HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » have president obama come...

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:32 PM

have president obama come home and "walk on that picket line" with the chicago teachers union

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/have-president-obama-come-home-and-walk-picket-line-chicago-teachers-union-he-promised-2007/r084LdlB

77 replies, 9160 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply have president obama come home and "walk on that picket line" with the chicago teachers union (Original post)
mopinko Sep 2012 OP
senseandsensibility Sep 2012 #1
Raine Sep 2012 #22
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #37
WillyT Sep 2012 #56
Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #63
TheCowsCameHome Sep 2012 #2
Edweird Sep 2012 #8
nobodyspecial Sep 2012 #3
Edweird Sep 2012 #4
Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #5
TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #29
Whisp Sep 2012 #31
treestar Sep 2012 #59
Old Union Guy Sep 2012 #6
MADem Sep 2012 #7
Edweird Sep 2012 #10
Teamster Jeff Sep 2012 #11
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #14
woo me with science Sep 2012 #34
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #35
MADem Sep 2012 #33
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #46
MADem Sep 2012 #47
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49
MADem Sep 2012 #50
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #51
MADem Sep 2012 #52
Edweird Sep 2012 #58
MADem Sep 2012 #60
Edweird Sep 2012 #65
MADem Sep 2012 #67
Edweird Sep 2012 #70
MADem Sep 2012 #71
Edweird Sep 2012 #73
MADem Sep 2012 #74
Edweird Sep 2012 #75
MADem Sep 2012 #76
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #38
MADem Sep 2012 #43
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #45
MADem Sep 2012 #48
Joe the Revelator Sep 2012 #9
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #12
scheming daemons Sep 2012 #13
egduj Sep 2012 #20
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #21
scheming daemons Sep 2012 #23
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #36
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #39
scheming daemons Sep 2012 #41
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #44
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #15
Moral Compass Sep 2012 #16
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #17
mopinko Sep 2012 #18
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #19
mopinko Sep 2012 #24
SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #25
HiPointDem Sep 2012 #32
dkf Sep 2012 #26
RegieRocker Sep 2012 #27
KG Sep 2012 #28
Pisces Sep 2012 #30
cali Sep 2012 #40
mopinko Sep 2012 #42
randome Sep 2012 #54
bluestateguy Sep 2012 #53
Hey Jude Sep 2012 #55
MADem Sep 2012 #61
DemocratsForProgress Sep 2012 #77
gollygee Sep 2012 #57
Proles Sep 2012 #62
Reader Rabbit Sep 2012 #64
GoCubsGo Sep 2012 #66
MineralMan Sep 2012 #68
Care Acutely Sep 2012 #69
TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #72

Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:34 PM

1. Does anyone on DU honestly think this will happen?

It gives me no pleasure to say it will not. I hope I am wrong, of course. Rec'd for the spirit behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:29 PM

22. Nope, never happen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:17 AM

37. Not going to happen

and having been witness to too many election year purges I won't explain my answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:36 PM

56. The President Has Found It Difficult... Finding Those Comfortable Shoes...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senseandsensibility (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:37 PM

63. No. It's not the place of a President to get involved in a city's contract negotiations.

His plate is kinda full doing his job right now, coupled with campaigning. I mean, we DO want to keep the ACA, preserve right to choice, equal pay for equal work, gay marriage, keep middle class taxes from being raised while the megarich get massive tax cuts, etc., etc.

A general statement of support in a campaign speech might be in order. But I doubt he even knows the details of the contract, which anyone would have to know before deciding whose side to be on. Just because it's a city with financial problems doesn't automatically mean the city is in the right, and just because it's a teacher's union, which we all support, doesn't mean the union's right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:37 PM

2. No.

Best not to, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:41 PM

8. Considering the way things went in Central Falls, you're probably right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:37 PM

3. Yeah, I'm sure that will play well

A number of Democrats even have issues with teachers and other public servants striking. And, yes, I'm sure I'll hear a chorus of those aren't *true* Democrats and who needs them. But look at the polls. We need every vote we can get.

Also, by stepping into local issues, it makes him look smaller and more parochial. This is a local issue.

Not gonna happen, but let's go ahead and create another wedge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:38 PM

4. Central Falls. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:39 PM

5. It is not in the President's providence to get involved in state issues.

This is an issue between the Chicago teacher's union and city and state autorities. It doesn't involve the federal government.

Part of being President is recognizing what is, and what is not, your job. He can't handle the issues in all the states. Is he going to join the picket lines for a factory in Louisiana? Or in Alaska for the pipeline workers? If he started doing that, he wouldn't be able to take care of the federal affairs, like helping jobs for ALL Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:02 PM

29. Completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:21 PM

31. of course you are right. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:29 PM

59. +1

This sort of thing is so unreasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:41 PM

6. And make Rahm look bad? I don't think so. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:41 PM

7. Please--he's President of the US, not president of the teachers' union.

This is a local issue, not a federal one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:43 PM

10. So then how do you explain this?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103560.html

Obama angers union officials with remarks in support of R.I. teacher firings

"President Obama voiced support Monday for the mass firings of educators at a failing Rhode Island school, drawing an immediate rebuke from teachers union officials whose members have chafed at some of his education policies.

Speaking at an event intended to highlight his strategy for turning around struggling schools by offering an increase in federal funding for local districts that shake up their lowest-achieving campuses, Obama called the controversial firings justified. "


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:53 PM

11. Great example

It's a huge assumption to believe that Obama is on the side of the teachers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Teamster Jeff (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:58 PM

14. the central falls firings were a direct result of his education policies. *direct*.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:46 AM

34. Lot of heads in the sand here. Lots of denial.

Lots of attempts to suggest that the silence is merely political, which is nonsense.

All evidence indicates that Obama and Duncan agree with Rahm and his policies.

This is a serious, serious problem for Democrats and all Americans, not just in Chicago but down the road everywhere, because Democrats have historically been the ONLY ones standing between our kids and disastrous right-wing, profit-centered policies.


Education: The Big Enchilada
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002967097


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:30 AM

35. the entire ruling class agrees with rahm and his policy. when the (putatively liberal) gates

 

foundation and the (putatively conservative) koch foundation work hand in hand, that's telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:42 AM

33. Your second paragraph answers your own question.

The hook is "federal funding."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:57 PM

46. chicago schools get federal funding, and chicago's renaissance 2010 was the blueprint for obama's

 

education policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:22 PM

47. That is fine--most schools get federal funding of some sort, you know.

That doesn't mean that the federal government RUNS those schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:30 PM

49. No one said they *ran* the schools. You said that because the feds supplied $$ to central falls,

 

obama had an interest in speaking out.

well, the feds provide money to chicago too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:37 PM

50. No I did not say that. Not at all. I said that the feds supplied money to schools, I did NOT say

Obama had an interest in speaking out. I said nothing about Obama. I said "The hook is federal funding."

Certainly, the feds provide money to damn near every city and town in this nation, in some manner or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:40 PM

51. you implied it in your exchange with edweird. after you said obama should stay out of

 

these local disputes, edweird asked why he'd spoken about the firings at central falls.

you said federal funding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1317112

or at least that's how i understood what you were saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:44 PM

52. Schools do not have to take federal funding. If they take it, they know they are on the hook in

some fashion.

Why is this news to anyone?

That does not mean that the Federal government is advised or required to weigh in on every issue, personnel or otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:00 PM

58. I see. You're claiming "federal funding" makes it appropriate for Obama to weigh in

 

on Central Falls but not appropriate for him to weigh in on Chicago? How so? How is one a 'private matter' and the other not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:06 PM

60. There is no REQUIREMENT for the federal government to weigh in on ANY state issue.

There is no requirement for anyone in the federal government to remain silent if they want to weigh in on an issue either. But they don't HAVE to say shit, and that's the bottom line. This is a LOCAL issue--a Chicago issue. Not a state issue, not a Federal issue--unless those strikers get their checks straight from the Treasury Department--and we know they do not.

