mark_in_austin,
"Good" results are measured by HS kids outperforming poor non-HS kids in the sme neighborhoods."

And this is part of what I see as the problem. The comparison should be against the non-poor, non-HS kids which is what the goal of the program is. Taking half the poor kids, giving them services, and them comparing them to the other half is silly. There almost has to be improvment. But, again, that is not the goal of HS, or what the goal used to be. My understanding is that the project was designed to help end poverty by providing preschool children from low-income families with a program that would meet emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs (at least that is how Wiki puts it).

I fully support the initiative (as someone that has 3 young kids who all went to preschool). I just think that HS, as the Fed program it is, it here as the only choice and option and the discussion is not what is the best way to prepare our young kids, especially those disadvantaged ones, for school on the assumption that education helps break the poverty cycle. The discussion is in the context of "How dare you even think of getting rid of that program."

response to: (claudialong | October 18, 2007 10:31 AM)

Yes and no. If "compassionate conservative" means being flexible on some social issues, Bush Jr. certainly fell under that category as governor of Texas. Apparently the 2000 election was so divisive that Rove informed him that he had to go hard right, because there were few swing voters left. I'm not particularly religious, but it seems to me that being a "compassionate conservative" essentially means remembering stories such as the Good Samaratin, the one in which Jesus forgave the female adulterer, Jesus caring for the sick and needy, etc. In a nutshell, it means you can be Christian, and even conservative--without being a hard a$$. Cases in point: Democrat Ted Strickland won half of the evangelical vote in Ohio; Tim Kaine served as a missionary in South America; Billy Graham is a lifelong Democrat.

The dedemocratization of America is in essence the very problem with American politics. I'd consider supporting some Republican centrists for president, but by any standard, George W. Bush will be remembered as being in the lower tier of American presidents. That said, he's a shrewed campaigner. In fact, it's been said that he enjoys running for president more than being president. What's wrong with this picture? The election should be about ideas, rather than who can make the best attack ads. I mean, elections should be based on track records and debates. Think Bush Jr. would have had a shot in hell, during the era of Lincoln-Douglas-type debates? McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was fine and dandy, but it didn't stick. The Information Age should be the golden age of presidential campaigns. Instead, voters are bombarded with news about who raised more money, or how many times each candidate has been divorced. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, WTF?

dave, a look into the Head Start numbers would show that the results for kids with two full years or more of HS are decent, the results for kids with less time in are negligible.

"Good" results are measured by low high school dropout rates and typically more than one year of post high school ed or training on the "longitudinal" tests.

"Good" results are measured by HS kids outperforming poor non-HS kids in the sme neighborhoods.

I'll try to find a specific web site for you. I may be only able to get Texas numbers, but the Ypsilanti MI study may be on line.

Fascinating topic. It will be interesting to see how many of the whales are caught and how many will decide to stay beached in Miami. As you mentioned, the rangers/pioneers, etc. were key to Bush Jr.'s attempt to buy the past two elections (did I say that out loud?) However, there's something to be said for the netroots phenomenon. One could argue that it started with Howard Dean, with Obama, Ron Paul, etc. supporters following suit. As James Carville once noted on "Meet The Press," nobody should be surprised that the average Repub contribution is higher than the average Dem. contribution. But for that very reason alone, as you mentioned -- are the whales holding out temporarily or permanently? The GOP has too much baggage now. Where do I begin? An unpopular war, an unpopular president, fiscal AND sexual scandals, etc. etc. There's a wee bit of a chance that billionaire/millionaire Repub donors could open up their pocketbooks solely to avert Hillary from winning the general election. Regardless, with a few months left until the primaries start, it's very telling that most (all?) of them spent more last month, than they made. Romney's even giving himself a loan to stay afloat. The Swift Boat LIE and 2000 Florida fiasco prove that Repubs are more concerned about winning than enacting due process. Don't expect anything different this cycle. "Fairly Unbalanced" FOX News is already lambasting Edwards since they realized he matches up better against Repubs in the battleground states. When the Karl Rove/FOX News Republican smear machine is rolled out before the primaries have even started, it's good news for the Dems.

judge.c.crater,
I'd be open to looking into more cost effective and better, more effective ways to win in Iraq.

