Put It Out There
A number of us attended the Montgomery County Board of Education candidate forum last night at the Rockville library. It was clear who knew what was going on and who didn't, the general election should not be much of a surprise in November. I'm not going to comment on that.
We have been talking here about a conservative candidate flying under the radar, Martha Schaerr. She is a nice lady, I'm sure, she's got seven kids and probably does a lot of nice things for her school and her neighborhood.
But she opposes The Gay People. Hard to say what it is that bothers her about them, since she plays it close to the chest, but she is on the Board of Directors of a group that sued the school district to keep lessons about The Gay out of Montgomery County classrooms. She is president of another group that wants to make sure there are always scare quotes around the word "marriage" when somebody writes about same-sex marriage.
I gave her a hard time here the other day about covering up her true beliefs. There was nothing in any of her campaign materials, as far as we knew, that indicated her anti-gay tendencies. So imagine our surprise last night when she was asked about the role of sex education and she ran out of time and said, "Just look on my web site."
I had looked at her web site a couple of hours before, and there was nothing alluding to her feelings about gay people.
After the meeting I looked again, and she had updated it. Under "Issues" she has added this:
And by "particular lessons" she means The Gay Part. Oh and by "sexual practice" she almost certainly means anal sex, which is not "taught in the human life curriculum."
As for opting out, our county's curriculum is stringent. Students can only take the Human Sexuality classes if their parents request it in writing. The default position is no sex ed. But Ms. Schaerr thinks students should be able to opt out of the particular part that teaches tolerance, empathy and respect for sexual differences, The Gay Part.
She added another thing to her web site, too. She wrote a letter to the editor of The Gazette when the new sex-ed curriculum was being developed in 2007, and she has reprinted that letter, a rebuttal by David Fishback, and a rebuttal of Fishback by herself, all from The Gazette.
Here are her "three reasons for rejecting the sex ed curriculum," from her initial letter:
Number One, the only time "anal sex" is mentioned is when students are told they should use a condom if they have anal, oral, or vaginal sex. It was mentioned in the condom video that was in use before the new curriculum, and it's mentioned in the new video. I really doubt that people like Ms. Schaerr want the schools to teach kids how to have anal sex, but somehow they turn it around and complain that the schools don't talk about it enough.
Two, sorry, there are gay people, get over it. It doesn't matter what your religion is, your sexual orientation is your own business, and if somebody else is gay it's their own business. This is a lesson is decent civil behavior, call it a lesson in citizenship for residents of the free world. If your religion prohibits homosexuality, then you are free to deny yourself the fulfillment of love and happiness, but how somebody else feels is still none of your business.
Three, you can't opt out of quadratic equations and come back for logarithms, either. That's not how school works. Sex ed is for everyone.
Fishback of course replies more knowledgeably and articulately than I ever could, and Schaerr's reply to him give more evidence of her beliefs.
I appreciate that Ms. Schaerr, after the primary election, finally decided to let the voting public peek under the hood and see how she runs. It is possible that Montgomery County would elect an anti-LGBT candidate, I don't know, but it would be a dirty deal if they elected one and didn't know it.
I wasn't exactly complaining about her position on that issue, though of course I do disagree with her. I was complaining about her secrecy.
Listen, if you believe in something strongly enough to take the county school district to court to stop pilot testing, and to appeal to the state school board to block a curriculum, you ought to be brave enough to tell people where you stand.
Martha Schaerr is on the Board of Directors of the Family Leader Network, a Mormon anti-gay organization that sued MCPS to block a sex-ed curriculum that was going to teach about sexual orientation and gender identity. She is President of the Citizens for Traditional Families, a group that exists to keep same-sex couples from knowing the profound joy of marrying and starting a home and family.
Why doesn't she mention these groups on her web site and in her presentations? There is not a word about them in her campaign literature. President of the PTA, sure, she'll tell you that, President of the anti-gay Citizens for Traditional Families, though, not worth mentioning. On the board of a group that has cost the county tens of thousands in legal expenses, not a word.
Come on Martha, tell the people who you are and what you think. You want to be one of the select few on the Board of Education, setting policy in a county of a million people, and you believe that the students, parents, and neighbors who love someone of their own sex are dirty, germ-infested undesirables. Don't deny it, don't cover it up, go ahead and put it on your web site.
Announce it:
I'M MARTHA SCHAERR AND I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A GROUP THAT SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO KEEP SEXUAL ORIENTATION OUT OF THE HEALTH CURRICULUM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!
I'M MARTHA SCHAERR AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF A GROUP THAT OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE AND I WANT YOUR VOTE FOR BOARD OF EDUCATION!!!