You seem to be playing the game that because Obama chose to weigh in on a VERY SPECIFIC school issue in a completely DIFFERENT STATE that involved federal funding, on a single occasion, that now he is OBLIGATED, in your mind, to weigh in on EVERY school issue in any and every state where federal funding might come into play. Or any school issue where you feel that it's "important" --you want he should stick his beak in. Like that would help. NOT. And like he WOULD interfere in the government of his close personal friend, his former Chief of Staff. Who in their right mind would even see that as a possibility, politically?

Say--I live on a state highway. Obama's stimulus money has been repairing the roads hereabouts. Why in hell isn't he up here patching that annoying and growing big ass pothole in front of my house....hmmmmmmm? Put down those PDBs, Barack, hang up the hotline, shoo away all your reelection staff and governmental advisers, get your ass into a plane, fly up here, roll up your sleeves and start heating up the tar and get to work!!! After all, he's made statements about federal stimulus money doing highway repairs....he'd better get his ass over here -- NOW -- and see to "my issue" -- PERSONALLY -- otherwise he's a hypocrite!!! Waaah!

I never said one was a PRIVATE matter--it's a LOCAL matter. LOCAL. What you are "claiming" is that the President is a King, who has his eye on every little sparrow and can override governors, mayors, and local officials with the sheer weight of his pronouncements. I'm claiming that this POV is foolishness.

This is the strangest thread I've seen on DU in a long time. I really wonder about the priorities of some folks, just dozens of days away from a critical election that has the potential to REALLY GIVE US SOMETHING TO CRY ABOUT..... and I also wonder about the rather shitty accusations that are flung, too in more than one thread on the topic--they really make the place suck. Just because people don't think Obama should weigh in on this issue, that automatically makes them "anti-union?" That's probably the oddest (and dumbest, in terms of basic logic) thing I've read on this board--sounds a bit disconnected with reality, frankly. Complete inability to perceive nuance. Blinkered thinking. Short term justifications. Yer either wid us, or your wid da terrists, I say!!!! That's what it sounds like...

See? You DON'T "see." I cast my vote for the President of the US--not the Superintendent of the Chicago Public School system. If anyone doesn't like that, too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #60)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:25 PM

65. No, YOU brought up "federal funding" and I gave you the opportunity to elaborate.

 

Which, not surprisingly, you have not done.

Obama weighed in on union teacher terminations in Central Falls. He approved of them.

I find it rather odd that teh mostest liberalest president EVAH in eleventy hundred brazillion years is only interested in unions when he needs votes ("look at me playing kissy-face with the SEIU") yet is clearly a union buster in action ('cadillac tax', Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuelle, Central Falls, etc).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:36 PM

67. And I have done that--too bad you don't like my answer but that doesn't change reality.

Rahm Emmanuel can handle Chicago.

The President has the UNITED STATES to worry about, not one city in one state with a Dem mayor.

This "every little sparrow" attitude is tiresome and just silly. It's not his JOB. He's got some shit happening in Libya and Egypt right now that's a bit more pressing...but no, he should dump that and attend to this very small gripe in the big picture (where the complainers are AT THE TABLE negotiating).

No one is dying if the parties have to continue to argue back and forth. That's the way life is, often as not. SuperBarack doesn't swoop down wearing a big cape and make everything all better. I find it odd that anyone who professes to follow politics doesn't understand the difference between local, state and federal responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #67)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:49 PM

70. Yeah, your 'answer' was some rambling, disjointed, unrelated nonsense

 

Again, you brought up "federal funding" as the reason why it was appropriate for Obama to show his support for the termination of union teachers at federally funded public schools in a local Central Falls R.I. issue but not for union teachers in Chicago federally funded schools striking over a 'local issue'. Your initial reference was 'cryptic' at best and your later follow up was incomprehensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #70)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:21 PM

71. No, it wasn't. My answer made sense, but all you can do is

stomp your foot and call it "nonsense" because you aren't happy with the way the real world works.

