Some Republicans Not Sold On Eva Moskowitz For Mayor

A trial balloon was floated yesterday in the Murdoch Post about Mistress Eva of Success Academies running for mayor on the Republican line, but some cold water was thrown on that dream later in the day:

Rejecting a Manhattan GOP leader’s interest in having Democrat Eva Moskowitz run for mayor as a Republican, Republican chairs said today that they would prefer a registered Republican challenging Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“I’m not a big fan of Wilson-Pakulas,” said Craig Eaton, the chairman of the Brooklyn Republican Party. “I’m hopeful this time around we’ll have registered Republicans running on our line.” Mr. Eaton was referring to a state law that requires the approval of three out of five New York City party chairs for a candidate to run on a party line different than their own.

Ms. Moskowitz, the founder of Success Academy Charter Schools and a top de Blasio critic, has never expressed interest in party-switching or renting the GOP line. The practice drew scrutiny after Malcolm Smith, a former Democratic state senator, was convicted of trying to bribe his way into the 2013 GOP mayoral primary.

Adele Malpass, the chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party, wants Ms. Moskowitz to give the Wilson-Pakula more thought. “I would be very excited about Eva running for mayor,” she told the New York Post. “Education is a top priority for the next mayor and Eva is eminently qualified to do that. She’s outstanding.”

Ed Cox, the chairman of the State Republican Party, told the Post Ms. Moskowitz is a “visionary” on education issues, though he didn’t say outright she should run as a Republican.

Staten Island’s Republican chairman, John Antoniello, joined Mr. Eaton in calling for a real Republican to get the nod. “Without a doubt I’d prefer a registered Republican to run,” he told the Observer.

I don't see why Moskowitz, a registered "Democrat" can't switch parties and become a Republican?

Bloomberg did it, why not Eva?

Frankly she's a better fit for the GOP line than the Democratic line.

Her union-busting, anti-public education agenda won't sit well with labor and other traditional Democratic constituencies that put on big GOTV operations in primaries.

Jeb Bush - The Gaffer That Keeps On Giving

If Jeb Bush is the nominee, he's a gaffe machine who will keep on giving to Hillary:

Democratic critics of Jeb Bush’s ad-lib Tuesday about cutting women’s health spending were joined by conservatives, who are annoyed that the inartful statement may undermine their efforts to finally score a win against Planned Parenthood.

Despite his swift damage control efforts, Bush’s casual aside Tuesday afternoon that “I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health programs” threw the Democratic attack machine into overdrive.

...

 For Bush, it marked the third time in a month that a carelessly phrased off-the-cuff comment has sparked controversy — causing consternation anew that the party’s best-funded potential nominee has been, in the early months of the primary fight, something of a gaffe machine.

...

Less than an hour after making the comment about the overfunding of “women’s health issues,” Bush posted a statement on his website saying that he “misspoke” and meant only to question the $500 million in federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

It was a swifter reincarnation of Bush’s other explanations in recent weeks of comments in which he seemed to call for the “phasing out” of Medicare — he said later he wasn’t referring to a specific program, just entitlements in general; and his suggestion that “workers need to work longer hours,” which, he later clarified, was an attempt to discuss underemployment, not an insinuation that American workers are lazy.

Good thing Bush has raised $120 million already.

He's going to need a lot of money to explain in campaign ads the stupid stuff he says on the campaign trail.

NYSUT Backs Indicted Senate Republican

Your union in action:

There was also no consensus among union leaders about the effort to flip the Senate into Democratic hands – a push that largely originated with unions during the labor-backed Working Families Party’s debate over whether to endorse Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Fordham Law Prof. Zephyr Teachout. In a deal brokered by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Cuomo ended up endorsing a Democrat-controlled Senate as well as the return of IDC members to the so-called regular Democratic conference.

But NYSUT members feel strongly that individual senators – both Republicans and Democrats – have been very supportive of their issues over the years, and they wanted to repay that loyalty with endorsements, Pallotta said. For example, NYSUT threw its support behind GOP Sen. Ken LaValle, longtime chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee; and another Long Island Republican, Jack Martins, who is among the Democrats’ top targets this year, even through it opted to take a pass in many of the Long Island districts – including the one represented by Senate GOP Leader Dean Skelos.

NYSUT also remained loyal to the Senate Republicans’ second-in-command, Sen. Tom Libous, of the Southern Tier, despite his indictment on charges that he lied to federal agents about helping his son get a job with a politically-connected law firm.

Okay, I get paying back Republicans like Martins, who has been good on education issues.

But why back the indicted Libous?

