Comments on: CD10: Garamendi unveils anti-Harmer TV ad

By: On-Line Articles I’ve Read this week, 39 « Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

On-Line Articles I’ve Read this week, 39 « Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:37:14 +0000

[...] his own children to the “life-ruining effects” of public schools: They reportedly attend public school in an upscale suburb of San Ramon. And should Harmer’s master plan be carried out, his wife, [...]

By: Concordian

Concordian — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:44:19 +0000

On the Schools issue this is the reference to the Cato Article:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-269.html

And I quote
“The Goal: Complete Separation of School and State
The authors are 100 percent committed to getting government out of the business of educating our children”

Now that sure does sound like want to end public schools.

Additionally at the Town Meeting in St Mary’s Harmer again stated that he as far as he was concerned the money from the government for schools “was not worth the money for the strings that are attached.”

His position is against public schools. He will use what ever power he has to accomplish his stated goal of separation of school and state.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:27:53 +0000

Lisa, would you please list the broader goals of society for us?

Are these universal goals?

Are they the same for Richmond and Piedmont?

By: Tom Benigno

Tom Benigno — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:36:40 +0000

Concerned:
My advise to any candidate, is do not use negative campaigning when your in the lead.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:53:35 +0000

Once again, Garamendi, unable to win on the merits of his positions, has to lie about Harmer’s. Who would vote for this hack?

By: Tom K

Tom K — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:24:15 +0000

Garamendi 57%, Harmer 38%, others 5%

By: John W.

John W. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:29:32 +0000

Good spot. Nothwithstanding Mr. Harmer’s commendable involvement with public education locally, I don’t think there is anything half-truthish in noting his advocacy of “school choice” as public policy. I’m for choice too — but in the form of charter schools within the public school framework, not siphoning off public school funding to subsidize private school tuition for people who choose that option for their kids. There’s a huge, seldom-mentioned flaw in the thinking that people should be able to take back their tax contribution to public schools so that they can send their kids to private schools. I pay those taxes too, but I’ve never had kids in school, public or private. Should I get a tax rebate so that I can spend the money on something else? The value of a voucher would not be enough to cover private school tuition, so lower and middle income people would be stuck with what’s left of the public system after more affluent families peeled off voucher bucks to subsidize their decision to go the private school route.