Today it was revealed he called Obama wishy-washy in a magazine article:
President Obama’s clarification of his stance on the mosque to be built near ground zero shows that he needs new advisers, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says in an interview published in the magazine GQ.
“The president, I think, needs some better advisers,” Bloomberg says in the interview. “He campaigns, ‘I'm gonna do A,’ and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents. You go for it.”
Asked if he had any recommendations, Bloomberg told the magazine: “No. I don't know. David Axelrod, when I've talked to him, he seems very smart, and Rahm Emanuel, who I've known forever, he is very smart. [But] you know, if you're going to stand up for the mosque Friday night, you don't walk away from it Saturday morning.”
Gee - the one issue Obama never seems to walk away from is bashing teachers and putting education privatization policies in place.
But as for many of the other issues, yes, Bloomberg is right.
Here's a good example:
First Obama's against extending the Bush tax cuts, then they put out a trial balloon saying maybe they're for them, then when they get battered by the left, they say "No! We're against those! We were always against those!"
Then Dems get worried he might cave in to the Republicans anyway.
Wishy-washy indeed.
I have two comments here: First, anyone who thinks Bloomberg still isn't positioning for 2012, despite the bad poll numbers, is naive.
Second, how come Obama doesn't get wishy-washy over ed reform and teacher bashing?
Might it be that the teachers unions don't fight him and extract concessions and backpedaling from Obama?
When you punch a bully in the face, you often put an end to the bullying.
And Obama has certainly been the First Bully when it comes to education issues.
So come on, Dennis, come on Randi - punch Obama back.
He's a coward - he'll run if you do.
Just ask Shirley Sherrod
"...how come Obama doesn't get wishy-washy over ed reform and teacher bashing?"
ReplyDeleteThat's an easy one: there is a general consensus among the ruling class (as represented by its Republican and Democratic wings) that public goods are to be monetized, and they lust after the resources (just think of the real estate alone that they hope to put in play!), patronage, consulting and vending contracts, etc. The trillion dollar list, if counted over not too many years) list goes on.
And the only way they can effectively monetize the schools is to neutralize or eliminate teachers and their unions as defenders of public education.
Then of course there's the personal angle. Even if he was ideologically disposed towards supporting public education - which, having never attended schools or sent his children to them, he's never had a personal stake or connection - Obama has an aversion to the conflicts inherent in politics, whether or not he actually believes that Boy Scout nonsense about post-partisanship.
In other words, even if he was personally inclined to support us, which he's not, he wouldn't do it out of his innate political timidity.
WHich is why we're doomed because the fix is in with Randi and Mulgrew...Does anyone REALLY feel that these two pimps are fighting for us ?
ReplyDeleteRandi does very nicely working in DC all week in a very high perch, hobnobbing, etc...THEN takes the shuttle back to NYC on weekends to go to her tony Hamptons home. So SHE'S going to go out on a limb for US??? Why?...selling us out is MUCH more profitable for her...Screw her...Wouldn't Mulgrew enjoy a similar payoff???
Mulgrew is on the take, clear and simple...unless proven otherwise...good luck with the otherwise. Just think...this is the propostion...sell out the teachers, and have a guaranteed life of wealth and privilege, compared to what he's coming from ( a shop teacher from Bklyn) OR fight the good fight, maybe lose, but DEFINTELY get on the bad size of these corporate moguls who seem to hold all the cards AND all of the G4s...(private jets).
What are the odds that Mulgrew bites the hand that WILL feed him...? He was a nothing, and NOW he cab be a contender...
Yeah, I meant to write "can" instead of "cab", but just add an s to cab an you got Mulgrew all sized up....he's a fucking scab...
ReplyDeleteMichael, an astute analysis as usual. One counterpoint to what you wrote. I think Obama does have an aversion to conflict in politics - with Republicans, the Village Elite, etc. With traditional Democratic constituencies, like teachers, union members, etc., he seems to enjoy the combat. Think the UAW sell-out in the GM bailout or the Central Falls, Rhode Island scummery.
ReplyDeleteIt's like he has this desperate need to prove he's not one of "those people" to the Village Elite - and selling out groups who should be his allies is his offering to them for their acceptance.
RBE,
ReplyDeleteWell put. He was vetted years ago by some Big People, who nodded in his direction.
He was the candidate of diversion, and someone who, it was hoped by his patrons, could competently manage the empire on an interim basis. The important point is that the Overclass saw that Bush had made a mess of things and had generated immense dissatisfaction. There was no elite enthusiasm for McCain (and rightfully so), so someone - and a black emocrat who could help fracture what's left of it traditional Democratic constituencies - like Obama was useful.
Michael - this is in response to your first comment. Actually adding to it. Besides keeping his darling daughters away from standardized testing and all that crap he peddles for us the peasants, he also made sure his lovely sister is out of the way. Maya Soetoro-Ng is(was?) a teacher in a private school in Hawaii. And Obama concern trolls saying "Oh I know what is to be a teacher. My sister is one...." blah blah blah...
ReplyDeleteHis sister was trying to do CYA after watching "Waiting for Duperman" : Oh you know, let's talk ... bobbling Obama style.
Michael & RBE , in response to your latest exchange :
ReplyDeleteSpot on. David Sirota wrote an article "Mr.Obama goes to Washington" way back in 2007. And he saw Obama for what he is - the guy was carefully positioning himself - like voting for tort reform which was a pet peeve for Robber Rubin. Rubin, then with Citigroup, wnated it so bad because Citi was getting sued left & right in the aftermath of Enron. And Paul Street deconstructs him thoroughly in his book and Z mag articles - the classic one is his article on O's 2004 speech - Street called it as a pretty conservative speech (some "America is great" here, some personal responsibility there and so on). I read that conservatives wanted to claim himas their own. One headline read "right speech, wrong convention" !!