Ill-educated and Proud of it!

Thursday, August 29, AD 2013





Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  Allison Benedikt is an editor at Slate.  Judging from the piece of tripe below I would say that whatever other factors are involved in the choice of editors by the powers that be at Slate, intelligence is obviously not an important one.

Ms. Benedikt thinks that parents have a moral duty to send kids to public schools, even if they are crummy.



You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

I went K–12 to a terrible public school. My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer. This is not a humblebrag! I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I’m not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Ill-educated and Proud of it!

  • Judging by that article, Ms. Benedikt is a walking advertisement for Private/Homeshooling.

  • Um, goodness. I’m not sure what can be said about this article.

    Funny thing, though, Salon, which I think has a similar readership, just published an article calling schools “prison.” It’s an interesting article.

  • Proving once again, that the patient is often the last one to know of the disease.

    So by extension, since we should all have some skin in the game, does that mean liberals need to actually produce children where they otherwise contracept or abort them?

  • – I’m willing to bet that her birth name is Alison Benedict, and she never learned to spell.

    – There wasn’t even soccer! Try to imagine a greater shock to a Slate reader.

    – Among her bad reasons for sending a kid to private school: religion.

    – Another one: because parents want their children to grow up and write at Slate. I don’t think parents that read this article will want their kids to grow up to work at Slate, and they definitely won’t think their kids will need to be smart to achieve that goal.


    The broad seems like one of the characters invented by Jonathan Franzen, more a simulacrum of a person than the real thing.

  • Thusly, the Borg/Hive expands.

  • This way the Dems can get them to believe that Jefferson Davis was a Republican and Lincoln a Democrat. (Instapoundit)

  • While it is difficult to imagine there is much but random static between her ears, that article in The Awl would indicate her husband has been an influence on her thinking. Her husband is the chap that wrote this article.

    Wunnerful wunnerful,

  • Sheesh, she is a dope and her hubbie is deranged. From the piece dancing on Bork’s grave:

    “anti-Semitic madman Richard Nixon down the rabbit hole of criminality.”

    That would be the Nixon who initiated Operation Nickel Grass to re-supply the Israeli military during the 1973 Yom Kippur War:

    What makes this doubly amusing is that Cook is a hard line Israel hater:

  • Hold on to your hats, folks… I think she actually has a few (very few) good points to make in this essay.

    I think she is right to point out that parental involvement and enrichment can make up for some, perhaps many, of the deficiencies in a less than perfect public school. By “less than perfect” I mean a public school that doesn’t have state-of-the-art sports facilities or computer labs, that doesn’t have winning sports teams with scholarship prospects, or that doesn’t have quite the smorgasbord of course offerings that a wealthier school district might offer. I’m NOT talking about a school that is riddled with out of control violence, gangs or drug problems; the only solution to that problem is to get the heck out if possible (which for poor families isn’t always possible).

    That was true in my case. I attended K-8 in a small town school district that had far fewer resources than neighboring districts — and which I could walk just half a block to – but it doesn’t seem to have hurt me any, largely because most of what I learned I got from my parents anyway. IMO every parent is a homeschooler just as every parent is a working parent; the difference is simply in how much of the education/work takes place outside the home or is delegated to others (teachers).

    But I believe some families place way too much emphasis on getting into the “right” (i.e. wealthy suburban) school districts; in the belief that this will guarantee their child’s future success — in the meantime placing themselves deeply in debt to buy homes they can’t afford and enduring long hours and lengthy commutes that keep them away from their kids at exactly the time they most need to be present (after school). One does NOT have to be “ill educated” merely because one happened to attend a less than perfect public school, when there are lots of other resources one can learn from — libraries, museums, bookstores, historic sites, colleges and universities in the area, etc.

    And yes, she might be correct in saying that public schools MIGHT change if enough middle and upper class families stuck around and demanded change instead of fleeing to the suburbs.

