Friday, October 17, 2014

California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Race


For John, BLUFFrom the article, "A Tuck win would rock California's Democratic establishment, then reverberate nationally."  Nothing to see here; just move along.



There are interesting races across the fruited plain, including that for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Per this article, "...the heart of the Democratic Party [in California] is up for grabs, making this a bit of a big deal."
Party operatives and the two candidates, Marshall Tuck and Tom Torlakson, would dispute that assertion.  But the race is, in fact, a battle between two distinct wings of California's Democratic Party — the labor-union side and the reformer side — and the race is about two very different paths for California's public schools and those who attend and teach in them.

Tom Torlakson, the incumbent from the San Francisco Bay Area, is backed by nearly every ring in the Democrats' big tent -— more than 300 endorsements from teachers unions, special interest groups and Democratic politicians and clubs.  He's shored up the pro-choice vote, the firefighters, the police, the Teamsters and environmental groups.  Yep, even Big Green is involved.

Meanwhile, Marshall Tuck of Los Angeles is backed heavily by billionaires — including the wife of Steve Jobs — and a much larger group of small donors.  Tuck has far fewer endorsements, but charismatic Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are on his side.

There you have it, a fight within the Party.  I wonder if the disappearance of Republicans has allowed this fissure to open?

Here is the way it would work out practically, depending on who wins:

If Torlakson wins, schools could use extra funds to make dramatic improvements, but there probably won't be radical changes. If Tuck wins, however, he'll have a mandate to give parents more charter schools and weed out and fire ineffective teachers.
As a Traditional Liberal, as a Republican, I favor Tuck.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

No comments: