Sestak Lead Down To 1 point In PA

Wow, this one is going to be close!

Sestak leads by 27,800 votes with about 1,300 precincts left to count.

Dems still up in Illinois race to fill the seat Obama used to have.

Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada too close to call.

Nader: Bloomberg Will Blow Apart Two Party System in 2012

Gee, I thought Halloween was over:

• "I see a looming giant on the horizon for 2012... you better try to get an interview with him because if he runs, it is not only a three way race, he's going to blow the whole two party system apart."
• -- Ralph Nader, in an interview on the Fox Business Network, on New York City Michael Bloomberg possibly running as an independent candidate for president.

He's going to run.

Bet on it.

He's going to drop between $250 million to $300 million on the race.

In a country that loves its transfats and guns and hates Islamic community centers anywhere near Ground Zero, I doubt Bloomberg can win.

But he sure will do some mischief.

So GOP Wins House, Looks Like Dems Hold Senate

The PA race between Toomey and Sestak is getting closer, but Sestak still leads by 3.

More Toomey country to be counted than likely Sestak votes.

Still too early to call either Wisconsin, Nevada or Colorado.

Gonna be a long night on some of these races.

Cuomo Winning By 20

UPDATE: Cuomo up by 35 now.

Crazy Carl waved a baseball bat at his concession speech.

Freaking amazing.

That a major party gave this guy the nomination in NY - hard to believe.

Even harder to be lieve is that Cuomo - anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-working class, pro-hedge fund, pro-bank is the Democrat.

ORIGINAL POST: Given how crazy Crazy Carl Paladino is, is a 20 point victory over him a "mandate"?

We'll see - only 4% of the vote is counted.

Maybe Little Andy's numbers will go up as the night goes along.

And no matter what, the man who had nothing to do with the Vote for Cuomo, Not the Homo signs back in 1977 will declare it a mandate anyway.

But right now, given the opposition, I am not all that impressed with Little Andy's performance.

Will Sestak Win PA?

Bloomberg endorsed Sestak, so I worry about him.

Anybody Bloomberg endorses, I worry about.

Right now Sestak leads and Nate Silver says this race could be a Dem win.

House Dem Obama Campaigned For Loses

Ruh-roh, President Accountability.

Looks like you put your ass on the line in one House race and LOST:

Take that, President Obama. The Republican party handed Mr. Obama one of his signature defeats of the night Tuesday when Robert Hurt, a state senator in Virginia, defeated the only Democratic House candidate for whom Mr. Obama campaigned directly. Democrat Tom Periello received presidential-level help in the last week of the campaign as Mr. Obama flew to Charlottesville to try and save the freshman lawmaker. But Mr. Periello, who had been an unabashed supporter of the president and his health care legislation, had too steep a hill to climb in a district that is heavily rural and quite conservative. The White House had apparently calculated that the polls in the race were close enough that a visit by Mr. Obama might help turn out Democrats for Mr. Periello. They hoped to tout a victory amid losses elsewhere.But that turned out not to be the case, and instead, the effort served to embarrass the president instead.

Can't wait to read about that loss in the papers tomorrow.

Just how will the White House spin this one?

Can Russ Feingold Hold On?

The one Dem I do want to win tonight is anti-NCLB, anti-war Russ Feingold.

He's been down all campaign to his GOP opponent, Ron Johnson.

TPM says Dems are still holding out hope Feingold will win tonight.

I don't see how, given that ALL the polls showed him losing, but I'll cross my fingers.

Results for this race here.

Colorado Polls Close At 9 PM Eastern

Results here.

Just in case you're interested.

I bet hedge fund criminal Whitney Tilson is watching.

Unless he's busy stealing Halloween candy from children, of course.

Rubio Wins Big In Florida, O'Donnell Loses In Delaware

Damn, I was hoping the born again virgin witch who had sex three years ago with some guy she met on Halloween would've won her Senate race.

Maybe next time.