If you think you're right, and you obviously do, then come out and say what you believe in. We know you're in those anti-LGBT groups and we're going to keep repeating it until everybody knows, so the better strategy for you is to claim it and wear it proudly. Put it on your web site. Tell the people what you really believe and let's see how that works at the polls.
We have been talking here about a conservative candidate flying under the radar, Martha Schaerr. She is a nice lady, I'm sure, she's got seven kids and probably does a lot of nice things for her school and her neighborhood.
But she opposes The Gay People. Hard to say what it is that bothers her about them, since she plays it close to the chest, but she is on the Board of Directors of a group that sued the school district to keep lessons about The Gay out of Montgomery County classrooms. She is president of another group that wants to make sure there are always scare quotes around the word "marriage" when somebody writes about same-sex marriage.
I gave her a hard time here the other day about covering up her true beliefs. There was nothing in any of her campaign materials, as far as we knew, that indicated her anti-gay tendencies. So imagine our surprise last night when she was asked about the role of sex education and she ran out of time and said, "Just look on my web site."
I had looked at her web site a couple of hours before, and there was nothing alluding to her feelings about gay people.
After the meeting I looked again, and she had updated it. Under "Issues" she has added this:
Empower Families
- Empower students by ensuring that they receive full information about the health risks of any sexual practice taught in the human life curriculum. Empower parents by providing a flexible arrangement under which they can “opt out” of particular lessons for their children.
And by "particular lessons" she means The Gay Part. Oh and by "sexual practice" she almost certainly means anal sex, which is not "taught in the human life curriculum."
As for opting out, our county's curriculum is stringent. Students can only take the Human Sexuality classes if their parents request it in writing. The default position is no sex ed. But Ms. Schaerr thinks students should be able to opt out of the particular part that teaches tolerance, empathy and respect for sexual differences, The Gay Part.
She added another thing to her web site, too. She wrote a letter to the editor of The Gazette when the new sex-ed curriculum was being developed in 2007, and she has reprinted that letter, a rebuttal by David Fishback, and a rebuttal of Fishback by herself, all from The Gazette.
Here are her "three reasons for rejecting the sex ed curriculum," from her initial letter:
First, the American Academy of Pediatrics warns that American teenagers are acquiring sexually transmitted diseases in epidemic proportions. MCPS introduces anal sex and provides training on proper condom use, but fails to acknowledge the enormous heightened health risks associated with anal sex for both homosexuals and heterosexuals even with a condom.
Second, the lessons teach that any range of negative attitudes toward homosexuality is homophobia. There is no allowance for concerns over health risks (documented by the AAP), and there is certainly no allowance for religious objections, however respectfully they are articulated. Is any concern about homosexuality really hateful and diseased?
Third, the previous flexibility that allowed parents to opt their children out of all or part of the curriculum has been eliminated. Now any 10th grader opting out of the four days of homosexuality instruction will be entirely excluded from the Family Life and Human Development Unit and spend three weeks studying decision making and other general health topics. Also, anyone not viewing the condom video (one day) will spend three weeks learning mainly about obesity.
Number One, the only time "anal sex" is mentioned is when students are told they should use a condom if they have anal, oral, or vaginal sex. It was mentioned in the condom video that was in use before the new curriculum, and it's mentioned in the new video. I really doubt that people like Ms. Schaerr want the schools to teach kids how to have anal sex, but somehow they turn it around and complain that the schools don't talk about it enough.
Two, sorry, there are gay people, get over it. It doesn't matter what your religion is, your sexual orientation is your own business, and if somebody else is gay it's their own business. This is a lesson is decent civil behavior, call it a lesson in citizenship for residents of the free world. If your religion prohibits homosexuality, then you are free to deny yourself the fulfillment of love and happiness, but how somebody else feels is still none of your business.
Three, you can't opt out of quadratic equations and come back for logarithms, either. That's not how school works. Sex ed is for everyone.
Fishback of course replies more knowledgeably and articulately than I ever could, and Schaerr's reply to him give more evidence of her beliefs.
I appreciate that Ms. Schaerr, after the primary election, finally decided to let the voting public peek under the hood and see how she runs. It is possible that Montgomery County would elect an anti-LGBT candidate, I don't know, but it would be a dirty deal if they elected one and didn't know it.
I wasn't exactly complaining about her position on that issue, though of course I do disagree with her. I was complaining about her secrecy.
Listen, if you believe in something strongly enough to take the county school district to court to stop pilot testing, and to appeal to the state school board to block a curriculum, you ought to be brave enough to tell people where you stand.
Martha Schaerr is on the Board of Directors of the Family Leader Network, a Mormon anti-gay organization that sued MCPS to block a sex-ed curriculum that was going to teach about sexual orientation and gender identity. She is President of the Citizens for Traditional Families, a group that exists to keep same-sex couples from knowing the profound joy of marrying and starting a home and family.
