Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
NO RALLY - And please come testify at the City Council Education Committee hearings on class size starting at 10 AM, across the street at 250 Broadway 14th floor, to express why this issue is important to you.
Also please distribute the attached flyer widely.
Leonie Haimson
The current system, as Oliver put it, is a “shit sandwich”, while
“Medicare for all who want it” is “still a shit sandwich, only with
avocado on it because the same shit still remains.”.... John Oliver
While this John Oliver video is great we still need a direct attack on the union arguments we see coming out of the UFT and the culinary workers in Nevada about "losing" their wonderful plans which were negotiated with employers which took a chunk out of our salaries in exchange.
And one of the sidelights - or lowlights - of the union attack on Bernie was claiming they would lose their current plan while in presenting the more favorable - to them - Warren plan as "replacing" it. Subtle but not so subtle. I've seen Randi or her surrogates do attacks on Bernie (less preferable to them than Bloomberg - or Trump.
(Randi trashed Bernie supporters for their attacks -- I must recall some of the vicious Unity crap when we ran against Randi - like the 2007 red-baiting attack on Kit Wainer for being - horrors - a socialist.)
You know what? I bet there is some level of benefit to the unions from private insurance plans - look at our own welfare fund administered by the UFT - and how much control that give the leadership. Do you think there's some patronage that would go away under Bernie's plan?
Imagine our unions using the fave argument of the charter industry which is attacking teachers, public schools and our unions - CHOICE.
As John Oliver says -- the American health care system gives you so many choices - on how to get fucked.
The point purposely left out with plans to give people a choice is that it maintains the massive health care private bureaucracy at enormous cost. Thus funding the private and public option is so enormous there is little chance for it to succeed - which is exactly the point of their attacks on single payer -- a hell of a lot of people no longer get to profit -- and I'm thinking that includes some very big institutionalized unions.
Don't forget how in recent contract negotiations we have to help the city save lots of money in our health plans - and there has been some erosion. So wow - what a hit that we no longer have to negotiate on health but ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT - SAY - REDUCING CLASS SIZE?
I just finished watching Last Week Tonight, and in my opinion, tonight's main story about M4A should be required viewing for anyone on the subject.
Oliver, in his usual brilliant style, systematically destroyed every argument against M4A:
Nobody knows what it will actually cost. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.
Most cost estimates come in at or below our nations current public and private sector combined health care spending, and even if it doesn’t end up that way, it’s worth it.
The idea of “choice” is an illusion. Most people have one choice: Whatever their employer offers them.
People often have no choice at all in emergencies but to go out-of-network — often even when they’ve gone out of their way to try to stay in network.
Under M4A, every provider is in network.
The “wait time” argument about other nations with nationalized healthcare that is currently a favorite of those opposed to M4A is basically bogus and based on non-emergency or elective procedures.
People wait ridiculous amounts of time *now* because they simply cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles needed to be met to get said procedures.
A system where people have to choose between one life saving medication or another due to cost is inherently unjust.
Yes, people in the health care bureaucracy will need new jobs, but that can be handled and is part of the plans offered by both Sanders and Warren.
The current system, as Oliver put it, is a “shit sandwich”, while “Medicare for all who want it” is “still a shit sandwich, only with avocado on it because the same shit still remains.”
And finally, the most succinct point:
If you’re arguing against M4A, you’re arguing for all of the flaws and unfairness inherent in our current system and you need to own that.
It
is Jan. 20, 2017, and Michael Rubens Bloomberg, an honorary Knight of
the British Empire, is about to take the oath of office and become the
45th President of the United States of America.
The
media have been given a copy of the inaugural address — which, as
advertised, will be the shortest one ever delivered, less than two
pages. This type of brevity has served our next President well.
Throughout his career, he has let his actions, organizing ability and
money speak for him.
It
was that winning combination that took him all the way to the White
House during the tumultuous election year. Exhibiting his smarts as a
bottom-line businessman, it was in the early summer that Bloomberg said
he would give $200 to everyone who voted for him in November. That
promise kept his advertising expenses down.
To
justify his generosity, President-elect Bloomberg proudly declared that
he had always paid his own way and no one could buy him — to the
contrary, he could buy others.
Bloomberg
was simply updating the same formula he used to gain re-election as New
York City mayor in 2009, when he beat Bill Thompson by 4.4 percentage
points. Then, he spent $183 per vote, which tapped his wallet to the
tune of $102 million. This allowed him to run without depending on
outside funding and the influences and obligations that attach to such
campaign contributions — an opportunity that only extremely wealthy
people can take.
At
the national level, it became a slightly costlier proposition, but
Bloomberg kept his per-vote costs down by cutting out the consultants
and ad buys and sending the cash directly to the people — provided
they'd cast a ballot for him. At a cost of $200 for each of 66 million
votes (the number Obama won in 2012) — which were strategically spread
around the country to maximize electoral vote totals — his purchase of
the presidency set him back $13.2 billion, leaving his net worth at a
comfortable $25 billion.
And
that is likely to grow, given that it is now being placed in a "blind
trust" for the duration of his term or terms in the Oval Office, much as
it grew in his 12 years at City Hall.
True
to character, Bloomberg ran an economical race. He used only two
slogans, both of which could be considered a bit self-deprecating,
perhaps, to show his sense of humor: A Bicycle in Every Garage, and
He'll Save You From Yourself.
At
the same time, he was able to fend off a couple of sticky issues raised
anew last year. Bloomberg again denied his corporation created a
hostile climate for women, who were said to have been given hush money
to settle harassment suits. It didn't hurt that one of his opponents was
a fellow billionaire known for objectifying and insulting women.
And
Bloomberg simultaneously scoffed at criticisms that, as New York City
mayor, his administration's supposed accomplishments were largely the
result of a massive news management operation and press agents keeping
unfavorable stories out of the media.
One
of the handful of times he really got testy as mayor was when reporters
kept asking how anyone could take seriously his claims about raising
city students' reading scores.
Last
but not least, 73-year-old Bloomberg had to address the age factor.
During the election, scrutiny on that point, too, was blunted by the
fact that both opponents were also veritable geezers.
Now
that it is inauguration day, pundits are already speculating about a
second term — or a third, the Constitution's 22nd Amendment be damned.
Bloomberg has good reason to believe that in 2024, the Supreme Court's
new chief justice, Joel Klein, will find a way to interpret the
amendment to suspend term limits.
In
the interests of disclosure, I voted for Michael Bloomberg for
President. We need a businessman running our country. And with my
occasional need to purchase print cartridges, $200 is nothing to sneeze
at.
Smith, a testing specialist and consultant, was an administrative analyst for the city's public schools.
--------------------------
Douthat is a conservative but I've been thinking the same kind of things. When I read that despite Bloomberg's problems he is so much better than Trump I see the same kinds of thinking among Trumpists who excuse his
history and behavior because on some issues he is good for them.
Thus Bloomberg would do to the Democratic Party what Trump did to the Republican Party.
Norm - 2/15/20
The Bloomberg Temptation
Will the Democrats try to replace Donald Trump with a power-hungry plutocrat?
Democrats
considering this sales pitch should be very clear on what a Bloomberg
presidency would mean. Bloomberg does not have Trump’s flagrant vices
(though some of his alleged behavior with women is pretty bad) or his
bald disdain for norms and rules and legal niceties, and so a Bloomberg
presidency will feel less
institutionally threatening, less constitutionally perilous, than the
ongoing wildness of the Trump era — in addition to delivering at least
some of the policy changes that liberals and Democrats desire.
However,
feelings can be deceiving. Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are naked
on his Twitter feed, but Bloomberg’s imperial instincts, his
indifference to limits on his power, are a conspicuous feature of his
career. Trump jokes about running for a third term; Bloomberg actually
managed it, bulldozing through the necessary legal changes. Trump tries
to bully the F.B.I. and undermine civil liberties; Bloomberg ran New
York as a miniature surveillance state. Trump has cowed the Republican Party with celebrity and bombast; Bloomberg has spent his political career buying organizations and politicians
that might otherwise impede him. Trump blusters and bullies the press;
Bloomberg literally owns a major media organization. Trump has Putin
envy; Bloomberg hearts Xi Jinping.
Will Jeremiah Kittredge be Bloomberg's Jared Kushner? Remember that Bloomberg will fire Betsy DeVos and replace her with Eva Moskowitz who was Trump''s first choice.
And does Jessica Tisch need another government job handed out by our so-called progressive mayor? (Did the Tisches give to his bogus pres campaign and is this payback - a quid pro quo?) And how funny that both Trump and James Carville call Bernie a communist - birds of a feather?
A couple of interesting bits on two daughters of NY billionaires connected to ed deform. Jeremiah was head of astroturf Family for Excellent Schools (FES) and note this: "The charges stemmed from a woman’s complaint that
Kittredge, during an education conference at a Washington, DC, hotel,
“sticks his head in my chest” in an elevator and commented on her “big
boobs,” POLITICO reported."
Perfect son-in-law from sexist Bloomberg.
Mike Bloomberg's daughter Emma secretly marries Jeremiah Kittredge
And remember that Bloomberg as presdent will destroy
In Dec., Merryl Tisch’s daughter Jessica was appointed by de Blasio as Commissioner
of Dept of Information Technology – formerly at NYPD in charge of
counter-terrorism and surveillance.
Merryl Tisch was the Regents agent of ed deform and a close ally of Bloomberg who I think may be her next door neighbor - when we protested at Bloomberg's home in 2010 we were hitting two birds with one stone. I mean does another billionaire daughter need a job in govt?