    That said… where she goes totally off the rails is in her condescending, dismissive and judgmental attitude toward parents who choose alternatives to failing public schools and calls them “bad parents”. News flash: one’s primary duty as a parent is to one’s children and spouse, NOT to your neighbors, your school district, your community or your state. I’m not saying your neighbors, community, etc. should be totally ignored, but they cannot come before your own children.

    By her logic, a family living in a deteriorating urban neighborhood is duty bound to stay and “make things better” rather than move out due to such petty and selfish concerns as keeping their kids from getting shot, beaten up, raped, etc. God forbid that you should place the welfare of your family above making an Important Social and Political Statement! Is she going to be moving to, say, Detroit or Newark or East St. Louis to make things better for them any time soon? I didn’t think so.

  • “I think she is right to point out that parental involvement and enrichment can make up for some, perhaps many, of the deficiencies in a less than perfect public school.”

    Especially if the parents do not send their kids to a crummy public school, which is completely opposite to her argument.

    “but it doesn’t seem to have hurt me any, largely because most of what I learned I got from my parents anyway.”

    Parents are always the prime teachers of their kids for good and ill. The problem today is that good parents often find that the public schools are attempting to undermine a fair amount of what they are teaching their kids.

    “But I believe some families place way too much emphasis on getting into the “right” (i.e. wealthy suburban) school districts;”

    Agreed, but homeschooling is often a great alternative, even homeschooling done as a supplement.

    “One does NOT have to be “ill educated” merely because one happened to attend a less than perfect public school, when there are lots of other resources one can learn from — libraries, museums, bookstores, historic sites, colleges and universities in the area, etc.”

    Depends upon the kids. Some kids are self-starters while others are heavily influenced by the quality of the instruction they receive.

    “MIGHT change if enough middle and upper class families stuck around and demanded change instead of fleeing to the suburbs.”

    Around the margins, but the major problems of most public schools, tenure, burned out teachers, incompetent teachers, and a scattershot approach to education, would remain.

  • Pingback: The Rise of Pro-Life Africa -
  • I home taught my son through the Seton Home Schooling Program for 7 years….I did not teach my son about two mommies and two daddies or all the other rubbish that is taught in public schools…I believe the whole public school system should be abolished…home schooling is the way to go..

  • To borrow from Belloc, Benedikt’s thought is a celebration of ignorance on such a scale that it’s beginning to be difficult to deal with.

  • Now, I agree with this woman.

    The Obamas, Clintons, et al are worse.than.Hitler.

  • Your local school stinks but [your union and its party aren’t willing to give up your corrupt privileges and political power]? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

  • Elaine makes a valid point. But what’s particularly galling about the article is that the author clearly expresses her lack of concern about education. None of us read all the best books or learned all that we could have in college. But Benedikt doesn’t see the possibility of making up for it now. That notion that education is a lifelong thing just seems to be missing. It parallels the way that she doesn’t see the parental role or the role of the church in education (or at least gives no hint that she does). In a weird way, it doesn’t matter how good the school is that she sends her kids to, because they’re not being exposed to a thirst for learning. And the fact that she’s in the media class and lacks that thirst, it’s just amazing.

  • Don’t cry for Allison. She may not be smart. She may not be cultured. She may not have even had the chance to play soccer at her high school. But none of that matters. She’s a member of the Party, and as long as she serves them, she will receive her patronage.

  • An idea whose time has come: separation of School from State.

  • Micha, hear, hear!

    This has to be one of the greatest slogans to ever go untried.

  • If the author really wanted to make the point that attending a non-perfect or even mediocre to terrible public school does not HAVE to make your child stupid or ruin his/her life, she would have said something like this: “Yes, I know about poetry, I can appreciate great art, and I know when the Civil War and all the important events of history happened. I know all the things a culturally literate person is supposed to know, even though I didn’t learn them at school. How do I know these things? Because I (and my parents) cared enough to learn them on our own.” But that’s not what she said. Instead she undermines her own argument by boasting of her ignorance and saying that one of the important things she learned at school was how to get drunk with trailer park kids. Yeah, right.