Why doesn't she mention these groups on her web site and in her presentations? There is not a word about them in her campaign literature. President of the PTA, sure, she'll tell you that, President of the anti-gay Citizens for Traditional Families, though, not worth mentioning. On the board of a group that has cost the county tens of thousands in legal expenses, not a word.
Come on Martha, tell the people who you are and what you think. You want to be one of the select few on the Board of Education, setting policy in a county of a million people, and you believe that the students, parents, and neighbors who love someone of their own sex are dirty, germ-infested undesirables. Don't deny it, don't cover it up, go ahead and put it on your web site.
Announce it:
I'M MARTHA SCHAERR AND I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A GROUP THAT SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO KEEP SEXUAL ORIENTATION OUT OF THE HEALTH CURRICULUM!!! VOTE FOR ME!!!
I'M MARTHA SCHAERR AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF A GROUP THAT OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE AND I WANT YOUR VOTE FOR BOARD OF EDUCATION!!!
If you think you're right, and you obviously do, then come out and say what you believe in. We know you're in those anti-LGBT groups and we're going to keep repeating it until everybody knows, so the better strategy for you is to claim it and wear it proudly. Put it on your web site. Tell the people what you really believe and let's see how that works at the polls.
posted by JimK at 1:31 PM
50 Comments:
man, she really kicked TTF butt last night
thanks for posting her articulate from the Gazette
her response to David makes him look like a real MCPS stooge!
You can't really argue with success.
And, it looks like you can't really argue with failure either:
"Lawrence Summers will step down as director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council at the end of the year, the White House announced Tuesday.
Summers, helped craft the administration's economic policy and leads a daily presidential briefing, on which Obama bases his brilliant economic strategies.
"I will miss working with the President and his team on the daily challenges of economic policy making," Summers said in a statement issued by the White House. "I'm looking forward to returning to Harvard to teach and write about the economic fundamentals of job creation."
Who could be more qualified to teach the economic fundamentals of job creation than one of Obama's senior economic advisors?
I mean, other than Woody Woodpecker.
Oh, and Magilla Gorilla.
Just those two, but other than that, Summers is the go-to guy!
As if those lucky-ducks at Harvard weren't already rollin' in intellectual wealth!
They've already got Skip Gates, a guy so intelligent, he hasn't got time to keep track of his wallet!
And now, this academic coup!
Yale and Princeton must be kicking themselves silly!
the rest of the sex ed curriculum is not nearly as objectionable. why not give parents to opt out of the parts that directly conflict with the religous teachings of their church ?
That would seem the tolerant thing to do.
yes, you've caught on to the dirty little secret
those who talk the loudest about tolerance, have none
anon, do you think the schools should avoid certain topics just because the taliban doesnt believe in them?
Jim -- Better check into your 501(c)3 status. As I posted here the other day (though it seems to have disappeared)...you're acting more like a Political Action Committee than a 501(c)3.
"Anonymous"
What a clever idea! "why not give parents (sic) to opt out of the parts that directly conflict with the religous teachings of their church ?"
Why not extend that option to every subject in the curriculum? Exempt your student because of your religious feelings about exposing the human body in gym class? How about opting out of those sections in history classes that might offend your feelings or beliefs,(especially when subjects such as the Reformation or the complicity of the church in supporting political entities) even though what is being taught is factual history? English classes, especially when particular novels are being studied, could be opted out, too. But then, your student might actually miss more than half of the classes.
And the odds on favorite subject of all: any Science classes. Everybody knows that they might even teach evolution theory there. And we know what havoc that can cause in a young susceptible mind.
It sounds like you should consider sending your chid(ren) to a religious school or a private school that subscribes to your particular religious views. That should be a satisfactory way of expressing your disdain for public education and would go a long way to implant your particular values and prejudices in the minds of your child(ren).
The irony of your statement: "those who talk the loudest about tolerance, have none"
says it all.
"Jim -- Better check into your 501(c)3 status..."
No Anon, you better check your fear-mongering, it won't do any good around here. You right wingers are the ones who act based on fear. Progressives aren't so easily cowed.
There is no advocacy for or against any candidate for office in Jim's report. What there is is a report about the fact that a candidate public office is lying on her campaign website by hiding information about her associations and actions from the voting public.
Teach the facts is doing a public service to expose the fact that a candidate for office to oversee MCPS has served on the Board of a group that recently sued MCPS multiple times.
It seems to me that'd be as screwed up as hiring a chronic tax cheat to work for the IRS.
or a guy with no experience to be President
you mean Geithner ?
Anon said: "It seems to me that'd be as screwed up as hiring a chronic tax cheat to work for the IRS."
Are you referring to Timothy Geitner, the head of our IRS and Treasury, who cheated on his taxes but was appointed anyway by Obama?!!
Yes to run the IRS. That guy.
Can parents opt their children out of biology or geology based on religious beliefs? Certain parts of those courses?
"Why not extend that option to every subject in the curriculum?"
because every other subject is concerned with teaching facts
this is taught with the purpose of changing values and facts are ignored to try to alter the child's value system
How interesting. Anon has compared Martha Schaerr's "stealth" candidacy for the MCPS school board to President Obama and Timothy Geitner.
And all it took was a little discussion on Vigilance to bring out the "truth" as Anon sees it, that Schaerr's lies and evasions are comparable what tea bagger supporters like Anon say about Obama and his team.
Thanks for sharing, Anon.
this week, a study concluded that the recession ended in June 2009
and, indeed, things were looking up in early 2010
somehow, now, everything has fallen through
yesterday, the Fed Chairman told Congress he "hopes" the economy will start healing itself
me too, Ben
should I get big bucks for that, too?
"(Sept. 21) -- With the economy growing at a painfully slow pace, the Federal Reserve pledged to take new steps "if needed" but took none today -- the nation's financial stewards want to give the economy time to build momentum on its own.
The policy-making Federal Open Market Committee said the recovery has clearly slowed in recent months, with household spending "constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit." Expansion of business spending has also slowed, the housing market is "depressed," inflation is low and "employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls," the committee added."
It's official now. The Bush recession ended 15 months ago.
Our troubles now are owned completely by Sir Barack Obama.
And he has no idea what to do.
"Teach the facts is doing a public service to expose the fact that a candidate for office to oversee MCPS has served on the Board of a group that recently sued MCPS multiple times.
It seems to me that'd be as screwed up as hiring a chronic tax cheat to work for the IRS."
this line of reasoning is about as bizarre as we've seen from a TTFer
and that's saying something
Schaerr sued the county because she thought a policy was wrong
now, she's running and will change those policies if elected
why have elections if you think only those who support the current Board's policies should be elected?
why just appoint them for life, like the Pope?
TTF, in its topsy-turvy world of woe, has not ratcheted up its opposition to democracy a big notch
now, they're implying that you can't run against incumbents unless you have a history of supporting of all their positions
and dissent against the gay and Apple ballot agendas is the equivalent of tax cheating
does anyone see how the gay agenda threatens our democratic society?
I'll jump in here for a minute. We disagree with the Family Leader Network's position on LGBT issues but they have the right to file suits and complain to the state, that's part of the legal process that exists to enable citizens to participate in their public institutions. It's expensive to the taxpayers but if they feel so strongly, they are free to file these complaints.
Where people express their opinions clearly and publicly it is possible to have a dialogue that brings facts into the open and allows the public to make well-informed and well-considered decisions.
This particular candidate was an active leader of the Family Leader Network that sued the school district, and is president of an anti-marriage group, and yet those facts are not to be seen on any of her campaign literature, where she is portrayed as a PTA leader and a nice mom. Thus important aspects of her political career are unavailable for the public debate unless somebody brings them up: us.
If Ms. Schaerr chooses to run for school board, as is her right, then she should be be very clear about her beliefs and her associations so the public knows what they are voting for when they put an X next to her name.
She might believe that an ultraconservative candidate can win in Montgomery County, and for all I know she is right. If you agree with her views on LGBT people, education, marriage, etc., then you should be happy to learn of her history of activism. Her Family Leader Network prominence and her presidency of the Citizens for Traditional Families should win her some votes.
She should be proud of her work and not hide it. It appears she is a kind of leader in the a particular community, and the voters should know about that, if only so others who identify with that community can give her their votes.
JimK
thanks for the comments supporting our democratic process, Jim
it's reassuring and, obviously, TTFers can disagree with one another
I would still take issue with your characterization of Schaerr's campaign
she has the right to emphasize the issues she feels are most important or, even, that she feels will gain the most support
and you have the right to question and publicize her stands on any issue, even an obligation to do so from the perspective of your particular constituency
but there's nothing sneaky or underhanded about Schaerr choosing her own priorities and you are not correct in saying there is
Martha Schaerr's website claims "MCPS introduces anal sex and provides training on proper condom use, but fails to acknowledge the enormous heightened health risks associated with anal sex for both homosexuals and heterosexuals even with a condom." She also claims to like the rest of the curriculum but feels the 3 new lessons alone should be optional rather than only the entire course of study on Human Sexuality being optional.
But what does the rest of the course of study entail?
As TTF reported earlier:
Remember, this video is new, but there are videos in the classrooms already. And the CRC has said repeatedly that they like the current sex-ed classes. The standard MCPS video for more than a decade is called Hope is not a Method.
