School board reckoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

If that’s not the goal of diversity, then what is?

[Anonymous]

I read an interesting interview with two of the top campaign people for Youngkin where they were asked about the respective campaigns of McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Their response was that McAuliffe offered very few affirmative reasons to vote for him, and ran against Youngkin as if Youngkin was running for national office (i.e., to be elected to the Senate), whereas Youngkin ran a disciplined campaign that remained focused on the types of local issues like education, crime, and attracting business that people expect a governor (but not necessarily a House or Senate member in Congress) to address.

That seemed to make sense, and I think we see the same thing with the FCPS School Board. These folks were elected to focus on the most local of issues - the administration of a county's public school system - and yet from day one they've acted as if they hold or aspire to hold national political office. Cohen and Frisch weren't in office for more than a few weeks before they were holding fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and the "all equity, all the time" rhetoric of most of them sounded as if they thought they were personally responsible for some type of great national reckoning. And then even the ones whose rhetoric wasn't as overblown demonstrated that they had a tin ear and next to no sensitivity to local concerns.

So while the Ds still got most of the votes in NoVa, the Ds on the current school boards in NoVa have all the flaws of a Terry McAuliffe, and would be very stupid if they don't think they are going to be extremely vulnerable in an election that focuses primarily on their own performance (or lack thereof). They have two years left to clean up their act, but it seems unlikely that they have the smarts to do so. McLaughlin has been the only one who has demonstrated any sensitivity to what her constituents want from a School Board member; the rest seem too ideological, too dense, or too lazy to right the ship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

[Anonymous]

And the Rs focused on micro-local issues instead of actual state-level issues.

Because they were voting out of anger, not out of reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

And Republicans and Independents voted two POC into positions of power because of their political platforms. That’s about as anti-racist as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all these voters claiming schools don’t take into account parent views, how many have availed themselves of one of the many ways FCPS tries to involve parents (other than giving a 2 minute rant at public comment in the hopes of going viral)? Right now, they’ve been asking for parents to review curriculum resources. They’ve had similar reviews of materials within the year. I bet very few of you have done that. Have you served on a school board advisory committee? Played an active role in the PTA or countywide PTAs like the special education one? There’s so many ways to be involved but it takes some effort and might not make you famous.

I vote for people who can do it for me - so I don't have to do it all myself. That's how I try to outsource.

Okay, so you don’t want “parent’s rights.” You just want to elect the people who oversee the schools. Which you already have and the election is in 2023.
So your vote for Youngkin was based on nothing.

I didn't vote for Youngkin - but in general - that is how I try to vote. So I don't have to do it all myself. I am sorely disappointed in this school board that can't get it right without me LOL. I will do my best to make sure no one forgets they closed schools - I hope the rest of you don't forget!!! I'll remind you again in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read an interesting interview with two of the top campaign people for Youngkin where they were asked about the respective campaigns of McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Their response was that McAuliffe offered very few affirmative reasons to vote for him, and ran against Youngkin as if Youngkin was running for national office (i.e., to be elected to the Senate), whereas Youngkin ran a disciplined campaign that remained focused on the types of local issues like education, crime, and attracting business that people expect a governor (but not necessarily a House or Senate member in Congress) to address.

That seemed to make sense, and I think we see the same thing with the FCPS School Board. These folks were elected to focus on the most local of issues - the administration of a county's public school system - and yet from day one they've acted as if they hold or aspire to hold national political office. Cohen and Frisch weren't in office for more than a few weeks before they were holding fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and the "all equity, all the time" rhetoric of most of them sounded as if they thought they were personally responsible for some type of great national reckoning. And then even the ones whose rhetoric wasn't as overblown demonstrated that they had a tin ear and next to no sensitivity to local concerns.

So while the Ds still got most of the votes in NoVa, the Ds on the current school boards in NoVa have all the flaws of a Terry McAuliffe, and would be very stupid if they don't think they are going to be extremely vulnerable in an election that focuses primarily on their own performance (or lack thereof). They have two years left to clean up their act, but it seems unlikely that they have the smarts to do so. McLaughlin has been the only one who has demonstrated any sensitivity to what her constituents want from a School Board member; the rest seem too ideological, too dense, or too lazy to right the ship.