Ed Notes took some shots at poor Jessica over the years:
Today's Post includes an op-ed calling for voters to decide on term
limits so Bloomberg can run again. The piece claims Bloomberg has
outperformed, citing his record in improving the schools. It's written
by a Jessica Tisch, ...
I wrote about the ridiculous NY Post editorial her "brilliant" daughter
Jessica sent supporting Bloomberg's 3rd term: "Average Citizen"
Jessica Tisch Calls For Bloomberg 3rd Term. Posted by Norm @ ed notes
online at
... in decisions concerning our children. Leonie Haimson: Merryl
Tisch's daughter Jessica , wrote that oped in favor of overturning
term limits and a third term for Bloomberg, based upon his terrific
record at running our schools.
By most measures of successful urban management, Mayor Bloomberg has outperformed. His administration has presided over extensive real-estate development in the city, improved schools and reduced crime.
A day or two apart two obits of 97 year olds appeared in the NYT and both graduated from Madison and went to Brooklyn College. Here are excerpts but read them both especially Beverly (Stoll) Pepper.
Stanley Cohen, Nobelist, Dies at 97; Made Breakthrough on Cell Growth
Dr. Cohen was born on Nov. 17, 1922, in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn to Jewish immigrants from Russia. His father, Louis Cohen, was a tailor, his mother, Fannie (Feitel) Cohen, a homemaker.
After surviving polio in childhood, Stanley attended James Madison High School in Brooklyn. He majored in both biology and chemistry at Brooklyn College, graduating in 1943.
Beverly Pepper, Sculptor of Monumental Lightness, Dies at 97
An American artist who long worked in Italy, she created towering forms whose evanescence belied their giant scale.
The
daughter of Irwin and Beatrice (Hornstein) Stoll, Beverly Stoll was
born in Brooklyn on Dec. 20, 1922, and grew up in the Flatbush
neighborhood there. Her father sold carpet and linoleum and later fur
coats; her mother took in laundry and was an activist for the N.A.A.C.P.
Beverly
wanted to make art from the time she was a child. After graduating from
James Madison High School in Brooklyn, she entered the Pratt Institute,
in the same borough, where she studied industrial and advertising
design.
Already fascinated with
construction, she tried to enroll in an engineering course there but was
denied: Engineering, she was told, was no fit subject for a woman.
After
earning a bachelor’s degree from Pratt, she worked, miserably, as an
art director for New York advertising agencies. She took night classes
at Brooklyn College, studying art theory with the painter Gyorgy Kepes.
Bernie Sanders courted the Chicago teachers union endorsement. Here’s why it didn’t happen.... Chalkbeat
If there was any union you would expect to endorse Bernie Sanders, next to L.A., the CTU would be the one. But it didn't happen.
Chalkbeat reports: Shortly before Chicago teachers went on an 11-day strike
this fall, Sen. Bernie Sanders headlined a rally at the union’s
headquarters. The space was packed with teachers, many carrying blue
“Bernie” signs. His appearance was a show of support for Chicago educators as they
pushed for a contract guaranteeing higher pay, smaller class sizes, and
more social workers and school nurses. And in his speech, Sanders linked his presidential bid to the union’s fight.
So what happened?
This report from Substance has some details of the CTU Del Ass last
week where the Sanders endorsement recommended by the CTU Ex Bd to the Delegate Assembly (their chapter leaders) was rejected by a slim margin. Which is interesting and demonstrates the leadership control is not solid (here in NYC there is no way an EB reco would be rejected by the DA). In 2016, CORE caucus which is in power endorsed Bernie but the leadership wouldn't follow suit and I believe that was the work of Randi and her gang in keeping them officially out of Bernie's hands and it wouldn't shock me that Randy's hand was operating on some of the leadership in the CTU.
The PAC/LEG committee offered no endorsement for the U.S. presidency.
The last time it did was 2008 (Obama). However, the CTU E-Board
recommended that we endorse Sanders for president. Note: Even if we
endorse someone for president the law forbids any monetary contribution.
Delegates Beth Eisenbach and Tara Stamps spoke against endorsing
Sanders (International High School), Debby Pope and one other delegate spoke in
favor of it before the question was called. The vote was 121 in favor,
136 against, and 28 abstentions. I voted in favor of the measure. At
this point Stacy Davis Gates went to the floor and motioned that the
CTU take an official position of neutrality as opposed to looking like
we rejected Sanders. After a short debate the House voted in favor of
neutrality with one “No” vote.... Substance, February meeting of the CTU House of Delegates By George Milkowski - February 7th, 2020
Chicago area long-time union activist Fred Klonsky sheds some more light (click the link to read it all).