    Then again, she does have one piece of advice that is valid: “Your child will probably do fine without ‘the best’, so don’t freak out too much.” If more parents understood and believed that, it might go a long way toward conquering the anti-life mentality that drives couples to contracept and even abort for fear of bringing a child into the world that might not get into Harvard, or might have to (shudder) eat groceries purchased at Costco or clothes bought from Wal-Mart.

Thanks For Proving Our Point

Friday, March 2, AD 2012

Rush Limbaugh is famous for “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.”  His satire works because it usually exposes the ridiculousness of the thing being satired.  Unfortunately for Missouri Democrat Stacey Newman, she doesn’t quite understand that satire doesn’t really work when it highlights your side’s stupidity.

A Missouri House member frustrated with recent legislative debates over birth control and reproductive health is proposing to restrict vasectomies.

Legislation sponsored by Democrat Stacey Newman would allow vasectomies only when necessary to protect a man from serious injury or death. Vasectomies would have to be performed in a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or health facility licensed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services.

The Missouri House last week approved a resolution objecting to the federal health care law and a requirement that most employers or insurers cover contraceptives.

Newman, who’s from St. Louis County, says that such issues affect women the most. She says men also must make family planning decisions.

This is priceless, and for a number of reasons, but three spring immediately to mind.

On the obvious level this doesn’t work because her bill doesn’t mirror the debate that is taking place.  Just about no person is actually seeking to ban contraceptives; rather we are simply fighting attempts to mandate that all employers grant insurance coverage for contraceptives, even when they have moral objections to contraception.  So it fails on a literal level.

Second, to the extent that there would be people interested in restricting access to birth control for moral reasons, they almost certainly would also support a ban on vasectomies.  Guess what Ms. Newman, the Catholic Church is no keener on vasectomies than it is on artificial birth control.  So if you were hoping to shame people into dropping their opposition to birth control, they would only hop aboard your bandwagon.  So that’s your second fail.

Finally, the legislation itself highlights the fundamental problem with the HHS mandate.  Leaving aside the issue of religious liberty, what is disturbing about the mandate is that the federal government is decreeing what is and, by logical extension, what is not to be covered by health insurance.  Who is the government to dictate to insurers what they cover?  A government big and powerful enough to make these decisions is certainly powerful enough to restrict access to certain procedures.  So by introducing this bill, you’re actually proving the fundamental point that opponents of the HHS mandate specifically, and Obamacare in general, have been making.  Yet another fail for you.  But your failure is our success, so thanks.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Thanks For Proving Our Point

  • It’s not just stupid. It’s dishonest. It’s distraction.

    But, this is the same as the stunt pulled off by to Miss Flake of GU Law and the Dem Lib Trashocracy.

    From JammyWearingFool/Gateway Pundit:

    “I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.”

    “Unreal. This was all just a big dishonest Democrat ploy to take the attention off of Barack Obama’s assault on religious freedom.”

    Liberals or liberty. You cannot have both.

  • It is my understanding that vasectomies, since they are a medical procedure without a lobby group to protect it (unlike abortion), are already performed under good medical conditions. I mean, I’ve never heard of a back alley vasectomy and I don’t think anyone has ever successfully pulled off an exposee of the deplorable conditions under with they (supposedly) occur. Such conditions probably don’t exist. I also think it was fairly common practice for the surgeon who was performing the vasectomy to get the wife’s permission, at least until recently. I’ve heard that several times.


Minute Sixteen and Counting (Updated)

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011

I wasn’t going to blog anymore about Herman Cain, but I cannot let this go without comment:

Mark Block, chief of staff for the Cain campaign, laid the blame for the leaks about the allegations about Cain squarely at the Perry campaign’s feet in an interview today.

“The actions of the Perry campaign are despicable,” Block told Fox News tonight. “Rick Perry and his campaign owe Herman Cain and his family an apology. Both the Rick Perry campaign andPolitico did the wrong thing by reporting something that wasn’t true from anonymous sources. Like I said, they owe Herman Cain and his family an apology.”