Here's what Aunt Bea said:
As of their latest complaint, CRC fully supports the "status quo" curriculum, which includes the condom demonstration film, Hope Is Not A Method. That film, from the curriculum CRC fully supports, contains the following medically inaccurate statement:
Condoms not only prevent pregnancies but they are the only method that prevents the spread of sexually transmissible diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, condyloma, and of course, HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Now we’re going to be talking about other methods of birth control as well but remember, whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner.
Yet in their original 2007 appeal to the State Board of Education CRC stated:
4. Pursuant to COMAR Section 13A.04.18.03 (B) (3): “Erotic techniques of human intercourse may not be discussed. Discussion of anal and oral sex in the condom lessons and video clearly and patently violate this standard.
So tell us [...] were they in support of the statement that condoms should be used for vaginal, oral, or anal sex before they opposed it, or did they oppose it before they supported it?
And now it's Martha Schaerr's turn to try to try to have it both ways on this statement in the curriculm.
Just like the new condom video and lesson plan does, "Hope is Not A Method" warns MCPS students to "remember, whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner," without mentioning risks involved. Anyone who supports the portions of the sex ed curriculum that do not include the 3 new lessons plans, like Martha Schaerr does, also supports the film "Hope is Not A Method," which teaches about numerous birth control methods (including some no longer available on the market) without acknowledging "the enormous heightened health risks associated with anal sex for both homosexuals and heterosexuals."
And of course those "heightened health risks" are covered in the STD portion of the course of study on human sexuality.
now, she's running and will change those policies if elected
Until TTF mentioned the organizations she sits on the Board of and the actions those organizations have taken including suing MCPS that Martha Schaerr is still hiding from the public, Ms. Schaerr didn't even mention MCPS's sex ed "policies" in her campaign literature.
there's nothing sneaky or underhanded about Schaerr choosing her own priorities and you are not correct in saying there is
I couldn't disagree with this statement more.
I'm pretty sure her priority is not to be *honest* and *admit her part in suing MCPS* and *costing it tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars,* especially since the number one "shareholder" she mentioned in every answer she gave at the BOE candidate forum the other night was "the TAXPAYER." She did not mention students or parents or teachers first. It was the TAXPAYER she chose to mention first each and every time she spoke.
I'm sure MoCo voters/TAXPAYERS would be very interested to know how much money Ms. Schaerr and her Family Leader Network have cost them already.
they should be much more interested in the massive sums wasted by MCPS over the years on liberal advocacy and not on education
looking at how taxpayer's money has been used by MCPS
it's a conversation Schaerr would love to have
looks like Chris O'Donnell is in big trouble in the witch community:
""Any political candidate that is going to equate witchcraft with Satanism is ill-informed and is not likely to get the support of people involved in nature religion," said Reverend Selena Fox, the high priestess and senior minister of the Circle Sanctuary.
"Her inability to separate anything non-Christian from Satanic is going to be an issue not just with her potential pagan constituents but with any other non-Christians or Christians of a flavor that does not match hers," Wiccan IT analyst Michael Smith agreed."
that oughta scare the heck outta her!
last month, Carl Paladino, Tea Party nominee for NY governor was behind the pip-squeak son of Mario Cumomo by 33 points
the latest poll shows the margin has fallen to 6 points
and we're just getting started
is there anyplace we can be stopped?
at this point, a clean Tea Party sweep of the country is not out of the question
I have one disagreement with what Jim said in hs 8:12 am comment about the propriety of the 2007 Family Leader Network lawsuit.
As an attorney, I find it offensive when advocacy groups of any ideological stripe bring lawsuits that they know have no legal merit and will ultimately fail, but which they hope will garner publicity for their cause and will, they hope, make people afraid to act for fear of having to defend against a lawsuit. The latter motive is particularly nefarious.
In 2007, they had absolutely no basis for a lawsuit. The 2007 curriculum had no mention of religion and the "equal time" argument bought into be Judge Williams in 2005 was so frivolous that they did not even try to press it before the Montgomery County Circuit Court.
I think they knew it, since the law is so clear. Certainly, the chair of the Family Leader Network's Board, who is an attorney with impressive credentials (see http://familyleader.net/Home/servlet/staticContent?contentTitle=about_us) (and is Ms. Schaerr's husband) must have known that.
At Monday's campaign forum, Ms. Schaerr said in her closing statement that it is important that MCPS justify all its expenditures, so that people will feel comfortable paying taxes to support the schools. My first reaction to that statement was that it conflicted with her bringing of the 2007 lawsuit, which forced MCPS to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend. On reflection, however, perhaps she was making a more subtle, and darker, point: MCPS should not do anything that might cause advocacy groups like hers to bring lawsuits -- regardless of the legal merits of such suits. No public entity should ever bow to such intimidation, lest we begin to lose our democracy.