"We are spending close to 7 Billion dollars on Head Start and results have been mixed, at best."

Umm, that's about 20 days in Iraq "and results have been mixed, at best." Shouldn't fiscal concerns start where the 'mixed' results cost the most and then work their way downwards?

Dave,

The short answer: exactly.

mark_in_austin,
Sounds like a great idea to me - basically a win for everyone (student/volunteers, taxpayers, and most importantly the innocent people on death row). So are you saying that compassionate conservativism did not get translated up to the fed level when Bush did? I don't know. I have not heard about many of these types of things or implementation of CompCons from the Bush administration but then communication has never really been their strong suit.

Truth, JimD and I were speculating about a "real" R Convention.

Dave and Drindl - In Houston, there is such a thing as "compassionate conservatism".

That is how Houston absorbed one-fourth of New Orleans and put it to work and into school.

That is how the largest medical center in the world, Texas Medical Center, recovered from $2B in damage from Allison in 2001.

That is how Houston had more people employed six months after Enron collapsed and Compaq sold out than it had before.

That is how Bellaire Blvd at Sharpstown became the largest Asia Town ever seen in North America after the Vietnam war.

None of this was done with federal money, to my knowledge.

Dave, as a theoretical matter, I see "compassionate conservatism" as relying upon private initiatives and voluntarism, substantially. Where it differs from "laissez faire social Darwinism" is
that it is amenable to using government to provide the lightning rod or focal point for volunteers, preferably the most local government, first.

Example in Austin: UT Law School's Justice Project has overturned, in the Supremes, several death penalties, because of "actual innocence" based on new DNA findings.

The law students who volunteer on each case are likely different - there is no one who can afford to volunteer most of his/her life! The 2 adjunct law professors who are practicing attorneys who have been both
D.A.s and defense attorneys in their careers guide the law students and sign off on the briefs. They are paid, but far less than their going rates. The program is partly funded by private contribs,
partly by the state, through its law school.

This small public contrib makes a focal point for voluntarism. The actual cost of a true government program would be staggering.

On the other hand, the withdrawal of the focal point at the Law School would effectively kill the voluntarism.

dave: Granted. I should have been more specific.

tjmaness,
"And as far as ideological opposition to funding social programs goes, Paul leaves everybody else in the shade." I believe the correct statement would be "...ideological opposition to funding FEDERAL social programs...". I have not heard that he is against the States or local governments running those.

bsimon,
I think that because these discussions get played out during budget and funding times, the argument does, unfortunately, come down to "cut the program" or "throw money at it" because there isn't time to do anything else. Obviously if you think the program should be cut, you are mean are heartless. Obviously if you think the program should continue or get more funding, you are wasting the taxpayers money. People can't even agree on whether a program has shown success or not. Which is why I think that many of these issues should be brought down to a more local level, closer to the people that it really affects and further away from the special interests and politics of the Fed Govt.

The DoD agency DARPA tackles problems by asking for proposals from various different research facilities and universities, reviewing them and selecting the promising ones and then letting them apply their different approaches to a particular problem. After a couple of years of research, they look at the results and determine what worked best (then build on that). I've always liked the idea of using the Fed and the States in a similar setup.

claudialong wrote: "doesn't Ron Paul have like $5.4 mil? Huge. The pundits refuse to even talk about him -- but he's got amazing grassroots energy."