But Rubio won in Florida.

Tea Party 2, Obama 0.

Senate Exit Polls - Bennet Beating Buck

Ugh - Bennet up two in the exit polls:

Blumenthal (D-CT) +8
Rubio (R-FL) +21
Blunt (R-MO) +10
Boxer (D-CA) +8
Kirk (R-IL) +6
Paul (R-KY) +11
NV--EVEN
Bennet (D-CO) +2
Toomey (R-PA) +4
Murray (D-WA) +6
Manchin (D-WV) +7
Johnson (R-WI) +5

The Denver Post says the Bennet/Buck race is the closest in the country.

Buck ran an AWFUL campaign against Bennet, so it won't be a surprise if Whitney Tilson's favorite charter school proponent wins.

But we'll see.

Exit polls have been wrong before.

Just ask John Kerry.

Rand Paul Wins Senate Seat

Not a surprise, but still, momentous, I think.

Here is Rand Paul's take on education policy:

“I would have voted no on No Child Left Behind. Decisions on education should occur at the state and local level by teachers, administrators, school boards, and parents.”

...

“Opposed to reauthorizing any federal control of schools. Would work to repeal No Child Left Behind.

...

“I am against any federal funding or control of education. Historically, education was funded and controlled locally. Even now, most funding is local. You can’t have it both ways. Most teachers despise No Child Left Behind. If you want to be rid of it, you must also oppose federal funds!

...

“Revenue for education should be local. Once you allow the federal government in, you lose control.

I guess we can count Dr. Paul as a no vote on a Race to the Top competition for 2011?

Paul's opponent, Jack Conway, was a yes vote for both NCLB ( he likes the law, says it only needs minor tweaking) and Race to the Top.

Sure, Dr. Paul wants to abolish the DOE completely.

And sure, ending federal funding would screw tons of poor students.

But I have to say, I like that there is a "no" vote for NCLB re-authorization and RttT.

Unfortunately he will be a "no" vote on lots of other stuff that is really, really good too - like federal aid for college students.

Davis Guggenheim Staged Scene In "Waiting For Superman"

Much of the criticism of "Waiting for Superman" has been how manipulative some of the scenes are and how reductionist the argument that charter schools are better than traditional public schools the movies pushes is.

But it turns out that the movie was even more manipulative than you might think.

The NY Times reports today that some of the "documentary" was staged:

One of the many affecting scenes in the documentary “Waiting for Superman” shows a mother on a personal tour of a high-performing Harlem charter school she wants her son to attend. She looks with perceptible longing at baskets of books and welcoming classrooms, and says “Wow” when told how children struggling with reading, like her first grader, Francisco, receive tutoring.

“It’s two different worlds,” the mother, Maria, tells the filmmaker in an interview interspersed with scenes of the tour, comparing it with her son’s Bronx public school. “I don’t care if we have to wake up at 5 o’clock in the morning in order to get there at 7:45, then that’s what we will do.”

But there is something unsaid about the scene. Though the film makes it look as if Maria’s tour was a real event that occurred before the school held its admissions lottery, it was actually set up by the filmmaker after her son lost. By the time she sees the classrooms, in other words, she already knows Francisco will not be going there.

And the school, Harlem Success Academy, generally holds group information sessions for prospective parents, not personalized tours, like the one Maria is shown taking.

Davis Guggenheim, the director of the film, acknowledged that he had made the decision to set up the tour because his cameras, which had to shoot characters in multiple cities, had not been there during the information session. He defended the scene as still being true to Maria and her desire to attend the school.

“In the case of Maria, we met her at the school but the cameras weren’t there, so we asked her to go back and tour the school,” Mr. Guggenheim said. “And as a filmmaker, I wanted to see her reaction to the school, and her genuine emotion. So that scene is real; her reaction, her talking to kids touring the school, is how she would play it.”

