Editor's Note: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's education interview garnered the greatest response from American Morning’s Thursday audience. Teachers’ pay was hotly debated by teachers and those in the private sector, some of whom claimed educators were overpaid.
Can private sector jobs be compared positions in public education? Are you a parent who believes your school’s teachers should be paid based on the performance of the children they teach?
Critics of the war in Afghanistan are quick to make comparisons to the war in Vietnam, but is it valid to compare the two? Peter Beinart, senior political writer for the Daily Beast, says no.
Beinart spoke to Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. Below is an edited transcript of the interview.
Kiran Chetry: You wrote an article called, "Bury the Vietnam Analogy." There have been a lot of people saying there are comparisons to be made between Afghanistan now and Vietnam then. Why do you think that's off base?
Peter Beinart: First of all, South Vietnam, a country we were trying to defend, was not a real country. It was an artificial country created in 1954 by the French as they were leaving. The country was to be reunited with North Vietnam in two years.
The problem in Afghanistan may be that we have a government partner that's problematic. Afghanistan is a real country that Afghans generally believe in. They have an Afghan national identity. That didn't exist in South Vietnam.
That's why we might be able to do better in Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai. We could never have been done better in South Vietnam than Diệm because South Vietnam itself was not a country that people felt loyalty to. That was one of the big differences. There were other big differences. For instance, the fact that the Taliban is much, much less popular in Afghanistan than the Vietcong were in South Vietnam. In Vietnam, the Communists essentially controlled the nationalist movement. They had the nationalist legitimacy. That's not true in the same way with the Taliban.
A new investigation by the New York Times has traced First Lady Michelle Obama's family roots, uncovering a direct link from America's ugly legacy of slavery all the way to the White House.
Rachel Swarns is one of the Times reporters who co-wrote the story. She spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. Below is an edited transcript of the interview.
John Roberts: You worked together with a genealogist to uncover Michelle Obama's roots. You traced them back to the 1840s. A young woman in South Carolina named Melvinia Shields. Tell us a little bit of the story. Who was Melvinia? How did she have children? How did this whole legacy get going?
Rachel Swarns: Well, Melvinia was a slave girl and she was Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandmother. And she first appears in the public records that we were able to find in 1850 when her owner, a farmer in South Carolina, a man by the name of David Patterson, mentions her in his will. And he basically says that he's leaving her, bequeathing her – a six-year-old girl – to his heirs. And she's valued a couple of years later at $475 and shipped off to his daughter in Georgia.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A compromise health care proposal widely seen as having the best chance to win Democratic and Republican support would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years, nonpartisan budget analysts concluded Wednesday.
It also would reduce the federal deficit by more than $80 billion, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.
The review of the Senate Finance Committee's amended bill sets the stage for the next step in the politically charged debate over health care reform. Committee members have been waiting for the Budget Office's cost analysis before voting on their version of the bill.
The Finance Committee is the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before debate begins in the full House and Senate.
The Budget Office's analysis differs slightly from Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' estimate. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, had said the revised bill would cost roughly $900 billion.