Bush's Sec. of Ed. calls teachers union "a terrorist organization"

Just in case you missed this one...
It used to be that all of us who opposed the Patriot Act were "enabling" the terrorists.
Now it seems that according to the Bush administration, criticism of any of it's policies is tantamount to terrorism. Apparently, teachers are now terrorists too.

Education Chief Calls Union Terrorist Then Recants

February 24, 2004
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 - Education Secretary Rod Paige said
Monday that the National Education Association, one of the
nation's largest labor unions, was like "a terrorist
organization" because of the way it was resisting many
provisions of a school improvement law pushed through
Congress by President Bush in 2001.

Mr. Paige made the comment in a private meeting with
governors at the White House, just hours before the
president stepped up the tempo of his re-election campaign
with a speech attacking his Democratic opponents.

The secretary later apologized for a poor choice of words,
but repeated his criticism of the teachers' union as a
group of obstructionists.

His initial remark was described by four governors and
confirmed by the Education Department. "The secretary was
responding to a question," said Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman
for Mr. Paige. "He said he considered the N.E.A. to be a
terrorist organization."

The governors who recounted Mr. Paige's remarks were two
Democrats, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan and James E.
Doyle of Wisconsin, and two Republicans, Mike Huckabee of
Arkansas and Linda Lingle of Hawaii.

Ms. Granholm said the governors were "all a little bit
stunned" to hear the union described that way.

Mr. Huckabee said Secretary Paige "was trying to point out
that one reason it's been so difficult to execute real
reform is that a lot of people in teachers' unions are
trying to protect the status quo."

And Governor Lingle said, "He's frustrated" by the N.E.A.'s
"lack of support for a law that's clearly aimed at helping
all children." She said Mr. Paige had complained that the
union seemed concerned more about its 2.7 million members
than about children.

In an interview, Reg Weaver, president of the National
Education Association, said: "Secretary Paige's comments
were pathetic and morally repugnant. They are no laughing
matter. When our members learn of his comments, they will
be outraged, and even more determined to make changes in
the law."

The law, the No Child Left Behind Act, calls for greater
use of standardized tests and remedial action to raise
student achievement and improve school performance. Some
governors, while endorsing the goals, say the federal
government has not provided enough money for states to meet
them. The union is lobbying for legislation that would give
states more flexibility and more money.

After his remark had begun circulating, Mr. Paige issued a
statement saying he had gone too far in describing the
union as a terrorist organization. "It was an inappropriate
choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare
tactics that the N.E.A.'s Washington lobbyists have
employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education
reforms," he said.

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive
remarks," said Mr. Paige, who is black and was born in a
segregated Mississippi, "I should have chosen my words
better."

Mr. Paige suggested that the union's lobbyists were out of
step with its members.

"Our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to
service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of
democracy," he said.

By contrast, he asserted, "the N.E.A.'s high-priced
Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will
fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the
way we educate all our children, regardless of skin color,
accent or where they live."

Mr. Weaver, the union's president, said there was no
difference between its members and its leadership. "We are
the teachers," he said. "There is no distinction."

Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic national chairman, said,
"Secretary Paige and the Bush administration have resorted
to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech,
comparing those who teach America's children to
terrorists."

John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said, "The
Bush administration would like to label all those who
disagree with it as terrorists in order to cover up its
policies, which are harmful to working families, and to
divert attention from its inability to create good jobs."

Think Bush'll fire the guy? I don't. But soon we get to fire Bush.

That is pretty disgusting that he used that language. However, just playing devils advocate here, he did apologize. Second, what was it that made him think something along those lines in the first place. I highly doubt that there is anything that organization is doing that could be compared to terrorism, but at the same time, maybe the way they are dealing with the opposition is what made this guy think of them in a negative way. The article doesn't point out any of that.

Great, now my entire immediate family are terrorists. Looks like Asscroft is gonna come after my ass soon.

Saw it this morning on the news. He was trying to make a joke (evidentally he's not good at that sort of thing). He has appologized. It was a stupid thing to say but I don't think that this is his actual mind set. I'm sure that would be good enough if he was a democrat but since he's a bush appointee he's obviously the devils spawn. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the teachers are being obstructionists to the Bush reform because they believe and know that the program is shit. But what do they know, these "teachers" as they are called, it's not like they spend any time actually working with the kids. :rolleyes:

Plake, nothing against your family, I work in a school and have NOTHING but the greatest respect for ANYONE who decides to work the long thankless underpaid hours to teach kids. Militant teachers unions suck, they make it impossible to fire incompetent teachers and allow SOME to basically do just enough to get by and not help our kids achive. I DESPISE closed shop unions, if your union is SO great then why not let people make the choice whether they want to pay union dues or go without their protection. Most teachers unions in my view fight with administrations and school boards for a bigger piece of the pie for their members meaning that school boards have to cut sports, drama, music and other extra-curicular activities just to fund state minimum standards. Rather then put union and administration at each others throats all the time the two SHOULD work together to demand a larger share of the pie from state and federal funding so that TEACHERS who are some of the most underapreciated underpaid people on the planet could get the PAY that they deserve and SCHOOL DISTRICTS could provide the kind of oppertunities that our childeren NEED.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by laseranimal
if your union is SO great then why not let people make the choice whether they want to pay union dues or go without their protection.

---

I'm not in the union. That's why until recently I fell into the category of the 45 million uninsured Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1080Rider
I'm sure that would be good enough if he was a democrat but since he's a bush appointee he's obviously the devils spawn. :rolleyes:

---

Yeah, I'm sure if a Clinton appointee referred to a conservative group as 'terrorists' no one would pay attention if he apologized.:rolleyes:

Is Kerry speech writing as well as running for president??

Kerry himself not referred to congressional Republicans as "legislative terrorists," as the Drudge Report notes he did back in 1996.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Is Kerry speech writing as well as running for president??

Kerry himself not referred to congressional Republicans as "legislative terrorists," as the Drudge Report notes he did back in 1996.

---

And we all know what a responsible journalistic organization the Drudge Report is.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Telephil
That is pretty disgusting that he used that language. However, just playing devils advocate here, he did apologize.

"It was an inappropriate choice of words." "I should have chosen my words better." You call this response an apology? The guy frickin equated teachers with terrorists! He should be begging not to be fired!

Second, what was it that made him think something along those lines in the first place. I highly doubt that there is anything that organization is doing that could be compared to terrorism, but at the same time, maybe the way they are dealing with the opposition is what made this guy think of them in a negative way. The article doesn't point out any of that.

You "highly doubt there is anything that organization is doing that could be compared to terrorism." Bravo, way to stand up for the teachers. Highly doubt?? :rolleyes: How about this Phil--There is no fucking way, short of blowing up a building or another terrorist act, that the NEA should be compared with terrorists.
There is a HUGE difference between "think(ing) of them (teachers) in a negative way," as you say, and calling teachers terrorists. There is NO excuse, whether you are playing devil's advocate or not, for such language.
Dude, if you are going to play devil's advocate, at least do a little research on the subject so you have more to say than "maybe the way they are dealing with the opposition" leads the secretary of education to calls them terrorists. Uninformed hypothetical arguments are really a waste of everyone's time.

Sorry, I should've chosen my words better.

No worries dood. :)