Re-enactment and reordering has been part of documentary film-making since its start, and the Academy Awards for documentary film explicitly allow it. In fact, said Jonathan Kahana, a scholar of documentary film at New York University, the history of documentary is very much a history of re-enactment, “with blips, here and there, of something that we think of as vérité.”

That said, he and four other film experts and filmmakers interviewed said they were uncomfortable with the way Mr. Guggenheim inserted the scene, because there is no signal to viewers that it is anything but a real event, and because Maria’s emotional mindset is taken out of context.

Patricia Aufderheide, the director of the Center for Social Media at American University, did a study in which she and other scholars interviewed 45 documentary filmmakers about their ethical approach. “Documentarians firmly believe that altering chronology in itself is not a betrayal of a good faith relationship with an audience,” Ms. Aufderheide said. “But altering chronology when it fundamentally alters the interpretation of what happened, that’s when you get an ethical breach.”

Indeed, altering chronology is dishonest, manipulative and ultimately harmful to the cause the director of a documentary is trying to promote.

Since Guggenheim staged this scene without indicating he had altered reality, one wonders what else he staged in the "documentary."

It has already been pointed out over and over that he glosses over how many charter schools actually suck, how the CREDO study found that all but 17% of traditional public schools either do as well as charter schools or do better than charters.

Leaving out facts in a documentary isn't new, of course.

But staging scenes and bringing the ethics of a reality show like Top Chef or Survivor to the art form is.

One wonders if all the fans of this "documentary" - from Oprah to John Legend to Alec Baldwin to Arianna Huffington - will acknowledge that if Guggenheim staged scenes in the documentary, he might just have altered facts too.

Scratch that - I don't wonder about that.

I know they won't.

But they should.

Because if Guggenheim was dishonest in this way, you KNOW he was dishonest in others too.

And the NY Times acknowledges that:

And even though the staging of the scene appears to be a “minor and not a major sin,” and being troubled by it remains “a judgment call,” Ms. Aufderheide noted, knowing that scene was shot after the lottery “makes a difference to you as a viewer.”

“You feel a minor twinge of betrayal,” she said. “And that leads me to a sense of distrust about more stuff, and we never want the viewer to have that reaction; you want the viewer to trust you.”

Ah, yes, but for the viewer to trust Davis Guggenheim, he would have to be honest and forthright.

He is neither and his film is nothing but a piece of propaganda.

Now that we know Guggenheim staged at least one scene, it is time to pick this "documentary" apart and see what else he made up or left out.

The Times finds some of that as well:

The movie has been criticized for other oversights, including its narrowness in representing only great charter schools, not great public schools, and its flawed or misleading use of some educational statistics, which wash over viewers quickly, accompanied by child-friendly animation, with tiny writing on the corner of the screen indicating its source.

Though City Room did not examine many of the statistics, the few we looked at raised questions. Take, for example, the way the film portrays national reading and math scores.

The film correctly states that the goal of No Child Left Behind is for all students to reach proficiency by 2012. But those proficiency levels will be based on state scores, which are generally higher, not national scores, as the film portrays. It also appears to misinterpret the national eighth-grade reading scores.

“When eighth graders across the country were tested for reading, most scored between 20 and 35 percent of grade level,” the film states. While its not clear what that statistic refers to, it may be referring to the fact that 30 percent of students nationally tested proficient or better on the exam, a different issue. And there is no exact grade-level equivalent to proficient, as one critic, Diane Ravitch, who helped design the exam, has pointed out.

The statistic about Harlem Children’s Zone schools also appears to be misleading. “In Geoff Canada’s program, there are more than 8,000 students, 9 out of 10 are proficient in math and on track to go to a four year college.” While the zone does provide some kind of service — after-school programs, teaching assistants, pre-school to 8,000 children in a 97-block radius, the statistic appears to refer to the 1,200 or so students who are in the zone’s two charter schools. The district as a whole is still well below average on state proficiency exams.

