Friday, February 27, 2015
RAG on WSJ
Your humble sometimes-blogger (hey, I'm still technically here! I haven't put a complete end to RAGGED THOTS as Andrew Sullivan did to The now-departed -- dormant? -- Daily Dish) returned to Opinion Journal on Friday. I chatted with Mary Kissel on the squabbles over New York city mayoral control of public schools. On one side is, of course, the mayor, Bill de Blasio. On the other, is his favorite nemesis, Gov. Andrew Cuomo!
Check out the video for the rest:
.
Our NYP editorial will give further context!
|
Check out the video for the rest:
.
Our NYP editorial will give further context!
Labels: Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, charter schools, schools
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
RAG on Opinion Journal: LIRR on Strike?
The Wall Street Journal editorial board's Mary Kissel and I chatted Wednesday about the impending Long Island Rail Road strike and its implications for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio (vacationing in Italy, Mr. Mayor? Serioiusly?).
Enjoy the segment!
|
Enjoy the segment!
Labels: Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, LIRR, Long Island Rail Road, strike, unions
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
RAG on WSJ: De Blasio & Charters
Talked to the Wall Street Journal's Mary Kissel on Opinion Journal today concerning New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's seeming surrender on the charter school issue; he announced a few days ago that Success Academy Schools that the city had blocked from co-locating in other public school buildings would now be allowed to move into closed Catholic school buildings. I argue that he was largely forced into this position by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature. However, the pressure on charters isn't over yet: Several other city pols want to undermine them in any way they can -- including City Council so-called "oversight" hearings.
Here's the clip:
Labels: Bill de Blasio, charter schools, Eva Moskowitz, Success Academy
Thursday, March 06, 2014
The Next Movement
Originally published in the New York Post, March 6,2014
|
Last month, the city’s first lady, Chirlane McCray, urged support for her husband’s signature universal pre-K program by declaring, “Education is clearly the civil-rights issue for today.”
She may well be right — but her husband may be on the wrong side of the real civil-rights issue in education. If Tuesday’s huge rally at the state Capitol, and the words of the parents who rallied, tell us anything, it’s that the charter cause is increasingly looking and sounding like movements of old.
One thing the original civil-rights movement taught America is that people who are passionately energized will sacrifice anything for what they believe in. And these parents are passionate.
Ishema Chadwick Meyers works at a state job where she cares for the mentally challenged; she took the day off to trek up to frigid Albany. And she’ll do it again: “I’ll take a sick day if I have to. That makes sense, because the thought of my kids losing schools that [are] teaching them makes me sick to my stomach.” Ishema’s oldest, Leroy, is a fifth-grader at Harlem Central Success Academy. Mayor de Blasio just took away what would be Leroy’s sixth-grade space.
Samantha Thompson’s daughter Madison is in kindergarten at Success Academy Cobble Hill: “I understand there’s a personal rift between the mayor and [Success Academy CEO] Eva [Moskowitz]. Fine. But don’t take it out on the kids. Doesn’t he realize that we can’t have a better New York without a better education system? I wanted Madison in charters because generally they are all on the same level of quality.”
I asked Whitfield Nicholas (whose son Devante is excelling at Success) what about charters most impresses him? “The diligence of the teachers,” the Antigua-born engineer responds. “In the traditional public schools, if you ask a teacher how to reach them, they say ‘come to see me [in the school]’. In charters, they say call me any time — and mean it.” He sees that as a reason why Success Academy in The Bronx had some of the highest math scores in the state last year.
Not that Nicholas wants conflict between traditional and charter schools. “Both are public schools. It’s Malcolm X and Martin Luther King: Both are headed in the same direction; they’re just taking different paths.”
But which sort of school is which leader?
Nicholas pauses for a moment: “The charters are more Malcolm X — by any means necessary. That’s why we’re here today, right?”
This writer copped a ride with parents and scholars (as Success Academy students are called) back to the city after a long, chilly day. It wasn’t long after the bus hit the road (and sandwiches were eaten) that a young girl’s voice rose up asking, “Can we do some math exercises?”
An exhausted teacher at first said, “Let’s take some quiet time right now.” But not too long afterward, the students were all listening intently as she led them through a fun exercise of drilling exponents, gleefully laughing over who got the question right first.
I told parent Kokayee “Koko” Session-Lansiquot that I hadn’t seen anything quite like that. Fifth-graders asking for math work? Seriously?
Koko, a pre-K teacher herself, responded. “That’s the difference I see with charters. My kids want to go to school. If I’m running late, they tell me: ‘Mommy, you’re going to make me late. I’m missing my morning meeting.’ Monroe [age 11] has gone from being told in a traditional-school kindergarten that he couldn’t learn to having high scores in math and science, consumed with robotics and his telescope.”
