Skip to main content

View Diary: Nation's largest teachers union calls for Arne Duncan's resignation (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cville townie, chimene, Larsstephens

    what I've seen.

    •  I've seen Duncan, Rahmbo, Geithner, Summers (19+ / 0-)

      Lew and plenty of others.  After awhile, one must stop looking at the appointees and look at the person who appointed them.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 06:10:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (8+ / 0-)

        President Obama put his people in where he wanted them, because they were precisely in line in what he believes--privatization of education services, so the Investor Class can have another commodity to feed their seemingly insatiable gambling addiction.

        Rahm Emanuel's having a ball instituting this same thing in Chicago, with predictably horrifying results for the 99%. He's turned that city into a neoliberal meth lab.

        Fighting against centrist, authoritarian, and conservative policies since 2002.

        by cybrestrike on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 06:31:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  An executive is defined by his/her appointments (8+ / 0-)

          Either this Chief Executive never bothered vetting his key appointments, or he knew what he was getting when he appointed them.  While I might buy the argument that his immediate predecessor was ignorant about many of his key appointees, trying to apply that argument to this president is absurd on its face.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 07:01:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect it's mostly... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...evidence of a lack of experience in a "buck stops here" job before being elected President.

            Experienced politicians and business executives get where they are, largely, on two factors. First, their vision. Second, their judgement of people so they can pick people to implement their vision that can actually do it. In this case, it's not clear which is lacking or if both are lacking.

            However, this was evident from the moment Obama set foot on stage. Hillary, by osmosis and intelligence and being First Lady for multiple terms of governor and two terms in the White House and having had real jobs was much more likely to be an effective administrator -- Obama was a idealistic choice w/o a real track record.

            Certainly, Obama was less controversial - but that's because, without a track record, he was a vessel into which each voter could pour their assumptions and those assumptions always seemed to fit. This as, of course, impossible to be reality, but far too many people ignored it.

            I'm not saying Hillary would have done differently, but I'm pretty sure supporters would have been less surprised by what she did.

      •  I consider the possibility that the (0+ / 0-)

        appointments were part of the ruling consensus, not solely the purview of the executive.

        I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. ~ Malcolm X -8.62 -8.36

        by 4Freedom on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 06:53:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So why don't you demand Obama himself resign? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Teachers union demands Duncan resign, then the extreme left goes through a whole litany of people in the adminstration they demand resign, then the extreme left demands "look at the person who appointed them".  Well, merely "looking at Obama" isn't going to accomplish anything, indeed, it doesn't even call for accomplishing anything.

        At least the Tea Party states right up front that they want Obama impeached.  But the Obama bashers on the left don't have the courage to demand Obama's resignation or impeachment, which is the only way they'll get him out of office.  Instead they demand "looking at" him. lol

        Which means that all they're going to do in "looking at him" is to bash him on websites like someone shaking his fists at and shouting at the clouds.  You want something done?  Then call for it.

        •  What on earth... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Punditus Maximus

          ...has Obama done that would even begin to raise to the level of calling for his impeachment or resignation? There's a long history of executive officers and staffers falling on their swords, rarely does the CIC do so.

          Bad judgement in a single appointment (or even several) or revealing that one's actual views when hit with political reality don't match exactly what the voters expected are hardly a justification for either impeachment (a very high bar) or resignation (in absence of a pending impeachment likely to be successful or a dreadful crisis caused by mismanagement, extremely unlikely).

          •  The fact is that there's no reason for any of the (0+ / 0-)

            long list of Obama appointees hated by the "true left" to resign.  They have no scandals, they have no signs of malfeasance, instead, they merely differ on policy with the extreme left.  Well, sorry, that is not a reason to resign.  (And that's one reason the demand by teachers union for Duncan to resign is a pathetic joke.)

            If one is going to demand folks' resignation for mere disagreement on policy, then why not demand the President's resignation for that reason as well?  After all, as the comment I replied says, he appointed them.

            The comment to which I was responding, which purports to speak for the "true left", says "it's time to look at the guy that appointed them [these guys we hate over policy disagreements]".  OK, after "looking at" Obama, then what?  You've accomplished nothing by doing that.

            The Obama bashes on the left dream of getting Obama out of office, but unlike their tea-party counterpart Obama haters, they don't have the guts to call for it.  They instead demand, "looking at" Obama, which essentially means, "bashing him over and over, and condemning him, and trying to convince everyone else to loathe him as much as we do".  To what end?  To zero end, that's what.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site