Despite the fact that he is more liberal than I would like, I think Gary Locke would make a good, moderate choice that both sides could like. His actions against the Teachers union in refusing to give them a huge pay increase was one that probably cost him any chance of being re-elected as governor in Washington, but he made it because it was the right choice at the time. This makes him a hero in my mind, as no other politician I have seen has been willing to make hard choices like this.

Teachers usually aren’t as big of influences as you might think Illasheshe. While I agree that good teachers can make a big difference and should be paid well, the preponderance of children who chronically underachieve academically have other factors at play. The biggest indicator of academic success for children is an involved caregiver or parent both in the school as a volunteer, contacting/regular communication with teachers and at home encouraging homework, supervising, encouraging reading, etc. The research couldn’t be any more clear, particularly with expanding learning environments outside of the classroom setting.

When you have children who don’t have stable caregivers, a stable home, are wondering if they’ll even have food for dinner, it’s about survival. Academic learning isn’t a priority. Teachers are often able to mitigate much of this and be a stable figure which certainly helps, but education will only improve when we fix the underlying societal problem of not being at our best for kids. Teachers can only do so much.

That's a quality post from Streamer. Too bad his politically flavored posts are not of the same caliber.

Why even discuss politics in depth with anyone in this board? Nobody effectively changes anyone’s opinion. No matter the eloquence of ones stated point, people gravitate to their own beliefs and nothing will ever resonate. I try to read everything I can get my hands on and with an open mind. I don’t think the same could be said for most people. Maybe that’s why I lean moderate to lightly conservative because I understand extremes fail to give proper credence to the full picture and do not provide adequate solutions that work for everyone.

I come from the belief of following our constitution and guiding our country in the direction of what the forefathers intended. Indeed improvements could be made, but I wouldn’t change much from what their vision of the country would be. Expanding rights to all people such as women and people of color is an obvious improvement, but the slow erosion of the constitution and civil liberties in the name of “safety” or “progress” doesn’t sit well with me. Rights and decision making taken from people and granted to government isn’t freedom. That isn’t a Democratic Republic. That is a recipe for disaster and history makes this abundantly clear.

I believe in small government and states rights. I don’t believe in one size fits all approaches from the federal level. Let failing states with failing policies and laws flounder. It forces them to adopt new policies and laws and elect people from within who can make the necessary changes. It also facilitates local oversight instead of oversight from thousands of miles away. I hate both major political parties and don’t believe either serve the people. I also think most people are brainwashed into the illusion of freedom and choice and are grossly misinformed in politics and policy. I also don’t think people are aware of the depth of corruption and corporate influence and control in government.

But I guess my political beliefs and posts aren’t as great of caliber because I don’t subscribe to your belief system, Salmo. Isn’t the open mindedness of the DS great?