And the next time you hear jive about Working Families Party backing Cuomo so that the State Senate could be taken back by Dems, remember this sentence from Liz Benjamin:

There was also no consensus among union leaders about the effort to flip the Senate into Democratic hands – a push that largely originated with unions during the labor-backed Working Families Party’s debate over whether to endorse Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Fordham Law Prof. Zephyr Teachout.

I'm agnostic these days about Dems taking back the Senate - many of them are ed deformers and pro-Common Core, after all.

But I do want to point out the jive around the WFP endorsement.

Andrew Cuomo To Run For Re-Election As A Republican

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo stunned his audience at a speaking engagement at the Harvard Club today when he announced he will be running for re-election as a Republican.

Cuomo, speaking to a sparse group of financiers and GOP powerbrokers including John Catsimatidis, the supermarket magnate who ran for mayor in the NYC Republican primary last year, said that he has decided to dispense with the sham of calling himself a Democrat and just come out as the corporate-toadying Republican he really is.

"99% of my campaign donation were big-money donations, coming from corporate interests and/or affluent people.  My fiscal policies, my environmental policies, my education policies all favor wealthy people and corporate interests.  I have pushed tax cuts for rich people even as I have cut education aid to districts that serve poor and minority students.  I have handed out tax breaks to wealthy real estate interests in return for campaign donations and expanded legalized gambling across the state to pay back my casino campaign donors.  There really is no point to calling myself a "Democrat" anymore - I have just decided to come out as the Reagan Republican I really am."

While Cuomo spoke to his wealthy audience inside the Harvard Club, 50 anti-fracking protesters outside the club vowed to follow Governor 1% around the state, saying they would not allow Cuomo to sell out the environment to his corporate friends and donors:

"Everywhere the governor goes, whether it's upstate or downstate, [there] the anti-fracking movement will be, demanding that he do the right thing and protect our health and safety," said Alex Beauchamp of Food & Water Watch, which opposes the gas-drilling process on which Cuomo has yet to make a final pronouncement. 

Meanwhile inside the Harvard Club, the GOP powerbrokers and Wall Street financiers who gave Sheriff Andy envelopes with unmarked bills as "Christmas gifts" on the way into the talk, said they were impressed with Cuomo's Republican/conservative credentials:

Overall, "I would say it was exactly the kind of crowd that you need to have if you want to run for governor of this state, especially from the Republican side," said GOP consultant Michael McKeon, a former top aide to then-Gov. George Pataki, after the event.

"I think his presentation won over a lot of people today who I think will be prepared to stand with him in November," said McKeon, who wasn't willing to confirm he's officially heading this cycle's "Republicans For Cuomo" movement, as he did four years ago.

Many in the press were surprised by Cuomo's announcements that he was changing parties and becoming a Republican, but could not ask the governor any questions after the event, as Cuomo fled the scene with a sack full of little white envelopes stuffed with cash and business cards with contact information so he can receive his Valentine's Day, Easter, Passover and Father's Day gifts from the GOP powerbrokers and Wall Street financiers.

Earlier today, Cuomo's office announced that Governor Cuomo has the largest war chest of any U.S. governor up for re-election.

After the audience with the Wall Street financiers and GOP powerbrokers at the Harvard Club today, you can see just how he got all that money.

Republican Education Bill Vs. Democratic Education Bill

From the Times:

Signaling a preference for a much smaller role for the federal government in public schooling, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, is introducing legislation on Thursday to revise No Child Left Behind, the Bush-era education law. 

Coming two days after Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate education committee, released a 1,150-page education bill, the bill by Mr. Alexander, who is the ranking Republican on the committee, will compete with it. 

The Alexander bill is described in its introduction as restoring “freedom to parents, teachers, principals, governors and local communities so that they can improve their local public schools.”

At less than one-fifth the length of Mr. Harkin’s bill, Mr. Alexander’s legislation would allow states to devise curriculum standards, tests, school rating systems and consequences for schools that fail to meet state goals with far fewer guidelines than are included in the Harkin bill. 

Both bills would amend the half-century-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act that governs public schools receiving federal money to support the most vulnerable students.

“What they are really saying is they don’t trust parents and they don’t trust classroom teachers and states to care about and help educate their children, and they want someone in Washington do it for them,” Mr. Alexander said of Democrats in a telephone interview. “I just completely reject that.” 

...

Mr. Alexander’s bill continues the current law’s requirement of testing students in reading and math in third through eighth grades and once in high school. All schools must report the scores and show how different racial groups, students with disabilities, those learning the English language and poor students perform on the tests. 

The bill would require states to set standards that would allow students to be ready for college or a job “without the need for remediation.” 

