Jake Jacobs, writing in Alternet, reports on a Clinton campaign briefing book on education that shows the powerful influence of wealthy charter advocates.
A rare peek into the evolution of Hillary Clinton’s education platform is afforded through an overlooked Wikileaks-published document. Entitled “Policy Book— FINAL,” the PDF file was attached to a 2014 email sent to John Podesta, Clinton’s future campaign chair. The education portion of the document runs 66 pages, mostly concentrated on K-12 policy, and captures specific input from billionaire donors looking to overhaul and privatize public education.
Today, Donald Trump seeks a rapid expansion of charter schools and private school vouchers, while his Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, touts “school choice” and market competition for public school at every stop. But in private, Hillary Clinton’s donors, dubbed “experts,” also sought rapid charter expansion and market-based options to replace public schools.
One of the most connected “thought leaders” discussed is Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, and the head of the Emerson Collective, a prominent education reform advocacy group. Powell Jobs who has been close with the Clintons since the late ’90s, also sat with Betsy DeVos on the board of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. She set up billionaire “roundtables” with Clinton’s campaign advisors through 2015 while donating millions to Priorities USA, Clinton’s main PAC.
Powell Jobs and Bruce Reed of the Broad Foundation also set their sights on remaking the teaching profession and teacher education. The briefing book, written in 2014, shows Reed boasting about the great accomplishments of the New Orleans charter district, “accomplishments” that have since been exposed as a fraud.
Jacobs writes:
Tying campaign donations to a singular issue like expanding charter schools might in days past been seen as a prohibited quid-pro-quo. But in this cycle, Podesta, O’Leary and Tanden all busily raised campaign money from the same billionaire education reformers with whom they were also talking policy specifics.
But they did more than talk. On June 20, 2015, O’Leary sent Podesta an email revealing the campaign adopted two of Powell Jobs’ suggestions, including “infusing best ideas from charter schools into our traditional public schools.” When Clinton announced this policy in a speech to teachers, however, it was the one line that drew boos.
Clinton needed big money to run. But she also solicited and got the support of the two big teachers’ unions, the NEA and the AFT. Torn between her super-wealthy donors and the leaders of the unions, Clinton eventually fell silent on education issues, to avoid alienating either side.
A personal footnote: Carol Burris and I met twice with Hillary’s top education policy advisor, Ann O’Leary. We tried to persuade her that Hillary should not support charter schools, but we sensed it was futile. She did eventually assure us that Hillary would take a strong stand against for-profit charters, a small victory.
It is no surprise that the faux Democrats in DFER, the Broad Foundation, and Powell Jobs were pushing her to endorse privatization. Perhaps it was a small victory that Clinton realized this was a non-starter with the millions of teachers whose support she needed.
I am certainly not surprised that the big donors wanted to buy her support for privatization. I am not surprised that she wanted their money. We could have fought that out after the election. Even if she followed in Obama’s footsteps on education, she would not have sold out civil rights, the environment, our national parks, our foreign policy, the Supreme Court, and every other function of the federal government.
Having read the briefing book, as much as I disagree with the reformers, I would still pick Clinton over Trump, with enthusiasm. And fight the battles later, without fearing to lose the essential values of our society and our democracy, as well as world peace, which now hang in the balance.

The DFER is like the Log Cabin Republicans; affiliated with the wrong political party but holding on to the D or R for some blind reason.
I want the Clintons and Bushes to go away and leave the rest of us to pick up the messes that led to his Orange Highness being in power
LikeLike
It’s not a blind reason at all; it’s insidious and evil, but not blind.
The billionaires funding so-called reform know that Republicans will reflexively give them everything they want, but that the Democratic Party had to be torn away from its traditional allegiance to teachers and their unions. One way to do that was to make it dependent on Overclass campaign contributions.
Republicans, given their visceral hatred of the public good (or admission that such a thing exists), will reflexively support anything that undermines public education. Democrats usually have to be bribed to do it, which is why DFER exists.
LikeLike
Then why did Bernie Sanders endorse the DFER candidate in the Virginia primary instead of the one that DFER wanted to prevent from winning?
LikeLike
“Even if she followed in Obama’s footsteps on education, she would not have sold out civil rights….
Except that following in Obama’s footsteps on education is a sell out of civil rights. Obama’s educational policies overwhelmingly harmed blacks, Latinos, immigrants and students with disabilities. You can’t separate education from civil rights.
LikeLike
Yes, you can. When the Justice Department switches sides on civil rights issues, education is only one of many fronts.
LikeLike
Yes, it was inspiring to see Bill and Hillary Clinton support civil rights by courageously opposing welfare reform and the crime bill in the ’90’s.
Oh, wait…
LikeLike
When you have to smear someone with something that happened 20 years ago because every action taken since then was to SUPPORT civil rights courageously, then you really no longer care about civil rights.
It is just a useful tool for you to spew your propaganda in the hopes that you can dissuade people who support civil rights from voting for a candidate who actually supports them.
This is beneath you. You think that the African-American community came out so strongly for Hillary Clinton because they are fools and don’t listen to people like you who really care about them – at least when it is convenient.
When it isn’t convenient – because those white working class racists who mean so much to progressives don’t like it – those same progressives are the first ones to tell African-Americans concerned about their children being targeted by police that their “identity politics” are ruining the democratic party and can they just shut up and make those racist white voters in Wisconsin feel good.
Sorry if I am disgusted. But I am.
LikeLike
NYCpsp,
I suggest you look up the definition of the word “smear” before you accuse me of engaging in it.
A smear is based on lies and half-truths. Are you saying that the Clintons didn’t support those bills and sign them into law?
And what, pray tell, have Bill and Hillary Clinton done for civil rights that has had anywhere near the (negative, to say the least) influence of those two pieces of legislation? That’s right: little but hype and posing.
And so what if those laws were signed twenty-five years ago? They’re still in effect, still harming millions of people at this very moment, and part of the long list of facts, not smears (though there are plenty of those, too), that have led people to give up on the Democratic Party.
One of those laws helped more deeply institutionalize the prison industrial complex, which is racist to its core. The other destroyed the income floor for poor and working people, and is a major reason why wages are so low and income inequality so extreme. Worsening inequality – Black household wealth declined under Obama, btw, who was much happier lecturing Black people on their shortcomings than trying to improve their lives – is a major reason Hillary lost previously Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
And don’t presume to know my opinions about why African-Americans voted for Hillary, or what I think about African American attitudes toward police violence: you’re ignorant of them on both counts. as well as my feelings about civil rights. You’ve no idea, and it shows.
As for the African American community coming out so strongly for Hillary, well, that’s not really the case: one reason why she lost Pennsylvania, aside from white 2008 and 2012 Obama voters in rural counties switching to Trump in 2016 (yeah, I know, they’re ALL white supramacists, aren’t they?) was the decline in Black voter turnout for Hillary.
Yes, Hillary is better than Trump; I grudgingly voted for her on that account, but that’s about the lowest bar imaginable. Meanwhile, she was and continues to be pretty awful, and along with Hubby is a millstone around the neck of the Democratic Party.
LikeLike
One might say that the Child Healthcare plan did a lot of poor families of every background.
But far be it for me to dispute your belief that the Clintons are the worst people ever and that Hillary spent her life looking to keep African-Americans down and never did one thing for them but instead just pretended to be a friend while undermining everything that makes their lives better.
Let’s ignore the fact that Hillary embraced Black Lives Matters while Bernie bros insisted that the Democrats were far too interested in “identity politics” instead of trying to convince racist white voters they were their friends.
Let’s ignore the fact that there has been a frightening effort to suppress the vote – often targeted toward African-Americans – both by making it harder for them to actually vote and by nonstop propaganda telling them that Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for the welfare reform and crime bill 25 years ago and had spent the intervening time since promoting those anti civil rights policies.
The white working class that voted for Trump also voted against Russ Feingold. Don’t tell me those people are looking for politicians who speak to them on economic issues. They voted for right wing anti worker anti union Ron Johnson and Gov. Scott Walker who weren’t running against the evil Hillary and espoused anti labor views. They voted for Pat Toomey. You think it was Toomey’s record of doing so much for labor that got him his votes?
LikeLike
“Let’s ignore the fact that Hillary embraced Black Lives Matters while Bernie bros insisted that the Democrats were far too interested in “identity politics” instead of trying to convince racist white voters they were their friends.”
You really are shameless, aren’t you? Where did Hillary ever “embrace” BLM? Other than when her security “embraced” the protestor who called her out on her “superpredators” remark in order to throw said protestor out.
Bernie’s campaign, on the other hand, actively worked with BLM – he hired multiple representatives of the movement to improve his outreach. He admittedly stumbled when he was initially ambushed by BLM at a rally, but he used that as an impetus to reach out and improve relations with them and seriously address concerns of blacks and other people of color.
Incidentally, Diane, I’d also like to call your attention to this exchange. Read what Michael actually wrote, and then read what NYCPSP accuses him of saying. Again, words in mouths. Over and over and over and over.
LikeLike
“Yes, it was inspiring to see Bill and Hillary Clinton support civil rights by courageously opposing welfare reform and the crime bill in the ’90’s.”
dienne77, what I don’t like about you is that you use all sorts of innuendo and that act overly offended when someone calls out exactly what you have implied.
Maybe you can tell me why Michael Fiorillo posted this comment except to contradict anyone who dares to say that Hillary might support civil rights. Because you and he are certain she does not.
I guess you didn’t bother to watch the convention. Or maybe you just decided that inviting the mothers of sons killed was simply more of that “identity politics” that some progressives keep criticizing the Dems for embracing.
LikeLike
^^and yes, I do think it is harmful when progressives insist that African-Americans didn’t come out for Hillary instead of recognizing how much intentional voter suppression there was.
LikeLike
Incidentally, Diane, I do appreciate you posting this. The argument that has often been advanced on this blog is not just that Hillary would have been better than Trump (which I think is a reasonable argument to make), but that Hillary actually would have been a “strong supporter” and friend of public education. I think this “Policy Book” makes that claim highly dubious at best.