See, if your view held sway, Obama would be delegating Libya and Egypt to Biden and personally supervising a little strike negotiation in Chicago.

Good thing your view doesn't hold sway!



One more time, since you didn't take the point the first time around--the President is in no way OBLIGATED to comment on every "teacher issue" every time one crops up. He's free to comment on what he'd like, IF he would like, but that does not mandate a response after every, or even ANY, event. If we were to apply this sort of situation to baseball, we might say that just because he occasionally watches the Cubs play ball and might remark at the score or a particular play, that doesn't mean he also has to watch the Nationals and offer similar commentary.

Your point, whatever it is (and it sounds like a whine that he's not paying attention to a local issue YOU deem "important") is just not compelling. Your continued insistence that he "owes something" to a union that seems to be handling themselves just fine without his help is frankly, bizarre, particularly given the recent very serious events that have taken place in the world. This insistence does not speak well at all to your sense of priorities, to put it as bluntly as I can manage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #71)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:40 PM

73. You have, yet again, failed to explain what "federal funding" has to do with this.

 

Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #73)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:43 PM

74. See, that's the point. Federal funding ALLOWS a President to remark on an issue with a certain

degree of associative context, but it never--ever--REQUIRES the President to so do. You seem to want the latter case, but you're not going to get it, no matter how much you yell at me.

Go back and read a few more times. You'll get it, eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #74)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:56 PM

75. So, the President of the United States of America

 

isn't "allowed" to weigh in on any issue that isn't "federally funded"? You sure about that?

Just so we're clear - do you believe Obama supports the teachers (hypothetically speaking, of course)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #75)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:40 AM

76. You're having a bit of trouble with the written word, I see.

The President, like any other citizen, can speak about anything he damn well pleases.

The fact that some projects are federally funded presents an opportunity for the President to discuss certain issues. It does not mandate that the President must discuss these or any issues.

I have no idea what Obama feels with regard to this issue, but the bottom line is this--he's not the mayor of Chicago. He didn't hire those teachers, or the Superintendent of Schools, and he isn't responsible for cutting their paychecks or crafting their contracts. He's not responsible for their strike, their picket lines, or their negotiations, and anyone who thinks he should be is not dealing effectively with reality.

It's not his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:20 AM

38. Medical marijuana dispensaries

are state issues but that hasn't stopped the President from ordering Holder to go on an all-out jihad against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:54 PM

43. Not to be technical, but I'd say the FDA doesn't agree with your "state issue"

assessment, there. Bit of a swing and a miss, that assertion. There's room for the feds to become involved, unfortunately.

Background: http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Federal%20&%20State%20Law.htm

First and foremost: Marijuana, for any use, is illegal under federal law. Even if you live in a state that has enacted legislation or passed a ballot initiative that recognizes marijuana's medical utility you are subject to arrest by federal officials for possession or cultivation of marijuana.

Secondly, it is illegal to ship or receive marijuana by mail. Do not be fooled by individuals who claim they can legally ship marijuana because they live in a state or country where "marijuana is legal." Interstate shipment of marijuana is a federal offense. So is importation of marijuana.

If you do reside in a state that has enacted a ballot initiative "legalizing" medical access to marijuana it is important that you check with an attorney or local officials about the policy in your region.

Federal Laws

The Controlled Substances Act classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug and defines it as a drug "with no accepted medical value in treatment." Despite its long history of use as a medication, cannabis is classified as a "new drug" and legal access is only possible through an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ...




I do wish the Federal government would grow up with regard to that issue, but it's not happening, yet. Some states have the MM issue on the ballot this year. My state is one of them.

That said, the analogy isn't a very good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:55 PM

45. Unions = Local Issues

Busting more MM dispensaries than Bush ever thought of all the while VIOLATING STATE LAW = Not a local issue.

Well, I''ll give you guys this, the mental gymnastics you guys have to pull off in order to Defend The President Whether He's Right Or Wrong is always an amazing thing to behold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:28 PM

48. Sorry--I just don't take your point. There's no real equivalency there.

And don't be lazy, now--I haven't weighed in on this issue one way or another, so lumping me in with "you guys" (twice) just so you can flounce off in a huff is a very CHEAP shot. It's apparent that you don't want to even try to keep the discussion civil--you'd rather goad, bait and accuse.

The bottom line is this--no matter how anyone "feels" about this issue, your analogy SUCKED. lt didn't and doesn't apply. Local schools are not marijuana dispensaries, and the federal government does not approach them in similar fashion. Nor do states.

What's "an amazing thing to behold" is your fit of pique for no damn valid reason.

Have one of those nice evenings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:42 PM

9. Holy crap that's a bad idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe the Revelator (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:55 PM

12. Couldn't have said it better myself n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:57 PM

13. if he does, his campaign staff should be fired

Dumbest political move he could make two months before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:22 PM

20. Why is it dumb to support unions - politically or otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egduj (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:25 PM

21. As President

He shouldn't be inserting himself into local issues.

As a candidate that wants to win NC, FL and VA, all battlegrounds and all right to work states, not the best move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egduj (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:37 PM

23. 8 reasons: NC, VA, OH, FL, NV, WI, NH, and CO

Supporting the right to collectively bargain? Yes, absolutely.

Diving into this Chicago strike specifically? Horrible move politically when he has all the momentum right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:34 AM

36. When did it get to be dumb for a Democratic President to support Unions?

See above, he spoke out in support of firing the teachers in R.I. So apparently he does get involved when he wants to support something. If he got involved in R.I. why not Chicago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:21 AM

39. **crickets**

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:45 AM

41. look one response up and the question is answered

Crickets, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scheming daemons (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:47 PM

44. Non-sequiturs notwithstanding . . .

**crickets**

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:01 PM

15. his chief of staff, his education policy, his political base. like that'll happen.

 

ps: the union teachers don't like charter schools. as a strong supporter of charters, not sure what your dog is in this fight or why you're advising obama to walk the picket line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:06 PM

16. Not gonna happen

And shouldn't... He can't as the President get directly involved.

Be nice to see him express some support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moral Compass (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:07 PM

17. Anything more specific than

"I support the right to strike" would be potentially harmful, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:14 PM

18. interesting responses.

honestly, i wish he would shake the trees a little and find some federal funding somewhere to help the situation out. the state and the city are both really broke.

i don't necessarily think this is a great idea, but thought i would throw it out there. but i think he and rahm could both look like heroes if they found some creative ways to deal with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:20 PM

19. Shaking the trees for his hometown of Chicago

to get them out of a strike would be the second worst thing he could do, right behind marching with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:46 PM

24. i am sure he would find something that he could spread around.

most schools districts are in trouble these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:49 PM

25. Sorry, still think it's a bad idea

This isn't a little bit of money we're talking about, and no, there isn't that kind of money just lying around in DC, waiting to be spent. It would have to be approved by Congress, and what do you think the chances of that are?

He is doing the right thing, he needs to just stay out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:29 PM

32. Maybe Chicago could quit diverting 1/6 of taxes collected into private persons' pockets.

 

School board member Penny Pritzker’s Hyatt Hotels Corp. is benefiting from a $5.2 million TIF subsidy on 53rd Street – while CPS’s proposed 2013 budget cuts seven schools surrounding the hotel project by $3.4 million, which is roughly the portion CPS is losing from the TIF deal.

