Obama closing door on school choice

On January 5, 2009, Sasha and Malia Obama arrived for their first day of classes at the Sidwell Friends Academy, a private Quaker school that also educated Chelsea Clinton. Tuition is about $30,000 per year per student.

Meanwhile, 2 million other children across the United States were also attending urban faith-based schools. But while Sidwell's ritzy student body assures its financial survival, those other, less fortunate students face a more uncertain future. Since 2000, the number of urban faith-based schools has fallen from 7,200 to 6,000.

Research tells us that students who attend faith-based schools are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to attend and graduate from college and more likely to have higher incomes. Meanwhile, they are more likely to vote and to be engaged citizens. They'll more likely be more tolerant of diverse views than their publicly educated peers. When those schools close, many of their students are forced to attend failing urban public schools that won't provide them a decent education or a safe learning environment.

No one can blame the Obamas and the Clintons for wanting to give their daughters the best education possible. It's not hypocritical for political leaders to be outspoken proponents of public schools at the same time they want better for their own children.

The problem is when, after escorting their own children arm and arm into a safe and nurturing private school environment, they turn around and lock the door to those who would like to follow. A case in point is the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers of up to $7,500 for low-income students to escape D.C.'s poorly performing, inefficient public schools so they can attend a private school. While $7,500 is a lot of money, it's one-fourth the cost of a Sidwell Friends education and less than a third of the amount ($24,600) that taxpayers spend to educate each D.C. public school student.

Obama wants to end the program, though he would allow currently participating students to graduate. Helping these at-risk students attend superior private schools isn't only good for those students and their families. Public schools that compete with a vibrant private school sector are forced to provide a better education or risk losing students.

Obama's liberalism takes toll in polls

Democrats were giddy after last November's elections, and seemingly for good reason. President Obama had won an historic victory, and Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrat strategist James Carville wrote a book in which he argued that his party would maintain majority status for 40 years. Adding to the chorus, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned his fellow Republicans that the GOP was in danger of becoming a regional party.

But even the most popular political figures eventually come back down to earth — especially when they are wrong on the issues. Despite the never-ending lovefest between President Obama and the media, polls show his popularity is sinking faster than that wounded duck he threw for the ceremonial first pitch at baseball's All-Star Game.

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of July 26, more likely voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the presidency than approve of it, by a count of 50 to 49 percent. Meanwhile, while only 29 percent of likely voters strongly approve of his performance, 40 percent strongly disapprove. And why wouldn't they? Despite enjoying a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a heavy majority in the House, all Obama has managed to pass is an $800 billion grab bag of a stimulus package.

That package has helped lead to a $1.7 trillion deficit, a figure unprecedented in U.S. history. Yet, according to Rasmussen, only 25 percent of likely voters believe it helped the economy, while 31 percent say it hurt it. Meanwhile, according to a Gallup poll, a majority of Americans don't believe he will be able to meet his stated goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years — to $850 billion.

Meanwhile, Obama's efforts to remake health care in government's image and to tax productivity in the name of fighting global warming have yet to get real traction.

The disconnect between Obama's positions and his popularity can be explained more by his personal charisma than his performance. I admit that he's a likable guy, but Americans eventually will expect results, and if Obama's liberal policies don't deliver them, James Carville can say goodbye to his 40-year majority.

Iran election exposes iron-fisted autocracy

Their mask has been removed," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told members of Iran's judiciary on June 27. Yes, it has.

Ahmadinejad was referring to President Barack Obama's recent criticism of his government's dictatorial actions. But it would have been far more accurate if he had been talking about his own morally bankrupt administration and the ruling religious clerics who control it.

Yes, the mask — and it's been a thin one — has been removed from a regime that pretends to be a democracy and then rigs elections. It's been removed from a government that rules by fear and intimidation. It's been removed from a theocracy that claims God's favor and then murders its people when they protest.

Ahmadinejad has always been a crazy-eyed thug whose threats against Israel and denial of the Holocaust called into question, at least, his judgment and perhaps his sanity. His government exports terrorism and seeks a nuclear arsenal whose existence would be frightening to imagine.

Now, not even the rosiest of rose-colored glasses could hide the fact that he is part of an illegitimate autocracy that squelches dissent and then clumsily tries to cover its tracks by expelling and even detaining foreign journalists. The authority Ahmadinejad and his ruling clerics exercise comes from the barrel of a gun, not by the will of the Iranian people.

Obama came into office with a televised appeal to Iranians and their leaders in which he called for a "new beginning" and for a future "where the old divisions are overcome." Hopefully, he now understands that divisions cannot be overcome between the United States and a government with no respect for human rights and a history of threatening us and our allies.

No matter what Ahmadinejad does now, Obama's response should be simple and forthright: We recognize no government of Iran until its people's will is recognized first. America must speak up for the cause of freedom, not attempt to overcome divisions with a government that doesn't really try to mask its true intentions. No new beginning is possible for Iran as long as its leaders practice more of the same. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics must go.

Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist and fundraiser, regularly appears on Fox News, The Strategy Room and various political talk shows. Respond to this column by writing to letters@sun-sentinel.com.

Copyright © 2009, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

These two states have too much say

By Noelle Nikpour | Special correspondent

June 17, 2009

Welcome to the United States, where a few hundred thousand Iowans and New Hampshirites choose our presidential candidates.

It's undemocratic when voters in two states always vote first and get to know presidential candidates on a first-name basis while most of the rest of us can only watch the process from a thousand miles away.

Potential candidates in 2012 are already moving into Iowa. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been there more than once, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki, Nevada Sen. John Ensign and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour are also making stops.

Iowa's presidential caucuses, followed by New Hampshire's primary, establish the front-runners. No one outside of Georgia had heard of Jimmy Carter in 1976 until he won Iowa. When George W. Bush won in 2000, the Republican nomination was effectively his, and it was in Iowa that Sen. John Kerry became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2004. It was in New Hampshire that John McCain became the GOP front-runner in 2008 and where Bill Clinton became the "comeback kid" in 1992.

Iowa and New Hampshire's status in the pecking order mean they not only choose the front-runner, but they also winnow the field of candidates. By the time these two states are finished, there often remain only two or three candidates, one with so much momentum that the nomination is effectively sealed.

In response, states have moved up their own primaries in a mad dash to the front of the line.

We can't all have a private conversation with our presidential candidates, but can't we reform the system so that average Americans in other states can get face time with their future leaders?

The solution is the same one that we all learned in kindergarten: Take turns. Through a lottery system or alphabetical order, let's give a different set of four states the first pick each election cycle, and please, and let's start it in March. That would let voters in every part of the country have an actual conversation with the candidates at least once in their lifetimes.

Allowing the same states so much influence each election cycle isn't fair and isn't democratic. After all, you can't have a government of the people, by the people and for the people when some people's votes count a lot more — and a lot earlier — than others.

Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist and fundraiser, regularly appears on Fox News, The Strategy Room and various political talk shows. Respond to this column by writing toletters@SunSentinel.com.