Murdoch drops the Ayers bomb

On the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal [DCOW].

Here we go.

NOTE Interestingly, the writer says he got access to the Daley archive, which, IIRC, has not been made public before.

Comments

You Can't Have It Both Ways, lambert

Linking without telling me what it says and then asking me not to click. That's just cruel.

Gotta hand it to the GOP, they are politically head and shoulders above most Democrats. It makes me wish they weren't evil and corrupt because at least they know how politics works.

On NPR this morning they had outtakes of the Senate hearing and I heard Republican after Republican denouncing the bailout. Elizabeth Dole (who needs a boost in her re-election campaign). Richard Shelby. They all talked about the taxpayer money and the irresponsibility of Wall Street. Dole also referenced angry constituents.

And right as the GOP has the opportunity to break with the President over an unpopular Wall Street bailout plan, one Democrats will probably fiddle with and then agree to, Murdoch rolls out Ayers to raise doubts about Obama. Fucking perfect.

The electoral version of the Shock Doctrine.

Annenberg Challenge

that is a bizarre description of the Annenberg Challenge. I don't have much use for anything connected to Annenberg, but that is a bizarre description.

It is bizarre

Kudos all round!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I don't think Ayres will prove to be a bomb.

The draft dodgers have come home from Canada and the prison sentences have been served. Everyone agrees that Vietnam was wrong and the draft targeted the less privileged. We're over it.

Had Obama actually prepared for the run, he would have distanced himself from Ayres properly - with time, and a few well-thought out statements that were actually resonant with how Democrats now feel about sixties radicals. Instead, we get simple denial at odds with historical reality - which is the only reason this is an issue at all.

Unless there is something bad about Ayres that we don't know, I don't think Ayres can hurt him. But Rezko, Rezko can destroy him even unintentionally. That's where the bombshell lies even without new information.

The problem isn't Ayres - it is credibility

That and who gets to own the narrative.

The big bomb part of this is obama trying to downplay his relationship with Ayres, as if he ran into the guy at Whole Foods one time. Now the republican investigation will get to drip, drip, drip each memo or meeting showing they really worked together for quite a long time.

Ultimately, it isn't Ayres that will hurt - it's the denial of a relationship.

yup-the lies about it, and the crony capitalism and grants

and lack of accountability, etc.

I'm with basement angel

in this environment Ayres will seem like ancient history. Actually I think Obama's ideas about charter schools are poison, based on what I have seen here in DC, but I don't think anyone cares right now.

I'm with Basement Angel & DCBlogger

I don't think Ayers will do much damage except among people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

In a just world, Obama would be getting criticized over his charter school proposal. Or more accurately he would've gotten criticized for it during the primary when he would really have had to defend it. Of course, we do not live in a just world.

Of all the potential damaging connections, Rezko seems the worst to me because it says something bad about Obama's life as a politician. When you let a guy like Tony Rezko help you out financially, then you have to know there's going to be an ask somewhere down the line. Obama isn't stupid. Now maybe Rezko never got to make the ask, but guys like Rezko don't hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars for a worthless property out of the goodness of their hearts.

The Rezko bomb will hit shortly

Bet on it.

And, for all we know, LJ's video will finally show up.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

don't forget that this economy stuff won't be news anymore as

soon as Congress caves in--the media will move on to the next thing, and the GOP is laying the seeds now--they've been planting them for a year now.

I'm pretty much in agreement

Ayers = not so bad for his campaign; Rezko = potentially really bad.

Yes, in a perfect world, both of these candidates would be taken to task for supporting the dismantling of public education, but no one seems to care, anymore. As long the narrative is about "lazy, urban students" and their "evil teacher's unions" the Dems will never get this issue back. What's even worse is when the leading Democrats play along. Obama has already made known he's not much a fan of unionized teachers, and it really didn't hurt him since they were for Hillary, anyways.

What's the kerfuffle about?

From what i understand, the Annenburg Challenge for the Chicago schools was to limit the size of each school and to get parents trained to become locally involved and leverage the assets of their local communities.

Where's the evil here?

It's a haka, wasabi

Although this time from the right instead of the left.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Annenburg Challenge for the Chicago

is part of a charter school movement that will make a bad situation worse. I have been documenting the atrocities on my blog.

