ReportWire

Tag: parental rights

  • Simmons, Ocheltree running once again for Pastures District seat on Augusta School Board

    [ad_1]

    Four years ago, political newcomer Timothy Simmons narrowly defeated incumbent John Ocheltree by 144 votes in the race for the Pastures District seat on the Augusta County School Board.

    Those two are squaring off again this year for the same seat, only this time Simmons is the incumbent. And, unlike four years ago, it’s only a two-person race. In 2021, Nick Astarb pulled in 573 of the 4,001 votes cast. There were also 50 write-in votes that year. Without a third person, the race between Simmons and Ocheltree could be even tighter this time.

    In 2021, after losing, Ocheltree said he was about 50-50 that he’d run again in four years.

    “I enjoy the school board,” he said. “I just love to see children excel from preschool all the way through high school. Having a wife as a teacher, I appreciate teachers. I know the frustrations they go through. I think they need to be appreciated and compensated.”

    Within the last year, Ocheltree said he was approached by community members, school board members, administration and even some students asking him to run again this year. That got him from 50-50 to 100%.

    “A lot of that had to do with not seeing their school board member,” Ocheltree said of his opponent. “They knew that when I was there for 12 years I was hanging out, I was around, even though I had a career and a private practice in medicine I was still there. I took the time to be there for the things that are important for the kids.”

    Simmons ran on a platform of parental rights in 2021, an issue that Glenn Youngkin also used to help get elected as Virginia’s governor. He feels he’s lived up to his promises to help give families a voice in the school division.

    “During my time on the board, I’ve helped mediate countless situations between parents and grandparents and the schools to ensure parental rights are upheld while also meeting the school’s obligation to educate our children,” Simmons said.

    It’s still an important issue for him as he runs for a second term.

    “To me, parental rights mean parents are informed, their voices are respected, and, when needed, they have the ability to request alternatives for their child,” he said. “This is not about parents versus teachers. It’s about communication and partnership. Families have different beliefs and values, and schools must work with parents while meeting their own obligations.”

    Both candidates say they will support the new superintendent, Kelly Troxell, when she takes the position in January, 2026. Troxell was approved in a 4-3 vote in May. One of the three votes against her came from Simmons, but when asked if he would support her, the Pastures District representative said he would.

    “The new superintendent has my support,” he said. “Support from me does not mean I will rubber stamp her decisions or recommendations. My critics seem to view challenges or opposition as not being supportive and that’s simply not true. When our superintendent is successful, we’re all successful. With that, support also means holding people accountable and challenging the status quo to achieve excellence.”

    Ocheltree said if elected he will also support Troxell.

    “I wasn’t there to see who may have been running against her for that opportunity,” Ocheltree said. “I didn’t make that decision, but I’ve seen Dr. Troxell rise up through the system. Every job she’s had within the division she’s done a great job at. I fully support her and feel like she’ll do a good job.”

    Timothy Simmons

    School board members David Shiflett, Tim Simmons and Sharon Griffin talk before the ribbon cutting ceremony at Buffalo Gap Middle School Wednesday, July 31.

    Simmons is a native of Augusta County and a law enforcement supervisor. He lives in Churchville with his wife and young son. He has been a bit of a lightning rod on the school board, not afraid to question administration or fellow board members about things with which he doesn’t agree. He’s drawn both praise and criticism for his approach the last four years.

    During the August school board meeting, Simmons was one of three members to abstain from a vote on four administrators. At the time he said his reason wasn’t something he could share publicly. Simmons did receive some criticism from the public for the decision at the September school board meeting.

    Simmons told The News Leader that abstaining from a vote is an option under Robert’s Rules of Order and it simply meant he wasn’t taking a position on the decision one way or the other. He said he was not required to give a reason, and felt like the board chair, David Shiflett, was out of order for asking him to give a reason.

    “No one has a right to compel a member to state why they abstained,” he said.

    However, Simmons said he did agree the night of his vote to give a reason in closed session, but he said the closed session was for another issue and he didn’t feel it appropriate to talk about his vote.

    “As I reflected later on what I had said publicly, it occurred to me — by the level of badgering I was receiving from the board chair, his intent was not coming from a place of interest in knowing my point of view but rather coming from a place of wanting to attack me,” Simmons said. “That was evident in public but it became even more evident later. Based on that, I changed my mind, which is something we’re all entitled to do.”

    Simmons has questioned administration about providing more information on staff hiriings before asking the board to approve those hires. The information the board receives, according to Simmons, is the same thing the public hears the night of the vote — a brief summary of the person’s qualifications.

    “Information such as who applied for the position and the number of qualified candidates, along with their background information, as well as who was on the interview panel and what questions were asked would all be helpful information,” Simmons said.

    He would also like time to discuss the decision with the other board members, something that would have to take place in closed session.

    Simmons has also asked for exit interview data, saying the board can’t fix retention problems without knowing why staff is leaving. That request, he said, was denied.

    “If I remain on the board, transparency within the promotional process will continue to be an area that I push for,” Simmons said. “I’d like to revamp the promotional process completely so that promotional decisions are based on objective factors and merit rather than being subjective.”

    Asked what the major issues facing Augusta County Schools will be over the next four years, Simmons said academic achievement; recruitment and retention of teachers, staff and bus drivers; school safety; artificial intelligence; and special education.

    “More students are entering schools with complex needs, and teachers and the parents of these students both feel the strain,” Simmons said. “We need a comprehensive plan that provides resources to both sides.”

    Although the school board hasn’t discussed the issue officially, there is concern among some that Craigsville Elementary may close because of low numbers. Simmons is strongly opposed to that happening, but said he wants to be clear that a lot of the concern came from rumors, not reality.

    “I will never vote to close Craigsville Elementary,” he said. “Craigsville is a very remote community on the western side of Augusta County that is self-sufficient. Much like a volunteer fire department, a school is the heart of a small community so Craigsville Elementary is more than just a school – it embodies that community. To close the school would have devastating effects on the Craigsville community and for those reasons, I would continue to advocate fiercely for it to remain open.”

    Simmons said he thinks the school division is doing well in many areas, but no one should ever be satisifed.

    “Our students, teachers, staff and families deserve excellence,” he said. “It is the school board’s job — our responsibility even — to fight for high standards, accountability, and a culture of excellence in our schools and I continue to be committed to that goal if reelected.”

    More: The essential guide to Queen City Mischief and Magic 2025. What you need to know.

    John Ocheltree

    John Ocheltree is running for the Pastures District seat on the Augusta County School Board. A former member of the board, Ocheltree lost in 2021 but hopes to regain the seat this year.

    John Ocheltree is running for the Pastures District seat on the Augusta County School Board. A former member of the board, Ocheltree lost in 2021 but hopes to regain the seat this year.

    Ocheltree is a podiatrist with his practice based in Staunton. He grew up in the Staunton area, graduating from Robert E. Lee High School (now Staunton High School) but spent a lot of his youth on his grandparents’ farm in Swoope.

    “I went away for a while for school, hit some big cities, and realized Staunton and Augusta County wasn’t as boring as I thought it was,” he said.

    Ocheltree won his first term on the board in November 2007 and won re-election in 2011, 2015 and 2017, all without challengers. The 2021 election was the first time he faced any opposition.

    After being off the board for four years, he decided to run again.

    “I’m a big believer in giving back to the community,” Ocheltree said. “That was inspired to me by my parents and grandparents, growing up with different things I saw them do.”

    Ocheltree doesn’t like to consider himself political. He calls himself “just a community member like anybody else.” Politics, however, has become a bigger part of school board elections across the country with the typically non-partisan races becoming more and more divided with national issues like transgender rights, critical race theory and book bans entering the discussion. All of those topics have come up at school board meetings in Augusta County in the last eight years.

    Ocheltree doesn’t like politics becoming interwoven with schools.

    “It shouldn’t be a thing in our children’s education,” he said. “It shouldn’t be.”

    He said the way you get back to a less political school board is by electing someone like him, who he said is there for the kids and teachers and administration.

    “Not so much for a political gain or a self-serving agenda,” Ocheltree said.

    Ocheltree’s wife is a retired Augusta County teacher who is now teaching at a small private school in Staunton, Anna’s House School. Having that connection, Ocheltree believes, helps him understand the issues teachers face better.

    Ocheltree is planning to retire from his medical practice in a couple of years, saying he will be even more accessible to the school board if he is elected.

    “Engaged” and “accessible” are two words that describe Ocheltree’s campaign. He will be both, he said, if elected.

    Ocheltree believes that parents have a line of communication with the schools. Parental rights is important, but he doesn’t think Augusta County restricts those rights.

    “Every administrator I know in the county that is a principal in the school or a vice-principal welcomes parents to come in and talk with them about any issue they have,” he said. “I don’t think they’re hands off with the parents. The opportunity is there, you’ve just got to take advantage of it.”

    When it comes to hiring staff, Ocheltree said he has full confidence in the superintendent and the central office staff to make selections.

    “There’s this term that floats around about the old boy system,” Ocheltree said. “I’m not like that, but I feel confident in our adminitrators making those promotions and putting people in place.”

    Ocheltree loves the Pastures District. He said it’s a very conservative area, and he considers himself conservative. He has lived in his current location for 24 years.

    “I just love the people out there,” Ocheltree said. “I feel strongly about representing them properly. The Pastures Distirct is the biggest area in Augusta County geographically with the smallest population. That’s why I call it a big secret.”

    He was on the board during the planning of the two new middle schools, including the one in Buffalo Gap. He likes that the school divison considered travel time for families with building a middle school next to the high school. Before families had to travel almost to Staunton to Beverley Manor Middle School.

    “It saves everybody a lot of time and gives more instructional time,” he said. “I think it’s just a great educational opportunity out in that part of the county.”

    Like his opponent, Ocheltree feels strongly about keeping Craigsville Elementary School open if the issue of closing it ever came up on the board.

    “Craigsville Elementary is a big thing in the community out there,” he said. “There’s a lot that goes on there. The parents and grandparents feel very strongly about keeping that school open. I can say that I would hang off the edge of a cliff to keep that school open and there’s no ‘but’ about it.”

    The News Leader and Victory Worship Center will be hosting a candidate forum for school board members Sept. 25 at the Augusta County Government Center. Only Ocheltree has agreed to participate from the Pastures District. Simmons declined the invitation.

    The general election is Nov. 4 and early voting is already underway. The deadline to register to vote or update existing registration is Oct. 14. To register, complete and submit a Virginia Voter Registration Application. Applications may be obtained and submitted at the local voter registration office, or through online application submission through the Virginia Department of Elections.

    More: Wells, Whitmire running for the Beverley Manor seat on the Augusta County School Board

    Patrick Hite is a reporter at The News Leader. Story ideas and tips are always welcome. Connect with Patrick (he/him/his) at phite@newsleader.com and on Instagram @hitepatrick. Subscribe to us at newsleader.com.

    This article originally appeared on Staunton News Leader: Simmons, Ocheltree face off for Pastures District school board seat

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Should we take more kids from their homes or fewer?

    [ad_1]

    Some parents abuse their kids.

    Child welfare workers are supposed to stop that to protect the kids.

    But bad things often happen while they watch.

    “Children have a right to safety,” says Tim Keller. “If home is a danger, we as a society have to step in and protect those children.”

    Keller, legal director of the Center for the Rights of Abused Children, is a libertarian.

    “It’s surprising to hear a libertarian argue that government should do more,” I tell him.

    “We don’t like the state involved in family life,” he replies in my new video, but “they’re leaving children in dangerous situations.”

    Lots of parents abuse kids, even when they are on Child Protective Services’ (CPS) radar.

    Maybe it happens because child welfare workers are told, “Whenever possible, keep families together.”

    That’s U.S. policy, and Keller says it wrecks lives.

    But Columbia Law School professor Josh Gupta-Kagan wants welfare workers to take fewer kids from their homes.

    “The horror stories go in all directions,” he says.

    In Massachusetts, after parents brought their young son to the hospital with a fever and X-rays revealed an old, healing rib fracture, child welfare workers took both him and his brother away from their home. They returned the boys after four weeks, but those were a traumatic four weeks.

    It happens because American law requires social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professionals to report anything suspicious. Those who don’t report may be fined or even jailed.

    Gupta-Kagan says this leads health care workers to report too many instances of possible abuse.

    “See something, say something. It’s surveillance, investigatory, and sometimes it leads to an unnecessary separation.” Those can be as traumatic as abuse.

    “About 37 percent of all children are going to be the subject of a CPS hotline call. Fifty-three percent of all African American children.…Where my clients live…the CPS agency is a constant presence.…Folks are scared of them.”

    “We certainly don’t want a situation where we’re going to say, ‘We’re not going to protect this child because he is African American,’” replies Keller. “But 2,000 children a year are dying in their homes, and most of those are known to Child Protective Services.”

    Gupta-Kagan disagrees: “I don’t think I’ve seen any evidence that removing more children from parents saves lives. Child fatality numbers, unfortunately, have remained stubborn.”

    In 2023, more than 100,000 kids were taken from their homes. Still, about 2,000 die from abuse or neglect.

    Child welfare workers are overwhelmed.

    “Millions of CPS hotline calls coming in,” says Gupta-Kagan. “If you want to find the needle in the haystack, we have to stop putting so much hay on the stack.”

    Texas recently changed the definition of “neglect” to say that kids must be in “immediate” danger of harm before a child can be taken.

    As a result, Texas now has far fewer children removed from their homes.

    Keller calls that a mistake. “By the time a child is in imminent harm, they’ve already suffered so much trauma.”

    Keller, who has been a foster parent himself, wants more kids taken from their biological parents and put in foster homes sooner.

    “That child only gets one childhood. We need to make sure that that child is in a safe, loving, permanent home as quickly as we can.”

    That’s a noble goal. It’s horrible when kids are abused.

    But some foster parents are abusive.

    This is one conflict where I have no idea who is right.

    Government is best when it governs least.

    But when children are abused, we want government to step in.

    What do you think?

    COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    [ad_2]

    John Stossel

    Source link

  • 10 Stories That Drove Free-Range Parents Crazy in 2023

    10 Stories That Drove Free-Range Parents Crazy in 2023

    [ad_1]

    Another year, another chance to bang your head against the wall, with good reason—and with Reason. Here are 10 incidents from 2023 that will alarm everyone who supports the free-range kids movement.

    Unspecified danger in Aisle 4: The University of Michigan surveyed parents of children ages 9–11 and found that half wouldn’t even let their kids go to another aisle at the store without them. Letting them out of sight for even a few moments seemed unthinkably dangerous.

    Generation Unease-Z: “Gen Z perceives more dangers in life than previous generations.” That was the finding of a study presented at the 2023 Society for Risk Analysis conference. (What danger lurks in the next aisle?)