Yeah. And as far as ideological opposition to funding social programs goes, Paul leaves everybody else in the shade. I'd be interested to know how much of his grassroots support comes because of that position and how much comes in spite of it.

dave,
I think your conclusion is accurate. If head start, for instance, is not achieving its goals, our options aren't necessarily limited to 'boost funding' or 'stop the program'. At the same time, the usual GOP talking point of 'throwing money at the problem won't solve it' is likewise unfairly applied as a universal response. Perhaps if say, class sizes are reduced from 35 to 25, a lot of problems will go away; which implies that 'throwing money at the problem' can work. I'm of course making up that example, which demonstrates the same depth of analysis & imagination as the inverse claim.

bsimon,
"The above seems so intuitively obvious to me, that I don't understand the typical Repub reaction to such programs as wasteful or being too much gov't intrusion."

I think most R's would say that it is important and cost effective to take the approach of correcting the problems early on. Where they typically have issues is the Fed Govt being first choice of the ones to do it and funding or continuing to fund unsuccessful programs. You could make the same argument (like claudialong did for teens) for pretty much any program under the sun. If a government program can help save just one life, wouldn't it be worth the money? - so the argument goes. Not necessarily. We are spending close to 7 Billion dollars on Head Start and results have been mixed, at best. It was reported in 2005 in the government's own study that Head Start didn't affect preschoolers in half of 30 measured categories, including behavior areas. And those are the program's primary target areas to prepare low-income pre-kindergartners for school. In particular, 4-year-olds showed improvement in only six out of 30 categories and Head Start children continue to "lag significantly" behind higher-income families on most measures. This program has been around for 42 years. I would imagine that most everyone thinks the goals are laudable. But after 42 years, we should probably start to come up with some different approaches if it is not getting the results we need. Dems like the status quo (or adding more money to the status quo), R's don't seem to have any other ideas or alternatives.

Truth Hunter -- doesn't Ron Paul have like $5.4 mil? Huge. The pundits refuse to even talk about him -- but he's got amazing grassroots energy.

campaigndiaries, Not surprised Browback has withdrawn.... no money. But, MH doesn't have much either. In fact, even McCain is in big $$ trouble.

McCain reported $3.5 million in the bank.... but, he has $1.7 in debts and can't spend $1.8 unless he is the nominee. So, he's actually $94,000 in the red. Don't think there are enough "whales" in the sea.

Mark in Austin, Weren't you the one who speculated about the GOP contest going all the way to the convention? Well, yesterday the Des Moines Register reported that former Iowa U. S. Rep. Jim Leach (a great guy, a 15-term Republican who got thrown out with the bathwater in 2006) and is currently the director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, thinks that the GOP race could be a national convention decision.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007710170377

The last time that happened, in 1976, Reagan almost scuttled Gerald Ford.

Guess everyone has heard that the Iowa GOP caucus is to be held Jan 3, 2008. Dems have yet to decide.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

bsimon -- I think the R party, by and large, nowadays--are social darwnists. As in, only the strong should survive. There's always been a thread of that, but it seems particulary strong now. Globalization and corporatization are also elements of it. Corporations favor a fluid notion of citizenship, so that they can get the world's cheapest labor--so investment in america's citizens/workforce no longer matters when you intend on hiring folks from Dubai or Mexico.

Look at Halliburton's move to Dubai, for instance. They just plain don't care much about the future of this country-- just making money NOW.

Mark writes, of Rob Jr
"He understands that part of attacking the cycle of ignorance/poverty that includes neo-natal care, and teaching parenting skills to single teenage mothers who never say anything to their babies except STFU, and early childhood development/Head Start."

Sounds like my kind of guy. The above seems so intuitively obvious to me, that I don't understand the typical Repub reaction to such programs as wasteful or being too much gov't intrusion. Its a basic investment in the future citizens / workforce / taxpayers of America. Seems like we'll save tons of money down the road by making sure kids have the basic skills & environment necessary to succeed in our society.

He sounds like a decent guy, but the programs he beleives in have become entiirely anethema to republicans -- hell, I'm what you would call a progressive or liberal or whatever -- and I beleive in all those things. Except I hate the idea of just giving up on teenagers--the social costs [prison, crime, etc] i would think exceed internvention.