LikeLike
Dienne, even if she had been the same as Obama on education, I would still have voted for her because of the federal courts, civil rights, the environment, healthcare, and a dozen other issues. Also she would not have appointed wreckers and boobs to destroy the federal government as Trump has.
LikeLike
All of which goes to the argument that Hillary would have been better than Trump, not the argument that Hillary is a “strong supporter” of public education.
LikeLike
dienne77,
I don’t know if Hillary can be characterized as a “strong supporter of public education”.
But all evidence points to her being MUCH stronger than Obama and at least as strong as Bernie. Beginning with her first action of nominating a pro-public education Democrat Tim Kaine as her VP.
If Hillary had instead nominated the Bernie endorsed candidate Tom Perriello – favorite of DFER – as her Vice President choice, would you call her more pro-public education or less pro-public education?
LikeLike
“I don’t know if Hillary can be characterized as a “strong supporter of public education”.”
Well, it’s startling (albeit pleasant) to hear you admit that, because that’s exactly what you’ve been saying for months now. What changed your mind?
LikeLike
You coulda/woulda/shoulda endorsed and voted for Bernie Sanders, the candidate with far better policy positions on issues about which you’ve expressed concern. (Alas, based on his awkwardly phrased response to a debate question, he was unfairly dismissed by too many soi-disant “moderate” Democrats.
LikeLike
James,
When I voted, the ballot said Clinton, Trump, and several minor party candidates. Bernie’s name wasn’t there.
LikeLike
dienne77,
I have said the same thing over and over. You just don’t listen.
Hillary Clinton was the ONLY candidate running in the Democratic primary who showed any interest in public education and who spoke with knowledge about the problems with charter schools. Even the “public charters” that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are so fond of.
James Eales is absolutely wrong to post that Bernie had a better record on public education. His position was – if anything – much more concerning than Hillary’s position.
LikeLike
The problem is that the timeline of what Hillary Clinton actually did with regards to her education positions does not match the meme that Hillary-haters are trying to push that she was bought and paid for by billonaire reformers.
There is a 2014 position paper of what reformers WANT! In June 2015 they got an e-mail saying she was adopting SOME of their positions that were the most vague – “infusing the best ideas from charter schools”. Which is tantamount to nothing, fyi.
And then, in November 2015, Hillary Clinton appears in a town hall moderated by one of the loudest cheerleaders of the reform movement. To his face, she explains exactly what she believes about charters — something that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and no progressives have been saying.
And then she remains quiet because Bernie Sanders certainly wasn’t talking about it so why should she?
There is absolutely no evidence that Hillary Clinton would have been like Obama on charters. There is evidence that she would have spoken out more than Bernie does about their exclusionary policies.
And what I saw with Hillary Clinton is that she is interested in finding solutions based on facts. That is what I ask for in a candidate. Neither Obama, Bernie, or Elizabeth Warren show me any evidence that they cared one word about facts or evidence when it came to charter schools — for good and bad. Hillary Clinton did.
Why did this article conveniently leave out what Hillary Clinton made very clear about her position in that South Carolina town hall?
Why did this article conveniently leave out that Bernie Sanders himself endorsed the DFER candidate in Virginia so the idea that Hillary Clinton was co-opted while Bernie Sanders is not is just inane.
There is NO progressive support for public schools these days. There is moderate Democrat support.
Maybe instead of bashing the entire Democratic party, progressives might work on getting their own candidates to support public education while we Democrats work on supporting the moderate Dems who ALREADY are fighting for it.
LikeLike
Here are statements by Hillary Clinton AFTER all those orders from the billionaire reformers were sent to her campaign for her to follow. Apparently, she decided to stand up to those reformers:
“Most charter schools don’t take the hardest to teach kids and if they do they don’t keep them.”
“I want parents to be able to exercise choice WITHIN the public school system, not outside of it”.
“I am still a firm believer that the public school system is one of the real pillars of our democracy”.
Please find me ONE quote from a progressive politician saying any of this. It’s all mealy mouth “I support good public charters”.
LikeLike
https://edexcellence.net/articles/jill-stein-quotes-about-education
LikeLike
Thanks NYC public school parent for laying out the timeline for us. Sadly, we’ll never know how she would have been on education if President, but I hope she will continue to speak out in favor of public schools and against privatization.
As far as Laurene Powell Jobs & the Emer$on Collective, thank goodness hers & Arne Duncan’s $25K donation to the DFER candidate, Tom Perriello, in Virginia’s Democratic primary election was exposed & the untainted Ralph Northam won. Happy she remains an outsider in Virginia at least. (Can’t say the same for our neighbor Washington, DC, where it’s reported that she is buying a significant stake in a sports franchise (NBA Wizards & NHL Capitals) to use as a platform to push her causes which I imagine includes her education agenda.)
Back in Virginia, I’m happy to report that during his transition period, Governor-elect Northam kept true to his word to give teachers & VEA a seat at the table. Both a middle school teacher from our county, along with the VEA President, were selected to be on his ed policy transition team. It’s my understanding that the Gov-elect will announce his selection for Secretary of Education soon & amongst many possible candidates interviewed, at least one is an actual teacher.
LikeLike
I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016, partly as a protest vote and partly because she was the only candidate with an education policy that made sense. (I wouldn’t have voted for her if there was any chance of the Democrats losing lIllinois.)
Now that I know Putin hosted both her and Flynn at that fancy banquet, I will pay zero attention to either Jill Stein or the Green Party. It’s a shame that Ed Schultz, the only MSNBC host to speak up for public schools, is now on Putin’s payroll.
I’m afraid the entire field of education is a magnet for opportunists. That’s why teachers and teacher unions need join with parents to resist standardized testing–the lynchpin of the bogus reform movement.
LikeLike
icompleat
If being on RT Network is being on Putin’s payroll than Diane is on the payroll as well,
having done an interview with Chris Hedges aired on RT . The simple fact is that Rt is one of the only mass media networks to carry American progressives . That does not make those progressives sympathetic to Putin.
However yes Putin’s goal is to uses voices of discontent for his purposes . On the other hand without RT many of those voices would not be heard . Don’t feel bad about Stein .
Clinton blew this election not Stein . For every Stein vote that would have went to Clinton there where 5 Johnson votes that would have gone to Trump.
https://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/why-are-us-liberals-turning-putins-news
LikeLike
I was not paid to appear on RT.
I didn’t know Chris Hedges’ show was RT before I went there.
I always turn RT down because it is a Russian government media outlet.
LikeLike
dianeravitch
You were the minor point in that post . The real point was these voices were not going to be given voice anywhere else . Hedges probably being one of the furthest left of all of them . Schultz thrown off MSNBC because he would not kiss Obama’s — . Hartman pretty much an FDR liberal . Uygur did not go over to RT but he was dumped from MSNBC when he would not tow the line . If you had to compare him to Hedges he is a righty (sarcasm) . And long before Meadow he was beating fox in the 7pm slot .So it was not the money . Schultz is under a disclosure agreement . Cenk told them to stick it.
LikeLike
There are legitimate outlets–Democracy Now, The Progressive, AlterNet, The Young Turks, The Nation, and others. Anyone with a blog or a YouTube channel can build a network of followers. Getting paid might be a challenge, but with the name recognition of the people you mention, academic positions and other gigs wouldn’t be out of the question. You don’t have to work for Russia to get your message out.
LikeLike
Here is Bernie Sanders answered the same question from the same pro-charter cheerleader who asked Hillary the same question and got the above answer:
“What do you think about charters and vouchers, which Black parents are extremely supportive of – almost 80%?”
Sanders responded: “If they are private institutions, I do not support, because they are undermining public education in general. If they are in the context of public education, I do support it.”
Martin: “So you support public charter schools?”
Sanders: “Yes. But not private.”
If I knew nothing about Bernie and Hillary and only saw their replies to the same pro-charter interviewer, I would know which one cared about the facts regarding public education and which one was spouting meaningless blather designed NOT to take a strong position.
LikeLike
“Martin: “So you support public charter schools?”
Sanders: “Yes. But not private.””
That’s exactly Hillary’s position.
LikeLike
One could argue that it is similar, but Hillary Clinton made clear she believed in charters being PART of the public school system. Bernie did not. His statement could have been said by any number of DFER Democrats. Andrew Cuomo could have said it!
What Hillary Clinton did is make it very clear exactly what she believes “public charters” are and make it clear exactly how “good public charters” get their high test scores. I only wish Bernie would do that. Do you think it’s because he is corrupt that he doesn’t?
LikeLike
Joel Herman:
There’s no evidence that Jill Stein lost the election for Clinton. There’s plenty of evidence that RT is a propaganda outlet of the Russian government, and that Putin runs that government. That means the RT point of view is shaped by Putin. I was a Chris Hedges fan, but not anymore. He and Ed Schultz are actually paid by RT. Their interview subjects aren’t. So it’s obviously false to say that Diane is on Putin’s payroll. Whether or not Schultz and Hedges are sympathetic to Putin, and international bad guy, they’re being paid by Putin’s government. In my view, that makes them complicit, if not with all of Putin’s crimes, at least with his propaganda.
The only reason I would feel bad about voting for Jill Stein is that she turned out to have been hanging out with Putin at a dinner for Russian propagandists. That, and she was also hanging out with an ex-general who looks like he might have sold out his country for personal and political gain. That’s shady company. Therefore, no more support for Stein or the Green Party. Live and learn. I once cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate, only to find out decades later that I had voted for one of the Koch brothers for Vice President.
Footnote on the Clinton vote to approve armed force in Iraq… All she had to do was talk with some academics and journalists who had lived, worked, and studied in the Middle East for years and she would have seen the folly of invading. She was making a political calculation, not looking at evidence.
LikeLike
Clinton voted with the majority of both parties. They were given false information by the Bush administration. I don’t know whether Colin Powell and others in the Bush administration knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. It may have been an accumulation of speculation, ideology, and plain error. I hold Powell and Rumsfeld far more culpable than the members of Congress who were misled.
The Green Party of Russia denounced Stein for cozying up to Putin, who is a brutal dictator, because she did not speak out against his human rights abuses, murder of journalists and dissidents, repression of gays, etc.
LikeLike
To Rumsfeld and Powell I would add Cheney, Wolfowicz, Pearl, Feith, and all the other neocons who wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11. Powell’s speech to the UN had enough holes in it to drive a fleet of Humvees through. A little skepticism and a little knowledge of the Sunni/Shia divide (and a the least bit of strategic thinking about Iran) would have ruled out invading Iraq. At the time I believed that even if Saddam still had poison gas and really did have a nuclear program, it would be a stupid move. I think events have proved me right. I strongly opposed invading Afghanistan, too. Look where we are fifteen years later. The popularity of a political position is no justification for going along with it. Clinton could’ve taken a stand, but she represented New York, the state that took the brunt of the 2001 attacks. Remember Saturday the Saturday Night Live chant? “Bomb I-raq! Bomb I-raq.”
If the Green Party of Russia condemned Jill Stein, I say more power to them. As far as I’m concerned, the US Green Party has lost all credibility.
LikeLike
Clinton! Clinton Killery, Shillery…ENOUGH.
WE ARE FACED WITH TH END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT.
I do not want to her another word about this woman, who for all her faults (and I know all the real facts about her) WAS NEVER THE PRESIDENT!
LikeLike
Susan Lee Schwartz:
Are you yelling at me? That comment focused on RT and the Americans who either work for them or were hosted by them.
In any event, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to try to make sense of the past. That’s what the study of history is all about. I think we need to study history more, not less. From your other comments it sounds like you might agree.
Decades have passed since the first Gulf War. Taking stock of that conflict and subsequent events–and how they’re taught or not taught in public schools–fits right into the discussion of recent politics. You can’t talk about the past twenty-five years of conflict in the Middle East as they relate to recent politics without mentioning the key players in both. The person you don’t want to hear about has been a key player since 1992.
LikeLike
Susan,
Thank you. As of now, all comments about Hillary are banned!
LikeLike
YOU ARE WLECOME.
at Oped News, I have to endure endless rhetoric about Ms. Clinton, and the Bengazi episode, and the Clinton Foundation etc etc ad nauseam
I truly believe that this is a direct result of all the FB and internet stories put out there to attack her, and the addictive reading of screens. Fake news and alternative facts repeated endlessly take on the cloak of reality.
Let me give you an example of how good people, are brainwashed by the internet.
First, look at this, as a tv weatherman takes aim at the insane theory that the earth is flat, which is the latest insanity! sweeping the internet.
These conspiracy theorists are actually pushing this nonsense on Youtube.
Now, listen to ordinary people explain how they ‘bought the flat earth bunk, ‘ even if they were skeptical at first…. because they saw it on YOUTUBE! Moreover, the ‘repetition did it.. Repeat a lie until it become truth! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg71tqpsVXY
Diane, our society will never escape the SCREEN!
No sooner had the babies in this experiment, grasped the phones than they swiped their little fingers across the screens as if they were iPhones, seemingly expecting the screens to come to life. … http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html
As with addiction to drugs or cigarettes or food, the chemical driver of this process is the feel-good neurotransmitter dopamine. and teenagers are addicted https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/in-screenagers-what-to-do-about-too-much-screen-time/
Lies sold as truth, is so much more than the assault on Hillary.! The word CHOICE has been usurped, and charter schools are being sold to people as a ‘good’ choice, a real choice,, when in truth, the good choice of public education is being eliminated.
I wanna cry for America.
LikeLike
Alex Jones, conspiracy theory expert, says thousands of people were bused in to Alabama to vote for Doug Jones, and dead people voted for Jones.
Alabama has one of the strictest laws in the nation about voterID.
No state-issued ID, no vote
LikeLike
Indeed. Lies proliferate!
2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a ‘made-up story’ | PolitiFact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/12/2017-lie-year-russian-election-interference-made-s/
LikeLike
I never yell….and not at you. I am not following this endless conversation here about politics. I write at a progressive news site, where I am required to follow the commentary, and I hear enough alternative facts to make me sick.
And I am not even discussing the middle east… not here, where I go to talk about education learning and the war on public schools by the gilded-age barons that now run America.
I am just TIRED of hearing about Ms. Clinton at time when we are a click away from nuclear war, with a man who is taking America down.
I write at a news site, and I hear the endless ‘killery’ chants, to derail conversations about the real menace to our nation.
She is gone… and whatever flaws and foibles she had went with her.
Now we got a senile, malicious, ignorant, impulsive mean baby.
Obama ended the Libyan dictator, and then left Libya to descend into chaos — just as Bush did when he took out Hussein in the middle east! Under Trump’s management,, we are the same destructive force as ever, but he has removed us from any help from our allies.
BUT what Trump is doing right here –in this country– to our children, to our immigrants, to our seniors, to our middle class, and to our women — has no comparison in history.
She will be a footnote. He will be remembered,!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/12/1723812/-Holy-Crap-USA-Today-declares-war-on-Trump-Not-fit-to-clean-the-toilets-in-Obama-s-Library?detail=emaildkre
LikeLike
You can’t deal with the big picture of where we are now by ignoring the big picture of how we got here. The neoconservative and neoliberal powers-that-be got us where we are. Two wars, ISIS, a gutted middle class, the opioid epidemic. Trump’s election was in part a backlash against the people who brought us these disasters, Democrats and Republicans alike. If we can’t figure out how we ended up with Trump, we won’t be able to replace him with someone better.
When we refuse to face the harsh realities of our politics–and that includes the bad decisions of the people who’ve been running the show–our education system will continue to suffer. The bipartisan horror show of No Child Left Behind gave rise to Common Core and Race to the Top… Trump was elected by people who opposed Common Core! Politics and education can’t be separated. Not in the present climate.
LikeLike
Trump forgot his promise on Common Core.
DeVos supported it until the day he announced her name
LikeLike
Diane, I don’t think Trump knows what Common Core is. I’m sure most Trump voters didn’t know who Betsy DeVos was. But Common Core was widely opposed by Trump’s political base. And it was the so-called elites–people like Coleman, unaccountable to anyone–who foisted things like the Common Core on an unsuspecting public. It was people and decisions like those that Trump voters were reacting against.
LikeLike
Gee whiz! Ya think? Hillary in the pockets of the wealthy?
LikeLike
Robert Reich was in a debate with Chris Hedges in 2016 concerning the candidates. Reich said that it would be insane not to vote for Hillary considering the alternative. Of course Hedges was adamantly opposed to Hillary and made it clear that he would vote for Jill Stein who had as much chance of winning as I did. The big huge thing for me was/is the courts, not just the SCOTUS but also the lower courts. And, bada bing, this is the one area in which Trump has been very decisive and successful; appointing right wingers and worse to the courts. He or Pence will probably get the chance to replace Breyer and Ginsburg in the next three plus years. I hope they can last until 2020 but they are not exactly spring chickens. We will be stuck with Trump’s judicial gargoyles for decades. So I voted for Hillary, to do otherwise was insane.
LikeLike
“Clinton needed big money to run. But she also solicited and got the support of the two big teachers’ unions, the NEA and the AFT. Torn between her super-wealthy donors and the leaders of the unions, Clinton eventually fell silent on education issues, to avoid alienating either side.
A personal footnote: Carol Burris and I met twice with Hillary’s top education policy advisor, Ann O’Leary. We tried to persuade her that Hillary should not support charter schools, but we sensed it was futile. She did eventually assure us that Hillary would take a strong stand against for-profit charters, a small victory.”
“In the end she is with us ” Thomas Donahue President of the National Chamber of Commerce on another serious issue.
Given the choice between Trump and being bit by a, rabid dog I would pick the rabid dog ,but that is not the point. Just multiply this article on dozens of issues and you can understand where we are at . Not that the American people understand most issues .
But here is issue ,the real issue . One that will not be reversed by the “ESTABLISHMENT” wing of the Democratic party .For the reasons highlighted in the article .
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/right-wing-wants-roll-back-20th-century .
LikeLike
highlighted in your article
LikeLike
I can’t stand you non-stop posting of that Thomas Donahue quote. That is ridiculous. It’s no difference than the right wing posting this:
“Linda Sarsour, a pro-Palestinian activist, has come out full force for Sanders, spearheading a get-out-the-vote campaign to galvanize the Muslim community in support of Sanders” Among Sarsour’s tweets: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”
“In one October 2015 tweet, Sarsour attached a picture of a young boy holding rocks and included the message, “The definition of courage #Palestine.”
“Sarsour also expressed sadness that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was deposed in 2003.
“I think he’s done a lot of things he shouldn’t have done, but I was hurt. My Arab pride was hurt. Palestinians are under so much oppression and no other Arab country ever helped them,” she said after Hussein’s execution.”
Just because someone said ‘she is with us’ with regards to Hillary is about as useful as the leaders who say “Bernie is with us” who someone as nasty as Joel could smear as a pro-terrorist.
Sarsour is not a terrorist. The fact that she worked to elect Sanders does not mean he endorsed every single position. It doesn’t mean Sanders BELIEVES that Zionism is the creepiest thing ever — more creepy than fascism.
So stop with that Chamber of Commerce quote because – as you can see above – we Clinton defenders don’t stoop as low as you do to smear Bernie because we know it is WRONG and makes us no different than Trump and his dishonest and lying supporters.
Use real evidence. Hillary isn’t perfect. But your attempt to smear her this way is unbecoming and false.
LikeLike
That is good because I can’t stand your non stop posting .
27 of them on this page alone . There are to things I no longer do listen to Trump since January of 16 . And read your responses.
LikeLike
two
LikeLike
If you can’t come up with anything better to support your non-stop posting about how evil and corrupt and terrible Hillary Clinton is and how she was utterly lying about everything in her platform than:
““In the end she is with us ” Thomas Donahue President of the National Chamber of Commerce on another serious issue.”
It just shows how much you have to grasp at straws to make your point.
“A right wing guy said she was with us”. Case closed. Joe McCarthy would appreciate your brilliant evidence to support your belief that she is a traitor to democracy and everything progressive. I do not.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent
I didn’t count are you up to thirty yet.
But here is one for you . Democrats when they come to power will do next to nothing to reverse this assault on the American people cloaked in a tax cut . As they have done next to nothing to reverse the the last 30 years of cuts and the inequality it has caused . If they had wanted to stop it , the streets of Lower Manhattan would have looked like the women’s march for the last 3 weeks. The fact that they did not says a whole lot.
31 , 32 , ………..
LikeLike
Joel,
I may be wrong but I don’t agree. Democrats will have a social agenda and nothing is possible unless these tax cuts for the richest are reversed.
LikeLike
dianeravitch
This a near 30 year project the object being to change the fundamental role of Government in society. A role that actually predated the new deal in its roots . This past summer I had several confrontations with Tom Suozzi over his assertion that we needed corporate tax cuts to grow middle class jobs. Last time I checked that was called Reaganomics or trickle down economics . As you know he is a Democrat. Schumer in October of 16 laid out a similar vision . So corporatist Democrats certainly do not have an aversion to trickle down economics .
But what has history shown, Clinton takes a lot of credit for raising the top marginal rate . So Warren Buffet pays 39 cents on the 1 dollar in income from Berkshire Hathaway. But what Bill did do for Warren was lower the Capital Gains rate to 20% ,it had been taxed as income in the 86 reform bill . A tremendous wind fall for for millionaires and billionaires . Then Obama came in and the Bush tax cuts stayed the first 2 years because of the recession . They came up again in 2010 and an agreement was reached to extend them another 2 years . Then in 13 the Republicans shut down the Government and Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent . Not a good record
But as I said to Suozzi I as I confronted him at his Huntington Town hall :.
First he said the discussion was supposed to be on Healthcare and strayed into Taxes . “Congressman you can not talk about Healthcare without talking about the way we pay for it and that discussion is about taxes” .
Then in Commack in October ; “Congressman will you be standing here in two years telling me who could have known when Republicans gut Medicare ,Social Security and Medicaid , Education, Medical research, food stamps . ….. ” His answer was something about global competitiveness and ” its complicated” . It is not complicated at all,his job is picking winners and losers . And as I told him ” Apple or Pfizer would bring their money home and pay the tax in a heart beat if the US congress threatened to yank their patents” .
You could see this move coming a year ago Bruce Bartlet called it back in October when the house Budget plan was being formulated .
“Why aren’t the streets filled with protests . The Republicans know they are going to lose power but they will use the deficits to hem the Democrats in on any spending and then retake power .”
But the only reason that happens is because Democrats will never propose reversing previous cuts .
Stephen Moore of Heritage was pissing in his pants about how the loss of SALT was going to be a massive social re engineering, like getting rid of those pesky Teachers and Public Worker Unions .
In case you did not read this link I posted this morning , here it is again.
Sums it up .
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/right-wing-wants-roll-back-20th-century
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I have been talking about the return to the Gilded Age in many of my posts at Oped News.
These 175 people whose money runs the Congress, know they do not have much time to undo as many things as they can, to reduce this nation to one where th propel have no voice.
They began by owning the media, so that the could withhold real facts from he people. They continued by demolishing education so the people could have no PRIOR KNOWLEDGE which is essential for comparison and analysis.
Now, they speed false information on the internet .
They are taking apart the very idea of America, by electing a president who is the antithesis of everything that we stand for… especially the rule of law. He is lawless an ignorant, ruling one a nation that is increasingly ignorant and lawless.. Imagine the people who would elect a known predator, who celebrates slavery to a position in their rule-making body.
We need to return to a national laws, and values. Here is a link for you, from a grandma like me (except I am A Brooklyn Grandma) who says. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!
LikeLike
Is Bernie Sanders leading a protest? Why not?
Is he not leading a protest because he is as corrupt as the Democrats or just lazy? Inquiring minds want to know.
LikeLike
Which politician is speaking truth to power and which of these statements are the same mealy mouth “I don’t want the billionaire DFER folks to get mad at me” pablum that could have been spoken by Arne Duncan himself?
#1:
“…there are alot of substandard public schools. But part of the reason for that is that policy makers and local politicians will not fund schools in poor areas that take care of poor children to the level that they need to do. And you could get me going on this because the corridor of shame right here in South Carolina… you can see schools that are literally falling apart. I have seen the terrible physical conditions. It is an OUTRAGE. To send any child to a school that you wouldn’t send your own child to.”
#2:
“If they (charters) are private institutions, I do not support, because they are undermining public education in general. If they are in the context of public education, I do support it.”
Q – “So you support public charter schools?”
“Yes. But not private.
#3
” I want parents to be able to exercise choice WITHIN the public school system, not outside of it”
#4
“Many charter schools in Massachusetts are producing extraordinary results for our students, and we should celebrate the hard work of those teachers and spread what’s working to other schools.”
#5:
“Most charter schools don’t take the hardest to teach kids and if they do they don’t keep them.”
I think if readers are honest with themselves, they will acknowledge who spouts the DFER lines and who speaks truth to power.
Statements 1, 3 and 5 are speaking truth to power.
Statements 2 and 4 are meaningless.
Please post examples of politicians speaking truth to power with regards to charter schools.
LikeLike
https://edexcellence.net/articles/jill-stein-quotes-about-education
LikeLike
I like Jill Stein’s statement. It mirrors EXACTLY what statement #1, 3, and 5 are.
Funny that the most prominent progressives aren’t saying what Jill Stein says, but the supposedly corrupt and co-opted moderate Democrat is.
Think about it.
LikeLike
Louis Brandeis: ” We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
We are at the crossroads of the loss of democracy due to extreme income inequality. The only way to turn the tide of privatization is for people to rise up and refuse to accept the democracy crushing agenda of the oligarchy. People need to organize, protest and vote out so-called representatives that only represent the 1%. Only then can we change laws that only favor the wealthy.
LikeLike
The problem is that it isn’t that simple.
There are too many politicians who claim not to represent the 1% and represent the people. And then they embrace the DFER position on charters.
What to do? After all, there are plenty of angry progressives who think Doug Jones is practically as evil as Hillary Clinton.
LikeLike
Here’s Ann O’Leary bailing out Hillary when her donors got a little squeamish after her one criticism of charter schools: https://medium.com/@Ann_OLeary/yes-hillary-clinton-supports-charter-schools-she-also-supports-equity-and-inclusion-59fade63fc16
“Here’s the bottom line:
Hillary’s comments were about asking hard questions of a movement [the charter school movement] she has and will continue to support.”
LikeLike
Wait, dienne77,
are you now actually acknowledging that Hillary spoke truth to power and her position was so powerful that someone had to address it but Hillary herself refused to take back her remarks?
I realize she remained quiet on this issue during the rest of the campaign – but only because she was not pushed by anyone on the left to take a stronger position against charters because Bernie certainly didn’t take one.
Hillary’s comments reflect Tim Kaine’s. They believe in FACTS. They aren’t lazy politicians who just speak whatever their education advisor tells them to speak.
I would have loved to see her take her smarts to Washington. It is absolutely clear she did not have Obama’s pro-charter position. It is absolutely clear that Obama, like Bernie, aren’t bad people but neither of them cares enough about the issue to do anything but ask their advisors what position to have.
Hillary proved she did care. She did not walk back her remarks at all. That should tell you something.
And maybe you should ask yourself why she made those remarks in the first place? Hillary Clinton was exactly the same question by the same pro-reform interviewer as Bernie Sanders was. He gave her EVERY opportunity to spout the meaningless pablum of supporting “good public charters”.
But she did not. Maybe you should stop being so cynical and ask yourself why? Because the obvious answer is that she KNOWS the issues and cares about them.
LikeLike
If it’s so “absolutely clear” that Hillary wasn’t a rephormer, why did she keep Podesta as her campaign manager through thick and thin?
LikeLike
Podesta wasn’t her campaign manager.
Robbie Mook was. He also worked for Howard Dean. So he is surely corrupt.
LikeLike
Howard Dean has a son or daughter in TFA. He loves charters.
LikeLike
Most humble apologies. Campaign chairman. That’s a lot better
LikeLike
dienne77,
If it’s so “absolutely clear” that Hillary IS a rephormer, why did she keep Tim Kaine as her Vice President running mate through thick and thin?
LikeLike
Um, maybe because a vice president does absolutely nothing with education policy, so it really didn’t matter to her or her donors what he thought? Maybe because it was a sop to people like you who see it as some kind of major coup for public education, while not bothering her donors at all since they know Kaine would have nothing to do with education?
LikeLike
dienne77,
Your cynicism is truly hypocritical. It only goes one way. Every good thing Hillary does is for nefarious reasons. She and Bernie Sanders can have exactly the same position, but Hillary is taking it because she is 100% owned and operated by right wing anti-public school billionaires and Bernie just thinks it is a great idea.
You got played this election. I have yet to see you acknowledge that you got played. You posted non-stop that Hillary Clinton is just as bad as Trump and you posted some of the most hateful things about her as if she was intentionally looking to kill tens of thousands of children to please some donors to her foundation.
I still barely see you criticize Trump. Calling him “the orange haired idiot” or whatever you call him doesn’t actually talk about how truly corrupt and awful he and the entire Republican party are.
I suspect that you won’t actually criticize the awful actions that Trump and the Republicans actually take because it doesn’t work with your insistence that there is absolutely no difference between Republicans and Democrats worth mentioning. Both parties are entirely corrupt and consist of people who are entirely corrupt.
LikeLike
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I haven’t had much to say about Bernie, other than to respond to your charges like I’m in love with him or something. It’s just that, when you compare Bernie’s and Hillary’s records, the places where they differ are places that make a YUGE difference – Iraq, Patriot Act, bailing out the banks, etc., etc., Bernie has made the right choices, even when it was politically difficult to do so. Hillary has always made the politically “safe” choice, even if those choices have had devastating consequences for millions of people. I’ve never said she has intentionally killed people for her donors, but the fact remains that she takes a callous disregard for the real-life consequence of her policy choices.
As for the Republicans (including Trump), I don’t feel the need to waste a lot of thought or spill a lot of ink (or use up a lot of bandwidth) talking about them. They are so blatantly odious and evil that they defy my meager ability to amplify that. They are beyond satire, beyond ridicule, beyond shame. Do you feel the need to point out that the clown at the circus is making a fool of himself? No, of course not, because that’s what he’s there to do – that’s his job. Anyone who can’t see what an utterly crass oaf Trump is and how awful the Republicans are certainly isn’t going to be swayed by me.