Using frivolous lawsuits to try to pressure elected representatives to trim their sails on policy is not part of democracy. Rather, it can undermine democracy. Look up SLAPP suits on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
David, I can understand your objection if you believe a suit is frivolous but the whole dollar expenditure is so weak
ten of thousands of dollars?
let me at that budget- I'll cut millions of frivolous expenditures without blinking
"looking at how taxpayer's money has been used by MCPS
it's a conversation Schaerr would love to have"
Then a good place for her to start would be to fess up to the ten of thousands of dollars her advocacy against teaching "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" has already cost MoCo taxpayers and why she felt it was necessary to serve on the Board of the "newly formed" Family Leader Network (did she and/or her husband help form it?) that joined the lawsuit against MCPS's sex ed curriculum revisions in early 2007.
you've already said that, anon-B
it's an insignificant number and well worth it to consider the objections of some members of our community
the real conversation needs to be on the waste on liberal advocacy in the MCPS budget
how about the money liberal school board candidates pay in exchange for endorsement on the Aplle ballot?
that's scandalous!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marc Thiessen, has a thought-provoking post arguing that Christine O’Donnell could actually win Delaware based on polling data that shows even liberal Delaware is sympathetic to many core Tea Party arguments.
Recent election and demographic data suggest that Delaware is ripe for O’Donnell’s picking.
New Castle County, location of Wilmington, has, in the past dominated Delaware but it's share of the electorate is slipping quickly. In 2004, it cast 64 percent of the statewide vote; by 2008 it cast only 62 percent, even though Wilmington is the home to most of Delaware’s African-American population, who voted for President Obama in record proportions. These election data are borne out by Census data which show that New Castle County grew by only 6.9 percent from 2000 to 2009, but the two more conservative counties, Kent and Sussex, grew by 24.5 and 23.1 percent, respectively.
This shift matters because the two southern counties vote much, much more conservatively than does New Castle. In 2004, Kerry carried New Castle with 61 percent, but received only 42 percent in Kent and 39 percent in Sussex. In 2008, President Obama (aided by high African-American turnout) carried New Castle with 70 percent, but received only 54 percent in Kent and 45 percent in Sussex. Note that the county fall off is similar in each election. Kent voted 19 percent less Democratic in ‘04 and 16 percent less Democratic in ‘08 than did New Castle; Sussex was 22 percent less Democratic in ‘04 and 25 percent less Democratic in ‘08.
O’Donnell’s uncompetitive race in 2008 against Vice President Biden exhibited identical patterns. She ran 15 percent better in Kent than in New Castle and 22 percent better in Sussex, nearly carrying that southernmost county.
Most election observers note that, if anything, turnout in 2010 is likely to favor Republicans, as all surveys suggest the GOP’s voters are much likelier to vote than the Democrats’. Throw this together with the recent election and demographic data above and one can see an O’Donnell victory scenario narrowly emerging.
Suppose New Castle County comprises 58 percent of the electorate this year, roughly in line with its long-term trend, with a small adjustment for differential partisan turnout this year. Further suppose that Kent comprises 18 percent (up from 16 in ‘08) and Sussex comprises 24 percent (up from 22 in ‘08). Finally, suppose that Democratic nominee Chris Coons carries 58 percent in New Castle County, 40 percent (18 points less) in Kent, and 34 percent (24 percent less) in Sussex. Those assumptions produce 49 percent of the vote. Assuming the Libertarian does not exceed two percent of the vote, they would give O’Donnell a narrow and shocking victory.
These estimates assume a lot. They especially assume O’Donnell’s campaign is competently run, well financed, and the personal baggage she carries does not resonate with swing voters. But if these things are true, in a year like 2010 is shaping up to be, it is not beyond reason to think Chris Coons will run slightly behind John Kerry’s totals. Combined with Delaware’s changing demographics, this would propel the most unlikely of all the GOP’s nominees to a job representing Delaware’s citizens in the Senate.
"nearly carrying that southernmost county"
ROFL except she lied about 2008 county election results in Delaware and claimed to have won 2 of the 3 counties in her race against Biden.
Then when called on that lie by a reporter, changed her lie to say she'd meant to say she'd tied Biden in those two counties.
Then when called on that new lie, she lied again and said she tied Joe Biden in one county based on percentage of voters and trailed by 10,000 votes in a second county, which according to Christine meant she "nearly tied" Biden there!
That's a series of ever evolving lies told by Anon's favorite lying tea bagger of the week. Listen to her tell the lies yourself at http://www.wgmd.com/?p=9496
Martha Schaerr's lies are lies of omission and much less bold than O'Donnell's outright lies that misstate facts, but apparently both types of lies are enough to find favor with Anon, Vigilance blog's liar in chief.
wow
what an atrocious liar that O'Donnell is
of course, her "lies" about election results didn't change the course of the nation the way Barack Obama's lies about health care reform did
you're probably real worked up abou that lyin', snivellin' Obama, huh?