Koko’s aunt, Gwen Hedrington, who raised (and home-schooled) her, now cares for a younger nephew and niece. She is no-nonsense and blunt when faced with the threat to charter expansion: “You want to take something away from these kids after they’ve tasted excellence? It’s child abuse, educational neglect, child endangerment.
“If they try that, we must take them to court. Even if we don’t win, we’ll bring enough attention to what they are trying to do. We have a right to a good education. Isn’t that what our ancestors died for?”
These are the voices of parents who see their children’s future in mortal danger, testifying to the impact of charters on their kids, marching to Albany, vowing to do it again — “by any means necessary,” including lawsuits.
Sure sounds like the start of a new civil-rights movement.
Are Bill and Chirlane paying attention?
Labels: Bill de Blasio, charter schools, Chirlane McCray, civil rights, education
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Battle of NY's "SOBs"
Originally published in the New York Post, February 25, 2014
|
Both Cuomo, de Blasio Heirs to Clinton Politics
Since Election Day 2013, there’s been a tight struggle between Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio to determine, not just who’s the King of New York, but who’s the biggest “SOB.” That is, who’s the true “Son of Bill” — the rightful heir to that other Bill who still looms over Democratic politics: Bill Clinton.
After all, the still-beloved-by-his-party 42nd president swore in New York’s 109th mayor on Jan. 1. But, ever the master of the middle-of-the-road, he tipped the rhetorical hat to departing Mayor Mike Bloomberg — striking a different tone than others on the inaugural stage — even while endorsing the new mayor’s concerns over income inequality.
Just a few feet away sat Gov. Cuomo, who served as President Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development — where de Blasio worked before heading back north to run then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s US Senate campaign.
Publicly, both the governor and the mayor claim they’re old friends from that time. But de Blasio confidantes paint a slightly more complex picture, saying Cuomo was a high-handed boss who didn’t mind reminding subordinates (particularly one Bill de Blasio) who was top dog. That dynamic seems to fit what’s happened in the few weeks since they shared that inaugural stage.
The fact is, each man seems to have learned different things from Clinton: Cuomo’s copied Clintonian tactics, while de Blasio seems to have absorbed some of his worst habits, including political ones.
Cuomo has plainly mastered the classic Clinton technique of triangulation — and skillfully used de Blasio to do it. The president set himself up as the above-the-fray moderate between an unacceptable/incompetent left (old-school Democrats) and a radical right (my then-boss, Newt Gingrich, and the post-1994 Republican Congress). That allowed him to reject the overly ambitious liberal agenda (HillaryCare) of his first two years, rebound from a disastrous 1994 midterm election that swept the GOP into power and cruise to a rather easy 1996 re-election.
Cuomo has done something similar since de Blasio became mayor. The progressive mayor has provided the governor with a tax-and-spend (on Pre-K and minimum wage) foil that Cuomo has been only too happy to parry at every turn.
Thus, even the governor’s rhetorical misstep about there being “no place” for pro-life, Second Amendment-supporting conservatives in New York (a case of triangulating a little too hard?) seems to have faded from the collective memory, replaced by the image of a “reasonable” leader balancing a social policy that enjoys widespread support statewide while hewing to a fiscal rectitude “brand” by refusing to raise taxes for that policy — as one too-liberal mayor demands.
Secondly, how was that fiscal rectitude brand first displayed? By trading decades of Albany dysfunction for three (soon to be four) on-time balanced budgets.
The on-time bit makes for another interesting contrast with de Blasio, who in his first weeks in office has shown an impressive ability to emulate one of Bill Clinton’s least endearing habits — perpetual lateness.
Ask anyone who had to engage with the then-president in the ’90s, and you’ll always hear the same thing: He can’t be on time for almost anything — and the earlier in the day the event was, the less likely he’d make it.
And while Clinton never started his State of the Union a half-hour late, Mayor de Blasio did just that at his first State of the City.
Apparently, like Clinton, the mayor stays up late — and thus doesn’t get up so early. That squares with what we know about one incident: He was wide awake enough to call the NYPD following the post-11 pm arrest (and subsequent release) of Bishop Orlando Findlayter.
Needless to say, perpetual tardiness leads to other poor judgment calls — such as, ahem, speeding to your next appointment two days after calling for stricter speed laws.
Hey, it’s been barely two months. Bill Clinton managed to right his ship of state after the aforementioned midterms. Bill de Blasio may just want to slow down, get some rest and study some of those lessons, so he can become not just Tall Bill, but NYC’s true SOB.