I’m hard on the Democrats, as I have explained before, for the same reason that a parent is – or should be – harder on their own kids than other people’s kids. To recycle an example I’ve used before, if your kid is wandering around the restaurant being mildly annoying while another kid is running around throwing food and tripping the waiters, you don’t excuse your own kid because the other kid is worse. In fact, the other kid being worse makes it even more important that you rein in your own kid. You don’t want your kid to be associated with that kid, do you? In any case, your own kid is the only one you have any control over and he’s the only one you’re responsible for. Furthermore, you presumably care more about your kid than you do about the other kid and you understand how letting him run amok is only hurting him in the long run.
You can continue to excuse Hillary’s and the Democrat’s fault if you want. You can point at the Republicans and tell everyone how much worse they are. But in the end that will get you nowhere. If your goal is to get rid of Trumpism (which, incidentally, is my goal too – not just to get rid of Trump himself) – you need to work to clear the soil that grew him. You need to present and support ideas that will improve life for the majority of Americans and you need to call out people who stand in the way of those ideas, especially if those people are Democrats who, by their own rhetoric, are supposed to be the ones supporting the people and the Commons. If calling me a “stooge” for Trump or Putin makes you feel better, by all means, proceed. I just hope it will make you feel better when Trump and his ilk keep getting elected.
LikeLike
dienne77,
Parents generally see both the good and the bad in their children. Parents don’t act as if their imperfect child is all bad with no redeeming qualities.
LikeLike
Yes, this is the Medium piece I was thinking of.
LikeLike
“Hillary’s recent comments about charter school equity and inclusion have sparked a conversation about America’s public schools. It’s an important debate — one we should be having — for our kids’ futures and for our country’s future.”
This piece in no way walks back a single thing that Hillary Clinton said.
The ONLY thing it does it make Hillary sound more like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Did you notice that O’Leary had to go back 10 and 17 years to find Hillary saying something that sounded more like Bernie and less like someone who knows exactly what the problems with charters are and is willing to call them out for it?
LikeLike
“He who has the gold, makes the rules” – The new Golden Rule. Of course, if a person wants to run for public office, they must obtain money from donors. HRC had to “suck up” to the big-money people.
This is the reason, why our nation needs to have publicly-financed political campaigns. The system in Canada and the UK, is not perfect, but they have some great ideas, that our nation could emulate.
The networks/broadcasters get to use electronic spectrum, for virtually no cost. Would it not be a great idea, to require broadcasters to donate a certain amount of time to political candidates, as a condition of keeping their license?
LikeLike
I AGREE, CHARLES.
WE NEED PUBLIC FINANCING OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
FREE SPACE ON MAJOR MEDIA.
YES!
LikeLike
Interesting who they actually listen to, huh?
Not people who work in public schools. Not people who use public schools.
Instead they listen to 150 incredibly wealthy people who buy special, exclusive access.
It’ll be worse after they succeed in eradicating teachers unions. Then public schools will have NO seat the table.
We’ll have charter supporters and voucher supporters but no public school supporters.
90% of families will have NO influence.
LikeLike
But Hillary didn’t listen to them. Months after these orders for how she was to behave came out, Hillary Clinton went directly to a pro-reform journalist to speak truth to power.
That little fact is conveniently left out. This is about what funders wanted. The fact that Hillary was willing to stand up to them months after her campaign got these “orders” shows she thinks for herself.
LikeLike
I find this ongoing debate a little odd. I assume everyone would agree HRC has a long history of supporting the charter school movement. Eli Broad has been a Clinton supporter, and presumably not because he believes she’s anti-charter. HRC said some critical things about charters at a South Carolina speech not too long after receiving the national unions’ endorsements. The reform crowd flipped out over those comments (I recall reading something to the effect that Broad himself made his displeasure known). Right after South Carolina, Ann O’Leary tried to do damage control in a piece on Medium in which she reiterated that HRC supports “high-quality charters.” Diane herself tells us that she talked privately to O’Leary but couldn’t budge her from the position that HRC should “support charters.” When the Every Student Succeeds Act passed, HRC praised the law for expanding federal funding for charter schools.
What’s not to get here? Whatever HRC said one time in South Carolina, her policy position was that the federal funding for charter schools should be increased.
LikeLike
That being the case—HRC would have been like Obama on charters—she was still infinitely preferable to Trump.
LikeLike
Absolutely, yes.
LikeLike
Diane,
I don’t believe for a minute that Hillary would have been like Obama. Obama NEVER recognized the problems with charters. Hillary did.
Furthermore, she appointed as VP a very strong pro-public school Democrat.
I realize that her campaign did not want to make public education an issue – and I wish they would have.
But except for Bill de Blasio (who a certain Hillary basher believes is also corrupt), no progressives are making public education an issue.
In fact, it was the moderate Democrat in Virginia who stood up for public education. Not the Bernie-endorsed progressive.
Because the left was ignoring public education, Hillary could ignore it too. But she made her positions clear to anyone paying attention.
The haters claim that she would have ignored the facts and simply allowed corrupt business as usual to continue. That has never been how she governed. She has always been a policy wonk looking for better solutions, just like you. Obama isn’t like that and he just handed over the reigns and believed whatever he was told about public education. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have shown they are more like Obama than Hillary.
I’d rather have taken a chance with someone who showed she understood the complexities than someone spouting meaningless rhetoric like Obama, Warren, and Sanders.
The right was terrified of Hillary because she is a policy wonk who knows how to get things done. That’s what we needed. Another LBJ. And despite the flaws of LBJ, America gained a lot during his term.
LikeLike
I remember HRC coming to Long Island as saying, in regards to the optout movement, that if she were a patent of a school age child, she would take the tests. By doing that, in the heart of the optout movement, she legitimized every Obama era reform. Common Core, 3-8 Testing, teacher VAM, “failing” schools, and “high quality” charters. Not only was this disrespectful to Teachers, but to the parents, the majority of parents, that were trying to send a message about privatization.
LikeLike
Bill,
I read that interview in Newsday.
I agree with you that she sounded more friendly to charters in general than someone like Tim Kaine. But nothing she said made her sound much different than any progressive Democrat these days. She said some of the same things Elizabeth Warren said when Warren voted to oppose expanding charters in Massachusetts.
I took her answer on opt-out as simply an honest answer. She herself wouldn’t opt out her grandchild. That didn’t mean that she didn’t recognize all the problems with standardized testing which I felt she talked about in the Newsday interview.
She is a policy wonk. These are very complex issues — far more complex than just saying “opt out, no standardized tests ever”. She recognizes the flaws in the testing and doesn’t see the issue as black and white. Did she attack the opt outers as Arne Duncan did? She recognized the problems they had with the tests and the problems of too much testing. But it isn’t in her nature to just jump on a slogan like “opt out” and believe her work in making better public policy is done.
At least that’s the way I read it. I don’t think she’s perfect. She probably would still have supported charters the way Mayor de Blasio in NYC supports them. But there is a big difference between supporting them as some miraculous solution and recognizing the flaws inherent in their existence and lying and saying there are none.
LikeLike
No way! Happy National Charter School Day.
LikeLike
I find this paragraph a little odd.
You only list the positions that are (arguably) pro-charter while leaving out every time she supported public education.
With regards to Bernie Sanders: “Along with just about every other Democrat in the Senate, he supported an amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would have beefed-up accountability in the Senate version of what became ESSA. And he got some blowback for that position from teachers’ union members across the country who support him. (The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have endorsed Clinton.)”
Hillary’s “long history” of supporting charters is similar to Diane Ravitch’s. There was a time that charters seemed to be good ideas.
There is clear evidence that Hillary Clinton was beginning to question the entire assumptions of the charter movement.
There is NOT clear evidence that many other Dem or progressive politicians – except Tim Kaine, who Hillary nominated to be VP — recognized it.
Ann O’Leary’s column in no way walks back from everything that Hillary Clinton said in South Carolina. She just made it sound more like the Bernie Sanders’ position on charters instead of the Tim Kaine position.
Guess who Clinton nominated for VP? The guy who supported public schools and not the guy who supported “public charters” – whatever that means.
LikeLike
Many progressive minded people including Albert Shanker thought charters would be “innovative” in the early days of “choice.” He believed charters would be under the direction of a public school district. When that didn’t happen, he withdrew his support. Shanker would be shocked and dismayed by how privatization seeks the demise of public education today.
LikeLike
The bottom line is the bottom line. HRC was in favor of expanding federal funding of charter schools. Presumably so was Sanders.
I don’t see what’s to be gained by doling out style points. You can keep going on about how HRC “supports public schools,” but I’m not going to try to convince you that she doesn’t, partly because the phrase is so amorphous, and partly because I think she does believe in the traditional public school system and wants to support it. But there is no question that HRC supported charter schools in the most important way someone with influence over federal policy can support them (i.e. by favoring policies that send more money to them). Some might argue that it’s impossible for anyone who supports charter schools, especially in that most important of ways, can “support public schools.” I’m not making that argument, at least not yet.
LikeLike
Assuming that Hillary supports charter schools, she was still far better qualified in every possible way on every issue to be president than Trump, who supports charters, vouchers, religious schools, home schooling, etc.
LikeLike
I agree entirely. I voted for her without any hesitation.
LikeLike
FLERP! why are you trying to make sweeping judgments about complicated issues.
You sound like dienne77. Do you know Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio both support charter schools? They do. It’s true. Even I can acknowlege that if you define “support” in a very particular way, it is possible for dienne77 to be absolutely correct in her comments that Cuomo and de Blasio both support charters.
Just like Hillary Clinton supports charters – she’s no different than Bill de Blasio!
So what? dienne77 is right that Hillary, Cuomo and de Blasio all can be characterized as “supporting charters”. But they believe in very different definitions of that.
The devil is in the details. So is the truth.
And if you think the truth is that Cuomo and de Blasio both support charters so why bother to examine the nuances as to how their positions differ, then your truth has very little value.
LikeLike
There is nothing in the education section for public schools, other than mindless cheerleading for public schools to purchase more ed tech product from -surprise! – Apple.
The Democrats have a bigger problem than their head over heels adoration of charter schools- they offer absolutely nothing to the 90% of families in public schools.
They could drop charters tomorrow and they still wouldn’t have anything to offer the vast majority of families.
LikeLike
I supported Clinton and would so again but I never had any illusions of her being a big public school supporter.
I did think it would be kind of nice to have a graduate of public schools as President though. I think it’s bad that so few of our (federal) political leaders attended public schools. I looked it up once – 2 of the 9 Democrats on a Senate committee attended public schools- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. 2 of 9!
LikeLike
It could be worse for public schools. The one nice thing about Trump is has absolutely no interest in public schools. Add them to the huge pile of things Donald Trump has no interest in.
Imagine Jeb Bush. Two terms of Jeb Bush and there wouldn’t be a single public school left.
LikeLike
Republican lawmakers in Ohio are sending out form letters to people they identify as public school supporters (I have no idea how they get this list) telling us how they support public schools.
You guys would laugh because it’s “fewer standardized tests and more funding” so they know there is a pro-public school voter pool and they know what those voters want.
They really sing a different tune when they’re trying to get elected LOCALLY – it’s all public school bashing and charters and vouchers when they’re singing to the NATIONAL ed reform choir, but when it comes down to getting re-elected they all vow their eternal love of public schools 🙂
LikeLike
Same thing happened in Virginia’s recent House of Delegates races. The now-defeated incumbent Republicans repeated the same empty promises (less testing & more $$ for public schools) at the same time the Koch Brothers sent out pro-charters & vouchers mailers on their behalf, also attacking Ralph Northam. Didn’t work out too well for them!
LikeLike
My letter said “dear educator”. I’m not a teacher and I’m also not a Republican. I can’t imagine where they got this list but if I’m any indication they probably paid too much for it.
I was pleased to see them pandering to us though because that means they recognize there ARE actually people who support public schools and we vote.
LikeLike
Virginia prevailed because of the hard work of so many people that fought for the truth, and refused to be bought. Virginia has shown that resistance can win, and more states need to follow their lead. It is a grassroots battle requiring an army of volunteers that can countermand the wealthy corporate lies.
LikeLike
Virginia Parent,
I absolutely love how Virginia voters rejected the kind of “Democrats are corporate pawns” rhetoric that was funded by billionaires who were the REAL supporters of privatization.
I think it is telling that the voices of the left are far too often helping the right wingers make those attacks. It is sad that Bernie Sanders could not bring himself to endorse Gov. Northam after Northam defeated Bernie’s pro-DFER candidate in the primary.
But Bernie had no such qualms in sitting next to Andrew Cuomo to praise him for caring so much about education that he was offering free college to NYS residents (with a lot of restrictions that went unmentioned).
In a choice between Andrew Cuomo and Ralph Northam, I know who I think is a right wing opportunist and who is a real supporter of public education. Why doesn’t Bernie Sanders?
I don’t think that the progressive movement has held its leaders feet to the fire with regard to public schools. Why is it easier to bash moderate Democrats who do support public schools — like Hillary — for not being perfect than it is to put pressure on your own progressive candidates to be strong defenders of public schools?
LikeLike
I would also vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump. Anyone that says voting for the lesser of two evils so why vote is a defeatist.
I’d rather vote for a glass that is half full (Hillary) of distilled than a cracked glass (Trump) that is empty and leaks everytime you pour urine into it.
A glass half full is not voting for the lesser of two evils. It’s a glass half full and not a glass half empty.
Hillary Clinton was a glass half full unless you hate her because she has alleged blood on her hands due to her vote for the Iraq War without taking into consideration who else voted for and/or supported going to war in Iraq.
For instance, in 2003, more than two-thirds of the American people polled supported the war in Iraq.
What about all the other elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate?
215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
Senate:
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen.
And yet, Hillary haters allege that Hillary has blood on her hands as if no one else does.
If you are a Hillary hater, you have something in common with Putin who thinks you are a fool but loves those fools because they fell for his propaganda machine that set out to hijack our election.
Why did the war in Iraq have so much support in the beginning?
Answer: The lies of WMDs in Iraq
Two-thirds of the American people fell for that lie.
Most of the Congress fell for that lie too.
Hillary Clinton was only one senator with one vote.
LikeLike
“And yet, Hillary haters allege that Hillary has blood on her hands as if no one else does.”
Never said no one else does. The thing that’s unique about Hillary though is that after admitting her Iraq vote was a “mistake”, she went and made the same “mistake” in Libya. Had she been elected, she would have made it again in Syria.
“Two-thirds of the American people fell for that lie.
Most of the Congress fell for that lie too.”
The American people can almost be forgiven, given the lies we were fed by, among others, our “paper of record”. But Congress is an entirely different story. They had far more access to information than we did. I was just a schmuck with an internet connection, yet I (and everyone else who spent 2002 and early 2003 protesting) knew that the WMD story was full of ____. What excuse did Congresscritters have not to know that?
LikeLike
“She made the same mistake in Lybia.”
She wasn’t a Senator or the President. You have fallen for Putin’s propaganda machine to smear Hillary with unproven allegations once again.
And Hillary was a member of the opposition party when G. W. Bush was president. Do you allege that she had spies in the Bush administration feeding her the info that it was all a lie and you conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Democratic senators voted for the war?
Your justification to hate Hillary is a leaky, cracked glass that is empty just like Trump and the Trumpists are.
LikeLike
“She wasn’t a Senator or the President.”
Nope. Just Secretary of State. Hardly involved at all. Face palm. It’s hopeless because you people will defend Hillary no matter what she does. She has opened bragged about her role in Libya (sorry for earlier misspelling), yet you want to reduce her to some agency-less minion of a powerful president. If she’s so helpless in the face of greater power, why did she deserve to be president? You can’t have it both ways – she can’t be “uniquely qualified” and agency-less at the same time.
As for what she should have known about Iraq, I’ll say it again: I was a schmuck with an internet connection and yet measly little old me know that the WMD story was full of ____. What excuse did any Congresspeople – Republican or Democrat – have for not knowing what I knew? I don’t claim to be a psychic with a crystal ball. Everything I knew was available to the public. Why did the majority of Congress – yes, including most Democrats (no, I have never overlooked that) – ignore that information? Why did we go to war with a sovereign nation that was not involved in September 11 and posed no threat to us? Why did we repeat that mistake less than a decade later? Why do we keep repeating that mistake over and over again, regardless of which party is in power?
LikeLike
Why are you still carrying what happened in Lybia around like a thousand ton albatross strapped to your back?
The GOP investigatged Bengahazi repeatildy and never found any link to blame Hillary for what happened?
NONE!
So, this discussion is over with me, and if you continue it, I will ignore you, because I think you are a troll paid and/or programmed by an element on the far right to keep this issue alive long after several investigations by the Republicans could not pin the blame on anyone.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse,
Thank you so much for taking up this argument. I am glad someone else recognizes how dangerous and harmful the kind of anti-Democrat propaganda that dienne77 posts all the time is.
If you try to defend against the right wing propaganda that the left mimics, you are told “oh, you think HiIllary Clinton is perfect and can do no wrong”. When it is those propagandists who insist that there are perfect politicians out there and until the Democrats offer up these mythical creatures they will continue to vote against them and help people like Trump get elected. Because these Hillary haters are better than us.
I know it is not going to change their mind, but it is important to not let these anti-Democrats spout the Putin-propaganda that they insist is the truth without calling it out for what it is. Thank you.
LikeLike
Amen. I am so exhausted from reading, at Oped News where i write, the commentaries with the crap that the internet pushed on our country.
ENOUGH! No society survives when decisions are informed by LIES!
MOYERS nails it: http://billmoyers.com/story/what-happened-america/
LikeLike
Diane, not to dictate your living room programming, but these Clinton-related posts are really putting a crimp in the people’s solidarity.
LikeLike
“the bottom line is the bottom line”
Maybe Diane believes it is better to discuss and debate this issue at times rather than to allow people to pretend there is no nuance.
Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo both support charters. If you think we should leave it at that because you don’t like having any debate about the difference between their approach, then I can understand why you’d want to shut it down.
After all, you are one of the loudest objectors when I point out the many ways that Eva Moskowitz is different from many other charter operators the way Andrew Cuomo is different than Bill de Blasio.
Some charter CEOs and the politicians who support them find it very financially rewarding to spout right wing pro-charter propaganda that intends to deceive the public and greatly harms children in public schools.
Some charter CEOs and the politicians who support them find it very important to speak to the truth.
I’ll let you guess which side Andrew Cuomo and Eva Moskowitz fall on and which side Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton fall on.
Given the history of your strong defense of certain charter chains that high extraordinarily high suspension rates for African-American 5 year olds, I suspect I know where you stand.
LikeLike
^^correction in last sentence:
Given the history of your strong defense of certain charter chains that HAVE extraordinarily high suspension rates for African-American 5 year olds, I suspect I know where you stand.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, could you repeat the question?
This post was about the policy memos that HRC’s senior advisors put together for her in December 2014, with input from key donors, recommending, among other things, that HRC support continued, rapid expansion of the charter sector. This set off the latest debate here in the comments about whether HRC “supports public education.” Whether or not she does (I believe she does, for whatever that’s worth, as I said here), it seems clear to me that HRC did continue to support the rapid expansion of the charter sector, as evidenced publicly by her comments about the ESSA. And that seems consistent to me with her history — this is not fake news or even “news” at all, really — of being very supportive of the charter school movement.
Were her views about charter schools identical to Andrew Cuomo’s, Bill De Blasio’s, Bernie Sanders, or any other politician of national stature? Of course not. Did Hillary Clinton support the continued expansion of charter schools? It seems clear to me that she did. That doesn’t mean she’s evil, or that nobody should have voted for her. But it does seem to be the truth, and certainly something to keep in mind when one feels the urge to speculate that HRC was on the verge of becoming an “LBJ” of education (or any other) policy.
But these discussions don’t change anyone’s mind. They just make people angrier and angrier. So I wish we could leave HRC in the past, though I fear that’s not going to happen.
The document itself is very interesting. I recommend people read it. It is not a list of donor demands to be adopted by HRC. It is not even a complete collection of the policy viewpoints that HRC was soliciting for her campaign. (In the “K-12 Landscape” memo, Ms. O’Leary notes that she has reached out to Linda Darling-Hammond and Randi Weingarten to solicit their ideas but has not yet connected with them. A shame–it would have been interesting to see what Weingarten had to say in a semi-private setting.) It does show the Clinton/Obama propensity to canvass “experts” in search of consensus opinions. Here are some of the consensus views that Ms. O’Leary highlighted for HRC:
Tests: Better and Fewer, but don’t abandon. Everyone agrees that the testing regime has gotten out of hand with students taking high-stakes test every year and sometimes multiple times per year. Putting a serious proposal on the table of how to get to a place where the federal government rewards states and localities that have better and fewer tests would have both substantive and political support across the education and political spectrum. In fact, Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education just issued a letter to parents in October 2014 calling for “Fewer Tests. Better Tests” (included in Attachment 3). No one believes that testing should be abandoned because they do play a critical role of accountability and transparency.
Don’t Shy Away from Equity Issues: Call Out Inequities in our Public School System. While the root cause on inequity in our schools is still disputed – with reformers focused on the in-school availability of good teachers, good curriculum and rigorous course offerings and the unions focused on the challenges faced by teachers who are asked to find solutions to problems that stem from poverty and dysfunction in the community – there is an agreement that our public school system is one of the root causes of income inequality in our country, and that you should not be shy about calling it out and demanding we work to fix the inequities inside and outside the school building.
Stand Up for the Common Core. There is strong agreement that we need high academic standards in our public school system and that the Common Core will help us to be more globally competitive. There is recognition, however, that the implementation of Common Core and the interaction with the testing regime has made many supporters nervous (including Randi Weingarten). However, all agree that you must stand for common core while working on the real challenges of how to implement it in a way that supports teachers.
Also interesting is a note from O’Leary’s meeting with Bruce Read of the Broad Foundation. Read said that “Hillary’s initial instincts still hold true – that choice in [the form] of charters, higher standards and making this a center piece of what we do as a country – nation of opportunity – still all true, nothing has changed; turned out to be even more true than it was 30 years ago.”
Also note that number one on Read’s bullet points of the “best areas to be for something” was this: “good charters (against bad ones).” Browsing through this document, it seems clear that the pro-reform community was enthusiastic about the idea of talking about how good charters should be supported but bad charters must be weeded out.
Hopefully there aren’t too many xml-tag errors in what I just typed.
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
??
Does this help you FLERP!?
When I tried to point out that not all “pro-charter” politicians have the same “pro-charter” views, you said this:
“the bottom line is the bottom line”.
It’s nonsense. There IS a difference between Mayor de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo. Even if dienne77 would like to just dismiss it as “the bottom line is the bottom line” and they are both pro-charter so let’s just end discussion the way FLERP! likes to do when the discussion hits a little too close to home.*
*by “close to home” I mean when the discussion might veer into how some charters like Success Academy have reprehensible practices that no other charter uses that allows Success Academy to claim 99% passing rates that public schools should be able to achieve with less money just like they do.
You don’t like when I point out that Eva Moskowitz can be utterly dishonest in the way she talks about her charters and other charter operators can be honest about what charters are and yet they are both “pro-charter” but are very different IN PRACTICE as to what that means.
The same is true of Hillary Clinton. She could be “pro-charter” like de Blasio and a few independent charter operators or “pro-charter” like Cuomo and Moskowitz.
I think that is important to point out.
LikeLike
No, it didn’t help me too much. The answer to the question “Should charter schools be given more public funding?” is a pretty good “bottom line” for gauging charter school support, as far as I’m concerned. But true, it’s not the only gauge. I agree that there are differences between HRC, BDB, and Andrew Cuomo, although I’m not up to listing them all at the moment. Maybe you can describe some of the differences you see, since you brought it up?
LikeLike
“Even if dienne77 would like to just dismiss it as “the bottom line is the bottom line”….”
Okay, now this is just so over the top I have to laugh. Surely you see this, right, Diane? NYCPSP just took a line straight from something that FLERP! said and claims that that’s what I say. I haven’t said anything like that. Could it be any more clear what we mean when we say that NYCPSP puts words in our mouths?
LikeLike
Funny, I didn’t even notice it. It’s like a fake news campaign. Jumble it up enough and for long enough, and eventually the reader won’t know which end is up.
LikeLike
dienne77,
Are you really going to deny that you kept accusing Bill de Blasio of lying about supporting public schools? Quite a few times you would point out some low level support de Blasio gave to charters and insist that your spidey sense was kicking in and you were recognizing yet another Democrat co-opted by billionaires.
I’m just showing FLERP! that you were right that de Blasio was charter friendly if you define every tiny support of charter as charter-friendly. Your spidey sense kicked in every single time there was even a mention of de Blasio agreeing to find space for charters or any other statement he made that was reasonably friendly toward charters.
But that doesn’t mean that there is no difference between de Blasio and Cuomo. It doesn’t mean that we need to close the discussion because they are both pro-charter, FLERP! has announced his decision and no one must object to that, and there is nothing else to discuss.
Is that what you believe or not?
I don’t get you dienne77. You post attacks and then deny you do. Unless you are willing to go on record that your spidey sense was absolutely wrong and there is a vast difference between “pro-charter” de Blasio and “pro-charter” Cuomo, then you seem to be saying the same thing FLERP! is saying. There is nothing to discuss because FLERP! has announced who is and who is not pro-charter and once we know that, we aren’t allowed to discuss the subject.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
My first reply to you was to your question mark (?) post. It appeared before the other post.
I replied because I assumed your “?” meant you didn’t understand my post.
With regards to your replies since then, I am responding to this:
“Whether or not she does (I believe she does, for whatever that’s worth, as I said here), it seems clear to me that HRC did continue to support the rapid expansion of the charter sector, as evidenced publicly by her comments about the ESSA. And that seems consistent to me with her history — this is not fake news or even “news” at all, really — of being very supportive of the charter school movement.”
It may seem “clear to you” that HRC “supports the rapid expansion of charter schools”, but since your proof seems to be a vote she took when she was Senator 8 years before, that’s rather spurious proof for you to decide the matter is settled.
If you really thought it was settled, that means you must also believe that Hillary Clinton blithely lied through her teeth in November 2015 — when she made one of the most cogent arguments against charter schools — especially the ones like Eva Moskowitz runs which EXCLUDE children — that any politician I have heard has ever made.
And Hillary Clinton made those clear statements SUPPORTING public schools and saying that charters should be part of the public school system and not separate AFTER this 2014 memo which is just that — a working document that the pro-charter forces wanted her to say. Given that, it’s amazing that HRC basically gave them the finger at that South Carolina town hall, isn’t it? I wish some other Democrats would do the same, especially the progressive ones.
But for you to announce that the matter is closed, because Hillary voted for something 8 years ago so you know she lied through her teeth about everything she said at the end of 2015 is just wishful thinking on your part. (I know you love those charters that exclude kids that Hillary referred to in Nov. 2015 so much ; )
LikeLike
“your proof seems to be a vote she took when she was Senator 8 years before, that’s rather spurious proof”
Again I have no idea what you’re taking about. I referred to her statement on the ESSA vote in December 2015.
LikeLike
^^and FLERP!,
Tim Kaine also supported ESSA. That doesn’t make him pro-charter. And it certainly does not make him pro-charter the way Cuomo is pro-charter.
Nuance is everything.
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
” I referred to her statement on the ESSA vote in December 2015.”
Please link to Hillary’s statement which you find is absolute proof that she can’t want to rapidly expand charters. Unlike Tim Kaine who actually VOTED for that bill that you claim is all about funding charters which means he is pro charter by FLERP standards. Did I get that right?
The only thing I could find was the pro-charter people’s desperate attempt to say Hillary’s statement proved that she was lying about everything she said in South Carolina and that she had completely retracted the entire statement.
It was funny to read what “the 74” was saying. It was full of: oh she just had to mention accountability but Hillary is exactly as pro-charter as our BFF Andrew Cuomo and nothing like Bill de Blasio who is the devil incarnate to us reformers. She loves us she really loves us.
Now dienne77 will attack me because “the 74” didn’t really say bill de blasio is the devil incarnate. But we all know that’s not all that far from what they believe.
You are presenting scant evidence for your argument that everything that Hillary said in South Carolina was a big fat lie.
LikeLike
You can find it on the internet easily, if you actually care. It was a press release from her office. Your tone is so consistently obnoxious that I’m going to decline to do the work for you.
I’m not trying to prove anything to you, NYCPP. For some reason, the idea that HRC has been and remains (at least through her candidacy) pro-charter carries extremely high stakes for you. It needn’t — it’s a mainstream Democratic Party position.
LikeLike
I love it — world peace. Who was POTUS during WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War? Hint: They were all Democrats: Woodrow Wilson, FDR/Truman, Truman and Kennedy/Johnson respectively. Nixon got us out of the Vietnam War. So, the our involvement in major wars of the 20th Century were Democrat Presidents . Granted the recent wars were started by Republicans (in fact father and son). The first was short-lived and the second one is on-going.
Insofar as, lied into war goes: I believe that we were lied into most wars, or least need not have happened.
In the Revolutionary War 40% wanted the war and less than that did not wanted or were ambivalent. So, while a plurality wanted the war a majority did not. This kind of thing a majority (maybe even 2/3) should agree before embarking on any course of action.
The Civil War was not necessary. If Lincoln had just recognized by the 10th Amendment any State’s right to secede then the war would not have necessary. Nowhere in the US Constitution is it explicitly stated for the Federal Government to maintain the union at all costs or at all for that matter.
Had Lincoln just pulled his army out Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens in Pensacola, Florida (Santa Rosa Island) and any other fort in the South the war could have been avoided.
The Spanish-American War (1898) was started under a false assumption, that being, the USS Maine was attacked and sunk in Havana Harbor by Spain. It was just a boiler explosion. So, another needless war. It has too many consequences to list off here.