Asked if he had any evidence, Block mentioned the fact that Cain had told Curt Anderson (who now works for Perry) about the accusations during his 2004 senate run. Cain accused Anderson earlier today; Anderson denied that he was.

As with every other aspect of his campaign, Herman Cain has been unable to address this situation in anything resembling a coherent manner.  I could let that pass, but instead of addressing the issue – or even not addressing it – the Cain camp decides to avert attention away from this mess by hurling unsubstantiated claims against one of his Republican rivals.  Could the Perry camp have leaked the information?  It’s certainly possible, but it just as likely could have been the Romney camp.  Or, and here’s a wild guess, someone did a little digging and came across a publicly available story.

Look, I don’t know if there’s anything more to the original story than that it was a misunderstanding.  But Cain is doing himself no favors by reacting as wildly as he is.  First he played the race card.  If he had been a Democrat conservatives would have collectively rolled their eyes, and yet some conservatives, including one that I highly respect, are willing to indulge this fantasy.  And now this.

What’s sickening is not just the man’s basic ineptitude, it’s that he is inspiring the same kind of blind loyalty to a cult of personality that we mock Democrats for with regards to Barack Obama.  And for what?  A candidate who has nothing to offer except a silly campaign slogan that is, for the record, politically unworkable.  A candidate who couldn’t even win a Senate primary in Georgia, of all states.  Ah, but he sounds so authentic.

And therein lies the problem with the conservative movement.  Mitt Romney is the establishment candidate, and we hate the establishment.  So our counter-reaction to the establishment is to rally around the guy who mouths the most platitudes, all the while ignoring the substance.  It’s like watching the Hot Air blog come to life.  The main contributors are a collection of mealy-mouthed wimps who fear the rise of genuinely conservative candidates.  On the other hand, the commenters are a  collection of raving “THIS GOES TO 11!!!!!!!!” “purists” who make the Free Republic look like a haven of logical thought.  It’s something behold, but it’s also a sad reflection on the conservative movement as we seem constantly to have to choose between raving psychosis and stultifying boredom.

What’s even funnier about the Cain dead-enders is envisioning their reaction when he drops out and turns around to endorse Mitt Romney.  But at least we would have beaten the guy who said “heartless” in a debate that one time.  Good job.  Look what happens when the search for purity leads to the nomination of the most impure candidate.

Then again, not everyone is turning a blind eye to Cain’s collapsing campaign.  Even his biggest booster in the blogosphereis starting to sound a little worried.

The fact that Chris Wilson works for a firm that has been associated with Rick Perry’s campaign may confirm widespread suspicions about the origin of Sunday’s Politico story, but as matters now stand, such speculation is irrelevant to whether Cain can survive this. Whatever the motives of the Politico sources, Cain’s fate depends on the specifics of the accusation and the credibility of his accuser.

Then again, knowing the spitefulness that guides certain people, he’ll only ascend in the polls.

Update:  FWIW, here is Eric Erickson’s interview with Perry, in which he firmly denies having anything to do with leaking the story.  Notice that despite the umms and ahhs, it doesn’t take a team of detectives to figure out what Perry is saying.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Minute Sixteen and Counting (Updated)

  • Can’t agree more.

  • That’s exactly how I feel about Republican support for Sarah Palin. Glad to see some more people realize that there’s a nutty wing in the GOP. My hope is that with a moderate Republican in the White House, the GOP nuts will stand down.

  • My hope is that with a moderate Republican in the White House, the GOP nuts will stand down.

    In case my post wasn’t clear on this point, I’d be no more content with Romney than with someone like Cain. Romney and Cain are equally distasteful candidates, though for opposite reasons. And my beef with the more strident conservatives has more to do with tone than substance.

    Unlike many, I do think there are several acceptable, conservative candidates. Let’s go with one of them, please.

  • Paul- What is your beef with Cain? Every time he is mentioned your reaction is similar to the Palin syndrome on the left.

    With conservatives like you, who needs left-wing, government loving statists like RR around?