So I encourage people to keep digging and come up with more examples of altered reality, phonied statistics, errors and the like in this "documentary".

But don't pay to see the movie to do it.

The ed deform movement already has enough hedge fund cash and government largesse.

They don't need your twelve bucks too.

Usually I don't suggest illegal downloading, but in this one case, I'd say that's the way to go.

Cuomo Will Claim A Mandate, But...

You know that Little Andy will claim New Yorkers have given him a mandate to push through his radical platform to end state school aid grants, bust the teachers unions, lift the charter cap completely, and pay off his cronies in the hedge fund industry by privatizing schools after tonight's results.

But with Crazy Carl as his opponent, how could he NOT win by 30 points?

Seriously - his opponent is a certifiably insane person.

Just google "Carl Paladino" and "insane" and see what comes up.

Even hardcore Republicans who STILL think George W. Bush did a fantastic job as president aren't voting for Crazy Carl.

Well, at least some of them aren't.

So tonight I fully expect Cuomo to win by 30+ and give some speech about the sweeping changes he intends to make as soon as he takes office.

But "sweeping change" and Albany go together like oil and water and a 30+ victory over Crazy Carl Paladino does NOT a mandate make.

Cuomo is given to dramatic ego trips, but he would best not read too much into tonight's results.

He has a lot of enemies in Albany and it won't take much to see him Spitzered.

How Arne And Obama Develop Education Policy

The above poster was designed by the USDOE to promote an Arne Duncan speech in Paris.

It shows how Obama and Duncan come up with their education policies.

They play H-O-R-S-E.

Remember that jive back before the inauguration about how Obama might pick Linda Darling Hammond for education secretary.

That was all jive.

Obama ALWAYS intended to pick his basketball buddy and favorite school privatizer.

Now if Linda Darling Hammond had a better jump shot...

Chicago-Based Hedge Fund With Ties To Rahm Under SEC Investigation

Ruh-Roh Rahmbo:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating a $1.1 billion deal sold by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., as part of a wider probe by the regulator into complex mortgage securities at the heart of the financial crisis, people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The SEC is looking at the role played by Magnetar Capital, an Illinois-based hedge fund, in the "Squared" subprime mortgage-linked security, known as a collateralized debt obligation, that was sold by J.P. Morgan Chase in early 2007.

The probe, which was reported by ProPublica, is one element in a wider informal investigation by the regulator into several banks' sales of CDOs.

The SEC inquiry bears some clear parallels to its civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., its highest-profile action to date following the financial crisis. Goldman this summer agreed to pay $550 million to settle allegations that it defrauded investors in the way it marketed the 2007 Abacus CDO by failing to disclose that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund that was betting against the mortgage market, had helped to select the securities in Abacus. The bank settled the civil case without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Here are the details:

The ruse at the heart of their transactions was creating subprime (so called "mezz" or mezzanine) collateralized debt obligations by investing in the riskiest layer, the so-called equity tranche. This kind of CDO consisted almost entirely of not just any subprime risk, but that of the dodgiest layer that could be sold short, the BBB tranches, via a combination of actual bonds and credit default swaps.

But Magnetar's true objective was not to invest in this toxic waste, which its role as funder of the CDO would lead most to believe. While Magnetar paid roughly 5% of the total deal value for its equity stake, it took a much bigger short position by acting as a protection buyer on some of the credit default swaps created by these same CDOs. This insurance in turn was artificially cheap because over 80% of the deal was rated AAA. Most investors did not understand what Magnetar recognized: this concentrated exposure to the very riskiest type of bond associated with risky mortgage borrowers, each of these CDOs was a binary bet. It would either work out (in which case Magnetar would still show a thin profit) or it would fail completely, giving Magnetar an enormous profit and wiping out even the AAA investors who mistakenly believed they were protected by having other investors sit below them and take losses first. Thus the AAA investors were only earning AAA returns for BBB risk.