“This one example shows the fundamental corruption in the way things are done here,” said David Orlikoff of the Chicago Teachers Solidarity Campaign, a labor and community coalition growing out of Occupy Chicago’s labor committee and supporting the Chicago Teachers Union.

http://www.newstips.org/2012/08/penny-pritzkers-tif/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:55 PM

26. I have a feeling he is on Rahm's side on this or he would have told him to shut it down...

 

...and twist Rahm's arm to come to an agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:59 PM

27. Oh hell no

 

It's not a presidents duty to stand by or represent their constituents. No freakin way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:00 PM

28. them comfy shoes gonna stay in the closet...again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:19 PM

30. No thanks, he needs to keep focused on winning the election to help all

The people, not just teachers in Chicago!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:26 AM

40. I don't want that for a fucking nano second

fucking stupid ass shit. yeah. let's frickin' hand the country to rMoney on a silver platter.

damn, I hate short sighted stupid shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:28 PM

42. honestly, i am relieved

i would like to see him find something to say about this. i am sure there have been phone calls to rahmbo. but i thought for sure there would be a bunch of du'ers who would jump on this bandwagon.
course, half of them are ignoring me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:48 PM

54. Your sentiment is appreciated.

I don't agree with your OP but don't be discouraged. All input at DU is good information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:48 PM

53. I won't sign

I support the teachers, but sitting presidents have never walked a picket line with strikers, not a one.

And if that precedent were to be broken it should not be for what is in the end a local labor dispute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:33 PM

55. Quick, without using the Google, who said this?

 

"If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #55)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

61. Who is being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain?

Contract negotiations ended about 8 p.m. Tuesday, with both sides expected back at the negotiating table at 11 a.m. Wednesday.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-teacher-strike-expected-to-go-into-2nd-day-20120910,0,4057997.story


Negotiations continue. No unions have been declared "illegal." No union leaders have been beaten and dragged off to a gulag.

I don't take the point. It's very DRAMATIC quote, certainly, but it doesn't apply to this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #55)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:56 AM

77. Quick, since neither of those things is being denied,

can you explain the point you're trying to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:37 PM

57. He is not going to get involved in a local labor dispute

Not gonna happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:29 PM

62. Will he? No. Should he? No.

As others have mentioned already, this isn't even a state issue. We're talking about a single city. Granted, it's a city that Obama lived in, and one in which Rahm Emanuel (a friend of Obama), is now mayor of... but that's actually more of a reason not to go.

I'm sorry, but I'd place much more importance on keeping the Presidency, Senate, and gaining the House, than having Obama perform some symbolic march through the streets.

Obama didn't get involved with the whole Scott Walker recall thing. I wanted him to at the time, but looking back it was probably the best decision. People just don't seem to take kindly to Presidents meddling in state or local affairs. There are times where it's politically opportune, but this is definitely not one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:12 PM

64. Obama doesn't give a crap about public school teachers.

NEA and AFT are in his pocket, regardless of how detrimental their stances have been to their members. So he isn't going to take any steps that help rank-and-file teachers. That's not where the money and the power are. He's already beholden to the business interests who are weaseling their way into the tax-payer trough via test scores, data, charter schools, and privatization. Those are his big donors, as well as his basketball and golf playing buddies.

As far as he's concerned, public school teachers can go jump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:29 PM

66. Sure, because that is THE most important thing going on with him right now.

Waaaaaay more important than what's going on in Libya. More important than the economy, the election, the land dispute between China and the rest of Pacific Asia... Yep. He's going to get involved in a local issue instead of dealing with all that other stuff. Sure. Uh huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:40 PM

68. The union in Chicago is doing an excellent job of presenting their position.

Right now, President Obama has some other things that need dealing with. I know you posted this on Monday, but some stuff has happened since then that is requiring his attention. I'm sure the teacher's union will continue to make their excellent points. I'm hopeful that they will succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:47 PM

69. Oh God no. Silliest "advice" demand, whatever, I ever heard.

Not getting their way is NOT the same thing as being denied the right to organize and bargain. That's exactly what they're doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:25 PM

72. For why? This is the guy who not only appointed Duncan but loves his bullshit

The expectation seems to mismatch with reality. The last time he weighed in a somewhat similar situation, it sure didn't indicate an inclination to don any walking shoes and advances corporate education by policy design.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread