What `school choice' really means
When candidates say they support "school choice," what does this actually mean? Parents already have a range of choices when it comes to education: for example, they can choose to home school, or to send their children to private schools. The more affluent the family, the more choices available.
Consultant Frank Luntz has identified "choices" as among the top things Americans say they want, so politicians know "school choice" is a winning phrase. But it's important for voters to know that "school choice" actually means taking the tax dollars of less affluent families, intended to support public schools for all students, and funneling the money into the coffers of private schools and semiprivate charter schools -- the very schools that well-to-do families would be sending their children to anyway. In a word, vouchers.
If carried to its logical extreme, school choice would lead us back to the "separate but equal" doctrine that was ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Does anyone believe that would be a wise choice?
Elsa Peterson Obuchowski
a good choice
As a voter in the 5th Congressional District, I made the mistake of voting for Chris Murphy in 2006, believing that he was a moderate. In fact, I have written to him several times over the last five years as a concerned citizen on a range of issues, including health care, religious freedom and taxes. In every case he answered by spewing back the most extreme liberal rhetoric, not even acknowledging any of my concerns or sharing the viewpoint of most working and God-fearing Americans. Murphy is a dangerous liberal wolf in moderate sheep's clothing. Please do NOT vote to elect him to the U.S. Senate or any other position where he can do more damage. Let him get a real job outside of politics, a fair mortgage and have to show up for meetings like the rest of us. Maybe then he'll get a better grasp of real American values. Linda McMahon is a good choice, but frankly I'd vote for a can of soup over him.