As the equity investor, Magnetar could further stack the deck in its favor through the influence it gained over the deals' parameters. It was able to ensure that the CDOs held particularly dubious BBB exposures, and pushed for, and often got, "triggerless" structures, which stripped away another protection most deals had. When CDOs start to show significant losses, the payments to the lower-tier investors, including the equity tranche, are cut or halted to defend the AAA layer, much the way the human body, when exposed to severe cold, will restrict blood flow from the extremities to save the brain and organs. But triggerless deals, even as they started to fail, kept paying the lower tranche holders, including, in this case, Magnetar itself.

While these transactions may sound similar to the widely decried Goldman synthetic CDO program, Abacus, by which the firm went short various real estate exposures, effectively dumping the risk on customers, the Magnetar program was not only much larger, but also produced far more devastating systemic consequences, thanks to the distinctive structure of its CDOs.

As I explain at greater length in my book ECONNED: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism, the use of cash bonds turned mezz CDOs from a dumping ground for otherwise unsellable mortgage bond risk to a breeding ground for demand. Ex Magnetar-inspired appetite, it is hard to find an explanation for the widely-discussed phenomenon of 2006 and 2007, of the mortgage securitization pipeline screaming for more subprime product, precisely when Federal Reserve interest rate increases should have stanched demand for risky loans above all others.

Market participants have estimated that Magnetar's CDOs drove over 50% of demand for subprime bonds during the market's toxic phase, 2006 and 2007. With the input of a team including professionals who have worked on some of these trades, ECONNED, we've performed repeated, conservative analyses that indicate the true figure is probably at least 35% of demand, and perhaps as high as 60%. And that's before allowing for the fact that Magnetar's strategy was imitated by the proprietary trading desks of major dealers. And for good reason. Magnetar made billions, some observers contend as much as subprime kingpin John Paulson, whose fund earned over $20 billion on its short strategy.

And Rahm Emanuel's connection to this fraud?

The head of Magnetar only gave to one politician's PACs.

Rahm Emanuel's:

Litowitz and his wife had never before made significant political donations. In 2005, they started giving to Rahm and his PACs, and only PACs connected to Rahm, just before the Magnetar CDO program began, and continued through the first quarter of 2008, when the trade would have started to pay out handsomely. The Litowitzs gave a total of $8,000 to Emanuel and $10,000 to his Our Common Values PAC in May 2005. In 2006 and 2007, they contributed $51,700 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, while Emanuel was chairman. We have been advised by individuals involved in political fundraising that the amounts given would be considered significant, and the way the payments were distributed across the PACs is sophisticated. Put it another way: this money was not given impersonally.

If I were running a rival campaign in the Chicago mayor's race, I certainly would be having the opposition research team looking into this so more.

Then I would nail the smirking Emanuel with the "Culture of Corruption" tag he used against the GOP in 2006.

Over and over again.

I'd run commercial after commercial, tying Emanuel to the hedge fund industry and to Magnetar in particular and ask voters "Haven't we had enough corruption? Haven't we had enough government by the hedge fund managers, for the hedge fund managers, of the hedge fund managers? Haven't we had enough of Rahm Emanuel's backroom deals?"

Who knows, maybe Chicago voters will shrug at this.

But if Emanuel can drop a dime on Jesse Jackson Jr. and get him out of the race, I think somebody else can drop a dime or two on him.

Bloomberg Gets Coy

Here we go again:

NEW YORK -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has considered running for president, declared Monday that an independent has a better chance at succeeding in the White House than a Republican or a Democrat.

The billionaire Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor toyed with a third-party run in 2008 but ultimately abandoned the idea. He has said unequivocally he won't run in 2012, but during a forum at Harvard University on Monday he endorsed the idea of an independent in the White House.

"I think actually a third-party candidate could run the government easier than a partisan political president because the partisan political president - yeah he's got half the votes, but he can't get the others - whereas the guy in the middle may very well be able to get enough across the aisle," Bloomberg said.