Some teacher locals like Los Angeles, have moved to endorse Sanders. The Boston Teachers Union and the MA-AFT endorsed Warren, while the MTA, the largest union in the state and affiliated with the NEA has not voted on endorsement. But Chicago may be more typical. Members are divided. The endorsement process and use of political action money by the teacher unions – one out of five union members in the country are in the AFT or NEA – is in disarray. From here it seems like a case of chickens coming home to roost.... Fred Klonsky: More on union endorsements and political action money. No CTU endorsement for Bernie.
After the left-leaning teacher union in Los Angeles (UTLA) endorsed Bernie last fall I expected Chicago to follow due to the similarities in the politics of the leaderships. But one of my correspondents in the CTU who opposes the leadership disagreed and kept assuring me that the CTU would endorse Warren. At that time word was floating around that Randi was favoring Warren so I expected there might be signs of Warren support. Given what I know, the CTU Ex Bd would endorse Bernie but there must be enough Warren people to create doubts. Knowing the internal politics and how Warren is viewed by many on the left as being more centrist than people think, there must be some gnashing of teeth. A vote of 136-121 is pretty close, esp with 28 abstentions. The 138 is not necessarily an anti-Bernie vote but reflects the uncertainty we are all feeling.
But do note that none of the other candidates are even in the discussion. No Biden, Pete, Amy - no centrists at all.
Compare that to the UFT where Mulgrew is sending a message by running as a Biden delegate to the convention, which at this point seems just plain weird but a sign of where the leadership of the UFT is coming from - and expect the UFT Del Ass to be roughly in line with them. In other words -- Bernie couldn't get a cup of coffee. Are teachers in Chicago and LA so much more progressive than here in NYC or are we missing something? One thing I know - even in the fractured former opposition where the ICE and MORE crowd on the left have a number of disagreements, all of us pretty much align with Bernie as you can tell from these blogs:
The left in the teacher union forms Labor for Bernie groups (I am a member) and uses the UTLA endorsement of Bernie as an example, and there seemed to be little pushback in LA even if the process used (Bernie or bust) had some flaws in terms of members who support other candidates, as I pointed out in November.
In more divided unions there is a problem and Fred also points to a history of union endorsements and how the funds are allocated. The late George Schmidt broke with the leadership over a flawed endorsement strategy. I reported on that story in Nov. 2014:
I see trouble for Bernie and the Bernie or bust folks in the Iowa results, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Is Mulgrew the Kiss of Death for Biden?
The NY Post had a piece about Mulgrew running personally, not as UFT president, as a Biden delegate, which with the UFT leadership record on endorsements pretty much doomed Biden in Iowa and the rest of the campaign. James Eterno has some comments on the ICE blog (try not to read some of the comments on a full stomach.) But let's also note this quote:
Biden is getting a big assist from the Cuomo-led NYS Democratic Party. Cuomo is a Biden booster — though the governor hasn’t officially endorsed him after the ex-veep stumbled through early debates.
Yeah, UFT for Cuomo in 2024.
Joel Klein for Ed Secretary?
Now the word out of UFT/AFT sources was that Randi favored Warren but as Warren has dropped I can see the mercurial Randi looking elsewhere. But what's left to choose when Bernie is off the list? Here comes our old friend Bloomie who I read consulted with Randi when he was deciding to run. I have rarely heard one positive thing said about Bloomberg by a NYC teacher who worked in the schools. Many of the issues you are reading about concerning the schools, from grade inflation, to abusive principals to discipline chaos to tenure issues can be laid at Bloomberg's feet and his henchmen, Joel Klein and Dennis Walcott with a Cathy Black tossed in the middle for 6 weeks.
Bloomberg is even more anti-union, anti-teacher and anti-public schools than Obama and probably Trump. He is also a dictator and could be worse than Trump for democracy because he would be more competent than Trump in control and unlike Trump would use his money to buy off anyone. Bloomberg also uses fear but add money to that and he is really dangerous.
Randi will have a hard time selling him even to those Unity Caucus loyalists but I bet she can.
Romney joins John Bolton as a new hero of the increasingly pathetic Democratic Party. But why not have another millionaire like Romney join Bloomberg and enter the race for Democratic nominee to run against Trump? He can join the many centrist Dem candidates in defending Romney - er - Obama care - which was the Romney/Republican health care alternative pre-Obama and the insanity of the Republican Party.
How Bernie and the Left may have taken a hit in Iowa
It's 9PM and 92% of votes are in and Bernie leads by 5000, 24 to 22% in popular vote on round 1 but less than 2000 on round 2 where other second choices go to the candidates, but Pete leads in delegates by 1% point and that is how they determine an official winner.
This is a farce where Dems who complained about Hillary winning the popular vote and bitch about the electoral college have the same system in their primary. I just saw a video of Pete talking about the 2016 election and saying that elections should be determined by the popular vote -- except when he is the one who benefits. At any rate, they fundamentally tie, just like Hillary and Bernie fundamentally tied in the 2016 Iowa caucus.
I love reading the pro-Bernie left wing do the spin instead of the analysis. One thing about socialists - they are always optimists about the coming revolution - you have to be after 150 years. On the left, The Nation is OK with Warren or Bernie while on the further left - Jacobin - it is only Bernie. I subscribe to both but at this second I lean toward The Nation.
Now Bernie has built his electability argument on getting people out to vote - which fundamentally he didn't do in Iowa where the turnout was the same as in 2016 and way below 2008.
Last time Bernie got 50% of the vote against Hillary and this time about half that. So let's assume that last time a whole batch of his votes were anti-Clinton as much as pro-Bernie, which would explain the drop-off plus the many alternatives the voters had.
But let's divide the voters into centrists and progressives. Pete, Biden and Klobuchar together got over half the vote, which sends a signal of sorts.
If you add Bernie and Warren together as the Progressive wing, you get about 45%. But Houston, there is a problem for the left.
The left Bernie or bust people have been slamming Warren for being a slightly more progressive version of Pete or Biden or Klobuchar. After all she loves capitalism but wants to reform it.
So if you move Warren out of the progressive camp and into the category the left Bernie people love to put her in, then her numbers go into the Pete, Amy, Joe column and the win for the center wing is overwhelmingly closer to 75%.
I'm dying to see how the Bust people spin the outcomes this time and in the future.
At critical turning points, Chinese authorities put secrecy and order ahead of openly confronting the growing crisis and risking public alarm or political embarrassment.... As New Coronavirus Spread, China’s Old Habits Delayed Fight, NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/world/asia/china-coronavirus.html
Senior officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration privately disavowed an unsigned statement issued by the agency last year that rebuked its own weather forecasters for contradicting President Trump’s false warnings that Hurricane Dorian would most likely hit Alabama, new documents show.... NY Times
I just hope there is not a pandemic here in the states that Trump views as a political threat and orders the CDC to suppress info. Do you think it inconceivable for him to do that? Then you're living under a rock.
There were two seemingly non-related items in the Sunday (Feb. 2, 2020) NY Times:
and a small article on Trump admin pressure on the National Oceanic and Weather Administration to issue reports supporting Trump's false reporting on a hurricane. How far are we from the same type of actions in China in suppressing science info.
NOAA Leaders Privately Disowned Agency’s Rebuke of Scientists Who Contradicted Trump
Newly released emails show officials at NOAA told the agency’s scientists it did “not approve or support” a controversial agency statement issued after the president falsely said that Alabama was at risk from Hurricane Dorian.
The fallout over the Zepher Teachout piece in The Guardian saying Biden is corrupt ('Middle Class' Joe Biden has a corruption problem) ...continues even after Bernie apologized, saying he doesn't believe Biden is corrupt.
Bernie is both right and wrong. Is Biden corrupt - or rather more corrupt than most other politicians? I think Biden is a normally corrupt politician and I don't blame Bernie for playing politics to try to keep a coalition together to beat Trump. But the left and Fox commentators (of course) criticize Bernie for saying he's sorry for the Teachout article. But she makes some very important points.
I watched some comments on Tucker Carlson and others on Fox who wanted Bernie to slam Warren and - of course they would -- but some of what they said had some truth - Bernie does not have killer instinct - they felt if he went all Trump he could be a massive force. Remember this is how Trump took over the Republican Party. Bernie will not be able to do the same to the Dem party because this is not Bernie personality. If it was Hillary would never have taken that recent hit at Bernie. But I prefer Bernie as he is and not as a Trump clone.
But we do get that there are many people who do not love the Dem party and lean toward Bernie the more the attacks come. (I saw some doozies on The View the other day.)
2 days ago - ALBANY — Earlier this week, Zephyr Teachout called out the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. Nothing new there. The fight ...
3 days ago - Senator Bernie Sanders apologized to Joseph R. Biden
Jr. on Monday after a Sanders campaign surrogate wrote an opinion
article accusing the former vice president of having “a big corruption
problem.” Mr. Sanders distanced himself from the piece by Zephyr Teachout, an associate ...
3 days ago - Teachout detailed three major areas of concern: Biden's prioritization of the financial industry over working Americans, his ties to the healthcare ...
What the vulnerability study reveals is how many of these “issues”
were apparent before Giuliani became mayor—and well before he became
counsel to the 45th president of the United States. The study was opposition research Giuliani ordered to be done on
himself. It was prepared for his 1993 mayoral campaign, a rematch of
the race he lost narrowly to David Dinkins in 1989. The aim was to
“inoculate” him against all potential attacks from his opponent. The
result is a roadmap to the traits that have placed Giuliani at the
center of our nation’s political crisis... Fred Smith, Jarrett Murphy, City Limits
I ran into Fred last night at house party in Brooklyn for good guy former principal Jamaal Bowman who is running for Congress in the primary against Eliot Engel in the Bronx/Westchester, hoping to pull an AOC like upset.
Fred asked me to post this piece he co-wrote for City Limits on Giuliani. It argues that Rudy has not changed (as does the recent Sunday Times piece - The Fog of Rudy).
The Rudolph W. Giuliani Vulnerability Study (posted in full below)
was so incisive that, according to Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett,
the candidate ordered all copies destroyed once it had been absorbed by
his closest aides. This compilation might fall into the wrong hands and
give enemies the intelligence needed to dismantle him. (Apparently, at
least one copy survived.)
Fred worked for the city and had access to an internal report commissioned by Giuliani and then ordered all copies destroyed - which apparently didn't happen.
Fred Smith, a NYC-based data
analyst, was working with Barrett to deconstruct Mayor Giuliani’s crime
reduction stats—his most highly-touted achievement prior to September
11. Barrett told Smith he received the study from a source at the side
of a state highway in the dead of night and asked Smith to make a copy
of this report.
In recent months, as the scope of Giuliani’s role President Trump’s
Ukraine scandal became clear, Smith’s memory of this tome was stirred.
It had been gathering dust at the bottom of a closet for 20 years. Upon
rediscovery and review, it wasn’t surprising that the man with a
“weirdness factor” (per the report) wanted all copies of it destroyed.
Nothing
swirling around Rudolph Giuliani now is out of step with the person
depicted 26 years ago in a 464-page vulnerability study, a report that
he commissioned for his second run for mayor.
If Richard Nixon’s deep paranoia and Bill Clinton’s insatiable sexual
appetite drove earlier impeachment episodes, Giuliani’s apparent fall
from grace is central to the Trump-Ukraine psychodrama. A crusading
prosecutor, mayor/savior of a crime-ridden Metropolis, and sudden hero
on America’s darkest day might go down in history as the ringleader of a
transnational scheme trading military aid for political dirt. Many a
media report in recent months has cast Giuliani’s demise as some sort of
Greek tragedy.
Except, that’s nonsense. Little in the current allegations against
the mayor is a surprise to anyone who remembers a few of the darker,
more bizarre moments when Giuliani was Emperor of the City: the public
humiliation of his second wife; the unapologetic rush to smear Patrick
Dorismond, slain by an undercover cop; the ouster of Police Commissioner
Bill Bratton, who had become Gotham’s crime-reduction cover boy; and,
yes, the personal attack he unleashed on a ferret-friendly caller to his
radio show.
What the vulnerability study reveals is how many of these “issues”
were apparent before Giuliani became mayor—and well before he became
counsel to the 45th president of the United States.
The study was opposition research Giuliani ordered to be done on
himself. It was prepared for his 1993 mayoral campaign, a rematch of
the race he lost narrowly to David Dinkins in 1989. The aim was to
“inoculate” him against all potential attacks from his opponent. The
result is a roadmap to the traits that have placed Giuliani at the
center of our nation’s political crisis.
An Internal Report
The Rudolph W. Giuliani Vulnerability Study (posted in full below)
was so incisive that, according to Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett,
the candidate ordered all copies destroyed once it had been absorbed by
his closest aides. This compilation might fall into the wrong hands and
give enemies the intelligence needed to dismantle him. (Apparently, at
least one copy survived.)
Sun Tzu is quoted on the cover page: “The art of war teaches
us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our
own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking,
but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”
Produced by
Republican consultant Christopher Lyon and a lawyer named Ronald
Giller, the report catalogues the chinks in Giuliani’s behavior and
professional record. It is a thick ledger consisting of clippings
from newspapers, periodicals and interviews along with letters and
memos that inventory Giuliani’s exposure in four areas: Political,
Department of Justice, Private Practice and Personal.
No weakness is left unturned.
Questions are raised about a “weirdness factor” in Giuliani’s
12-year (or was it 14-year?) marriage to a second cousin, about his
temperament and soundness of judgment, and about the bold tactics he
used in vaulting to Associate AG in Ronald Reagan’s DOJ and
appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Each section is a trove that presents the “charges” Giuliani might
face in his bid for office. Anticipating the attacks, the report offers
rebuttal strategies to refute a criticism, ignore it or re-spin it into
a credit. For example, “You say Rudy is overzealous, I say he hates
criminals.” And the “ruthless” rap pinned on him should be parried by
pointing to his accomplishments: “Rudy is a no-holes-barred crime
fighter who shook things up and achieved unprecedented success.”
Unrestrained Aggression
Reading the scrupulous research into Giuliani’s entire public-service
career back then—the posts he held in two stints with the DOJ
(1970-1976 and 1981-1989)-—it’s easy to draw parallels between problems
he faced in 1993, the issues that cropped up during and beyond his terms
in office, and those that persist in his service to the Trump
administration.
It’s not new, for instance, for
Giuliani to be accused of involvement in “dirty tricks” described
as “nefarious.” Today the accusation is that he coordinated a
whispering campaign against a U.S. ambassador and dangled military
aid to squeeze the Ukrainian government into investigating former
Vice President Joe Biden. In the 1993 report, however, a less
spectacular allegation was seen as potentially threatening to
Giuliani’s chances to become mayor.
During his teeth-cutting years in the DOJ, Giuliani took over Project
Haven, a probe into illegal use by U.S. taxpayers of offshore tax
havens. It was one of a handful of IRS investigations that became the
focus of later Congressional hearings concerning law-enforcement
overreach. One Haven operation involved a confidential informant
arranging for “female entertainment” to distract a Bahamian bank
official visiting Miami, while the informant entered the man’s hotel
room, stole his briefcase and returned it after IRS agents photographed
the contents. When IRS commissioner Donald Alexander had concerns about
such tactics and suspended the operation, Giuliani “reportedly attempted
to convene a grand jury to investigate the impeccable IRS
commissioner,” wrote Vanity Fair in 1989 and “nearly ruined Alexander.”
The study also mentioned Giuliani’s firing of DOJ officials because
of party affiliation, but that didn’t draw much attention because it
fell within the rules of hardball. Of greater worry was the need to
address the charge that he was known for making deals with major
wrongdoers in order to score wins, whether it was cutting defense
contractor McDonnell-Douglas executives a break by absolving them of
personal responsibility for paying $1.6 million in bribes to Pakistan,
or writing a letter to support legendary drug pusher Nicky Barnes’s
request for lighter sentencing.
Giuliani’s apparent insatiable need for the limelight, which comes at
the cost of topping each incautious statement he makes on cable news
these days, was visible a generation ago. He was seen as a shameless
publicity seeker, whose hunger for headlines may have led to bad
prosecutorial strategy.
There was, for
instance, the choice of having a daughter gather information and
testify against her mother, a co-defendant in the 1988 trial of
former Miss America and one-time city commissioner Bess Myerson. The
move failed, the case fell apart, and Giuliani’s team was accused of
using “gutter” tactics.
It wasn’t his only time down there. In prosecuting disgraced Bronx
Democratic boss Stanley Friedman, Giuliani wiretapped the opposing
counsel’s pre-trial preparations. While Giuliani certainly won his share
of white-collar crime convictions, he also perp-walked and humiliated
Wall Street figures against whom no case ever materialized. A master at
using the RICO statutes, he squeezed one small securities firm so hard
it busted a few months before its conviction was overturned. “Cooperate
or be destroyed” was the goal, according to the study.
From Haiti to the steps of City Hall
Giuliani’s performance in high-profile cases was not the only arena
that left him open to potential problems. He also accrued liabilities
in the DOJ as a policy maker/implementer/enforcer, and as a private
attorney and mayoral wannabe between 1989 and 1993.
As #3 man in Reagan’s DOJ in charge of Immigration and Naturalization
Services, Giuliani shaped and defended the administration’s racist
policy toward the country being run by dictator Baby Doc Duvalier. He
uttered blatant mistruths, claiming that political repression “simply
does not exist now” in Haiti and falsely asserting that the Vatican’s
man in Port au Prince, the papal nuncio, had told him as much.
Giuliani’s argument was that the Haitian boat people were not granted
asylum because they were not refugees fleeing persecution. They were
portrayed as a threat to national security who should be deported.
Inhumane treatment followed: placement of thousands in detention
camps; incarceration of women and children; splitting up family members.
And Giuliani, seen as the architect of a racially motivated policy,
“vigorously defended [it as] necessary to prevent Miami from being
overwhelmed by crime and disease,” according to one UPI article quoted
in the study.The report devotes 32 pages to recount the angry 1992 protest against
Dinkins’ proposed all-civilian police complaint review board that
Giuliani helped stoke into a City Hall rampage. The study headlined the
serious liabilities triggered by the affair: “Rudy Giuliani’s
performance at the police rally demonstrates that he is temperamentally
unfit to be mayor of the City of New York. His inflammatory
profanity-laced screeching before thousands of gun-toting, off-duty New
York City cops turned an overtly racist police rally into a dangerous
police riot.”
The authors suggest that Giuliani try to limit the damage to his
mayoral bid by citing instances when he went after corrupt cops—but they
acknowledge the big problem was his unwillingness to rebuke those
taking vicious “pot-shots at the mayor.” Mike McAlary described him as
“The Human Scream Machine” in the Post, Sept. 18, 1992). And the New York Times opined that in berating the mayor, Giuliani was “apparently betting—irresponsibly—that divisiveness will win votes.”
Private practice and lucre
Giuliani left the DOJ on Jan. 1, 1989
after serving more than five years as U.S. Attorney. He was getting
ready to run for mayor.
He joined White and Case, a white-shoe law firm. The study raises two
red flags about this association. First, W&C, “represented a long
list of politically unsavory clients, including [Panamanian dictator and
drug lord] Manuel Noriega…” Second, “Giuliani’s extraordinarily high
salary for so little work raises the question: What did White & Case
expect from Giuliani if elected mayor?” He received $16,250 per week,
which came to $260,000 over four months, before taking a leave of
absence. On a yearly basis, he was making ten times what he did as U.S.
attorney. According to the report, his pay was much higher than what
other partners earned.
It was far from the last time Giuliani cashed in. After leaving
office in 2001, he parlayed 9/11 into large advances for books, millions
in speaking fees and several enriching business ventures, like the
consultancy Giuliani Partners, where he sold his self-proclaimed ability
to fight terrorism and provide cyber security systems. Recent estimates
of his net worth range from $45 million to $60 million.
Giuliani left a law firm where he made $4 million to $6 million in
2018 to become Donald Trump’s pro bono attorney, a point that he
emphasizes. But this noble sacrifice does not take away his calling card
as a power broker, as the man with direct access to the Oval Office and
the levers of government.
Rudy and Donald
The only
reference to Donald Trump in the report comes from a New York Post
article (Nov. 21, 1987) in which Trump foresees Giuliani running for
election. “If Rudy decides to run for public office, I hold Rudy
in very high esteem and I would be very helpful to Rudy.”
He offered further praise: “The development community should love
Rudy because he’s gone after organized crime and other things that
adversely affect the development community.” In this coherent
statement, it is clear that Trump appreciated how Giuliani’s major
courtroom wins benefited builders and opened the door to opportune
deals.
A recent New York Timesarticle
speaks of their relationship. “They had known each other for nearly 40
years. Mr. Trump was the gaudy, gold-veneered developer who somehow
navigated the shoals of organized crime, labor racketeering and official
corruption in the New York real estate market of the 1980s, even as Mr.
Giuliani was becoming so well known as a federal prosecutor.” The
article supplies the fact that Trump was co-chairman of Giuliani’s first
campaign fund-raiser in 1989.
And suddenly, when impossible presidential long-shot Trump emerged,
Giuliani became his most daring advocate, and arguably giving him the
narrow margin of votes needed to snatch victory from Hillary’s grasp by
promoting a last-minute FBI probe of her emails.
As a reward for his extreme loyalty, there was talk that world
traveler Giuliani wanted to be Trump’s Secretary of State. That didn’t
happen. Instead, he’s become the president’s lawyer, conspiracy
theorist and political fixer.
Yet the
Vulnerability Study reveals a fundamental contrast between the
mayor and the president. Trump would never allow for such a
self-doubting dossier. Giuliani knew he had flaws and had to
anticipate criticisms. Unlike the president, he also has a history
of articulating high-minded ideals—words that now seem tinged by
irony.
“The cases I
get the most emotional about are the political corruption cases,”
he professed in 1987. “There’s something extra-aggravating when a
person who holds political power violates his oath of office, because
it has a tendency to unhinge public confidence in government.”
I reported on the Class Size Lawsuit: A Trip to Albany WIth Leonie
Here is the video direct from the courtroom with Wendy Lecker's presentation and also the state and DOE response. As I pointed out - no presence from the UFT despite being asked to join the suit.
Like I said, "That's like someone who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to 5 years
but goes on the lam for those years and then comes back claiming his
sentence expired so he doesn't have to serve time."
Video of Appellate court arguments in our class size lawsuit including strong points made by terrific attorney @wlecker and weak claims made by city & state in response.
Please join us to rally for smaller classes at noon on Jan. 29 at City Hall
Please join Class Size Matters and NYC Kids Pac rallying for smaller classes on Wed. January 29 in front of City Hall at noon; with City Council hearings focused on the class size issue to follow, starting at 1 PM.
The rally and hearings are an ideal opportunity for parents and
teachers let the Mayor and the Council know that there can be no equity
or excellence for NYC kids until the city lowers class sizes, which are
15-30% larger in our public schools than in the rest of the state.
We will be urging them to provide dedicated funding in next year's
budget specifically to hire extra teachers to reduce class size,
starting first in the lower grades and in struggling schools.
Class sizes have risen sharply since 2007 in every part of the city, and this year there were more than 275,000 students in classes of 30 or more.
Please come to our rally and stay for the hearings afterwards to show your support. If you'd like to testify and would like talking points, we have posted them here.
If you think you may be able to testify, please let me know by replying to this message. Email us info@classsizematters.org if you'd like to speak at the rally or testify at the hearings.
And please forward this message to others who care,
Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011