Mike writes??that merit pay and charter schools are "anathema to the teachers unions." They're not at all anathema to the Democratic Party, though.
Update: Checker wants examples. Off the top of my head: I remember George Miller, a very liberal, establishment Democrat, sparring publicly last year with NEA President Reg Weaver about merit pay. And the Center for American Progress, a think tank loaded with establishment Dems, is in favor of merit pay and charter schools. Bill Clinton, too,??liked charters, didn't he? There are lots more instances. Maybe the NEA doesn't speak for the Democratic Party anymore??(via Russo)? One might make the point (and I have) that??clashing with??the NEA is not synonymous with clashing with the Democratic Party, or with bipartisanship or post-partisanship or whatever we're calling it.
Update II: I appreciate Checker's post, but my defense of Dems comes in response to Mike, who believes that when a national Democrat goes against merit pay he is stepping out of line with his national party. This is simply untrue; it's entirely okay for national Dems to be in favor of merit pay and charter schools, just ask Andy Rotherham. So, I??balk when??a Democratic candidate??(or Mike) points to his support of merit pay and charter schools as evidence of "bucking the party" or of bipartisan- or postpartisan-ship. Cory Booker (a nationally known Dem)??has supported vouchers for Pete's sake!