It’s certainly something to use in your opposition campaign ads, but since I’m constantly telling people that public education is a public good and that your taxes don’t pay for you kids to go to school but for all kids to go to school, I don’t think it is automatically disqualifying.
Similar to child-free people running - you can be interested in improving society for everyone. Not that I think Scalia’s kid likely falls into that group.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hannity personally has a relatively ‘reasonable’ set of restrictions in mind (note that I’m in the ‘no restrictions are reasonable’ camp). He is ignoring that the ‘never, no way, under no conditions’ people are in charge, not his ilk.
Now don’t go forcing your liberal ideas on us! The only reason for public schools (heck the only reason for public anything) is so that me and mine benefit. That’s the republican way!
Quick question about this. 106 Republicans Voted for it out of a total of 221 Republicans in the house. So less than half the Republican Caucus voted for it (still too many). Doesn’t this mean that bringing this up on the floor violated the Hastert rule?
Or maybe the new rule is that you can bring up legislation that is either supported by a majority or Republicans or opposed by a majority of Democrats.
Nah, they’re all just different sorts of Chinese in his head.
It’s old school racism of the sort I remember from 30-40 years ago. You just don’t see it so much these days. It’s kind of queasily quaint, like casual racism in old movies