  • My beef with Cain is that he is a substance free, incompetent candidate who can’t even speak without retracting or clarifying his statement at some future point. I honestly tried giving him a chance and liked him after the first few debates, but at some point you just have to stop giving guys the benefit of the doubt,

    As I said, there are several qualified, competent conservatives running. So my question to you is why the blind loyalty to this man when there are actually good candidates running?

  • “we seem constantly to have to choose between raving psychosis and stultifying boredom.”

    If that’s the case I will vote for boredom every time. The last thing this country needs is another exciting, charismatic candidate who lets all that fame go to his/her head and begins believing and acting as if they really are some kind of anointed political savior.

  • This is a game of attrition at this point. I don’t want Romney to be the last man standing and attacking Cain only serves to achieve this unintended consequence. For a liberal this is understandable but for a conservative it’s appalling.

    I’d love to see a guy like Santorum be President but it ain’t in the cards so you play the hand you are dealt. Do you see any truly viable conservative candidates at this stage in the game?

  • Do you see any truly viable conservative candidates at this stage in the game?

    I’ve said so twice. Either of the Ricks and Newt as well are all far preferable, and I believe that any of them would win in the general. Santorum is a long shot, but I’d much rather support him than Cain.

    By the way, if Cain is destroyed as a candidate I don’t see how that benefits Mitt. He absolutely needs a divided conservative field. If Cain falters, it’s probably down to just Newt and Perry as the anti-Romneys. Romney most likely needs at least three semi-viable conservative opponents, so unless Bachmann resuscitates her campaign he’d be in trouble.

  • By the way judging from this thread, Red State – hardly a bastion of establishment sympathy – is just about done with Cain as well.

  • Well we disagree on our political calculations in such case.

    Newt is a known quantity by the electorate and this electorate is not in the mood for political retreads no matter how high their IQ. Capturing the heart of this nation for a presidential bid is not a likely scenario for him.

    Rick Perry does not appear to be capable of withstanding the rigors of the debates. My greatest fear is that Obama would run rings around him. I don’t think he can win. I could be wrong.

    Regardless, were it Santorum, Perry, Bachmann or Newt currently neck and neck with Romney for pole position conservatives should be rallying around that individual in common cause. Watching Cain receive “friendly fire” from conservatives while he is under attack with what appear to be charges that are lacking any weight or seriousness is unbecoming of conservatives. That’s my concern irrespective of who it happens to be on the receiving end of a political hit-job, Cain or not.

  • “As with every other aspect of his campaign, Herman Cain has been unable to address this situation in anything resembling a coherent manner.”

    Bingo. I find his explanations of all this inherently unbelievable and incoherent. He had to know this was waiting in the wings, and he and his campaign act as if they are stunned ducks when it was revealed. Cain, although he has accomplished much in his life, was totally unprepared for a Presidential run, has attempted to wing the whole thing, and would be an absolute disaster in a general election campaign with the Obama lapdog media tearing into every aspect of his life. Next!

  • Jay Cost sums up the Cain campaign well:

    “What of Herman Cain’s response to this? In a word, it stinks. His campaign couldn’t get its stories straight, the final version does not square very well with the known facts, and worse Team Cain had known about this for more than a week, so it should have been prepared. This isn’t the first time I’d used a word like “stink” to describe the Cain operation, either. His tongue-tied answers on abortion and Guantanamo Bay stunk. His infrastructure in the early states stinks. His fundraising to date has stunk. You get the idea.” Politics isn’t a game, it is hard work and Cain and his staffers have shown no inclination to do the hard work necessary to win the nomination and the general election.

  • Cain doth protest too much. Or, to use another bromide, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
    Face it, Cain is not Able.

  • I think Ann Coulter put it best:

    “It is beyond insane that Herman Cain would have considered running for president if he had the tiniest skeleton in his closet. To be an out-of-the-closet black Republican, you had better be a combination rocket scientist/Baptist preacher.”

    to see AC following the MSM’s lead is sickening. Use to have respect for this blog, not anymore. You’re way to full of yourselves.

  • to see AC following the MSM’s lead is sickening. Use to have respect for this blog, not anymore. You’re way to full of yourselves.