That's why I mean about the radicalization of today's R party --you're considered a 'liberal' if you beleive in the most basic tenets of modern science.

Sam Brownback has withdrawn from the race -- in what could help Huckabee and hurt Giuliani:

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/sam-brownback-reportedly-quits.html

Cannot imagine him supporting a D.

He understands that part of attacking the cycle of ignorance/poverty that includes neo-natal care, and teaching parenting skills to single teenage mothers who never say anything to their babies except STFU, and early childhood development/Head Start.

I don't think he believes there is much social benefit to trying to correct the problem with teenagers and adults, compared to the cost, from what I have seen. In other words, he takes a businesslike approach to getting the most downstream advantage from making an early input.

He is by no means a liberal. And I was wondering about his possibly backing MH,
although I know Rob Jr. believes in evolution.

' I thought that that was the meaning of compassionate in the term Compassionate Conservative.'

It's an empty slogan... orwellian.

Blarg, not many but enough that he could push 500K or so towards someone. He also has a good orginization of grass roots folks in Iowa that could jump onto someone else's campaign if he asked them to.

AndyR: Brownback has money people?

mark_in_austin,
I'd be interested to know why he thought GWB was not "compassionate" enough. It seems to me that willingness to spend money on domestic programs has not been a Bush weakness. I thought that that was the meaning of compassionate in the term Compassionate Conservative.

Mark, it's hard for me--at this point in time--especially after the really mean-spirited attacks on that Frost kid--to imagine Rs as being compassionate. Or a Mosbacher kid as a friend of HeadStart--maybe that's his youthful rebellion against his parents. Do you think he might support dems, or just sit this one out? Sounds like maybe Huckabee might be his sort, but the base seems to not like him much--he supports some social programs, it seems.

Drindl, I mean Georgette's son. Rob Jr. is married to Catherine. I know him as a friend of Head Start and of early child development.
He was Bush 41's chief fundraiser and the reason Rove got fired by Bush 41. He is someone for whom the label "compassionate conservative" would fit. He was a huge Bush 43 fundraiser in 2000, but kinda sat on his hands in 2004.

It has been suggested that GWB's track record in his first term did not strike Rob Jr. as "compassionate" so much as it struck him as "Rovian". His active support could be worth $5-$8m [I kid you not]. He would not feel compelled to support anyone, unless James Baker ran for Prez, I think.

Just saw that Brownback is leaving the race today. Not that big of a deal but I think it will definitly be a boost for Huckabee as the only real christian conservative left. Also I wonder if Brownback will endorse, or tell his money people to give to any one candidate.

You mean husband of Georgette, Mark? Why him in particular? I mean, I know she's a major R mover and shaker...

Chris, do you have the list of whales on the Dem side? Perhaps it was on The Trail yesterday, but I recall reading somewhere that HRC has picked up a not-insignificant number of former Ranger/Pioneers.

Is Rob Mosbacher on any lists?

Drindl, I replied to your post to me on the former thread.

Take a good look at that list, people. Forget about your so-called 'representatives.' The folks above are the one who are actually running the country. They are the ones writing your laws. The idea that this is a 'democracy' is a sad joke.

Notice how many investment bankers there are? That's why we have the most draconian bankruptcy laws in the world, that would make even a tinpot despot of a banana republic blush. But like the frog in the boiling water [turn up the heat a little at a time] we've just let it happen.

CC, As a blogger you should be allowed to express your partisan views more freely than a news reporter. At the Washington Post, however, this is reversed. You consistently give a more fair minded, balanced and neutral take on the campaigns than the objective news reporters assigned to covering the races. Good going. People notice.

Some pretty good investigative reporting there Chris. Personally, I think it's silly to have these restrictions forcing people to 'bundle' instead of just donate, but OK, whatever.