference by spending their money there. I explain my education position at:

newliberal education plan

The reason we as democrats don't support choice in education is because of the Teacher's Unions' support of our party. They don't want choice because it would threaten both their job tenure and the nature of their work. There are various other arguments used against vouchers that don't make sense coming from Democrats like: vouchers would "take resources away from other children". If we can spend billions in Iraq, we can spend billions on our children. If there ever was a reason to run a deficit, it would be to invest in our children.

Even if we have a period where we fully fund the current system, and give vouchers on top of that it still wouldn't be that expensive relative to other government programs.

Almost everyone I know in the African American community supports vouchers. It is not a terribly complicated scenario. If the school they are attending is great, they would give the voucher to that school. If they want something different like more or less discipline, more or less arts, more or less diversity, more or less politics, or whatever, this can be better acheived in a free market. The problem with have the government run schools nationwide is that it is impossible to please millions of people, so we wind up with the least offensive choices that are acceptable to the masses.


It's sad to say that an idea where we guarantee a quality education to everyone, and give everyone a voucher to find what they want is radical change for the Democrats.

YOU MIGHT THINK SOMEONE WHO OFFERS REAL CHANGE WOULD SUPPORT VOUCHERS? Hello, Obama? Hello, Edwards?

I won't let my opinion of what's right for America be changed to support a special interest group in our party.

I'm against the death penalty as of now ,because after I studied it, that is the right positioin.
I'm against the war in Iraq because after I studied it, that is the right position.
I'm prochoice on Abortion rights 100% because it is the right position.
I'm also pro-choice on Education.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!