TTFers
known for their consistency!!
all the polls out this week have Angle ahead of Harry Reid in Nevada
boy, you know you've screwed up big time when they want to replace you with a nut like that, huh?
btw, she doesn't like the gay agenda
look, Martha Schaerr believes in DADT
she didn't tell
you shouldn't ask
that policy has approved by Congress, you know
I don't know why no TTFers are talking about the demise of the effort to repeal DADT
I was really looking forward to hearing you guys whine about that
I don't think we'll have as much trouble repealing Obamacare
Jon Stewart made his much-anticipated return to 'The O'Reilly Factor' on Wednesday. Bill O'Reilly welcomed Stewart without the normal pleasantries so he could get right to Stewart's opinions on President Obama.
"Do you, Jon Stewart, have Obama remorse?" O'Reilly wondered.
"I think people feel a disappointment." Stewart responded.
O'Reilly pressed further, and Stewart got blunter:
"I thought he'd do a better job."
And then:
"I've been saddened to see that someone who ran on the idea that you can't expect to get different results with the same people and the same system has kept in place so much of the same system," Stewart explained.
as bad as the sexist Larry Summers is, don't you get the feeling the real problem is not the advisors but Obama?
and they have the nerve to call Chris O'Donnell a liar:
"Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few revelations:
»Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
»As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't.
»Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
»Obamacare will increase insurance premiums. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums.
»Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
»Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
»Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year.
»Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority."
Anonymous"
If my some freak of chance, Mrs/ Schaerr should be elected, ("now, she's running and will change those policies if elected") you should attempt to understand the basic concept of operating the decision-making process utilized by the B.O.E., always based on majority votes.
She will be ONE vote out of nine...and it is obviously doubtful that she will be able to dictate any changes of policy that you seem to want.
"Anonymous"
"this [curriculum] is taught with the purpose of changing values and facts are ignored to try to alter the child's value system".
Instead of trying to impose your particular value system on those parents who choose to have their children learn the facts that you cannot accept, why not just select the "opt out" provision?
I object to you telling me what my child's value system should be, based on your beliefs and practices...which I object to. The fact is you have alternatives if you do not like the subject content of the curriculum: (1) opt your child out of the "offensive" units, (2) enrol your child in a private or parochial school...and stop trying to dictate what the majority of parents in the public schools want for their children.
"She will be ONE vote out of nine"
yes, you're right
I actually thought of that when I wrote that
anyway, she'll advocate and vote to change the policy
of course, given your comment, it's makes on wonder why TTF would be so worried about her
I think it's the thought that if any crack appeared in the liberal Apple lunacy that controls MC politics, it would inspire the many MC voters, who long ago gave up on trying to influence their local government, to become active
the control of the liberals is a psychological advantage and if it ever appeared to be weakening, and democracy appeared to be making a comeback, there is no telling where it would lead
"Instead of trying to impose your particular value system on those parents who choose to have their children learn the facts that you cannot accept, why not just select the "opt out" provision?"
actually, the facts are fine
trying to impose gay agenda values on everyone else is the problem
there are lots of facts
choosing the ones that fit your agenda to the exclusion of facts that don't can be propaganda
"I object to you telling me what my child's value system should be, based on your beliefs and practices...which I object to."
I'm not suggesting my value system, based on my beliefs and practices, is what should be taught.
You're the one that wants the school to teach yours- and then argue for it by cherry picking unsubstantiated "facts".
"and stop trying to dictate what the majority of parents in the public schools want for their children"
it's never been proven what the majority of parents want but, given the aversion gay advocates have to votes and democracy, it's not hard to make an educated guess
This supporter of Teach the Facts is not "worried" about Martha Schaerr.
I worry about ANY candidate who isn't truthful about themselves running for office.
Martha Schaerr is hiding facts about herself the voters have a right to know so they might make an informed decision.
Thank you, Teach the Facts, for informing the voting public of these hidden facts about Martha Schaerr, candidate for MCPS BOE, who sued MCPS and the State Board of Education in an unyielding effort to derail the new revisions in the sex ed curriculum that have been welcomed by over 90% of MCPS parents.
"This supporter of Teach the Facts is not "worried" about Martha Schaerr.