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the Rs focused on micro-local issues instead of actual state-level issues.

Because they were voting out of anger, not out of reason.

Reason is subjective. Not your reason - but their reason. That's what politics is about - finding out what matters to the voters. I am a D but Youngkin found it for the majority this time.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the Rs focused on micro-local issues instead of actual state-level issues.

Because they were voting out of anger, not out of reason.

Never heard this?

"All politics are local."

But, in any case, if you don't think the State Board of Education has influence over schools statewide, you are sadly mistaken. And, by the way CRT is clearly on the state DOE website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do Republicans think Dems should be just happy if candidates are black or Latino? Like oh look, they are a POC, so be happy! See...diversity, now be quiet.

Does it bother you when minorities don’t agree with 100% of what you believe?

I am a minority so no it doesn’t. That’s my point…Rs in this thread are saying there is no racism bc look we elected a Latino and a Black chick. Why are the Dems not happy? Not taking into account that someone who is, say, pro gun or anti-abortion is still not someone we would pick bc of the color of his/her skin. Why would we be happy?

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

Ok I’m the one who asked, and I think your first post just confused me, because I 100% agree with everything else you wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

+1

I’m a Democrat and I 100 % agree.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I was totally confused by those posts insisting that Ds should have voted for Sears just because she’s black. WTF?

I don't think anyone should vote for anyone because of their color. However, if you look back that was the "push" for some candidates' supporters. And, Ayala's ad that ran repeatedly, over and over, kept stressing that--even though Sears was running against her.

And, Ayala had that phrase that she is an "Afro Latina." Like that was a selling point. There must surely have been another way to present it without being so blatant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read an interesting interview with two of the top campaign people for Youngkin where they were asked about the respective campaigns of McAuliffe and Youngkin.

Their response was that McAuliffe offered very few affirmative reasons to vote for him, and ran against Youngkin as if Youngkin was running for national office (i.e., to be elected to the Senate), whereas Youngkin ran a disciplined campaign that remained focused on the types of local issues like education, crime, and attracting business that people expect a governor (but not necessarily a House or Senate member in Congress) to address.

That seemed to make sense, and I think we see the same thing with the FCPS School Board. These folks were elected to focus on the most local of issues - the administration of a county's public school system - and yet from day one they've acted as if they hold or aspire to hold national political office. Cohen and Frisch weren't in office for more than a few weeks before they were holding fundraisers for Democratic candidates, and the "all equity, all the time" rhetoric of most of them sounded as if they thought they were personally responsible for some type of great national reckoning. And then even the ones whose rhetoric wasn't as overblown demonstrated that they had a tin ear and next to no sensitivity to local concerns.

So while the Ds still got most of the votes in NoVa, the Ds on the current school boards in NoVa have all the flaws of a Terry McAuliffe, and would be very stupid if they don't think they are going to be extremely vulnerable in an election that focuses primarily on their own performance (or lack thereof). They have two years left to clean up their act, but it seems unlikely that they have the smarts to do so. McLaughlin has been the only one who has demonstrated any sensitivity to what her constituents want from a School Board member; the rest seem too ideological, too dense, or too lazy to right the ship.

I don't know if anyone else is interested in this - but I would really like to get back to the school board being non partisan. No endorsement of any candidates on the sample ballots.

How do you make that happen? The party affiliations aren't on the ballot, and it seems like a First Amendment issue to say a party can't express its support for a candidate.

I could see a situation in NoVa where the Rs stop formally endorsing School Board candidates, but lend their support behind the scenes to a local parents' group that purports to be non-partisan but primarily is funded or supported by Rs. They would have less to lose by doing that, since NoVa is mostly D. The Ds want to coast on their brand as long as possible wherever they can.

Otherwise there would have to be some pain for a party if they endorsed SB candidates - like voters tells Rs or Ds running for other offices that they'd get punished at the ballot box if the Rs or Ds endorse School Board members. That doesn't seem very likely, either.