    Potty crashers: Students in several Oklahoma elementary and middle schools are now required to sit with their parents at all times during high school football games. In one district, the kids must also have an adult take them to the bathroom. No word on whether they’re allowed to self-wipe.

    D.C.’s one-child policy: One child per swing, that is. A playground sign in suburban D.C. listed 22 rules, including these: Children must swing in an “upright position,” and there is to be no “loitering” on the slide. As for the jungle gym, kids must not “skip rings or rungs.” Adult supervision required.

    Not required? Fun.

    Eek! A disproportionate reaction: Meanwhile, to the north, the town of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, shut down one of its playgrounds after a health hazard was discovered on the premises. The hazard? A mouse. No word on whether it was chasing a cat and wielding a mallet.

    Sex panic: After a 5-year-old pulled down a 3-year-old’s pants in Poncha Springs, Colorado, two preschool workers were criminally charged for not reporting the incident quickly enough. In court, a defense attorney told the judge: “We are here because one preschooler pulled down another preschooler’s pants.”

    More sex panic: Sociologist Emily Horowitz’s 2023 book, From Rage to Reason, chronicles what’s wrong with the sex offense registry, including the case of an 18-year-old who had consensual sex with a 16-year-old. After the 18-year-old landed on the registry, it was almost impossible for him to find a job—but finally, he obtained work in an office. A judge then sentenced him to six years in prison for working too close to children. (The office was near a school.)

    Blame mom: Before Connecticut mom of five and part-time Uber driver Tabitha Frank left for her shift, she called her children’s father to come help her daughter, age 12, babysit. He said he would be right over, but then he fell asleep. While Frank was away, her 2-year-old accidentally fell out of a window and tragically died. The authorities decided that Frank hadn’t suffered enough and charged her with manslaughter.

    Cops and donuts: Two suburban Connecticut parents let their kids, ages 7 and 9, walk to Dunkin’ Donuts. Police spotted the children and charged the parents with risk of injury to a minor. A few days later, they dropped the charges. But child protective services picked up the case and insisted the mom go to therapy. Who’s the crazy one?

    How about just a tardy slip? A Chicago mom who was late to pick up her children from school four times last year got a letter saying she was under investigation by the Department of Children and Family Services. “My daughter rushed to the car and she’s like, ‘Mommy DCFS came to the school, and the lady made it sound like we weren’t going to come home with you today,’” said the mother. In Chicago’s Cook County, 60 percent of black kids are the subject of a child protective services investigation.

    But it’s not all bad: There were many positive developments to celebrate this year as well. In 2023, four states passed “Reasonable Childhood Independence” laws: Virginia, Montana, Connecticut, and Illinois. These laws say that “neglect” occurs when parents put their children in serious, obvious danger—not anytime they take their eyes off them.

    These states join Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado in becoming “Free-Range Parenting” states. With the help of Let Grow, the nonprofit I helm, the bills almost always have bipartisan sponsors, and they passed unanimously in four states.

    In 2024, we’re hoping to prevail in Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, and the biggest kahuna of all: California. If you’d like to get involved, please visit LetGrow.org. And in the meantime, happy, criminal-charges-free holidays to all!

    [ad_2]

    Lenore Skenazy

    Source link

  • This Extremist Group Calls Itself A ‘Parental Rights’ Org. Now It’s Targeting School Boards In 1 Key State.

    This Extremist Group Calls Itself A ‘Parental Rights’ Org. Now It’s Targeting School Boards In 1 Key State.

    [ad_1]

    Moms for Liberty has, in recent years, been a major player in America’s culture wars. The group has been behind the drastic increase in book ban attempts across the country, influenced local leaders to implement anti-LGBTQ+ policies, and railed against educators and others in communities, smearing them as child abusers. In 2023, Moms for Liberty held its annual convention in Pennsylvania, sparking widespread protests.

    Now it has set its sights on the state’s many school boards.

    There are 500 different districts spread over Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, and ahead of next week’s elections in the state, HuffPost found that Moms for Liberty has endorsed more than 50 candidates in 28 districts.

    Rising to prominence in 2021, Moms for Liberty bills itself as a grassroots movement seeking to restore “parental rights” in government, and most notably the nation’s public school system. But it has since become a prominent fixture in Republican politics and been deemed an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Ariel Franchak, a public school teacher who founded the Pennsylvania chapter of the opposition group Stop Moms for Liberty on Facebook, felt she had no choice but to get involved in school politics once she saw Moms for Liberty’s agenda.

    “I didn’t start getting into this until they started messing with the books, and trying to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and whitewashing history,” she told HuffPost. “They want to destroy everything good about schools.”

    Moms for Liberty did not respond to a request for comment from HuffPost.

    In at least three school districts, Moms for Liberty is attempting to take over entire school boards.

    In the Owen J. Roberts School District in Chester County — approximately an hour’s drive from Philadelphia — the full slate of GOP candidates has been endorsed by Moms for Liberty. The board is currently made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans, with one Republican declining to run for reelection.

    Jennifer Munson, a Democrat who is up for reelection to the board, said the school district would not fare well with a majority-Republican board. She said Kathy DiMarino, a GOP incumbent running for reelection, has already provided a glimpse into what a Moms for Liberty-backed board would look like.

    “During COVID, she started bringing in data about COVID that was extremely biased, like saying masking was actually unhealthy,” Munson told HuffPost. “We can’t have four more like her.”

    On the GOP slate’s website, the group proudly displays its MFL endorsement — along with a chart outlining the critical differences between itself and Democratic candidates, saying it aims to lower school taxes, have masking be optional for students, and ban transgender children from using the bathroom or playing with the athletic team that matches their gender identity. It’s a long list of culture warriors’ favorite moral panic talking points.

    “These are not the concerns of our community,” Munson said. The group of Democrats running for the school board has pledged to implement student-centered policies and focus on quality education rather than culture wars.

    “We want to run a school district,” Munson said, contrasting the Democratic candidates with their Republican counterparts. “It appears to us that they’re not really interested in running a school district.”

    York County’s South Western School District, like countless others, has been embroiled in conservative faux outrage since the COVID-19 pandemic began. In 2021, a school board meeting was canceled after dozens of attendees refused to wear face masks, which was required at the time.

    A website for the county’s MFL-endorsed candidates is typical of right-wing hopefuls. The slate pledges to “Remove Political Agendas” like critical race theory from schools and “refocus on Traditional Education.” It’s unclear what that would mean.

    Some of those running are also open about their religious beliefs. “I will treat every person with love and respect, but I will not go against my morals as taught from a biblical foundation,” candidate Justin Lighty said on the website. “I will stand up and protect my children and yours from a woke virus that is infecting our great country.”

    In school districts close to heavily Democratic cities, some candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty are more subdued on social media and elsewhere online. In the Moon Area School District, which is just outside of Pittsburgh proper but leans Republican, MFL has endorsed the entire slate of Republican candidates. Yet a Facebook campaign page appears to focus on run-of-the-mill messages imploring people to vote for the five GOP hopefuls.

    Even in areas where MFL isn’t attempting to fully take over school boards, HuffPost found 25 additional districts in which the group has endorsed one or more candidates — who are running explicitly right-wing campaigns that, if successful, would surely make waves.

    In the Deer Lakes School District, located just 15 miles from Pittsburgh, Moms for Liberty has endorsed Leonard Verdetto III. The 29-year-old college graduate said in a questionnaire from the Pennsylvania Family Council, a right-wing organization that endorses local candidates, that he’s running for school board because “we are becoming a failed society.” He also invoked his religious beliefs in the pitch.

    “Old traditional values and family being the backbone in our nation is being perverted, and it’s not being practiced as it should be,” he said. “Having good traditional education … will help the next generation to be successful, and ready for a stronger future. A stronger future with Jesus is the real solution that can save the children, and to the future of our nation.”

    Then there is Kelly Potteiger, the vice chair of MFL’s Cumberland County chapter who is running for the board in Cumberland Valley School District — even though her children don’t attend public schools there. She said that her children attended CVSD for kindergarten but are now enrolled at a private Christian school.

    “They would like to come back to CVSD, however, there will have to be some changes before my husband and I feel like this would be the best option,” she wrote on her campaign website. “In order to help make those changes, I decided to run for school board.”

    In Bucks County, near Philadelphia, Moms for Liberty has endorsed two candidates across two separate school districts. But some people there already know what happens when MFL takes over a district.

    “Our students have lost a lot of their rights,” Jane Cramer, a Pennridge School District parent, told local news site The Keystone in June. “It’s been a slow process, but the past few months, it’s really escalated.”

    In August, the Pennridge school board voted to adopt a new curriculum from Vermilion Education, a controversial right-wing group that has been accused of promoting conservative Christian values.

    A slate of candidates, together known as Protect Pennridge, has voiced support for anti-LGBTQ+ policies that the school district now has in place. Its candidates haven’t been endorsed by MFL, but that may not matter since Protect Pennridge has essentially same talking points, just like various other groups that have sprung up across Pennsylvania.

    “They have the same views, but a different name,” Franchak said about a right-wing group in her own school district.

    It’s clear that Moms for Liberty is trying to replicate its past successes. According to its own tally, MFL endorsed more than 500 candidates in 2022, and more than half won their elections. It also took credit for flipping 17 school boards across the country.

    For educators and parents who oppose MFL, there’s only one way to stop its encroachment in Pennsylvania schools.

    “We need more advocates and allies, and we need more people to speak up,” Franchak said. “We can’t be bullied into going along with whatever a small minority wants.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Is Beatable in Iowa

    Trump Is Beatable in Iowa

    [ad_1]

    The recent history of the Iowa Republican caucus offers the candidates chasing former President Donald Trump one big reason for optimism. But that history also presents them with an even larger reason for concern.

    In each of the past three contested GOP nomination fights, Iowa Republicans have rejected the candidate considered the national front-runner in the race, as Trump is now. Instead, in each of those three past caucuses, Iowa Republicans delivered victory to an alternative who relied primarily on support from the state’s powerful bloc of evangelical Christian conservatives.