I worry about ANY candidate who isn't truthful about themselves running for office."
you must be beside yourself over Dana Beyer, former TTF officer, who didn't include talk about Dana Beyer's surgical history during the campaign Dana Beyer ran for state delegate
I had one of Dana's campaign workers come door-to-door at my house and they weren't aware that Dana had a surgical alteration of the anatomy of Dana Beyer
"Martha Schaerr is hiding facts about herself the voters have a right to know so they might make an informed decision."
don't think she's hiding a thing
she has spoken to the areas the voters are concerned with
believe or not, most MC voters don't have a gay agenda litmus test
they actually don't give a crap
it's called benign neglect
"Thank you, Teach the Facts, for informing the voting public of these hidden facts about Martha Schaerr, candidate for MCPS BOE, who sued MCPS and the State Board of Education in an unyielding effort to derail the new revisions in the sex ed curriculum"
pretty sure your activity will assist her campaign
"that have been welcomed by over 90% of MCPS parents"
don't recall any parents throwing parties over the new curriculum
they're resigned to the inordinate power of the corrupt teachers' union
MCPS parents and guardians have shown their approval for the sex ed curriculum revisions without throwing any parties. Over 90% of them have signed forms giving their students permission to take the sex education classes, revisions included.
This means Martha might have the support of up to 10% of MCPS parents on that one, with "might" being the operative word.
In direct conflict with the vast majority of over 90% of MCPS parents and guardians, Martha Schaerr is a Director of the Family Leader Network, one of three groups that sued MCPS and the Maryland State Board of Education. Under Ms. Schaerr's leadership as a Director, the Family Leader Network actively pursued costly legal action against MCPS and the Maryland State BOE for a number of years.
Martha Schaerr continues to fail the simple honesty test to disclose her complicity in suing the very governing body she'd like MC voters to elect her to hold a seat on in any of her campaign literature.
"don't think she's hiding a thing
she has spoken to the areas the voters are concerned with
believe or not, most MC voters don't have a gay agenda litmus test
they actually don't give a crap"
So who do you imagine doesn't give a crap? The 90% of parents who give their kids permission to take the revised MCPS sex ed class or Martha Schaerr who with her anti-gay accomplices spent a couple of years tying up MoCo and the State of Maryland with expensive but failed lawsuits??
Martha Schaerr accepts no responsibility for the costs to MCPS her past actions have caused, and instead actively hides her past actions from the voters of Montgomery County, Maryland, as she tries to get herself elected to the very body she has sued.
we've already discussed this inane idea that if you sue a governmental board over constitutional issues you are ineligible serve on that board
it now forms a triumvirate of inanities along with two other anti-democratic TTF ideas:
1. petitions are a tricky maneuver and any measure taken to prevent them is legitimate
2. referendums are inappropriate in any issue involving special rights for homosexuals
"MCPS parents and guardians have shown their approval for the sex ed curriculum revisions without throwing any parties. Over 90% of them have signed forms giving their students permission to take the sex education classes, revisions included."
this is BS
kids brings home tons of forms to sign
after a while, most parents are signing anything put before them
try an experiment some time: don't sign this one and see what happens
"Martha Schaerr accepts no responsibility for the costs to MCPS her past actions have caused, and instead actively hides her past actions from the voters of Montgomery County, Maryland, as she tries to get herself elected to the very body she has sued."
this is a lie
how many of board candidates who supported the sex ed curriculum are going around talking about it?
those who supported the curriculum that had to be discarded over constitutional issues should accept responsibility for wasting taxpayers money defending it in court when they never even read it
Anon is getting a little prickly here, I see.
"if you sue a governmental board over constitutional issues you are ineligible serve on that board"
Try this: If you sue a governmental board and run for a position on that board it is honest and forthright to inform the voting public of your history
"petitions are a tricky maneuver and any measure taken to prevent them is legitimate"
Try this: the people's rights shall not be put to a vote
"referendums are inappropriate in any issue involving special rights for homosexuals"
hee-hee, anon, your jealous, aren't you!
Seriously, there was nothing about the curriculum that gave special rights to anyone, it was just some classes that said "some people are gay." Get over it. I have not heard of any legislation in our region that addressed the rights of homosexual people in any way, but it seems to fit your paranoid theories and I won't try to talk you out of it
"Get over it."
I think everyone sees the irony here.
TTF accuses a school board candidate of deception because they aren't highlighting their position on some issue from several years ago.
And if anyone objects, they are told to "get over it."
I think the rest of us are over it.
That's the point.
It's TTF that needs to move on.
The thing is, the liberal agenda, including the gay pages, is going to blazes all over the country and so certain fringe lunatics are desperate to go back to that magical time of hopey-changey.
You can't go back, I'm afraid.
Get over it.
hey pumped, even the teabaggers have given up the anti-gay stuff. The only people who are continuing to be obsessed with that are people like Eddie Long and Ted Haggard, and you.
given up?
just because they aren't making it a campaign issue doesn't mean the whole tea party is irrelevant to the gay agenda
the tea party represents power to the people
just wait until the election's over
Post a Comment
<< Home