WWI the passenger liner Lusitania was sunk by one German torpedo. But it was carrying illegal munitions for the British and these munitions exploded as a result of the torpedo and that is that ultimately sunk the ship. But this fact did not come out then but it was the reason the US got into WWI. One torpedo was not enough to sink the ship.
WWII was not much a surprise attack according to some. FDR wanted into the War with Germany and did everything he could to provoke the Japanese to attack us, knowing that Germany and Japan were allies. His government’s oil embargo of Japan hurt Japan’s war with China and we had some US pilots (not official military) flying missions from China against Japan prior to Dec of 1941. Another entry into a war under false or unnecessary circumstances.
The Korean War was a police action and a UN war. Korea never attacked us. we should not have been there either.
So, far as I know, WWII was the last legally US Congress declared war. Only Congress has the authority to declare war.
As for Vietnam the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. So we were outright lied to for that war. Also, what a difference 100 years makes. In Vietnam we were helping the South to secede from the North (break the union) while 100 years earlier we fought a war to maintain the union.
But yes the Bush II administration were told that Iraq had no WMDs and just ignored this. This war made the region even less stable than it already was. I have just tried to show that this is not new.
I am independent. In my mind the Republican’s rightly push for individual rights and rejects socialism. But I see no need for school choice, especially when the choices are worse than the original option of public school.
But I also agree with the Republicans that there is NO public good. It is arrogant to believe that we know what is best for all or for others. Some even say one size does not fit all. We know what is best for ourselves maybe. But to know what is best for another one must walk a mile in their moccasins. This is unrealistic.
Or if you what is best for everyone is freedom. This would include freed om to choose but again, If the alternatives are worse then the original then you truly have no choice.
LikeLike
I disagree with your view of the wars but don’t have time to go point by point. Hopefully others will.
LikeLike
It’s not necessary to argue point by point here. Our political parties change so much, it’s impossible to blame one side or the other for wars of the past. Speaking of moccasins, the Democratic Party was formed by Andrew Jackson, hardly the same as the Democratic Party of FDR. Lincoln’s Republican Party was not the same as Nixon’s. I could go on with examples… It’s unnecessary.
I too support individual rights, but Citizens United has turned corporations into individuals. I do not support corporate rights. The Bill of Rights was not written for corporations. Our Government was formed to suppress aristocratic power in favor of freedoms for everyday people.
LikeLike
“In the Revolutionary War 40% wanted the war and less than that did not…..”
Let me guess? You mean the 40% of white male colonists wanted the war? Was that a telephone poll or an internet poll that published that “fact” on the website you got it from?
You have got to be kidding.
LikeLike
“Nowhere in the US Constitution is it explicitly stated for the Federal Government to maintain the union at all costs or at all for that matter.
Had Lincoln just pulled his army out Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens in Pensacola, Florida (Santa Rosa Island) and any other fort in the South the war could have been avoided.”
Now there is a sentiment I can agree with . As such do you think you could convince like minded citizens in Red states to just
“let my people go ”
. I am betting that a new confederacy could be formed of Mid Atlantic North Eastern and West Coast states . We could purchase a small land bridge in Canada to make it continuous .
As for starting wars I hope you don’t think Republican policy would have been different . Johnson found himself trapped in Vietnam because he feared Republicans calling him weak on Communism.
“Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Republican senator from Arizona, charges that President Lyndon Johnson lied to the American people and that he is committing the United States to war “recklessly.” Having previously called the war “McNamara’s War,” he now described it as “Johnson’s War.”
Goldwater said that the United States should do whatever it took to support U.S. troops in the war and that if the administration was not prepared to “take the war to North Vietnam,” it should withdraw. Although Goldwater discussed the possibility of using low-yield nuclear weapons to defoliate infiltration routes in Vietnam, he never actually advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the North Vietnamese”
At the end of 64 there were only 23,000 troops serving mostly in support roles .
So the Republican option was to bring the war to the border of China which would have drawn China into the war . And even after the Cuban Missile crisis had brought us to the brink ,.,proposed Nuclear defoliation .
Of course then there was Nixon who had a secret plan to end the war. Nixon scuttled the peace talks that Johnson thought would end the war before the election in 68 allowing him to come into the convention as a hero . . , Nixon brought the war to Cambodia causing the destabilization of Cambodia and the eventual deaths of over a million Cambodians possibly 3 million . Withdrawing troops in 73 . almost 5 years after he came to office in 69
Now as for Korea before Truman entered the war, the Republicans were already running against Democrats on having lost China . Being weak on Communism . So it is questionable that their policy would be different.
WW1 . beyond me. I have no clue what the Republicans would have done. As for WW2 really ?
But again let my people go . That was good.
LikeLike
No such thing as a public good?
OK, then show the courage of your Glibertarian convictions, and see how your free market fundamentalist utopia works out with private police and firefightings services (“Are you paying for the ‘premium plan? No? Then sorry, we can’t put your fire out.”) without public sanitation services, clean water, pure food laws, etc.
LikeLike
NYCPP — I’m going to start the New Year early by making a resolution not to respond to any of your comments. It’s easy to do on Chalkbeat because it has a “block” function. WordPress doesn’t, unfortunately, but hopefully I’ll have the discipline to resist. It would be good for me, and it would be good for everyone else because it would reduce the number of comments you make on this site.
LikeLike
Look, I already started my resolution by failing to post this as a response to your last comment! This augers well!
LikeLike
Thank you for your restraint.
LikeLike
“I’m going to start the New Year early by making a resolution not to respond to any of your comments.”
Thank you!
By the way, I never mind you responding to me with truthful facts. But when you insist it is an inarguable fact that the woman who said:
“Most charter schools don’t take the hardest to teach kids and if they do they don’t keep them.”
and
“I want parents to be able to exercise choice WITHIN the public school system, not outside of it”
absolutely supports the RAPID EXPANSION of charters, I’m going to point out the errors in your logic. And I’m not going to shut up because you don’t like me pointing out that your statement can be easily contradicted by the actual statements of the person whose beliefs you are so certain you know best.
LikeLike
To correct the record, the article did in fact mention what Hillary said about charters, including a link to O’Leary’s Medium post:
“Clinton’s advisors warned her that wealthy donors like Petry, Whitney Tilson, or Eli Broad could walk if she didn’t support charter schools. Broad would indeed threaten to withhold funding from Clinton when she criticized charter schools for excluding difficult students. John Podesta and Ann O’Leary would publicly correct Clinton, reaffirming her commitment to charters.”
What was not in the article was Chris Edley’s advice to the Hillary team, telling her to talk about Education in the campaign, lest she allow Republicans to frame the debate.
As if there was a pact made, neither Bernie nor Hillary’s campaign would talk about K-12 education – or even utter the words Common Core, while Trump made it a major talking point.
Also of note: Assuming Hillary and Bernie are similar on charters, not so on the use of high stakes tests – Hillary supports the testing (presumably till today) while early on, Bernie said on his website we should “do away with bubble tests”. Bernie also co-sponsored a multi-state pilot to explore alternatives to high stakes tests which is included in the final ESSA law. Regardless who you supported in 2016 or will support in the future, I hope we can agree that education should be debated in any presidential campaign.
There is much more in the Policy Book for those who want to reach their own conclusions. In fact, education was only 66 of some 470 pages covering foreign policy, trade, wealth repatriation, family leave and much more). My hope for this article was to show the specific pay-for-policy overtures from big donors, in light of the current situation in Puerto Rico/Houston, and in light of new working relationships being forged with the Trump family.
LikeLike
Hmm, by not talking about education policy, they could not be identified as leaning one way or the other. If they sided with the billionaires, they’d lose funding. If they sided with the children and public school teachers, they’d lose votes.
If they lied by supporting the teachers/children or billionaires to gain their support and then won the election and did the opposite, they would be called liars by the side they lied to and repeatedly crucified.
That was a lose, lose situation. For instance, Zephyr Teachout has lost all of her elections because she can’t get funding from the oligarchs because she publicly speaks out for teachers and children.
Studies have clearly, repeatedly revealed that more than 80-percent of the winners in elections outspent the opposition.
But now that Hillary lost the election, we will never know what her education policy would have been (since she never publicly took a stand) if she had been elected president. Who would she have appointed to be the Secretary of Education — Betsy DeVos?
LikeLike
Correction: If they didn’t side with the billionaires, they’d lose funding.
LikeLike
I think we have a real chance to change the narrative in this country. Let billionaires pull their donations. They will end up embarrassing themselves. The last DNC primary showed that their money isn’t as important as we think. Because of our current president, republicans are going to have their butts handed to them in the next election cycles. This is a unique opportunity for Dems to reject the billionaires and earn back respect from the base. I hope zephyr teachout runs again. She came out of knowhere and embarrassed cuomo bad.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you wrote, and I also want Zepher to run again, and again, and again.
2018 will be the watershed. If the GOP loses just the Senate that will send a big message but if they lose both Houses of Congress and start to lose states that they took during Obama’s tenure in the White House, then it will be like a bullet to their empty heads.
LikeLike
There is a persistent rumor among journalists on Twitter that they believe Trump might use the holiday break to pardon Flynn and/or Fire Mueller
LikeLike
I’ve read that if Trump does that, it will open up a Pandora’s box more for him than the rest of us.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
I hope you are right. I doubt the Republicans care. They are already screaming for Mueller’s scalp. Until he was named Special Counsel, Republicans thought he was terrific. Mueller is a Republican. Hopefully their house of cards will collapse in November 2018.
LikeLike
Yes, November 2018 and all the smaller elections that take place up to then.
LikeLike
Zephyr Teachout does not appear to be running for Governor but former State senator Terry Gipson will be primaying Cuomo, the only Democrat announced so far. Gipson has reached out to NYSAPE and BATs already and has taken on outspoke Bronx principal Jamaal Bowman as education advisor.
LikeLike
Maybe Teachout will endorse and campaign for Terry Gipson, if Zephyr doesn’t run on her own.
LikeLike
NYC PSP,
All discussions of Hillary are banned.
LikeLike