    Read: The GOP primary is a field of broken dreams

    But each of those three recent Iowa winners failed to capture the Republican presidential nomination or, in the end, even to come very close. All three of them were eventually defeated, handily, by the front-runner that they beat in Iowa. That pattern played out in 2008 when Mike Huckabee won Iowa but then lost the nomination to John McCain, in 2012 when Rick Santorum won Iowa but lost the nomination to Mitt Romney, and in 2016 when Ted Cruz won Iowa but lost the nomination to Trump. Not since George W. Bush in 2000, and before him Bob Dole in 1996, has the winner of the Iowa caucus gone on to become the GOP nominee.

    That record frames the stakes for this round of the Iowa caucus, which will begin the GOP nominating process next January 15. Beating Trump in Iowa remains central to any hope of denying him the nomination. Among Trump skeptics, there is a widespread belief that “Iowa is more crucial than ever, because if Trump wins here, he will be your nominee; he’ll run the table,” as Bob Vander Plaats, the president and CEO of The Family Leader, an Iowa-based social-conservative organization, told me in an interview last week.

    But even if Trump is defeated in the caucus, this recent history suggests that he will still be a strong favorite for the nomination if Iowa Republicans do not choose an alternative stronger than Huckabee, Santorum, or Cruz proved to be. The conundrum for the candidates chasing Trump is that the strategy that probably offers the best chance of upsetting him in Iowa—maximizing support among evangelical-Christian conservatives—also creates the greatest risk of limiting their appeal and making it harder to beat him in most later states.

    Although focusing on evangelical conservatives can deliver victory in Iowa, “if the campaign you’re running is only aimed at those people … it’s hard to put together a coalition big enough to win” the nomination overall, says Dave Kochel, an Iowa Republican strategist.

    As they watched the candidates shake hands at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines last week, local political observers and national reporters debated the usual questions: Who is collecting the most endorsements? Who has built the strongest grassroots organization? Who has the most supporters passionate enough to turn out on a cold night next January? But the largest question looming for Republicans may be whether the road to success in the Iowa caucus has become a path to ultimate failure in the GOP presidential-nominating process.

    The common problem for Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz was that even on the night they won Iowa, the results demonstrated that the base of support they had attracted was too narrow to win the nomination. Entrance polls conducted of voters heading into the Iowa caucuses found that each man finished well ahead among voters who identified as evangelical Christians. But all three failed to win among voters in Iowa who did not identify as evangelicals.

    That math worked in Iowa because evangelical Christians constitute such a large share of its GOP voters—almost two-thirds in some surveys. But each man’s weakness with the Iowa voters who were not evangelicals prefigured crippling problems in other states. The difficulties started just days later in New Hampshire, which has few evangelicals. Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz were all routed in New Hampshire; none of them attracted as much as 12 percent of the total vote.

    The divergent results in Iowa and New Hampshire set the mold for what followed. All three men were competitive in other states with sizable evangelical populations. But none could generate much traction in the larger group of states where those voters were a smaller share of the GOP electorate. In the end, neither Huckabee, Santorum, nor Cruz won more than a dozen states.

    Kedron Bardwell, a political scientist at Simpson College, south of Des Moines, says this history makes clear that Iowa Republican voters, especially evangelicals, have never placed much priority on finding candidates that they think can go the distance to the nomination. “I look at those past winners and think voters were saying, ‘We are expressing our conservative Christian values and not so much worrying about what will happen after that,’” Bardwell told me.

    Vander Plaats predicts that will change in this election; the eventual failure of these earlier Iowa winners favored by evangelicals, he told me, will make local activists more conscious of choosing a candidate who has the “national infrastructure and capacity to go beyond Iowa.” Yet financial and organizational resources aren’t the only, or perhaps even the most important, measures of which Republican is best-positioned to convert an Iowa win into a lasting national challenge to Trump.

    Even if someone topples Trump in Iowa with strong support from evangelicals, the key measure of their long-term viability will be whether they can attract a significant share of non-evangelicals. In fact, according to past entrance polls, the candidate who won the most support among the Iowa voters who are not evangelicals has captured the GOP nomination in all but one contested race since 1996. (The lone exception came in 2008, when John McCain, the eventual winner, did not compete in Iowa, and those voters mostly backed Mitt Romney.)

    Kochel told me that the best way to understand the formula that might allow another candidate to overtake Trump in enough states to win the nomination is to consider the candidates who finished just above and behind him in the 2016 Iowa caucus: Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

    “If you want to put it in 2016 terms, particularly with Trump looming so large, you really need the Cruz-plus-Rubio coalition,” Kochel said. “You need the Santorum/Huckabee/Cruz supporters, Christians as defined by people like Vander Plaats. But then you also need the Rubio coalition: Ankeny soccer moms and old-school Republicans, college-educated non-evangelicals. That’s the coalition that can win a nomination.”

