March 23, 2014

Voting for Dems shouldn't be "a defensive crouch to prevent the insane sociopaths from taking over."

I am not sure I completely agree with that statement, but I am pretty close to doing so.

I will vote for Democrats because I know the dangers of not doing so. I have always voted. I don't remember a time when I did not vote. I am an informed voter who sometimes votes for the better of two candidates because one is likely over the edge and the other is far better.

It is not those like me we need to worry about. It is the apolitical, uninformed, mostly unconcerned voter who doesn't keep up with issues and the news.

A Hullaballoo post says it better than I can.

Alternatively, Democrats could give midterm voters something to believe in

Obama was totally correct in what he said recently:

“The challenge is that our politics in Washington have become so toxic that people just lose faith,” Obama told a group of top Democratic donors gathered at the home of former Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning. “They say, ‘Y’know what, it doesn’t matter, I’m not that interested, I’m not gonna vote.’ And that’s especially true during the midterms.”

....“But in midterms, we get clobbered, either because we don’t think it’s important or because we get so discouraged about what’s happening in Washington that we think it’s not worth our while. And the reason today is so important, and the reason that I’m so appreciative for all of you being here is because we’re going to have to get over that. This is a top priority.”

Here are some ideas offered by the poster. Good ones.

Right now the conversation on healthcare is between one side that wants slightly less expensive corporate healthcare, and one side that wants much more expensive corporate healthcare. It's between one side that wants to cut Social Security and Medicare just a little bit, and another that wants to cut it a lot. It's between one side that wants to implement some very gradual climate change policies that won't stop us from crossing runaway greenhouse barriers, and another side that doesn't believe in climate change at all. It's between one side that wants a very slow, painful set of immigration reforms, and another side that wants no reforms at all. It's between one side that wants to raise the minimum wage to something that still doesn't meet what it was back in the 1970s, and another side that wants to eliminate it.

For a young voter or voter of color, voting for Democrats isn't a matter of hope for a better future. It's basically a defensive crouch to prevent the insane sociopaths from taking over.

I will vote. I always do. My concern is that we need to have more sharply defined issues that have been loudly communicated to the voters....issues that are more than just being a little better on serious things.

My personal addition to what the blogger said....let's stand for public education. Having both parties pushing the agenda of George Bush is really a bad idea. Lets start giving the resources back to the public schools instead of diverting them to private companies to enrich their coffers.

On Edit:

To clarify. Many very informed voters will take another path.

I should have made that clear in the OP. I speak for myself only.

It's not too late to get them on board though. TPP is just one example. Back away from it.

Take a firm stand that the safety nets for seniors and the poor and needy ARE sacred cows. They should be.

March 21, 2014

"Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world" they sat 54 floors above...

the Democratic convention hall. Setting policy. A few men.

This is John Nichols' unforgettable column in the Progressive 2000. This is the archived version with all the dates above the article.

Behind the DLC Takeover

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

....A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention.

They closed their doors in 2011 proclaiming that their purposes had been achieved. Some days it's hard to find argument with that.

I think the most disheartening thing this group ever did was to have a press conference in 2003 to declare that Howard Dean was not the man to be president.

What the DLC said about Dean in 2003

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

"It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself."

As founder of the DLC, From has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right for nearly 20 years. He was in tall cotton, philosophically speaking, when an early leader of the DLC, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. As Clinton's domestic policy guru, Reed pushed New Democrat ideas -- such as welfare reform -- that were often unpopular with party liberals.

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

That article by a David Von Drehle is no longer available at the WP as far as I can see.

See how easy it all was? Lots of rich donors, overlooking the convention floor from 54 stories high? Not bad.

March 21, 2014

"Daily Kos will not enable those who enable Third Way" By Markos at DKos. Names names.

Daily Kos will not enable those who enable Third Way

With Reps. Allyson Schwarz and Ron Kind speaking out against that nutso Third Way Wall Street Journal op-ed, it's clear that even the organization's "co-chairs" aren't happy with the explicit stating of their agenda. They apparently prefer Third Way keep operating in secret, with their Social Security-cutting agenda off the front pages.

But neither will quit the organization. For Schwartz, running in what will be a crowded Democratic gubernatorial primary in Pennsylvania, that's awesome. It'll make for a fun primary. It's not every day we get to electorally beat up on a Third Way stooge. For Kind, well, he's always been obnoxious, so the fact he said anything at all is surprising. Again, I think they're pissed having to defend being part of a corporatist Wall Street front group determined to destroy Social Security.

So who else is enabling Third Way's destructive agenda? Why, let's name names!
House members
James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)
John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit's western suburbs, Michigan)
Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)
Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)
Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)

Senators
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Chris Coons (Delaware)

Here is the chart he posts about the Board of Trustees.

March 20, 2014

Build an F-Rated Charter School? WITHOUT Approval? Only in Florida. From Daily Kos today.

Interesting post up at Daily Kos by SemDem about the ease of building unregulated charter schools in Florida. With taxpayer money. Without approval.

Want to Build an F-Rated Charter School? WITHOUT Approval? Only in Florida

Orange County, Florida, home of Orlando, is the 12th largest school district in the US. It has over 115 elementary schools. Since 1999, we have been grading our schools. Last year, only three schools received an "F" rating.

One of them was Renaissance Charter School.

The County has made it very clear they DO NOT WANT Charter Schools USA building another failed Renaissance Charter School. They are suing to stop the decision from the Florida Dept. of Education, stacked with Scott cronies, that is trying to force them to build THREE campuses in Orange County. The owner of Charter Schools USA, John Hage, is just appalled that anyone would sue to stop him.

The County is opposed to these schools based on their past performance. They have a good case, and the judge is weighing his options. In the meantime, Hage said screw it.

Charter Schools USA has started construction, despite not having approval yet for the school.

Charter Schools USA isn't waiting for a judge to decide if it can open a disputed school in Orange County.

They are just building it anyway.

March 19, 2014

Before 2004, I had been politically indifferent. Believed govt insulated from real abuse.

Those are not my words. But that just about describes how I was politically before the Iraq invasion. So I understand someone who claims they were apathetic politically at the time.

What is interesting is that these are the words of Glenn Greenwald when he defended himself from so many of the attacks on him. Here are his words from the preface of his 2006 book "How Would a Patriot Act?"

Every time his name is mentioned here it is said he supported the Iraq invasion. Just like many other once respected lefty bloggers he is now condemned.

Our country is at a profound crossroads. We must decide whether we want to adhere to the values and principles that have made our country free, strong, and great for the 217 years since our Constitution was ratified, or whether we will relinquish those values and fundamentally change who we are, all in the name of seeking protection from terrorism. I genuinely believe that we are extremely lucky to be the beneficiaries of a system of government that uniquely protects our individual liberties and allows us a life free of tyranny and oppression. It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is.

I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary.

....I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .

I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.

There was a post last year at Daily Kos which referenced a blog post in which Greenwald defended himself on many positions. I had been searching for that post, but that blog site apparently is defunct.

Here are some quotes of his from the DKos post.

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)

I am referring only to the paragraphs that are about the Iraq invasion.

These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates.

.....When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

You really should read the rest of the very long DKos post. It covers many areas in which he defends himself.

There is not any one single author or reporter who gets it right every time. I do not ever agree with any one person all the time.

But now it is hard to post any work of any writer who is or has been critical of President Obama's policies. I really never thought about that happening on Democratic forums.

March 19, 2014

Undermining job security, worker rights, for one union makes it easier to do the same for others.

That is happening now to teachers. It is happening under a Democratic president and his appointed Secretary of Education.

I have noticed there is little concern about this, even from those who are supportive of other unions, other public workers.

It is not popular to say that, but it is true. When teachers who have been guaranteed rights by union negotiation are fired or laid off by outside groups and their influence.....they are being deprived of their worker rights. Talking about it gets little attention.

It was easy for this to happen. When both parties stand together to destroy teachers' unions and their power.....it is considered disloyal to question it.

Why don't other unions speak out on this? I am quoting from a 2012 article in the Washington Post. The column is that of Valerie Strauss, one of the journalists currently residing under that big bus....however the article was written by someone else. She is hosting his article. Guess there is room under the bus for him as well.

The war on teachers: Why the public is watching it happen

From 2012 but true today.

Mass firings of teachers in so-called failing schools have taken place in municipalities throughout the nation and some states have made a public ritual of humiliating teachers. In Los Angeles and New York, teacher ratings based on student standardized test scores — said by many to be inaccurate — have been published by the press. As a result, great teachers have been labeled as incompetent and some are leaving the profession. A new study showed that teachers’ job satisfaction has plummeted in recent years.

Many say to themselves: “Who do teachers think they are? Why should they live so well on my tax dollars when I can barely keep my head above water? At the very least, they should feel some of the insecurity I feel every day and face the kind of performance assessments workers in the private sector deal with all the time.”

That is the same sentiment that America’s unionized blue collar workers faced in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s and ‘90’s when big corporations started closing factories and slashing wages and benefits. The non-unionized work force in big industrial states refused to rally to the defense of their unionized counterparts, and industrial unions lost battles to maintain their wage and benefit levels that allowed them to live a middle-class life style or prevent plants from relocating.

There is another more insidious consequence of the attack on teaching. Every time you undermine the job security, working conditions, and wages of one group of workers, it makes it easier for employers to undermine them for all workers. This is why, during the Depression, many unemployed people organized in support of workers on strike, even though anybody with a job in that era was relatively privileged. They believed in the concept of solidarity — the idea that working people could only progress if they did so together, and if one group of workers improved their conditions, it would ultimately improve conditions for all.

The Christian Science Monitor called this administration out on taking on teachers' unions right before the 2010 election.

Christian Science Monitor: Why is Obama taking on teachers' unions right before midterms?

The teachers' union vote is reliably Democratic. Yet before Election 2010, widely seen as a difficult one for Democrats, teachers feel that Obama is antagonizing them with his reform agenda.

Why is President Obama pushing so hard against teachers right now, weeks before the election?

..."He also pushed for a longer school year and admitted that his daughters would not get as good an education in the Washington, D.C., public schools as they get at Sidwell Friends, the private school they attend.

“I’ll be blunt with you. The answer is ‘no’ right now,” he said, when asked by a Florida woman whether Sasha and Malia could get the same quality education at a Washington school. He added that “there are some terrific individual schools in the D.C. system” but said that it is “struggling.”

And while Obama emphasized the importance of teachers – and announced plans to recruit 10,000 science, technology, engineering, and math (or STEM) teachers over the next few years – he clearly seemed prepared to ruffle some union feathers.

“You’ve got to have radical change, and radical change is something that’s in the interest of students,” he said. “We’ve got to be able to identify teachers who are doing well ... and ultimately, if some teachers aren’t doing a good job, they’ve got to go.”

What was really upsetting is that early on Jeb Bush acknowledged the attack on teachers' unions...and in this video with the help of Harold Ford, hard core DLC, he effectively made teachers sound ineffective.



This was heard on Morning Joe.

This is from Morning Joe.

He actually states how pleased he is to see this administration confronting one of their core constituencies, the teachers' unions. Harold Ford, who appears to be part of the panel on Morning Joe seems to agree with Jeb. He asked if Jeb approved of the goals which demand that unions "play by a different set of rules."

I would like to say that Jeb is speaking things that are not true. Trouble is, he is right. Duncan already set up confrontations with teachers' unions and states.

Joe says to Jeb that essentially what we were hearing from Jeb in 1995 and 96 we are starting to hear from Democrats. He asks Jeb if his views will be part of the education bill next year. Jeb thinks that is true....he says that this administration's willingness to tweak the NCLB bill shows that.

When you take on one union and do away with teachers' negotiated rights, it is going to happen to others.

March 17, 2014

Arne D. lets Pearson, others make and grade tests secretly to publicly grade teachers. Unfair.

Someone at Twitter linked to this post of mine from Daily Kos in January 2012. It really hit me so hard that nothing has changed, not a damn thing. In fact things are worse than they were then.

Pearson is one of just a few companies who are controlling the education agenda, not just in this country, but internationally.

Scrutinize those who write and grade the tests that judge teachers, students, schools.

That is a lot of power given without much scrutiny...to those who formulate and grade the tests that judge so many. One of the biggest of these is Pearson, and they greatly affect many states.

Recently in the New York Times Michael Winerip told of some investigations being done about educators being treated to trips paid for by Pearson Foundation, one of the largest publishers of educational materials. That includes testing packages sold to schools and the grading of the tests as well.

New Questions About Trips Sponsored by Education Publisher

In the summer of 2010, Lu Young, the superintendent of schools in Jessamine County, a Lexington, Ky., suburb, took a trip to Australia paid for by the Pearson Foundation, a nonprofit arm of Pearson, the nation’s largest educational publisher.

Ten school superintendents went on the trip.

More:

Six months later, in Frankfort, Ky., Ms. Young sat on a committee interviewing executives from three companies bidding to run the state’s testing program. While CTB/McGraw-Hill submitted the lowest bid, by $2.5 million, Ms. Young and the other committee members recommended Pearson.

..."For several weeks, New York State’s attorney general has been investigating similar trips involving two dozen education officials from around the country who traveled to Singapore; London; Helsinki, Finland; China and Rio de Janeiro as guests of the Pearson Foundation. The trips, and the fact that most of these officials come from states that have multimillion contracts with Pearson, were the subject of two of my columns this fall.

Last month, the attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, issued subpoenas to the Manhattan offices of the Pearson Foundation and Pearson Education. Mr. Schneiderman is looking into whether the nonprofit, tax-exempt foundation, which is prohibited by state law from undisclosed lobbying, was used to benefit Pearson Education, a profit-making company that publishes standardized tests, curriculums and textbooks, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Pearson has a lot of influence in states like Texas and Florida. Here is more about Texas from the Texas Observer last September.

How private companies are profiting from Texas public schools.

Pearson, one of the giants of the for-profit industry that looms over public education, produces just about every product a student, teacher or school administrator in Texas might need. From textbooks to data management, professional development programs to testing systems, Pearson has it all—and all of it has a price. For statewide testing in Texas alone, the company holds a five-year contract worth nearly $500 million to create and administer exams. If students should fail those tests, Pearson offers a series of remedial-learning products to help them pass. Meanwhile, kids are likely to use textbooks from Pearson-owned publishing houses like Prentice Hall and Pearson Longman. Students who want to take virtual classes may well find themselves in a course subcontracted to Pearson. And if the student drops out, Pearson partners with the American Council on Education to offer the GED exam for a profit.

“Pearson basically becomes a complete service provider to the education system,” says David Anderson, an Austin education lobbyist whose clients include some of Pearson’s competitors.

With the prevalence of companies like Pearson operating in Texas and many other states, the U.S. education system has become increasingly privatized. In some cases, the only part of education that remains public is the school itself. Nearly every other aspect of educating children—exams, textbooks, online classes, even teacher certification—is now provided by for-profit companies.

Here is the webpage for their North America education interests. Just add the name Pearson in front of the publishing companies you used to know. Almost every textbook we used in the classroom came from one of these companies, but now there is the word Pearson preceding it.

Pearson North American Education

Pearson has the FCAT testing contract for Florida. That is the test that has decided most everything in Florida, though I hope some of that is changing.

From the Orlando Sentinel in December. There is concern about the investigations going on elsewhere, concern that Florida might be linked to some of it.

NY investigating Pearson, testing giant with FCAT contract

New York’s attorney general is looking into whether an educational foundation affiliated with Pearson — the national testing giant that has the FCAT contract — tried to improperly influence state educators by paying for them to take overseas trips, the New York Times reported yesterday.

The paper wrote: ”The office of the attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, issued subpoenas this week to the foundation and to Pearson Education seeking documents and information related to their activities with state education officials, including at least four education conferences — in London, Helsinki, Singapore and Rio de Janeiro — since 2008, according to people familiar with the investigation.

At issue is whether the activities of the tax-exempt Pearson Foundation, which is prohibited by state law from engaging in undisclosed lobbying, were used to benefit Pearson Education, a for-profit company, according to these people.”

Former Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith took a Pearson trip to Finland in 2009, though that was after the company won Florida’s contract. Pearson was one of three companies to initially apply to run Florida’s testing program but one of the applicants was deemed unqualified. A committee of state officials (Smith was not among them) and a few outside appointees (including a parent) selected Pearson over CTB/McGraw-Hill after rating the two proposals.

To sum up such a long post from 2012...Pearson was fined about 15 million in 2010 for late scores on the FCAT.

One more paragraph from the Texas Observer pretty well sums it up.

Anderson compares it to the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of. Which makes sense, since Pearsonville does have a 1950s feel.

I call it the Educational Industrial Complex.

Accountability should not just be for teachers.

Linked to Twitter

March 14, 2014

Alex Sink said we should "dust off the Simpson-Bowles." No strong stand on Social Security.

That was enough right there to discourage some Democrats from voting. Of course she is a lot better than David Jolly, but that commission wanted to raise the retirement age to 69 by 2075. Long time off, but then she went on to sound like a deficit hawk. Jolly turned it on her very quickly, and it made for some good sound bytes.

Alex Sink's words about dusting off the Simpson Bowles recommendations:

From the Tampa Bay Times:

Alex Sink would cut Medicare funding, raise Social Security taxes?

UPDATE: The Sink campaign pushed back hard on the NRCC attack, calling it a "gross misrepresentation" to say she fully endorses Simpson Bowles. Based on an audio sent to Buzz, here is what Sink acutally said: "My approach is we have got to bring down the trillion dollar deficits. They are not sustainable. The question is how do we go about doing it. I think we go back and at least dust off the Simpson-Bowles. I’m sure I’m not going to agree with everything that was in it, but it was a bipartisan group of people who said ‘this is one path forward.’ Let’s see which aspects of that we have agreement on...."

She would have been better off not mentioning it. Even seniors in Republican districts don't want the retirement age raised.

She could have said that Social Security and Medicare should not be touched.

Here's how the Republicans used it....the irony was that this was originally their idea. They only opposed it because a Democrat said she wanted to see what parts she might like.

From Mother Jones:

GOP Group Attacks Dem for Holding Social Security Position GOPers Promoted

A few days ago, after Sink blasted her Republican opponent, David Jolly, for being a lobbyist who has worked for clients advocating the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, the NRCC struck back. Katie Prill, a spokeswoman for the group, assailed Sink, Florida's former chief financial officer, for supporting the Simpson-Bowles long-term budget plan that was released in late 2010. This centrist blueprint called for raising $1 trillion in revenues via taxes and proposed measures that would squeeze money out of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, including a slow and gradual increase in the retirement age. Prill noted, "Alex Sink supports a plan that raises the retirement age for Social Security recipients, raises Social Security taxes and cuts Medicare, all while making it harder for Pinellas seniors to keep their doctors that they know and love. Sending Alex Sink to Washington guarantees that seniors right here in Pinellas County are in jeopardy of losing the Social Security and Medicare benefits that they have earned and deserve." (The congressional district Sink is vying to represent covers Pinellas County.)

Seniors of both parties remember the careless way the chairs of that commission spoke of the elderly. Here's what the Democratic co-chair said.

Social Security’s Code Words: Erskine Bowles takes the stage

"We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security because if you take those off the table, you can’t get there. If we don’t make those choices, America is going to be a second-rate power, and I don’t mean in fifty years. I mean in my lifetime."

Boy does that sound dire, since Bowles already sixty-four; Simpson, for what it’s worth, is seventy-eight. A live-blog on the Web site of the Charlotte Business Journal shared more of Bowles’s thinking. “We’re going to come out of this commission not very popular. Everything is on the table,” he said.

And then there are the words of the infamous Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chair.

More on the group that will "reform" Social Security..."enormous unaccountable authority"

Simpson refers to seniors as "old cats."

“These old cats 70 and 80 years old who are not affected in one whiff. People who live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount. This is madness.”

Here are some words from Alan Simpson in a recent Newsweek interview:

Try this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will use up all the taxes—revenue—the government takes in this year. And to do the rest of governing we'll have to borrow, including for massive things like defense, homeland security, education. Those will be paid for by shaking a tin cup in front of the world. And China will probably be throwing more chips in the tin cup than any other country, just waiting patiently for us to expire under the debt. The people who distort the commission and try to scare people into doing nothing, let's say they win the day, and we don't do anything to try to bring down this debt. Well, great. They've got grandchildren, too, and in 40 years they'll be sucking canal water and picking grit with the chickens.

She should not have referred to this commission and its findings. There were so many other important things she could have said.

When Bill Clinton made his last minute rally calls for Alex, there were so many great and powerful issues he could have raised. Instead he said she should be elected because she would work for better cooperation between the two parties. I can't remember if he used the word bipartisan, but that was the point he was making.

That was not a good last-minute rallying call. The low turnout of Democrats probably kept her from winning. But the party and the candidates need to closely examine the reasons for such low turnout. Just blaming the left, which is a popular pastime...is not a solution.

March 12, 2014

Dean was right. Eskow was right. Dance with the ones who brought you to the dance.

Alex Sink ran a little better campaign this time than she did in the gubernatorial race. But it was still a cautious race, that was understandable. David Jolly threw caution to the winds and he danced with those who got him elected.

Candidates matter, how they speak matters, taking stands matters. Though Alex did better than before, she could not forget all the attacks coming her way. I can understand that, but it is a losing way to campaign.

Candidates' personalities matter. I detested Jolly on the issues, but oh boy did he defend those issues firmly and consistently. He was not wishy washy. Democrats can take a lesson from that.

Right after the 2010 elections Democrats had absolutely nothing to lose at all by taking the liberal stances on issues that mattered to people and affected their lives.

Instead...all we got was preaching about more "bipartisanship", getting along with the other side, even the use of the words "post partisan."

Howard Dean called it right years ago in his book called You Have the Power.

Failure of pseudo centrism? Blurring distinctions in the name of bipartisanship.

Without the involvement and commitment of people at the ground level, you don't really have a party. You have no pool from which to draw future congresspeople, senators, and presidents. And you have no genuine excitement.

..."He says "the truth is when you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values--so you keep losing.

We have to reconnect to the base.

..."In recent years the Democrats, in our pursuit of big dollars, have neglected the people we're there to serve. We let our connection to our base atrophy and have forgotten, as they say in politics, who brought us to the dance. In service to a falsely named "centrism," we've sidestepped every major request from labor unions, especially on including worker protections in our free-trade agreements.

The quotes are from You Have the Power, 2004.

He was right. Too much listening to the Third Way and other think tanks.

Richard Eskow wrote this right after the 2010 elections.

A President's Choice: Resist Wall Street's 'Shock Doctrine' or Keep Listening to the Usual Suspects

The Failure of Pseudo-Centrism

We're still suffering from the massive failure of a radical, free-market-run-wild ideology that devastated the economy. The public understood that, so they gave the Democrats an enormous mandate to change economic direction. Yet just twenty months later conservatives scored a huge triumph, leaving Democrats with a choice: Continue to blur the distinction between themselves and their opponents, or lay out a clear agenda for job creation and economic growth.

Of course, that's been the choice all along. But the president and many other senior Democrats chose to take the advice of the "centrist" experts within their party by adopting unpopular Republican positions and getting nothing in return. After last night's rout, what are these experts advising? You guessed it: more of the same so-called "Centrism." That's an odd word to use for policies that most Americans oppose, like cutting Social Security or allowing bankers to enrich themselves by endangering the economy, but theirs is an Alice-in-Wonderland world.

Real centrists would defend Social Security and do more to rein in Wall Street, since those positions are popular across the political spectrum. It's a good thing the president said today that he wants to spend more time with the American people. Bankers and the Deficit Commission aren't "centrists" where most Americans live.

If Democrats want to keep passing bills that include unpopular right-wing ideas, Republicans and their Wall Street patrons will be happy to let them do it and suffer the consequences. They've done it before, most notably when they let Dems take the fall for their unconditional bailout of the big banks. We saw the results yesterday. And yet, incredibly, the usual suspects are still pushing the same failed approach.

We worked hard for Alex Sink's husband, Bill McBride, when he ran against Jeb Bush for governor. We worked with Republicans and independents, just as we did during the Dean Campaign.

McBride never did take stands, even though many of us urged him to do so. During the debate I remember that he could not distinguish himself. Was it the ones who were running his campaign and dictating how it would be done? I don't know. Alex did about the same when she ran for governor.

She should have won this time. Trouble is that David Jolly is a handsome guy, he comes across powerfully during TV interviews in spite of his terrible stances on issues. There is a lot of speculation about why Sink lost yesterday. I believe a lot of it is that candidates matter, their personalities matter, the strength of their beliefs matters.

We have tried cautious, centrist, moderate, bipartisan. We have tried being careful not to take strong stands. We have gone along with right wing policies trying to please.

It hasn't worked very well.

March 12, 2014

So sorry I missed Ed Schultz's coverage of Eva Moskowitz charters...with Diane Ravitch.

Here's the video:

The biggest education problem effecting kids

Very good coverage. Good for him.

Here are more details about Eva's attacks on de Blasio.

Charter school owner Moskowitz, Gov Cuomo battle de Blasio on free space for charters.

She was a darling of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration, given free space to expand her charter schools from a single one in Harlem into a network larger than many New York State school districts. Along the way, her Success Academy empire became a beacon of the country’s charter school movement, its seats coveted by thousands of families as chronicled in the film “Waiting for ‘Superman.’ ”

But eight years into her crusade, Eva S. Moskowitz is locked in combat with a new mayor, Bill de Blasio, who repeatedly singled her out on the campaign trail as the embodiment of what he saw was wrong in schooling, and who last week followed his word with deed, canceling plans for three of her schools in New York City while leaving virtually all other charter proposals untouched.

....Most dramatically, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo lent his backing to the charter school rally, standing before cheering crowds outside the State Capitol and saying he would defend charter schools, praising Ms. Moskowitz and implicitly attacking the mayor. “We are here today to tell you that we stand with you,” Mr. Cuomo said. “You are not alone. We will save charter schools.”


de Blasio cancelled 3 of her schools while allowing 5 others to go ahead. The reason? Not one you will hear in the propaganda being spouted.