If Rezko was going to blow up it would have done so by now. Actually I don't think Rezko is in a position to ask for anything. Once Obama is Pres it will be very easy to presuade Rezko to stay quiet in jail that life would be worse if he tried to move against Obama.

If the press tries with Obama what they did to Bill they will find that Obama is a very different character.

But truthfully I have ceased to care.

DC Blogger, I think You Are Mistaken

First of all, Ayers was and still is, I believe, a member of the small schools movement. Although one of it's tenants is that there need to be many different kinds of schools within the public system, to the extent that they champion charter schools, these were small schools meant to escape the rigidity of large school systems, and especially of standard testing, schools often based in specific communities to whom they would be directly responsibie, but always WITHIN the public school system.

I'd like Obama to be a little more clear about the distinction, but I don't believe that he has ever endorsed privatized charter schools, he's talking about diversity within public education, although I do believe that he has said that he is willing to look at private charter schools in terms of their record of achievements. Those are mighty thin, as it happens.

The Annenberg Challenge was deeply influenced by a school reform movement that was entirely liberal and progressive. A key figure here is Deborah Meiers who is the woman who started the small schools in Spanish Harlem that became famous because of the violin program started in one of them. Unfortunately, there were many better reasons for people to have paid attention to what she and her staff and her staff and their parents achieved. I don't have time now to give a lot of links, but I'll try to come back and do a post.

Obama Promises to Double $ For Charter Schools

He does oppose vouchers and promises a wide array of new public school options. But he's specifically promised to double federal funding for charter schools. And the article sure does make it sound like these are the privately run schools. Don't know about Annenberg, but Obama seems clearly on the charter school bus.

So which part of the program do you think will take a hit because of the bailout - the money going to the private charter schools or the money needed for new public schools? I know what I'd bet on.

It's not about the Annenburg Challenge at all

It's using the Annenburg Challenge to repeat, as many times as possible, that Ayres is a domestic terrorist and an unrepentant one at that.

If the DLC report that just came out is even vaguely right, and this election will be won or lost with Middle America's swing voters, then Ayres participation in the Weatherman matters. Yes, I know all the OFB lines about how he's this great Professor of Courage now, and that was oh so long ago (before history even began!), but most folks just don't cotton to people who participate in bombings and then don't even feel bad about it.

Here's the typical swing voters Democrats need to win (btw, the DLC isn't buying the OFB line about pulling in sufficient AAs and younger voters to offset working class white voters):

“A typical male voter in that category will likely be between 30 and 59 years old, live in a suburb or small town in the South or Midwest, and be married with no children living at home. He’s likely to be a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a labor union, pro-life, and in favor smaller government. Finally, he’s most likely to be Protestant but not a weekly churchgoer.”

“His female counterpart has an only slightly different profile. She’s also likely to be between the ages of 30 and 59, married with no children living at home, a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a union, pro-life, and for smaller government. She’s most likely to live in a suburb in the South and have a gun in her household. Finally, she’s more likely to be Catholic and a weekly churchgoer.”

In other words, this is the same demographic Obama has sucked at reaching throughout his whole campaign, their support for him is not the crazed adulation of Lattes and college kids, and when they start hearing Obama-friend-terrorist, it's over. The fact that he lied about their connection just makes it worse, but that's just icing.

While PB1.0/2.0 are busy arguing about charter schools the Republicans are just going to keep saying "Obama" blah blah random words "bombings" blah blah random words "terrorist", and that's what's going to get into people's brains. When they talk about the education aspect of the Obama-Ayres relationship, it's all about 'radical' ideas (translation: un-American and un-patriotic). Again, just more icing.

No

PB 2.0 isn't arguing about this at all. When there is a transition, there will be an explcit announcement. In the meantime, there's a site to run, moderate, and get the hits for, and 100% purity figures rather low on my list of priorities in the near term -- though you, or indeed anybody, can post PB 2.0 content and label it as such. So sorry.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue Have You Ever Heard Of Magnet Schools?

Those magnet schools are essentially charter schools within the public school system.

Vouchers are for private charter schools - that has been the argument. Rightwingers and others hostile to the very notion of a public school system long ago took the nomenclature of a movement meant to diversify the kinds of public schools there are - i.e., the "charter school" and used that as a vehicle for arguing that there ought to be a way to provide public monies to private schools, which were supposedly to be aimed at providing "choice" to parents and children presently ill-served by their public schools, by means of a voucher system whereby parents could get public money and spend it how they wished for whichever school they wanted their children to attend.

It was and continues to be a beguiling fantasy, and those charter schools and the voucher system were and are meant to undermine the very notion of a free public school option for every American child.

To be against vouchers is to be against privatizing public education. Obama is against that. Charter and magnet schools within the public school system are a different animal.

My comment was only meant to clarify DCBloggers.

I think Obama will be making a big mistake if he curtails any of his plans because of this bailout, and what interests me is how a liberal progressive movement can work to help him see that the first year of his presidency will be the one during which he will have the greatest backing for change and innovation.

Of Course I've Heard of Magnet Schools

I can read, leah.

You know I like your posts, but you can be wickedly condescending at times.

For the record magnet schools are not the same thing as charter schools.

Magnet schools are designed to attract students from diverse social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. They focus on a specific subject, such as science or the arts; follow specific themes, such as business/technology or communications/humanities/law; or operate according to certain models, such as career academies or a school-within-a-school. Some magnet schools require students to take an exam or demonstrate knowledge or skill in the specialty to qualify to go to the school, while others are open to students who express an interest in that area.

Charter schools are public schools that operate with freedom from many of the local and state regulations that apply to traditional public schools. Charter schools allow parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others the flexibility to innovate and provide students with increased educational options within the public school system. Charter schools are sponsored by local, state, or other organizations that monitor their quality while holding them accountable for academic results and responsible fiscal practices. As of 2004, 40 states and D.C. have charter school laws. Nationally, there are about 3,000 charter schools, serving over 750,000 students.

In the Charter Schools definition you'll notice the phrase "educational entrepreneurs" because many charter schools are, in fact, run by private organizations. What's more, while those private entities cannot be for profit, they are allowed to contract out running the school to for profit private entities and still receive federal funding.

So basically, private entities can receive federal funds to operate a charter school and then contract out the running of that school to a for profit company. What's more even if they don't do it for profit, these private organizations' schools compete with regular public schools for students and permit people to move their kids out of the traditional public school system.

It's not just about vouchers. And it's not about magnet schools at all. Republicans have undermined public schools in two ways - vouchers and charter schools. Obama opposes the first, but has promised to double money for the second. Here's Time on the issues surrounding Obama's charter school support:

The federal government spends about $200 million a year on charter schools, privately run institutions that receive public money. Obama's proposal would take that up to over $400 million.

Obama recognized that charter schools have been a source of debate in Ohio. Past Republican administrations used charter schools and private school vouchers to offer families a way out of troubled public schools. But Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has been trying to scale back the programs to focus taxpayer money on more traditional public schools.

Obama has repeatedly and clearly stated he wants to double the size of this grant program. He has not added any caveats about only doing it for publicly owned schools.

yup--they're diff animals entirely--

magnet schools are public schools within the system (in NYC many of them are mini-schools in the same buildings as regular public schools)---fully part of the public school system and staffed and run like public schools -- and are not privately run.

magnet schools don't take money from public schools and give it to private orgs/entities--charter schools do.

They Are Also a Pet Conservative Cause

The neo-cons used the Shock Doctrine after Katrina to basically replace the NOLA public school system with charter schools. For an overview of the change, see here.

I think the conservatives turned to them when they realized vouchers weren't going to be sellable to most Americans. This way they can claim these privately run schools are "public" because they are considered part of the school system even as they are exempt from many of the rules, like teachers' union rules, that apply to more traditional public schools. They are a trojan horse, IMO.

Funding for charter schools oftentimes weakens the public

school systems budget. The formula used to determine how much the charter school receives per student is a calculation set at the high end of demand not accounting for students who do not have special accomodations. This leads to an inflated $$ amount per student, crippling the budget of the public school system.

I love this job!

"Obama" "Ayers" "bombing". I heard that today on Fox.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

I love this job!

100% purity?

Moderating?

Was that comment directed at my comment? I'm not sure what you're saying there.

I think people should be talking about charter schools (and magnet schools, and any other proposal to change the educational system).

I just don't think the Republicans bringing up Annenburg has anything whatsoever to do with wanting to talk about education, not even to push their corporate-run schools crap. The just want to push the affiliation with Ayres.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Feed the hamsters...

... that work the wheels that keep the Mighty Corrente servers turning. Help us cover monthly hamster kibble anxiety:

...or provide temporary relief:

Thank you!

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.