    Can any of Trump’s rivals assemble such a coalition to threaten him, in Iowa and beyond? His following in the state remains passionate, as his exultant reception at the state fair last weekend demonstrated. And though he’s campaigned in the state considerably less than his leading rivals, Trump held a big lead in the recent New York Times/Siena poll of Iowa Republican voters. That survey showed Trump leading among evangelicals and non-evangelicals, largely on the strength of a dominant advantage among the likely caucus-goers in both groups without a college degree.

    But there may be a bigger group of Iowa Republicans willing to consider an alternative to Trump than polls now indicate. It’s not scientific, but my conversations with likely caucus-attenders at the fair last week found a surprising number expressing exhaustion with him.

    Although they liked Trump’s performance as president, and mostly felt that he was being unfairly prosecuted, several told me they believed that he had alienated too many voters to win another general election, and they were ready for a different choice that might have a better chance of beating President Joe Biden. “He did the best he could for four years, but he didn’t win again, and we’re done with it, we’re done,” Mary Kinney, a retired office manager in Des Moines, told me. Later that afternoon, at a Story County Republican Party dinner headlined by Senator Tim Scott, Steve Goodhue, an insurance broker in Ames, looked around the crowded room and told me, “Even though Trump is leading in the polls in Iowa, this shows you people are interested in alternatives.”

    Trying to reach those voters ready to move past Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is putting the most time and money into building a traditional Iowa organization. His campaign staff and the Never Back Down Super PAC that is organizing most of his ground game in the state both include key veterans of Cruz’s 2016 winning caucus effort. DeSantis has committed to visiting all 99 Iowa counties (what’s called a “full Grassley” in honor of the state’s Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who makes a similar tour every year), and his supporters have already recruited caucus chairs in every county as well.

    DeSantis has announced endorsements from more than three dozen state legislators, including State Senate President Amy Sinclair. That’s much more than any other candidate. “Look at what the state of Florida has been doing, and look at what the state of Iowa through our legislature has been doing,” Sinclair told me, citing parental rights, school choice, cuts in government spending, and a six-week ban on abortion. “We’ve been working on all of the same things, so when Governor DeSantis steps into the presidential race and says, ‘I have a vision for the nation, and that vision is what we’ve done in Florida,’ well, that’s the same vision that the folks in Iowa have had.”

    Many leading Iowa social conservatives also appear likely to coalesce around DeSantis. Steve Deace, an Iowa conservative-media commentator, endorsed him earlier this month, and in our conversation, Vander Plaats seemed headed that way too. Each had backed Cruz in 2016.

    All of this shows how many Iowa Republican power brokers consider DeSantis the most likely to become the principal alternative to Trump. DeSantis also polled second to Trump in that New York Times/Siena Iowa survey. But my conversations at the fair failed to find anyone particularly interested in him. Several of those looking for options beyond Trump said they found DeSantis too much like the former president in his combative temperament and style.

    Craig Robinson, the former state Republican political director, says he believes that DeSantis, by running so hard to the right on social issues, has already boxed himself into the same corner as Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz, with little chance to reach out beyond evangelicals to the economically focused suburban Republicans who liked Rubio and Romney. When DeSantis entered the race, Robinson says, he could have appealed to “the Republicans who are sick of the bullshit and don’t want all the extras that come with Trump. Then he’s run a campaign about Disney and all this woke stuff, and all he’s done is make himself as controversial as Trump.”

    Helen Lewis: The humiliation of Ron DeSantis

    DeSantis’s positioning has created an opening among the Iowa Republicans uneasy about Trump that Tim Scott looks best positioned to fill. The senator may be developing a more effective formula than DeSantis for appealing to both evangelical social conservatives and more socially moderate, suburban economic conservatives. Unlike DeSantis or former Vice President Mike Pence, Scott doesn’t hammer away at social issues in a way likely to alienate suburban Republicans. Instead, he connects with evangelical Republicans through his testimony about the importance of religious faith in his own life, and the way in which he organically and authentically weaves Bible phrases into his conversation. As several Iowa Republicans told me, Scott “speaks evangelical” in a way DeSantis does not.

    Still, Scott’s campaign message so far is bland, focused primarily on his personal story of ascending from poverty. The senator’s unwavering refusal to challenge or criticize Trump has left the impression among some activists that he is really running for vice president. So long as Scott fuels that perception by refusing to contrast himself with Trump, Vander Plaats predicted, “his poll numbers will not move, and his caucus support will not be there.”

    The caucus is now less than five months away, but in earlier years, this final stretch often produced rapid shifts in fortune. Bardwell, the political scientist, notes that five different candidates led polls at some point leading up to the 2012 caucus before Santorum finally edged past Romney at the wire. Iowa social conservatives have frequently coalesced behind their favorite late in the race. The choice those evangelical Christian voters make this winter will likely determine whether Iowa sets Trump on an unstoppable course to another nomination or anoints an alternative who might seriously challenge him.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis’ ‘Anti-Woke’ Education Agenda Just Got A Big Boost

    Ron DeSantis’ ‘Anti-Woke’ Education Agenda Just Got A Big Boost

    [ad_1]

    When Yvette Benarroch, a leader in the conservative Moms for Liberty chapter in Collier County, Florida, addressed the state’s Board of Education meeting on Wednesday, she exuded gratitude.

