<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vouchers go down, and still no recognition of problems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trentmiskin.com/2007/11/07/vouchers-go-down-and-still-no-recognition-of-problems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trentmiskin.com/2007/11/07/vouchers-go-down-and-still-no-recognition-of-problems/</link>
	<description>Experiences and help from a wandering techy and entrepreneur</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Delaney</title>
		<link>http://trentmiskin.com/2007/11/07/vouchers-go-down-and-still-no-recognition-of-problems/#comment-10284</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trentmiskin.com/2007/11/07/vouchers-go-down-and-still-no-recognition-of-problems/#comment-10284</guid>
		<description>This post seems to miss the point that the "voucher bill" was put on the ballot as a strategic move to defeat vouchers. 

So, we can't really fault the provoucher people for a poorly written initiative as the initiative was meant to stop development of the issue.

A very clever way to destroy your opponents is to present a flawed bill to the public.


Your point that provoucher folks should have done a better job selling the program is well taken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post seems to miss the point that the &#8220;voucher bill&#8221; was put on the ballot as a strategic move to defeat vouchers. </p>
<p>So, we can&#8217;t really fault the provoucher people for a poorly written initiative as the initiative was meant to stop development of the issue.</p>
<p>A very clever way to destroy your opponents is to present a flawed bill to the public.</p>
<p>Your point that provoucher folks should have done a better job selling the program is well taken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