Neither Mr. Harkin’s nor Mr. Alexander’s bill mandates the content of academic standards. Mr. Alexander’s bill also does not prescribe what should be included in a state’s annual goals for student performance on tests; Mr. Harkin’s bill sets more guidelines. 

The Alexander bill encourages, but would not require, states to set up teacher evaluation systems. It also does not mandate any turnaround measures for schools that fail to meet state goals, although it does list options including closing a school, replacing the principal or offering higher pay to recruit new teachers. 

The details on the Dem bill introduced by Harkin are here.

It is quite clear that the Democrats have decided everything in education policy will be micromanaged from Arne Duncan's office in Washington.

Republicans are still looking to kill off the system with vouchers (Alexander is adding that as an amendment to his bill), but there is less and less micromanaging from them these days.

The influence of the Tea Party and the libertarian wing has some positive effects

Wisconsin Republicans: Screw The Constitution

Fascism, pure and simple:

CHICAGO — A law to limit collective bargaining rights for public workers in Wisconsin was unexpectedly published by a state agency on Friday despite a temporary restraining order barring publication, sparking confusion and more animosity among legislators who have fiercely debated the issue for weeks.

State officials disagreed over whether publication of the law — a procedural requirement — would allow it to be in force on Saturday. The state’s Legislative Reference Bureau said it is required to publish all laws within 10 days after they are enacted. Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, signed the bill on March 11, but a county judge issued an order last week blocking the secretary of state from publishing it. The order did not bar the legislative bureau from publishing the law.

Democrats argued on Friday that the law would not go into effect on Saturday because it still required official publication by the secretary of state.

“This bill has been under a cloud of suspicion since Day 1,” Peter Barca, a Democrat and minority leader of the General Assembly, said in a statement. “Today’s actions and statements are only perpetuating the problem.”

...

Governor Walker’s administration said it had been notified that the agency published the bill as required by law. “The administration will carry out the law as required,” the administration said in a statement.

The law limits bargaining to matters of wages and limits raises to changes in the Consumer Price Index. It ends the state’s collection of union dues from paychecks and requires most unions to hold annual votes to determine whether workers still wish to be members.

Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County Circuit Court in Madison had issued the temporary restraining order barring publication of the law last week after the county’s Democratic district attorney filed a lawsuit saying that Republican lawmakers violated open meeting requirements when they pushed the bill through the Legislature. Judge Sumi had planned to hold a full hearing this month.

On Thursday, a state appeals court declined to weigh in on the issue and suggested the Supreme Court take up the case.

It will be interesting to see if Republicans pay a political price for defying a court order.

Until these criminals are made to pay a political and a criminal price for their actions, they will continue to pull this kind of thing.

One Family Member Strikes, Whole Family Loses Gov't Support

Wow - this is really taking the war on unions nationwide:

All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking middle class Americans to pay for budget deficits caused mainly by a recession caused by Wall Street; they are attacking workers’ collective bargaining rights, which has provoked a huge Main Street Movement to fight back.

Now, a group of House Republicans is launching a new stealth attack against union workers. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX) have introduced H.R. 1135, which states that it is designed to “provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.”

Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer.

The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”

Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.

Luckily President Obama (D- Corporate America) cut food stamps for many Americans so that he wouldn't have to cut money from his Race to the Top education privatization boondoggle, so not too many people will be affected by this anti-union provision.

Not too many except for the 42 million receiving food stamps.

I dunno who I find more venomous, the anti-union Republithugs in the House or President "Let's Cut Food Stamps" Obama.

Ah, screw it - a pox on ALL of them.

Going After Pensions Of Current Workers AND Retirees

Scary stuff:

Reuters cites a Weekly Standard article that laid out the endgame - by changing the law to allow state bankruptcies, and then forcing states to go bankrupt by cutting their funding and undermining their ability to borrow, states would be able to reopen contracts with public employees. Not only could wages and benefits then be cut for current workers, but pension benefits for retired workers would also become fair game for cuts, as has happened with retired auto workers and others whose private sector pensions have been slashed after corporate bankruptcies.

It's no surprise that California Republicans like Issa and Nunes are leading this fight - they know that public employee benefits are one of the last vestiges of a middle-class workforce in the state, and that those unions are one of the last lines of defense against the right.

California already has one big battle come up in early 2011 over the state budget. Looks like we'll have another in 2011 with this federal effort to force us into bankruptcy. And with Barack Obama busy caving to the right whenever possible, we'll have to win this fight on our own.

Hell, I don't think Obama will cave on this.

I think he will actively look to help Repubs destroy the unions, reopen contracts, lower wages, and scale back pensions for both current workers AND retirees.

That's what he did with the UAW.

Why wouldn't he do it to ALL the unions?