Jeb Bush Gets Preview Of What Run For President In 2016 Will Be Like

Yesterday I posted that I was hoping that Jeb Bush would run for president in 2016 because I thought he would get hammered over Common Core and be put on the defensive over his education reform record in Florida and his business interests related to education reform.

Today the NY Times reports Bush got a preview of the opposition he's going to get in the GOP presidential primaries over Common Core:

GREENSBORO, N.C. — In one of his first public appearances of the 2014 campaign, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida had a vivid preview Wednesday of the challenges he would face with his party’s conservative base should he seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016.

Standing alongside Thom Tillis, the North Carolina House speaker and Republican Senate candidate, Mr. Bush outlined his views on two of the issues he cares most passionately about: immigration policy and education standards. But as Mr. Bush made the case for an immigration overhaul and the Common Core standards, Mr. Tillis gently put distance between himself and his guest of honor, who had flown here from Florida on a dreary day to offer his endorsement in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

...

On the Common Core, the educational standards first devised by a bipartisan group of governors, which have become deeply unpopular among conservative activists, Mr. Tillis also sounded far more conservative than Mr. Bush. The North Carolina House approved the standards in 2011, but, facing primary challengers from the right earlier this year, Mr. Tillis backed away from them.

“I’m not willing to settle just for a national standard if we think we can find things to set a new standard and a best practice,” Mr. Tillis said, pivoting to an attack on the federal Education Department as “a bureaucracy of 5,000 people in Washington” who make an average salary of a little more than $100,000.

While criticizing the Education Department is common among Republicans, Mr. Tillis was standing next to the younger brother of President George W. Bush, whose signature accomplishments include No Child Left Behind, the sweeping federal education law run by the department.

Mr. Bush sensed the need to play down any differences and returned to the microphone. “We can argue about what to call these things,” he said, but maintained that the focus ought to be on ensuring high standards.

Good luck pulling off the "We don't have to call it Common Core, let's call them higher standards" pivot in the GOP primaries, Jeb.

I guarantee you the reaction you're going to get is going to be a lot harsher than that Tillis gave you yesterday.

Run, Jeb, run!

Andrew Cuomo Looks To Be The New George Bush

Ever since that trip to Israel over the summer, Cuomo's been burnishing his "national security" credentials.

Here's another example:

Although saying there is "no specific threat" of a terror attack, Gov. Cuomo announced on Friday that he is calling up hundreds of National Guard troops and other personnel to beef up security in New York.

Summoning reporters and legislative leaders to his midtown office, Cuomo said a comprehensive new security plan will be implemented to cover airports, transit hubs and large gathering points across the region.

He declined to give specifics of the plan until he formally unveils it with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie next week.

Cuomo, who is running for re-election, said "it is undeniable that New York is a possible target of terrorist activity," either "in retaliation... or as an offensive gesture."

However, he acknowledged that, "We have no specific threat" of terrorists plotting an attack.   

“This is just a general precaution given the obvious situation and obvious facts,” Cuomo told reporters, after discussing the situation with legislative leaders.

It was Cuomo's second media briefing on security issues in five days, activity that comes as he is ramping up his general election campaign against Republican Rob Astorino. The ability to command media attention through official duties is an advantage that incumbents almost always have over challengers. 

Cuomo, Christie and Mayor de Blasio met earlier this week with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. The group pledged to step up preparedness and security amid fears that ISIS and other extremist groups would launch terror attacks in the area in response to President Obama authorizing a military campaign against the group.

“There will be hundreds of people, additional people, deployed across the system,” Cuomo said Friday. “There will be National Guard who will be called up.”

Cuomo said the short-term costs of the plan will be in the “tens of millions of dollars” and will be paid for in next year’s budget.

“This state and this metropolitan area will never have been as well protected as it will be when this plan is in operation,” Cuomo said.

No specific threat, just "a general precaution given the obvious situation and obvious facts” says the governor running for re-election as he calls a special presser to announce his security plan that he's doing jointly with pal Christie, who's running for president and also looking to burnish his national security credentials.

I guess I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I remember back in 2004 when the Bushies raised the terror alert every other month while Bush was running his re-election campaign based on national security and keeping the country safe from terrorism (never mind that Bush was president for 9/11 and completely ignored the warning signs beforehand about it.)

This Cuomo/Christie anti-terrorism campaign has the same political feel that the 2003-2004 terror alert manipulations had.

That doesn't mean the NYC area isn't a terrorism target and the politicians in charge aren't right to try and protect people and proparty as best they can.

Just that the rhetoric and press statements around this anti-terror campaign have the feel of a political campaign too.

As I noted when Cuomo admonished his Democratic opponent, Zephyr Teachout, over her staying out of the Mideast conflict, more and more it seems Andrew Cuomo has decided to wrap himself in the veneer of George W. Bush.

Cuomo Plays 9/11 Card In Primary Contest

Governor Cuomo must be more concerned about the Democratic Primary vote next Tuesday than his campaign's letting on if he felt the need to play the "Vote For Zephyr Teachout and terrorists will kill you!" card.

That's what he did yesterday, sounding very much like George W. Bush:

Gov. Cuomo stopped short of bashing his primary rival Zephyr Teachout for refusing to take a position on Israel, but said anyone who doesn't think the Middle Eastern conflict is a New York problem is "living in a state of denial."

Teachout, who is running against Cuomo in the Democratic primary, has declined to state her position on Israel's decision to launch attacks in the Gaza Strip.

Without mentioning Teachout by name, Cuomo said anyone who thinks the conflict is just an Israeli problem is engaging in the "ostrich strategy."

"We went through 9-11. We [as New Yorkers] have a special sensitivity to terrorism ... We have a special connection to Israel," Cuomo said after a closed door meeting with national Jewish leaders to discuss his 29-hour trip to Israel last month.

Asked specifically about Teachout's silence on the matter, Cuomo declined to comment directly but said, "Any New Yorker who doesn't understand that Israel's fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial."

...

He said the violence is the Middle East is "not just Israel's problem."

"It's democracies versus extremism and terrorism. And Israel is a target because they're a democracy," said Cuomo, adding that the enemies of Israel are also anti-European and anti-American.

"What is over there is going to be over here. And it's going to be over here much sooner than we think," said Cuomo.

Reread Cuomo's statements, then close your eyes and think back to the time when George W. Bush told us the United States was attacked by terrorists on 9/11 because "They hate us for our freedoms!" and ran a re-election campaign that essentially argued everybody would die if John Kerry were elected president in 2004.

Doesn't it sound like Cuomo's framing this 2014 election the same way and arguing the same thing about a vote for Zephyr Teachout?

Clearly he's looking to shore up the pro-Israel vote here with his staunch support of the Israelis and that's fine - politicians play to constituencies and ethnic groups for support all of the time, nothing wrong with Cuomo doing it.

But I think it's a mark of his desperation that he uses the kind of language the Bush campaign used in 2004 to scare people away from John Kerry.

Does he really need to make it sound like a vote for Zephyr Teachout is a vote for terrorism?

Because that's what I hear when he says "What is over there is going to be over here. And it's going to be over here much sooner than we think."

Teachout did address the issue afterwards:

Zephry Teachout said if she's elected governor she will work to maintain New York's "special" relationship with Israel, but won't be wading into any foreign policy issues as leader of the state.

“New York has a very special relationship with Israel, and Israel was founded here [at the United Nations]," she said at a press event in Manhattan.

She added, "As governor it will be part of my job to be supporting that relationship, but I’m not running for president and I’m not going to second guess the president or the secretary of state on foreign policy issues.”

Seems like a reasonable position to me.

I think a New Yorker can vote for Zephyr Teachout and not worry they're voting for terrorism too.

No matter what George W., er, Andrew M. Cuomo says.

Washington Post: Opt-Out Movement Growing

It's good to see this kind of coverage:

A decade into the school accountability movement, pockets of resistance to standardized testing are sprouting up around the country, with parents and students opting out of the high-stakes tests used to evaluate schools and teachers.

From Seattle, where 600 high school students refused to take a standardized test in January, to Texas, where 86 percent of school districts say the tests are “strangling our public schools,” anti-testing groups argue that bubble exams have proliferated beyond reason, delivering more angst than benefits.

...

The opt-out movement is nascent but growing, propelled by parents, students and some educators using social media to swap tips on ways to spurn the tests. They argue that the exams cause stress for young children, narrow classroom curricula, and, in the worst scenarios, have led to cheating because of the stakes involved — teacher compensation and job security.
 
Standardized testing is one of the most controversial aspects of the accountability movement that began in earnest in 2002 when President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act.

...

 Some say the Obama administration has pushed the stakes even higher through its Race to the Top program, which encourages states to use the standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. In some states, as much as half of a teacher’s job evaluation is now determined by student scores on standardized tests.

The resulting pressure is distorting education, anti-testing activists say.

It's a pretty good article - it lays the blame for the testing craze on both Bush and Obama, it notes that while Obama said in 2011 there may be too much reliance on testing in education, his policies actually promote exactly that, and it shows how more and more parents are joining the op-out movement.