    “Thank you for carrying out the governor’s parental rights agenda,” she said with a smile.

    The Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed a law last year saying the board, a division of the state’s Department of Education, would need to approve a training program for public schools in the state. Training would be mandatory for all media specialists, who are in charge of finding and approving educational resources, and for teachers who have books in their classrooms.

    Beyond saying that schools needed to be transparent about why they had selected instructional materials, the law didn’t outline what that training should look like, and state education officials convened a working group — made up largely of parents, educators and school staff, including some people who have previously tried to ban books from schools — to draft the new training.

    The final training, which the Board of Education approved this week, focuses on shielding kids from books about racial justice and books with LGBTQ themes. This made many conservatives happy, and it was a victory for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender who has highlighted so-called parental rights and “anti-wokeness” in his political platform. He has sought to ax workplace diversity initiatives (an effort that was thwarted by a federal judge), has appointed conservatives to the board of a progressive college, pushed right-wing higher education officials to ban discussion of “critical race theory” and has championed the “Don’t Say Gay” law that prohibits public school teachers from talking about sexual orientation or gender identity.

    His success in transforming Florida public schools into breeding grounds for far-right ideas wouldn’t be possible without the help of Moms for Liberty, a nonprofit organization that advocates for parents’ rights — a term that has become synonymous with pushing conservative ideology in public schools. Moms for Liberty has been on a book-banning crusade since its inception, and at least two of the working group members on the media specialist training belonged to Florida chapters.

    This shift in Florida has taken place as public libraries and schools have been under attack around the U.S. Right-wing culture warriors have in particular pushed for institutions to ban books with LGBTQ themes, claiming they are inherently pornographic and that school librarians who don’t want to remove them from shelves are trying to abuse or “groom” children.

    “The attacks are more than just curating books that are a little too mature for young kids,” said Stephana Ferrell, co-founder of the Florida Freedom to Read Project, a nonprofit focused on fighting book bans and censorship. “They’re actually targeting the lived experiences of people who aren’t white, Christian, cis or straight.”

    New Guidance Sparks Fear

    The new training is supposed to pertain only to instructional materials. But because school librarians are also media specialists, some districts have begun citing the guidance — even before the final training was approved — as justification for removing books from their libraries.

    “It’s just another way for the far right to say that you can’t trust public schools to deliver an education to your children,” Ferrell said.

    The Florida Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

    The new training, which can be found on the Florida Department of Education’s website, includes 40 slides and a 52-minute video. The beginning of the training is dedicated to the subject of pornography and states that no one may provide minors with sexually explicit or other harmful material unless it has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

    Violating the state statute on providing harmful materials would be considered a felony, the training says. But it does not provide examples of works that meet this definition, and the vague language has left some educators worried that they could be found guilty of a crime if they don’t censor books that conservatives claim are harmful.

    “I see that some librarians self-censor because they’re afraid of getting in trouble, and that should not be a consideration as far as choosing books for our students,” Tania Rodriguez, a media specialist in Osceola County, told WFTV 9 in Orlando.

    The training also tells media specialists to “avoid” materials that may lead to student indoctrination. It does not provide a definition of what could be considered indoctrination or include any examples of material that could encourage it.

    Educators must allow anyone living in their district to challenge materials in schools, according to the training. It does not say if this includes library books or applies only to reading material in classrooms. The training also says media specialists should also check to see if a book has been removed or restricted in any other districts, then “carefully consider” whether to approve it for their own.

    “It’s very frustrating because all of this is unfounded,” said Kathleen Daniels, the president of the Florida Association for Media Education. “There is no book in the Florida schools that can be considered porn.”

    ‘13,000 More To Go’

    Many school board meetings across the country have made headlines in the past year for growing heated, with residents pushing back against right-wing school policies and book-banning attempts. But in Florida this week, almost all of the public comments were in support of the new rule.

    If anything, some people were worried the training didn’t go far enough.

    Many speakers took umbrage with the language saying books with sexually explicit language may be used as long as they have educational value.

    “Please tighten the language,” parent Kathleen Murray said, claiming the guidance contained a loophole that could allow students to read books that explain “how to conduct homosexual activities on each other.”

    Bruce Friedman, president of the Florida chapter of No Left Turn in Education, a conservative organization that fights for parental rights, is known in Clay County for repeatedly attempting to get his school district to ban books. He said Wednesday that the new training guidelines would allow him to continue his quest.

    “I have challenged 1,800 books,” he said. “I have 13,000 more to go.”

    Parents can already restrict their children from reading any book they don’t like — in fact, all districts in Florida offer a way for parents to prevent their children from checking out any book they deem inappropriate.

    “We support parents’ rights to have a guiding hand in their children’s education,” Daniels said. “But you can’t dictate what other children can do.”

    Conservatives claim the crackdowns on educational resources are meant to protect kids. But, Daniels said, it does children a disservice to keep them away from certain books and not expose them to different ideas.

    “It’s frustrating,” she said, “because it’s the students who are getting the short end of the stick.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link