Palindrome wrote:
I was driving home and heard an advertisement for puting education first while voting.

Do you know what their methodology was? What issues they were looking for?

Of the three candidates, the fact that Cox actually has been a teacher is a pretty important fact. But I don't like people trying to use the school system to further indoctrinate people in their religious faith. She has nationally associated herself with that. A vote for her is an endorsement of the evangelical adgenda. Unfortunately, a vote against her seems to mean voting for someone who isn't a teacher.

I can vote for Majette. She is a competent politician, but she isn't an educator. This isn't her space. She ought to be in government, but I'm not sure this is the right place for her.

Then there is Chastain. He isn't an educator either. He wants to put an end to the entire idea of voting for superintendent. I have to say that I sympathize with that, both because I think that administrators like Cox wouldn't be busy rewriting text books if they were isolated from politics, and because of the way my high school principal leveraged our school to promote his long term goal of running for superintendent. Is it reasonable to vote Libertarian on this one?

Is it reasonable to vote Libertarian on this one?

There is no yes or no answer to this. One of my long running problems with government is that the people that are making decisions about education have no concept of what it is like to be an educator. On the other end of the spectrum most people that have made it to the point of running for an office are to far removed from the classroom to understand the challenges. It is a very grey area and depends on your viewpoint and expectations. What you want this candidate to do in office is most likely not the same as what I want in this particular candidate.