It also gives us some scary figures that should give us some pause:

In 2001, states spent $552 million on testing.

In 2012, states spent $1.7 billion on testing.

Most states haven't even begun to implement the Common Core tests in every grade in every subject in order to evaluate teachers, as Obama's Race to the Top policy requires.

Just wait until the testing price tag then.

No wonder News Corporation and Microsoft and many other corporations are putting the hard sell on Common Core on the radio and TV these days.

They stand to make billions off this.

Why Do Liberals Let Obama Get Away With This Bush League Stuff?

We have a president who has institutionalized the slaughter of thousands of innocents in the name of national security and the War on Terror.

We have a president with a personal "kill list" who orders the murder of at least one person on that list every week - again, in the name of national security and the War on Terror.

This president has declared that he has the right to assassinate any American at any time in any place for any reason - so long as the president believes this person is guilty of acts of terrorism and cannot be taken alive into custody. This declaration of extraordinary and unconstitutional powers is also made in the name of national security and the War on Terror.

This president even ordered the assassination of a 16 year old boy, an American citizen - the son of an American man who was never indicted, let alone brought to trial or convicted on any crimes, but was nonetheless killed by the American government because he was believed to be a "terrorist".

This man's son, a 16 year old boy, was later targeted by this president and killed by a drone bomb strike in Yemen.  His 17 year old cousin was killed along with him.

This president's administration first lied about the ages of these boys to make the murders seem less horrific, but once caught in their lies by the Washington Post and the L.A. Times, they admitted they had killed two teenagers.

They nonetheless continue to defend these killings as justified, saying that's it too bad this kid had to die but he should've "had a more responsible father."  

This kind of thing makes this president's statements on the senseless killing of another American teenager, Trayvon Martin, seem as disingenuous as they no doubt were.

In case you haven't figured out the timeline by now, this president who has engaged in the systematic slaughter of innocents, who is busy institutionalizing that slaughter so that those who come after him can continue it with legal justification in place, who seems to relish his "tough guy" role as judge, jury and executioner in the so-called War on Terror, is Barack Obama.

You know, the guy who won a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago.

Had George W. Bush engaged in this kind of murderous behavior, liberals would have been up in arms calling for his impeachment and imprisonment.

But because the president engaging in this murderous activity is a Democrat, they remain silent, making believe they do not know what is happening.

Or worse, they justify it as practical and necessary.

I keep seeing people I respect, thoughtful people with progressive values, endorsing this murderous president as the better alternative to his opponent, Mitt Romney.

Obama is, as the cliche goes, the lesser of two evils and many people are deciding to hold their noses and vote for him under that rationale.

I cannot do that.

Barack Obama is a murderer and a war criminal.

If there were justice in the world, he would be in a jail cell in Guantanamo Bay alongside Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Rumsfeld, Yoo, et al. having Rage Against The Machine albums blasted at him 24/7 for the rest of his life.

But there is no justice, and so, instead many Americans are faced with the choice of voting for him because he is the lesser of the two evils available to us on election day.

Well, I cannot choose the lesser evil.

It’s been said before, but I’ll say it again: The lesser of two evils is still evil.

And make no mistake, Barack Obama is evil.

Just ask the relatives of the dead drone bomb victims Obama had slaughtered in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the name of national security and the War on Terror.

Florida Teachers Demonstrate Against Obama As President Shills For Reform With Jeb Bush

President Obama traveled to Florida this week to do two things - raise money for his 2012 re-election and meet with Jeb Bush to hail Bush's education reform movement in the state even as Florida destroys teacher tenure, ties teacher pay and jobs to test scores and replaces teachers with computerized instruction..

Valerie Strauss wasn't too impressed with the president's motives or what it says about his education agenda:

Breaking bread with Jeb Bush on school reform should be a questionable proposition for a president from a party that has traditionally championed public education (which is not to say it doesn’t need reform) and teachers unions (which is not to say that they should not reform).

Florida is increasingly being looked to as a national model of education reform, and we have Jeb Bush to thank for that. The state began to overhaul its public education system after Jeb Bush became governor in 1999, and it has been a leader in reforms centered around standardized tests, the expansion of charter schools, virtual education and merit pay. He long tried to reduce the power of teachers unions -- being very vocal about his aims -- and last year campaigned for legislation that would eliminate teacher tenure.

...

The scheduled Obama-Jeb Bush fest is symbolic of how far afield Democrats have gone with school reform.

Obama last month expressed support for the Wisconsin teachers, who have been protesting to keep the collective bargaining rights (and that of other public employees) that the governor, Scott Walker, is intent on taking away. Wisconsin teachers already made concessions on monetary issues.