    I wrote this blogpost because Herman Cain accused a fellow candidate of being the leaker without any evidence, and as a way to draw attention away from himself. This has nothing to do with putting credence in the allegations, but rather in the Cain camp’s reaction to the story. You Cainiacs are so invested in this guy that you are willing to overlook every stupid thing he does. So a little less sanctimony and a little more reflection, okay?

  • Oh give it a break Jasper! It is not following the mainstream media lead to conclude that Herman Cain’s campaign consists of winging it and making it up as he goes along. He had to know that the issue of sexual harassment would come up, and he obviously had no plan to deal with it. Rather than heap bile on the messenger your scorn is better directed at an obviously clueless candidate. TAC looks at facts straight on, whether the facts are good, bad or indifferent, and draws opinions and conclusions from the facts. We will not trim our analysis because someone is on “our side”.

  • OK, stipulating that Cain is finished as a viable candidate, Perry is being bashed left and right and none of the other candidates have much traction, who emerges as the front-runner? There’s a leadership void and someone must step up. If Gingrich steps up, it will take the media less than a news cycle to dredge up the since-discredited story about him visiting his cancer-striken ex-wife in the hospital and demanding a divorce.

    Is there anyone out there without baggage?

    Chime in, folks.

  • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the GOP presidential nominating convention borrowed from history and actually showed some drama and uncertainty>
    Before the 1960s, the quadrennial gatherings were actually decision-making forums where the delegates met for four days to promote party unity, establish the party platform, vote for a presidential nominee, and then a vice presidential nominee.
    Many times delegates could not find consensus on candidates or platform. In 1924, Democrats cast 103 ballots before nominating John W. Davis, and in 1860 Stephen Douglas was finally selected after 59 ballots (and two conventions). Deadlock at the 1844 Democratic convention resulted in the selection of “dark horse” candidate James K. Polk, who was chosen on the ninth ballot, even though he wasn’t nominated until the eighth.
    The Democrats were bitterly divided in 1860 over the slavery issue. When delegates adopted Stephen Douglas’ plank that supported nonintervention with slavery in the territories, several delegates from the South bolted from the Charleston, South Carolina, convention in protest.
    While the early conventions often required more than one ballot, there have been only a handful of times in the past five decades that the conventions were nail-biters. In 1952, Adlai Stevenson triumphed over a “Stop Stevenson” campaign and won the nomination in three ballots. Stevenson created even more drama at the 1956 convention, when he declined to appoint a running mate, and the delegates chose Sen. Estes Kefauver over Sen. John F. Kennedy in two ballots. One of the closest races in recent history saw Gerald Ford edge out Ronald Reagan, 1187–1070.
    However, what with pollsters everywhere and the media mainly in charge of steering the dumb masses toward to lesser of several evils, I’m betting that by July/August of 2012 the GOP nominating decision will be preordained and someone will have it locked up.

  • Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the GOP presidential nominating convention borrowed from history and actually showed some drama and uncertainty>

    As a political junkie it would be exciting. But if the GOP doesn’t have a nominee by the time the primaries are done, it would be a disaster of epic proportions for the party.

  • Paul, why so? Reagan and Ford fought it out, as did Rockefeller and Goldwater, and the party not only survived but flourished. Of course, I can understand that the media likely would spin it as a sharply divided party, etc., but clear-thinking voters (I hope there are still some left) would look at a vibrant show of honest differences and in the end unity would prevail.

  • Divided conventions Joe usually presage defeat in November for a party in modern times. The last exception to that rule I can think of was when Eisenhower defeated Taft in 1952 at the Republican convention. Sometimes intra-party battles do strengthen a party long term: I certainly think that was true with Goldwater beating Rockefeller and Reagan beating Ford, but four more years of Obama would be too high a price to pay.

  • Joe, the party has been involved in intense bickering for months – just look at this thread! Imagine six extra months of this. Obama would love it.

    Furthermore, that’s six fewer months of fundraising for the eventual nominee, putting him at a tremendous disadvantage.