Gee... for a union that claims that all of this country's education problems are because teachers don't get paid enough, they sure seem to find a lot of cash to push their socialist -er- liberal agenda.

I continue to believe that Dubya is indefeasible in 2004, unless he's caught buggering a sheep in church -- with a service in progress. But he attends with Laura, so I don't think it likely.

The NEA was against Bush full-bore in 2000, too. His opponents haven't changed, nor have they increased in animosity toward him. But this time around, he's got a pair of successful wars behind him, two very popular tax cuts, and a record of having kept every promise he's made. Even lifetime straight-ticket Democratic voters have warmed to him. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be fortunate to garner 150 electoral votes.

The election to beware is 2008.

There's no doubt the NEA will go socialist in every election, so there are no surprises here. Wnat is interesting is the fact that they cannot narrow their support yet and will therefore sit it out until some of the nine dwarfs trundle back home to lick their wounds.

Even $22 million can get stretched if it isn't focused. They can't afford to wade in until the field's down to 3 or 4. Then they can attempt to annoint the one guy who's got the best shot.

More important than any child's education is the preservation of their sweet deal: no accountability, no penalty for non-performance, no threat to the dead wood dragging American children to the bottom of international competition.

The kids can be as dumb as a sack of hammers, just as long as they feel good about themselves and all the pictures show an oriental, a black, a hispanic and perhaps an ADHD ritalin junkie smiling and making nice in the diversity hot tub.

Remember, as Al Shanker once honestly noted, the kids don't pay union dues. NEA owes them nothing. They're just the grist passing through the mill.

torpedo_eight has that one totally right. Look at all the crap the teachers' unions are pulling in NY City and State alone.
On the math regents they gave recently, it seems like a majority of students failed, yet a hell of a lot also passed(this included kids taking them in grades lower than most of the failures).
The teachers of the ones who failed started this major whine about how the test was too hard, that there had been unanticipated questions. Since when is a test selective? The point is for teachers to teach their students everything they're supposed to learn, not just enough to solve problems expected on the test.
The teachers whose students passed didn't seem to have any complaints, but the loud ones had their way and now the test is being nulled and replaced, to make it easier for students with shitty teachers.
Nationwide, President Bush issues an expected success ratio for schools upon which federal school aid is to be based, so instead of improving the teachers' skills, they lower standards in the schools to ensure that enough students pass to qualify the schools for the money.
And then the teachers' unions get angry when the Republicans want to issue private school vouchers so kids whose parents give a damn can have the opportunity to get a good education.
The liberals want to say there's a quagmire in Iraq, they ought to look at the quagmire they've created right here at home, in the educational system.

Aside from my money already flowing into the public school system, my local school system also costs me $20,000/year to send my 3 girls to Catholic school.

When your school system tests 257th out of 257 districts in the state, you don't sacrifice your daughters on the altar of stupidity. I will support government schools when they start supporting us.

Right now the buildings are only good for warehousing illiterates until their 18th birthday.

torpedo - that sounds dum to me... ;o)