If the media were not totally in the bag for Barack Obama, they would be pestering him for a comment on the Chicago teachers strike, which is disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Windy City families deprived of their day care services. One might also worry about the loss of education, but for the fact that test scores and other learning measurements indicate that little real education goes on in the school system that pays teachers the best of any big city, and whose leader became Obama's Secretary of Education.
However, so far Obama has been able to duck any comment on the strike. Well he might. Deroy Murdock explains why:
If Obama stands up for the teachers' union, however, he will seem as greedy, rigid, and insulated as they are. But if he opposes the unions, he risks alienating his Big Labor base. Obama already has angered the union bosses by failing to deliver on his promises to pass a "card check" measure that would have scuttled secret ballots in union elections. He also did bupkis to try to help the unions recall Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. That expensive effort failed, and a little help from Obama might have turned that situation around for Big Labor. A third cold shoulder from Obama could lead the unions and their millions of activists to stay home in November, rather knock on doors, man phone banks, and otherwise deliver the Democratic vote.
But why would Obama care about the public schools? His children go to $35,000 a year per studnet Sidwell Friends School.