Even more insulting, he offered to send a subordinate out to debate Julie. Could you imagine the President of the US saying he'll send out an aide to debate the other party's nominee? Mulgrew is basically stating that he is too important to discuss issues with members so they can make an informed choice.
Election ballots will be mailed out on April 3 when we return to school. The full article is pasted below with a link also.
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/local/foe_uft_boss_is_chicken_FVQNQrCff4FvE3rOUxfdHP
NYC 49° CLOUDY
|  |
Foe: UFT boss is chicken
By YOAV GONEN and CARL CAMPANILE
Last Updated: 3:25 AM, March 28, 2013
Brash-talking teachers-union boss Michael Mulgrew is a chicken and a hypocrite, union critics charge.
Mulgrew is ducking a debate with his United Federation of Teachers rival before next month’s union elections, The Post has learned.
Special-education teacher Julie Cavanagh is challenging Mulgrew’s re-election bid and has personally asked him to participate in a “town hall” debate.
“To this point you have ignored outreach regarding your participation in a debate or question-and-answer town hall with me,” Cavanagh said in a March 14 letter to Mulgrew.
And a top aide to Mulgrew confirmed that the incumbent would not debate Cavanagh. Instead, Mulgrew’s political handlers offered to have one of the subordinates from his Unity Caucus debate her.
Cavanagh ally James Eterno said, “If he’s not going to debate, that’s hypocritical.”
20 comments:
Mulgrew won't debate because he knows he will get his behind handed to him by Julie AND if that happened it would be in all the papers and then the rank and file who does not follow the UFT elections will realize that there is actrually a caucus that has their interests in mind. Mulgrew stands nothing to gain and everything to loose if he battles Julie as the fight would be over in 5 minutes. On another note, I went to Staples today and made a ton of MORE flyers to hand out to the teachers in my school on Wednesday. Teachers have been asking me left and right, "who do I vote for in this election". The teachers at my school may be young, but they are plenty pissed at the way they are being treated by the very union that has sold them up the river. Teachers are waking up in NYC and realizing that their careers are being put on the line by the ed-deform movement and the UFT is plenty content on letting that happen.
No— Mulgrew is not "basically stating that he is too important to discuss issues with members so they can make an informed choice". He is following the time-tested strategy of many savvy incumbent campaigns: He has nothing to gain by debating, and he has, potentially, a lot to lose by debating. If he does not debate, he will not lose any votes, and will win handily. If he debates and wipes the floor with Julie, he will not lose any votes, and he will win handily. But if he debates and Julie wipes the floor with him, it could cost him significant votes, if video of the event went viral, say. And a subordinate will goad both Julie and her supporters in the audience, provoking the audience to get loud, which will reflect poorly on Julie, but not on Mulgrew, and Mulgrew will not lose any votes, and win handily. Note that the comment in the article from the Unity side, is not attributed to Mulgrew, but to "a top aide to Mulgrew" and "Mulgrew's political handlers". Mulgrew is not stating anything.
And— Before y'all get a-tizzy about this great press coverage, consider the source: It's anti-union Rupert Murdoch's anti-union New York Post, for ------'s sakes! Do you think for one moment that the reason for publishing this piece is News Corp's desire to champion union democracy???
Solidarity like forever,
Glenn
The last time there was a presidential election without a debate in this country was 1972. In the UFT, Mulgrew's predecessor Randi Weingarten debated two other candidates in 1999 and 2001.
All you have now is the source of the article. Facts are facts. The source doesn't matter. Members need to know they have a real choice.
A debate between the Presidential contenders is very appropriate. It is interesting that the incumbent forfeited an opportunity to "shine". I would put out a flyer saying that Julie officially won the first round and call for a second round. That's good tactic!B
I agree with Glenn, it isn't that Mulgrew feels he is too important to debate but he has seen Julie speak on TV, at public forums, etc. He knows that he doesn't have the ability nor the answers that the membership would like to hear compared to her. He is indeed, afraid!
Michael Mulgrew suggested that there be a debate at the next DA about which, if any, Mayoral candidate we in the UFT should support. Good idea. So why won't our president have a debate with the only other presidential candidate running in the UFT elections?
"But if he debates and Julie wipes the floor with him, it could cost him significant votes, if video of the event went viral, say."
In other words, he's chicken.
Unity faithful awfully quiet lately. Who would you rather have facing the mayor: someone who challenges someone to a debate or someone who says I'll send someone else?
The Unity faithful are quiet because Glenn basically said it all. You're in bed with the Post and he's not debating because of political strategy employed by incumbents with a huge base of support time and time again. That's all folks.
Chicken.
At least Randi was not afraid. Wasn't she an incumbent who had a huge base?
If you agree with the Post now that means you always agree with them. We only agreed with them when they supported the 2005 contract. Mulgrew's strategy of chickening out is the wise course, and Presidential to the max.
Unity Faithful are not quiet, but instead our posts are not being allowed to be posted to this site anymore. I and many others have tried to reply to many different posts, but the admin of this site will not allow it to be seen.....Hmmmm, wonder why!?!?!
What are you so afraid of James? Why are you censoring what is being posted? For someone who is sooo eager for ALL the members to be informed, why are you now censoring?!?!?!
(Bet this post will show up, but I have numerous others that did not pass the "Eterno" censorship!)
Why can't you be open and honest, like we are about our unwillingness to debate? Why do you insist on bringing up issues like those anyway, when we can simply focus on gratuitous personal attacks?
What are you afraid of that you keep focusing on the issues? Let's get back to baseless anonymous accusations!
I don't read the comments before they are posted. I only remove profanity (kids google me and are sometimes steered to this blog) and some commercial stuff has also been taken down. I believe Jeff follows the same policies. We respect the First Amendment. Debate is healthy. Sorry about your stuff not posting 1:36 am.
Testing 1-2.
I just had that last comment posted with no need for any administrator approval. Unity, you may win the election but you really need to stop making stuff up. Your record on the blogs is as abysmal as the 2005 contract.
That's not the point. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the discussion to personal attacks against people like James and Julie, and stop bringing up issues like the contract. If we'd wanted to do that, we'd have a debate.
We'd also appreciate it if you'd accept our notion that the DA, which Michael controls absolutely, is a fair substitute for free and open debate.
Please get with the program.
In all fairness to Mulgrew, he doesn't appear to suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome like Randi does.
In terms of policy, what's the difference between Mulgrew and Randi?
Post a Comment