The mayor, who founded the financial information company Bloomberg LP and whose fortune is estimated at $18 billion by Forbes magazine, is considered a potential, if long shot, candidate in 2012. He can afford to wait until well into the election year before he has to decide whether to run, largely because he doesn't have to raise money.

It also serves Bloomberg well to keep the door open and buzz alive because it sustains an air of mystery around him and makes him a relevant national figure well into the later years of his third term as the head of the nation's biggest city.

When asked during the forum Monday whether he would run, Bloomberg said he will not. He said he asked the New York City voters who elected him in 2009 for another four years, adding that he is "sort of inclined" to fulfill that promise.

And we know what Bloomberg's promises are worth.

Remember when he promised NOT to run for a third term and thought term limits were swell.

Good times!

Of course that was before he realized he couldn't win the White House in '08.

Then suddenly the term limit or the promise thing didn't mean so much.

I say he runs.

He's already moved his money around so he can drop $250+ million on the race.

He sees weakness in Obama and possible craziness from the GOP (Palin? Newt?)

It's not a definite, but Bloomberg is positioned to give it a go.

God, can you imagine Secretary of Education Klein?

Nationwide school closure lists?

The entire state of Arkansas gets put on that list.

Scary stuff.

Michael Bennet Goes On Wrong Radio Show, Hangs Up On Host

Michael Bennet, Barack Obama's favorite ed deformer, made a big boo-boo today:

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) did a series of radio interviews today urging people to vote but his list inadvertently included a call to conservative radio host Peter Boyles, Michelle Malkin notes. As the audio shows, the call didn't go too well.

Said Boyles after the interview: "I wonder who lost their gig over that one?"

Listen to the clip. It's pretty pathetic.

Couldn't Bennet have gotten off that call in a more graceful manner without hanging up once he realized he was talking to the wrong host?

Apparently not. He managed to get off as gracelessly as possible.

Bennet also sounded either drunk or drugged.

Seriously, it sounds like he's slurring his words.

Where is Hunter Thompson when you need him?

I bet Thompson could analyze that call and tell EXACTLY what ups and downs Bennet's staff are loading him up on to get through his 20 hour campaign days, grab a little sleep, than do it all over again.

I hope Tuesday night goes as well for Bennet was this radio call did.

Here are the latest polls, courtesy of the Denver Post:

FiveThirtyEight poll average (11/1): Buck 49.1, Bennet 48.2
PPP (Oct. 31): Buck 49, Bennet 48
Fox/Public Opinion (Oct. 30): Buck 50, Bennet 46
Marist (Oct. 28) Buck 49, Bennet 45
Rasmussen (Oct. 25): Buck 48, Bennet 44
CNN/Time (Oct. 26): Buck 47, Bennet 46
RBI (Oct. 26) Bennet 43, Buck 42
Survey USA/DenverPost/9News (Oct. 21): Buck 47, Bennet 47

What Is This NY Times Article Talking About?

There is a NY Times article being prominently displayed right now that is entitled: Labor Unions Fear Rollback of Rights if G.O.P. Wins.

Here is a taste:

Organized labor is deeply worried about what happens after Tuesday.

By many measures, labor unions have been the Republicans’ fiercest, biggest-spending opponents in this year’s campaign, laying out more than $200 million in hopes of safeguarding the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

So it should be no surprise that Republicans, who appear to stand a good chance of winning control of the House or the Senate, are signaling that they plan to push bills and strategies to undermine labor’s political clout and its ability to grow.

“Republicans are likely to pursue a version of what Samuel Gompers often said: ‘Reward your friends and punish your enemies,’ ” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University.

One bill that is popular among Republicans would prohibit employers from ever agreeing to unionization through “card check,” a process often used today in which an employer recognizes a union as soon as a majority of workers sign pro-union cards — without holding a secret-ballot election. Another bill would severely crimp labor’s campaign spending by barring unions from using any portion of a union member’s dues for political purposes unless the member first gives written permission.