Obama said: "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain, generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they’re firefighters and they’re social workers and they’re police officers.”

So, at this point in time, when teachers in Wisconsin and elsewhere feel besieged, I’m wondering why Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are flying to Florida to be with Republicans who have been part of the attack force. Why, when teachers are fighting for union rights, does the president decide to spend time with anti-teachers union school reformers?

Miami teachers weren't impressed by Obama's visit either and they let him know it:

Nicole Hermann has been teaching second grade in Miami for the past five years.

She knows the struggles teachers face on a daily basis and is concerned about Senate Bill 736, which would tie teacher salaries to student test scores and eliminate tenure for teachers hired after 2014.

"I am very disappointed in what is taking place in the Florida legislature," said Hermann. "I don't think government leaders appreciate what we do for young people."

Hermann was among 200 Miami-Dade teachers who protested President Barack Obama's visit to Miami Central Senior High School on March 4.

Many held signs criticizing Obama for not doing more to help teachers during tough economic times.

"I work very hard to help special needs children," said Mark Andrews, who teaches seventh grade special education students in North Miami. "I can't believe what government is doing to education."

Karen Aronowitz, president of United Teachers of Dade said she and other union members were very angry that Obama would choose to stand next to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush at the event. Aronowitz said that Bush had worked to close Miami Central Senior High School when it was rated as a D and F school for ten consecutive years. She said that Bush is in favor of legislation that would break teachers' unions.

One of the things that Aronowitz and other union members are concerned about is the support both Obama and Bush have for charter schools. When Bush became Florida governor in 1999, he strongly supported charter schools and standardized testing that would tie teacher pay to student performance. Charter schools are not covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Let's be frank - Jeb Bush and Barack Obama have the very SAME education policies.

If anything, Obama has been more aggressive at pushing charter schools, standardized testing in every subject at every grade level, and teacher pay and evaluations tied to those test scores than Jeb Bush's brother, President George W. Bush was.

Because Barack Obama labels himself a "Democrat," Dems in Congress gave him everything he wanted on his pro-charter/pro-privatization agenda.

Had George W. Bush tried to push the very same agenda through, he would have gotten strong resistance from those very same Congressional and Senate Dems.

So in many ways, Barack Obama has been even MORE damaging to public education and teachers than George W. was and it makes total sense that Obama would share a stage with Jeb Bush to promote union-busting, pro-charter, pro-testing education reform.

Wherever Obama goes, teachers would be doing themselves a favor if they demonstrated against him, spoke out against his education policies, and let him know that they will NOT be supporting him come 2012.

Obama Refers To Himself As "The Gipper"

Well, govern like Reagan, why not identify as Reagan too:

Channeling Reagan?

At outgoing White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' farewell press conference, President Obama referred to himself as "The Gipper," NPR reports.

President Obama, describing how he ended up wearing Gibbs' tie at the 2004 Democratic Convention, said that Gibbs "was willing to take one for the Gipper, and so he took off his tie, and I put it on. And that's the tie that I wore at the national convention."

Unfortunately given the paucity of credible Repubs to oppose him and given his rising poll ratings, the only chance to knock off Barack "The Gipper" Obama is to get the left to rise up in outrage and not support him and/or support a third party challenge.

I doubt that is going to happen.

So we're going to get six more years of Republican policies in the form of Change We Can Believe In.

Which looks pretty much like the Dubya policies that came before the Obama policies.

Maybe that's why Ron Paul people at CPAC were calling the last 13 years the "George W. Obama" years.

Food Stamp Use Up - So Glad Obama Cut The Food Stamp Program

From the Wall Street Journal:

More people tapped food stamps to pay for groceries in September as the recession and lackluster recovery have prompted more Americans to turn to government safety net programs to make ends meet.

Some 42.9 million people collected food stamps last month, up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Nationwide 14% of the population relied on food stamps as of September but in some states the percentage was much higher. In Washington, D.C., Mississippi and Tennessee – the states with the largest share of citizens receiving benefits – more than a fifth of the population in each was collecting food stamps.

President Obama had the food stamp program cut twice in the past year - once in order to save cuts to his Race to the Top program, once to offset an increase in school lunch aid.

Gee, he couldn't have raised taxes on a few millionaires to get the money for the school lunch program?

And he couldn't bear to see some money for standardized test data tracking systems cut from Race to the Top?

No, I guess he couldn't.

This is especially disturbing since for most people in America, the economy is NOT getting better, the jobs situation is NOT getting better and the food situation is NOT getting better.

Ironic, but Obama's Change We Can All Believe In looks suspiciously like Bush's Ownership Society.

