From @JerseyJazzman:
“This is exactly right. @DFER_News set the table for today, as did @FiftyCAN, @StudentsFirstNY, the charter industry, and a whole host of other “liberal” education “reformers.” Great job decimating the party you all claim to belong to, guys.”
Phonies.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here is the tweet he is responding to:
“this court decision is not on the dems, of course, but centrists spent years attacking organized labor, especially public (teacher) unions. good job”
LikeLike
I can’t believe someone would post that “centrists” spent the year attacking organized labor. If anything, it was the so-called progressive candidate for Democratic Governor in Virginia who was rabidly pro-charter and the “centrists” who stood up for public education.
Anyone who dares to blame the “centrists” when we have self-described “progressives” who support charters and refuse to stand up for the candidates who support public education. And then they lie and claim that the destruction of the unions isn’t being helped just as much from the left as it is from the center.
LikeLike
I probably shouldn’t speak for Duncan Black, but he’s well-known for calling out fake liberalism in the form of “centrism.” I think he’d probably agree with above.
LikeLike
What is “fake liberalism”?
Sorry, I come from the era when the term “liberal” was used by the right wing to smear those “card-carrying members of the ACLU”. I come from the era when the Dems were scared to identify as “liberal”.
Are you saying that now there are Democrats pretending to be liberals who aren’t? Wow, how times have changed.
LikeLike
Take a hike.
LikeLike
Indeed. Remember President Obama’s support of the Wisconsin teachers and the public employees of Ohio? Oh, that;s right, silence. Maybe this will finally help to remove those Democrats that don’t act in the best interests of working people.
LikeLike
I remember a few liars like you claiming that if we voted against Hillary Clinton, it wouldn’t matter because the Supreme Court doesn’t matter and she is no different than Trump.
I remember those lies. Were you one of the people spouting them?
LikeLike
Please, enlighten me as to when I lied. I NEVER said what you are imagining, and I voted for Clinton and encouraged everyone I know to do the same. (And specifically for the Supreme Court) A few Stein gave me grief for that. Why not defend, or attack, what I actually wrote rather than either mistake me for someone else or make a wild, unsubstantiated inference? Lying is awful—take care in making such an accusation without evidence.
LikeLike
chuck,
I’m sorry if I lumped you in with the other self-annointed arbiters of all that is progressive and non-progressive. I apologize.
The problem is that lots of Democrats are progressive on some issues and not on other issues. So when I read something like “remove those Democrats that don’t act in the best interests of working people” I wonder who defines the best interests. Bernie Sanders endorsed and fought very hard for a primary candidate for Virginia Governor who was the DFER politician of the month. Some progressives actually thought Bernie’s candidate was NOT a corrupt sell-out even if he did endorse the entire DFER agenda and hope to turn Virginia into a welcoming home for the privatizers. Who gets to decide who should be removed?
Let’s fight the good fight ON THE ISSUES. And when the primary is over, focus on one thing only — defeating the Republicans and making them powerless. Democracy itself is in danger. Let’s stop with the litmus tests and start noticing that every Republican – including Susan Collins — has been complicit in helping the fascist agenda. And they need to be defeated. We need to stop helping them win.
LikeLike
No worries, NYC parent. I agree with you and thanks for all you support/advocacy. It’s been a miserable week…
LikeLike
I totally agree with you NYC parent. The GOP seem to have a broad tent for tax cutters, the religious (I.e. Evangelists), gun nuts, racists and bigots. The democrats should have a big tent too that opposes the evil and stupid, even if everyone doesn’t agree 100%
LikeLike
Chuck,
I criticized Obama for his silence when Scott Walker was pushing right to work in zwiscinsin.
But Obama wanted to appoint Merrick Garland, a moderate centrist, highly qualified Judge who would not have voted as Gorsuch does.
If you can’t see the difference between Garland and Gorsuch, you are beyond reason.
LikeLike
I think you might me mistaking me for someone else. I voted for Clinton and encouraged others to do likewise—most especially because of the looming Supreme Court Appointments. My post with meant to support the sentiments expressed by your original post.
LikeLike
Chuck,
I was reacting to this comment:
“Indeed. Remember President Obama’s support of the Wisconsin teachers and the public employees of Ohio? Oh, that;s right, silence. Maybe this will finally help to remove those Democrats that don’t act in the best interests of working people.”
I interpreted that to be a putdown of establishment Democrats. I put them down too, but I would be happy to have any establishment Democrats in preference to the deplorable, despicable Orange One.
LikeLike
My apologies for lack of clarity, Diane. The silence was referring to was President Obama, who said next to nothing when I, my fellow public school teachers, and police and fire men and women were working to repeal issue 5 in Ohio.
LikeLike
Chuck, I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. Obama an Duncan were missing in action when 7nions were under attack, in Ohio, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.
LikeLike
The “super-serious Dems” simply don’t like us. They prefer money over people, because the incentives in our political system have changed… by design.
Besides, Obama wasn’t hoping to spend his post-presidential years hanging out with lowly union folk. No, you won’t find us hanging out at Davos. We’re not Bill Gates or boy genius at Facebook. We’re just normal, boring people.
Nor did Bill Clinton plan on plan on remaining in his social class. It’s the American Dream to serve the wealthy and get invited on their planes.
There are some great Dems, obviously. But, our side gets pulled both ways. The R’s have no such predicament on unions, anti-trust, privatization or any of it.
The only reason we are in the game is that the public hates almost all of their policy ideas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/01/11/why-has-the-republican-congress-chased-such-unpopular-policies/?utm_term=.54500c5ac863
LikeLike
Given the way that year played out in Wisconsin, it seemed obvious to me at the time that Obama calculated that involving himself in the Wisconsin struggle would be a net negative for the side of the teachers and public employees, because it was a year in which racism and reaction were driving the votes.
I kinda think it might have backfired by further energizing the WI R base, who despised Obama, and by depressing support for unions from tradesmen and union members who should have defended unionism, but were otherwise conservative “Reagan Democrats”: racists.
We’ll never know.
LikeLike
Joel,
He lost those walking shoes he promised to wear if unions were threatened. Now he makes $400,000 per speech.
LikeLike
So, this is shaping up to be a pretty awful day. I want someone to blame. Tech billionaires like Gates, Hastings, Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. love to buy Democrats away from working voters. I prefer to blame the billionaires instead of the workers. Workers need unity, and cannot have it if they have to choose between tech billionaires and oil billionaires. Grassroots progressives are the future of the Democratic Party. Local organizing and strength in unity is the future of unions. By the way, the really big news of June, 2018 is that Bill Gates went to a candy store with Warren Buffet. There was a long procession of 1991 Nissan Figaros. (See below.) Bill says they “had a blast”. Cute. Bill Gates is so special. What is he going to destroy before his next trip to the candy shop?
LikeLike
Wow, I was not aware this existed until just now.
LikeLike
Well, Bill has a bunch of them. And an ambulance painted like an ice cream truck.
LikeLike
The only people who blame are those who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election when she was running against Trump.
This was always going to be the outcome. A right wing Supreme Court. And they did not care.
LikeLike
^^Correction of typo: the only people TO blame…
LikeLike
There is a rift in the Party, with competing coalitions. The two coalitions must get along without the vitriol between them that marked the 2016 primaries and beyond. When the Democrats learn to accept people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez without scoffing or stipulating, it will be better for Democrats. It won’t be easy. Similarly, I am about to have to learn to accept teachers who don’t pay union dues as colleagues. It won’t be easy.
Many socialist leaning people like me refuse to accept Eli Broad, DFER and all the hedge fund and tech billionaires as Dems, but we can accept moderates who can accept us. We all need to stop lingering in 2016 and get ready for November. Together. Hillary lost because she was Hillary. Period. Please stop bringing up Hillary Clinton. It’s the opposite of strategic, the opposite of helpful. There are good people being turned away by it. Move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a problem with DFER Democrats, too. But if the DFER candidate that Bernie Sanders endorsed for Virginia Governor had won the Democratic primary over the pro-public education Democrat, I would definitely have voted for the DFER candidate that Bernie endorsed over the Trump-supporting Republican. Would you?
And saying “Hillary lost because she was Hillary” has as much meaning as “Trump won because he was Trump.” Or “Gore lost because he was Gore”. “Or GW Bush won because he was Bush”. Or “John Kerry lost because he was Kerry”. It’s a lot of drivel.
Hillary lost because lots of people who should have known better kept insisting that there was no reason to vote for her. Trump won because too many people said “it doesn’t matter if we vote for Hillary because we don’t really think the Supreme Court is important”.
I hope those “voting for Hillary isn’t important” voters now realize the Supreme Court is important. If you didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton when you knew exactly what Trump was, then you made the statement that you didn’t care who Trump appointed. That isn’t because “Hillary is Hillary.” That is people who decided that the Supreme Court wasn’t important. I hope they have changed their minds.
LikeLike
I do not think people need to change their minds and learn to vote for Hillary. She will not face Trump again. The tide has shifted. The day of the dynasty is gone. I think the Democratic Party needs to learn to field candidates we don’t have to hold our noses to support. The lesson to be learned from recent history is not that “love trumps hate,” but that the working class trumps the donor class. Candidates with well known billionaire support are starting to lose. I enjoyed watching Villaraigosa lose.
Quote of the day: “Parties of principle, as religious sects, or the party of free trade, of universal suffrage, of abolition of slavery, of abolition of capital punishment, degenerate into personalities, or would inspire enthusiasm.” Ralph Waldo Emerson (because John Milton is boring)
LikeLike
I agree that people don’t need to vote for Hillary anymore.
They just have to decide whether they will vote for whatever flawed candidate wins the primary because more democrats actually voted for that flawed candidate, or whether they decide the Supreme Court doesn’t matter. That is democracy. The Democrats don’t offer up a candidate. People vote for one. Sometimes it isn’t the candidate you want.
And no matter who wins — Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Bernie Sanders — that candidate will be flawed to lots of people. And we see what happens when those people whose candidate didn’t win make a conscious decision that the Supreme Court doesn’t matter. We are living with it now.
That’s democracy. Flawed candidates run against other flawed candidates and each voter decides what is important to them. And in the last election, too many voters said “we’re good with the Supreme Court being appointed by anyone but Hillary.” And they should not be too bothered by the outcome.
I think the Democratic Party DID field a candidate you didn’t have to hold your nose to support. But this is a democracy. Not enough people – especially people who were not white — voted for that candidate. That happens EVERY YEAR.
If you believe that the Supreme Court isn’t important, you don’t vote for the democratic candidate. Many people made that statement in 2016. If so, that is on them alone. Or I suppose they can blame on all the people who voted for the opposing candidate in the primary and didn’t vote for the one they wanted. That happens every year, too.
And those who didn’t care about the Supreme Court made that choice and should not be upset with the outcome. Since there are sure to be more than one Democrat running next time and some people will be angry that their candidate didn’t win, I hope they don’t follow this new idea where they let a right wing racist and xenophobe with fascist tendencies win and appointed even more Supreme Court Justices.
In a democracy, someone’s candidate always loses in the primary because more people voted for the other. And if those people don’t think the Supreme Court is important and their candidate loses, they can refuse to vote for the winning candidate and let a racist xenophobe appoint the next Supreme Court Justices. But that decision will be entirely on them. No matter what, that WILL happen. One candidate will lose in the primary unless it is uncontested. It’s up to the people who supported that losing candidate to decide whether the Supreme Court matters at all to them. We know it didn’t in 2016.
LikeLike
Ed reformers are absolutely thrilled. Here’s Jeb Bush:
Jeb Bush, ExcelinEd and former Florida governor: “Public employee unions, including teachers unions, have long been able to put the agenda of Big Labor bosses above the needs of the broader membership they serve. … I am hopeful that the era of teachers union bosses playing politics with our schools will give way to a 21st-century model of education that focuses on the students, not the adults.”
Now the only people “playing politics” with our schools will be charter and voucher lobbyists. They effectively silenced the only effective dissenters.
Maybe public school parents will finally step up and start voting to support their children’s schools. They better hurry up. Jeb Bush and his fellow travelers are pretty excited about eradicating them and now there’s nothing at all stopping them.
LikeLike
You really wonder about the ed reform academics. Do they honestly believe they’re completely insulated from anti-worker policy? That they will somehow continue to enjoy secure employment and high wages after K-12 teachers race to the bottom?
They’re kidding themselves. They’re the next to go low wage.
LikeLike
Here’s another ed reform lobbying group celebrating their big win against labor unions:
http://educationnext.org/both-teachers-public-back-janus-decision-supreme-court/
I think this is the most attention ed reformers have paid to public schools in a decade. Don’t get used to it. Now that teachers unions are gone they can safely abandon public schools completely. And they will.
LikeLike
Does the ruling mean that public unions will have to follow the federal laws that apply to private sector unions?
https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/elecofficer/elecofficer.htm
LikeLike
Public Unions are not covered by the NLRA states have always been free to treat them as they deemed fit.
An employer is under no obligation to honor the free speech rights of an employee in the private sector. States, however, are governments.
“there is a very obvious reason why the logic of a public-sector holding would not apply to private-sector unions: that logic is the state action doctrine, which limits constitutional restrictions to state actors. In order for the Court to extend a First Amendment prohibition on agency fees to private sector employers it would have to completely overturn decades of state action doctrine. It would have to conclude that there is state action simply because the law permits (not mandates) two private parties to enter into a contract.”
LikeLike
https://www.the74million.org/
About half of The 74 – an ed reform outlet that is supposedly about “public education” – is devoted to celebrating the Janus decision.
They’re anti-union activists disguised as education advocates.
“How Big a Bite Could the Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling Take out of Teachers Unions? The NEA Is Expecting to Lose $50 Million — and Possibly 300,000 Members”
Expect more and more ed reform coverage where public schools are excluded completely, as public schools have fewer and fewer political advocates.
Except more phony congressional “hearings” where they invite 3 paid, professional charter school promoters and no one from a public school.
They hope to have a complete lock on the debate where there are no dissenting, pro-public school voices at all. Public schools won’t even be considered in political decisions, because they won’t be at the table. The entire focus will shift to the schools they’re promoting- charter and private schools.
LikeLike
Lobbying will be hugely asymmetrical now- state legislatures and congress will be flooded with paid charter and voucher lobbyists and there will be far fewer public school lobbyists.
Public schools will be excluded from more and more decisions that affect them- they won’t even be in the room to fight for funding.
The only organized entity protecting public schools from anti-public school lawmakers in the Ohio legislature was teachers unions. The place is packed with charter lobbyists and voucher promoters. Teachers unions reps were the only full time advocates we had.
They’ll be free now to (continue) to gut funding for our schools, put in more unfunded mandates, put in more dumb and gimmicky ideas because there won’t be pushback.
So that’s what public schools and public school families lost- they lost a seat at the table and that’s important! Ed reformers know it’s important. It’s why ed reform spends so much on lobbying and hires so many paid cheerleaders.
But no one in ed reform advocates for PUBLIC schools, so public school families won’t have any advocates in government. Charters will. Vouchers will. Public schools will not.
LikeLike