A Republican-led House or Senate is expected to be more eager than a Democratic-controlled one to approve free trade agreements that unions oppose, and to be more reluctant to enact stimulus plans that unions have supported, like the recent bill that gave states $26 billion to help save the jobs of teachers, police officers and other government employees. A Republican-controlled House or Senate would probably block a labor-backed bill that would give firefighters and police officers in every state the right to unionize.

“We fear that the Republicans are on the march, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to stop them,” said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which is spending $91 million in the two-year campaign cycle.

Let's see - since Dems took over, card check has NOT been passed nor signed into law, the UAW has been forced by the Obama administration to take 50% pay cuts, union members with employer-provided health care plans have been nailed with a 40% excise tax on those plans by this president because he didn't want to levy a tax on millionaires to fund his health care reform giveaway to the private insurance industry, and the Obama administration has instituted an official FIRE TEACHERS/BLAME TEACHERS UNIONS education policy.

Seriously, does ANY of that sound even remotely pro-freaking union?

The reality is, this president DESPISES union members.

His attitude is best summed up by his former chief of staff when talking about the autoworkers union: "Fuck the UAW!!!"

Obama has done almost everything he can to stick it to labor union members while still calling on us to GOTV on Election Day and spend millions to save corporate whore Dems who supported both the union-busting Race to the Top program and the 40% excise tax on union members' health care plans.

So I dunno how much worse things could get if the Republicans take a a 15 seat majority in the House and close the gap to one or two seats in the Senate.

They will STILL need a bunch of Dems to pass any kind of sweeping anti-union legislation and they would need even more Dems to vote to override a presidential veto on some sweeping anti-union legislation.

But the reality is, there are ALREADY plenty of Dems ready to support those things and Obama is ever ready to throw labor under the bus as part of some jive-ass bipartisan gesture, so whether Repubs take control tomorrow or not makes no damned difference.

When you have a corporate-controlled Democratic Party and an anti-union elitist corporate whore like Obama in the White House, times are already tough for unions and union members.

I wish the leadership of the unions would finally acknowledge that.

Instead, we get jive articles like the one detailed above.

Sorry, fellows, it's not going to work for me.

I KNOW what you did the last two years.

None of it was pro-labor.

David Sirota On Why Both Parties Suck

Uh, huh:

For decades, both parties have colluded to pass the deregulatory policies that financialized our economy; the trade policies that crushed workers' wages; and the war/defense spending policies that have blown a hole in our deficit and made us less safe. During the same time, both parties have colluded to block meaningful efforts to truly reform the health care system, end our dependence on fossil fuel and make our tax system more fair. In response, voters have become more and more frustrated as they realize the reality of the situation.

Thus, in the last two elections - two elections that have seen overwhelming votes for anything defined as "change" - those voters have been saying to Washington, D.C. the same thing Elaine Miller told her young son as he traveled with Stillwater in the movie Almost Famous: "I know what's going on."

Now we're on the precipice of voters saying this for a third time.

Sure, I'm in no way happy that Republicans are poised to make gains off all this (I'm not happy because despite the Democratic Party's collusion in the policies mentioned above, that party has far more members who have valiantly fought the good fight). But being unhappy doesn't mean I'm surprised at what's going on. I'm not surprised - indeed, Democratic losses are quite predictable, considering what's been going on.

Many voters are demoralized not because Democrats' promise of change didn't happen - but more fundamentally, because in many cases Democrats didn't even make an honest attempt at the change they promised (as just one example, consider the fact that the public option didn't even get a single vote in the Senate). That basic realization will likely depress Democratic turnout. Meanwhile, many independent voters, who voted for Obama's "change" brand in 2008, will probably once again vote for anything resembling change from the current status quo - and that means voting against the Democrats and for anti-Obama Republicans.

I agree that the Democratic Party has more members who valiantly fight the good fight for working and middle class Americans than the Republican Party.