Obama Sells Out Social Security

Leaving aside that Obama has broken a campaign promise by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for rich people, notice that the payroll tax cut that he plans to extend to everybody is coming not from federal taxes but from Social Security:

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans on Monday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy.

...

It would reduce the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on all wage earners by two percentage points for one year, putting more money in the paychecks of workers. For a family earning $50,000 a year, it would amount to a savings of $1,000.

For a worker slated to pay the maximum tax, $6,621.60 on income of $106,800 or more in 2011, the cut would mean a savings of $2,136. That would replace the central tax break for middle- and low-income Americans in last year’s economic stimulus measure, White House officials said.

This will be the beginning of the end for the Social Security program.

Progressive economists have worried that a payroll tax break along the lines of the one announced tonight could come back to bite Democrats if it undermined the solvency of Social Security. But officials tonight insisted that its cost to the Social Security trust fund will be reimbursed with a credit from general revenue.

In the very near future, Republicans will claim Social Security is unfunded and insolvent.

Corporate Dems like Obama will likely agree.

And then that Bush private accounts plan we all fought back so hard on back in 2005 will come to pass.

Just another sellout of progressive liberalism by Barack Obama.

Heckuva job, Barack!

Value-Added Analysis Of The Obama Record On Jobs

Nearly two years into the Obama administration, here is where the country's employment situation stands:

TODAY, the Bureau of Labour Statistics released the last set of American employment numbers to come ahead of the November Congressional elections. If the Democrats were looking for a boost from the numbers, they're sure to be disappointed—and then some. For the fourth month in a row, nonfarm payroll employment declined in September, by a total of 95,000 jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.6%.

...

There is little to be positive about elsewhere in the report. The number of people working part-time for economic reasons jumped in September, and nearly 10 million Americans now fall into that category. Partially as a result, the statistic known as U-6, considered a more complete indicator of un- and under-employment, rose from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in September. The previously reported jobless figures for July and August were both revised down slightly. Aside from government employment, payrolls in good producing sectors had a rough month, and construction in particular was hard hit, shedding 21,000 jobs. Private services did better across the board, especially the leisure and hospitality sector, which added 38,000 employees. There is indeed a lot more leisure to go around in America these days.

The Obama administration predicted unemployment would top out at 9% without the stimulus.

The administration predicted unemployment would top out at 7.9% if the stimulus was passed.

As you can see from the report above, the unemployment rate has held steady at 9.6%.

The underemployment rate, a much more accurate picture of the labor market, increased to 17.1%.

To put it simply, the Obama administration has NOT added value to the employment market.

Dems in the Congress and the Senate will pay a price for that miserable record next month.

Obama will have to wait for his accountability moment for a few years.

But it's coming:

A new CNN/Opinion Research survey shows that Americans are now divided on their preference for Barack Obama or George W. Bush, with 47% saying Obama has done a better job as president than Bush and 45% saying Bush did a better job.

It's a marked change from the same time last year. When asked the same question late last year, 57% of Americans picked Obama, and 34% picked Bush.

Oh, yeah - that accountability moment is coming.

Somehow, Obama has managed to erase from the memories of Americans just how bad Bush was.

Heckuva job, Barack!!!!

Heckuva job.

George W. Bush Institute To Train Principals

This sounds like it's from The Onion - but it's real:

DALLAS — The first initiative of the George W. Bush Institute will focus on improving the performance of school principals, former first lady Laura Bush announced Wednesday.

"We know the teachers have a direct and enormous impact on student performance and school principals shape the environment in which teachers are able to operate successfully," Bush told a group assembled at a Dallas high school for the announcement.

The institute's Alliance to Reform Education Leadership, or AREL, will consist of school districts, universities and foundations offering educational programs to current and future school leaders, Bush said.

"A well-trained, energetic teacher can be stifled under lackluster or discouraging administrators," said Bush, a former school teacher.

The Bush Institute hopes to certify at least half the nation's public school principals by 2020.

Would ANYBODY want to hire a principal trained by the Bush Academy?

Seriously, the Jack Welch/General Electric Principal Academy is bad enough.

But if you ask me to think about words that come to mind when I think about "George W. Bush" and "leadership qualities," I come up with "arrogant," "clueless," "delusional," "uninformed," "stubborn" and "unwilling to change course even when confronted with new facts that undercut previous theories."

Come to think about it, those are the same words I think about when I focus on the words "President Obama" and "leadership qualities" as well.

Either way, they are NOT what I would want to see in a principal.

Plus who wants to see all that illegal wiretapping and waterboarding going on in the school system?