Labels: Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Bill de Blasio
Friday, February 21, 2014
RAG on NY1
Yours truly appeared on NY1's "Inside City Hall" to do the Friday wrap-up "Reporters Roundtable" segment. We talked about the mayor's response to the kerfuffle over his official car speeding and running stop signs -- just days after he announced a new plan to crack down on traffic accidents! Oh, and the hangover lingered from his questionable call to the NYPD after a supporter "reverend" was arrested on outstanding warrants.
Check out the spot here and find out why Bill de Blasio has "99 problems but a LICH ain't one"!
|
Check out the spot here and find out why Bill de Blasio has "99 problems but a LICH ain't one"!
Labels: Bill de Blasio, NY1
Monday, December 30, 2013
Bill de Blasio's Council Coup
There’s a joke going around among the city’s political reporters: Despite concerns that Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has moved too slowly to form his administration, the fact is, he’s already named his two most important officials: Bill Bratton for police commissioner and . . . Melissa Mark-Viverito for City Council speaker.
The joke, of course, may be on us: The speaker is supposed to be picked by the council, not the mayor-elect. But in an unusual move, the incoming head of the executive branch blasted himself onto the legislature’s turf, twisted arms there (quite effectively, too) and now seems to have his own hand-picked speaker ready to grab the gavel.
How’s that for irony? The man who overtook current Speaker Chris Quinn in the Democratic mayoral primary largely by suggesting she was Mayor Bloomberg’s toady will soon be a mayor himself — with his own self-chosen go-fer serving as speaker.
The tale speaks volumes about de Blasio’s craftiness — and, perhaps, the way he’ll rule when he takes office: that is, unilaterally. It also suggests that, for better or worse, New Yorkers shouldn’t count on the council to serve as much of a check on de Blasio’s power.
How did he pull it off? Here’s the skinny: After Election Day, the council’s Progressive Caucus believed it had enough members to dominate the council vote and select the next speaker. The choice came down to Mark-Viverito and Dan Garodnick. Mark-Viverito had a 12-9 edge in a straw poll.
The caucus was about to consider its next move at a Dec. 16 meeting when suddenly the meeting was canceled. De Blasio was then “activated” and began leaning on key players. Meanwhile, the heads of the Queens, Bronx and Brooklyn Democratic organizations had agreed to endorse Garodnick (county chairs usually play a big role in deciding the speaker). But Brooklyn Chairman Frank Seddio reneged and instead backed Mark-Viverito, the choice of fellow Brooklynite de Blasio.
To cement the coup, de Blasio phoned a Republican council member, Eric Ulrich, who’d earlier insisted that Mark-Viverito as speaker would be a “disaster.” Only de Blasio and Ulrich know what was said. But after the call, Ulrich had a sudden change of heart and magically backed de Blasio’s choice. (Some think he was offered a committee chairmanship in exchange for his support, though Ulrich denies that. Stay tuned.)
In any event, Mark-Viverito released a victory statement on Dec. 18. Progressive Caucus members were expected to back her or suffer the consequences.
Council members were livid. Even those who had given her their support originally felt blind-sided and double-crossed. They use terms like “hijacked” to describe the putsch and complain of having been “betrayed.” (They speak off-the-record, of course, so as not to cross either the mayor-elect or the likely new speaker, Mark-Viverito.)
Says one observer darkly, “[De Blasio] wants to break any alternative power structure that would prevent him from turning the City Council into a mayoral agency, far more so than in the relationship between Bloomberg and Quinn.”
None of which sounds encouraging for a city that relies on a government of checks and balances.
No, this isn’t the first time such a thing has happened in the history of politics. In Albany two decades ago, then-newly elected Republican Gov. George Pataki helped oust Republican Senate Majority Leader Ralph Marino in favor of Joe Bruno.
Unless, that is, it remembers how to play hardball politics and stand up for itself — after having gone 12 years with a billionaire mayor who often used his wealth to render the game moot.But the state has a bicameral Legislature, and the Assembly remained in Democratic hands, with its own leader (Shelly Silver). That guaranteed some counterweight between the branches. The council, bycontrast, will have no independence whatsoever if de Blasio’s choice prevails, as expected, in the council’s Jan. 8 vote.
The speakership issue, of course, might not yet be settled. “Plans for Mark-Viverito’s coronation” are premature, Queens’ party chairman Rep. Joe Crowley, told The Post.
But if de Blasio’s choice prevails, the irony will grow richer. “We’re resolutely committed to building a City Council that . . . functions more democratically,” Progressive Caucus chairman Brad Lander declared last month.
Maybe so. But based on the speaker-selection process, they sure have a long way to go.
Labels: Bill Bratton, Bill de Blasio, Eric Ulrich, Melissa Mark-Viverito, New York City Council