But these days the leadership in BOTH parties have sold out to the corporate interests, so we got two years of Democratic rule in which the president put in place an education policy that promotes privatization, bailed out big banks while forcing the UAW to take 50% pay cuts, mandated 31 million uninsured Americans buy crappy private insurance while charging a 40% excise tax on people with employer-provided health care plans to fund that program, and gave cover to a fradulent mortgage and banking industry by refusing to punish crime and corruption in the foreclosure business.

We got a doubling down of the Forever War Against Terra that seems to simply foment more attacks against the United States. We got permanent troops in Iraq from the president who vowed to end the war in iraq. We got more spying, more government control, more ceding of government power to private corporations in the name of "security" and safety" or "efficiency" and "market-based competition."

Tell me the difference between Republicans and Democrats again?

I know this will upset some folks on the left out there, but I see very little reason to vote for most Dems tomorrow. I do not think the Republicans who replace them will be any better. Actually, I am certain most (or all) will be worse.

But I am SICK and TIRED of voting for a Democratic Party that seems to relish sticking it to the left, to unions, to working and middle class people and to teachers.

I am SICK and TIRED of teachers being demonized by this White House and its allies on education.

So now I only vote ON ISSUES.

I am one of those voters who was excited by the Democratic takeovers of '06 and '08.

But not anymore.

Now I am looking for alternatives.

Until I find a feasible one, I am voting ON ISSUES only.

This won't solve anything, but it sure will help me sleep better at night knowing I voted for what I want and didn't get it rather than I voted for what I DIDN'T want and got it (as happened with Obama and his ed policy.)

The Daily News Declares The UFT Dead

Can't say they're wrong:

In the recent blowup over the release of teacher ratings, the United Federation of Teachers couldn't even rely on the Democratic White House for support.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan sided with the city - the latest blow to the once-mighty union, which has seen public support dwindle and has been forced to make concessions unthinkable just a few years ago.

Teachers unions were painted as villains in the high-profile education documentary "Waiting for Superman."

And the competition for millions of dollars in federal Race to the Top funds promoted reforms traditionally opposed by the unions, like charter schools and teacher evaluations linked to test scores.

"Public sentiment clearly has shifted in favor of reform and accountability, and the union has had to adjust," said Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Leaving aside the billions that have been employed by Uncle Joel's billionaire buddies on anti-teacher p.r. that have helped shift sentiment against teachers, I would say that the UFT and the parent AFT have been the biggest reasons why the union is where it is.

Rather than frame issue like merit pay or teacher test scores correctly, they allow Klein and his minions to frame the issues, then try and battle on ceded ground.

It's not actually difficult to frame the issues correctly.

The Vanderbilt study has proven merit pay DOESN'T work. But the UFT, have helped Uncle Joel do a limited merit pay program in NYC, they cannot claim purity on the issue, so whenever they argue against expanded merit pay programs, critics say things like "But you were for them a couple of years ago!"

And those critics have a point.

The same is true of the test score evaluations. Because the UFT caved on RttT and allowed test scores to be tied to evaluations, it gives the scores some validity that they do not deserve.

Same can be said for charters. The UFT runs a couple of charter schools on its own, so anytime they try and point out problems with charter schools, critics point toward their own and say "What about them?"

So the UFT and the AFT leadership have been the driving forces behind the loss of power. Bad decision-making, ill-conceived compromises that brought short-term economic gain but long-term contractual erosion, and just plain pathetic leadership have brought the UFT to the brink of irrelevancy.

Even the supposed victory of the school closure lawsuits will become a defeat this year when the city closes those same schools anyway.

It is time for new leadership at both the UFT and the AFT. The Chicago union has led the way, the D.C. union may follow suit.

Unfortunately here in NYC, there is no more entrenched power than Mulgrew and Company.

But as the UFT continues to become a bigger and bigger joke, perhaps even NYC teachers will realize it's time for new leadership.