No Flip-Flops For Obama In NEA Endorsement Acceptance
EIA's Mike Antonucci has the Obama speech to the NEA convention (via satellite).
Among other points (and hints at where the good parts on the video are), Antonucci says that Obama "took the bull by the horns" in talking about performance pay and charter schools (here). No flip-flop there -- in contrast to campaign spending.
Over at the USA Today politics blog, Greg Toppo reports in as well (Mostly cheers, but some boos too, when Obama addresses teachers) with some additional observations and news -- Obama's relatively low NEA endorsement vote total, for example. I want to know about Obama's sister, a teacher. There's a McCain update, too.
But campaign spending flip flops? McCain is breaking the campaign finance law and Obama changing his mind is the important reference to make? Heh. We'll never see McCain's opt-in/opt-out/opt-in again flip flops on campaign spending mentioned here. Politics on this blog is pretty much an embarrassment - regurgitating Republican propaganda against Obama. I know, fanning the flames makes for more hits, but still, it's pretty damn lame.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Let's make just a short, admittedly incomplete, list of McCain flip flops:
Torture
Special Interests
Campaign Finance Laws
Campaign Spending Limits
Jerry Falwell
Iraq
Abortion
Tax Cuts
Ethanol
Gay Marriage
Confederate Flag
Gun Control
Moqtada al Sadr
Housing Relief
Hillary and the Media
Estate Tax
Wiretaps
Immigration Reform
Offshore Drilling
Hurricane Katrina Investigations
Guantanamo and Habeas Corpus
Oil Company Windfall Profits Tax
Social Security Privatization
Funding National Defense
Florida Everglades Protection
Hence, "No Child Left Behind" gets supported (with all the double talk about unfunded mandates, but not critique of high stakes multiple choice computer scored so-called "standardized" tests).
His support for merit pay was announced (to boos) at last year's NEA RA.
And his support for charter schools is longstanding. In fact, in the NEA speech yesterday, be brags that he even supported expanding (Chicago-only) charters while he served in the General Assembly.
At least in these things of corporate "education reform," Obama is consistent with his own corporate record and corporate praxis.
The disappointed are those vast throngs across the USA who thought that a family with corporate and political ties to the ruling class in Chicago was really an agent of the kind of "change" that most people in the USA are demanding today. The Obamas want the same kind of "reform" and "change" as are wanted by the Pritzkers and Ariel Capital Management people.
It's slightly different from some of the agenda of the Bush oil cowboys, but not by much -- and certainly not what his legions of workers had in mind (for the most part) when they formed the infantry of his amazing nomination machine.
There will be an increase in education spending regardless. Even Bush had significant increases to NCLB.
And NCLB may get renamed, but it will be reapproved in pretty much the same form as it is now. Minor tweaks.
From kindergarten through graduate school, Obama has never attended a public school. What do you expect?
One of the most interesting things about Obama's record (to me at least) has been his support for segregated charter schools in Chicago, but for few or no charter schools in Illinois outside Chicago. Since Mayor Daley's version of "school reform" has always been "separate and unequal" (with the maintenance of 300 all-black, mostly serving poor children, public elementary and high schools), the politicians who supported Daley's plans and programs (and the two CEOs who implemented those programs, Paul Vallas and Arne Duncan) have been among the most consistent segregationists of the 21st Century.
Examined at ground level, in a vast area stretching from Austin Blvd. on the West Side all the way out to 135th St. in Altgeld Gardens on the far South Side, the "audacity" here has been the ability to market a Chicago politician who has supported several 19th Century realities (massive segregation; union busting; privatization as opposed to public service) as "Change We Can Believe In..."
As I have said before.
I've voted for the guy before and will vote for him again.
But not because this election is going to yield any major changes in the corporate "reform" agendas of the past 18 years:
"School Reform"
"Housing Reform" and
"Welfare Reform"
have all been an attack on some very basic and necessary public programs in the USA, and a source of massive wealth for those who profited from the privatization (and in most cases, emiseration) of the poor and working class people who were the victims of those programs.
By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. District 299 reserves the right to delete or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Reader comments are limited to 500 words.



Digg
Del.icio.us