The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How will the new student assignment plan balance diversity, stability, proximity and stability? How will Jim Merrill replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a $810 million school construction bond referendum on Oct. 8 ballot? How will this fall's school board elections impact the future of the district?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Choose a blog

Wake County school board member John Tedesco to speak at another Tea Party rally

Bookmark and Share

In a move likely to fuel conspiracy theorists even more, Wake County school board member John Tedesco is slated to speak at another Tea Party Tax Day Rally.

Tedesco is among the list of speakers scheduled to talk at Tax Day Tea Party 2011 on April 15 in downtown Greensboro, according to YES! Weekly, a weekly in the Triad area. The event is being organized by Conservatives for Guilford County and they will be joined by groups such as AnyStreet NC, N.C. Right to Life, the Civitas Institute, the John Locke Foundation and the National Rifle Association.

Conservatives for Guilford is listed as a member group of the state chapter of Tea Party Patriots.

This will be at least the second recent event that has brought Tedesco to the Triad area. He spoke earlier this month in Greensboro at the Triad chapter of Americans for Prosperity's showing of "The Cartel."

Tedesco made local and ultimately national headlines last year when he spoke at the Tax Day Tea Party rally in downtown Raleigh. He talked about how the 2009 school board elections showed people had "said enough to the social engineers." He also told the crowd the board majority would "keep bringing conservative values to education."

Local supporters of the old diversity policy hammered Tedesco over the speech. It went viral with national liberals groups using the speech to link the board majority to the Tea Party movement.

The culmination of the Tea Party talk was the January article in The Washington Post and the comedic skewering of the school board majority by Stephen Colbert, who showed a clip of Tedesco's Tea Party speech.

Tedesco has repeatedly denied that the changes in Wake are the result of a Tea Party takeover, including during this January interview on the Fox Business Network.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If the opposite were true...

The right-wing would be all over it.

An SAT analogy for you; whether it's correct or incorrect, it's what the public believes:
Tea Party : Liberals :: Socialists : Conservatives

The Tea Party and the "Socialists" are the equivalent boogeymen on the different sides of the perceived political spectrum.  The likelihood of either "taking over" is highly unlikely.

Imagine if one of the Ds on the school board went to speak at a Socialist Party event (NAACP might be fringely socialistic, but NAACP is more of a PAC than a political party/movement).  The same comments on here by libs/Dems about JT's trip to enjoy some Tea would be mirrored by conservatives saying "Gotcha!"

People believe what they want to believe.  This will never change, especially as our political discourse continues to drag through the mud on ever-increasingly useless topics while high-minded intellectual discussion is viewed as something for back-room discussions for think-tankers on both sides of the aisle as they determine which talking-points to release for public consumption.

The Tea Party folks and

The Tea Party folks and Socialists are hardly at the same level politically. There are actually Tea Party members holding congressional seats and other elected offices, and more candidates will likely win election this fall. This is not true of socialists... well, at least admitted socialists.

Members of the Tea Party are not radicals; in fact, in many ways they are anti-radicals and seek to retrun to a time when our government respected the limited bounds of government expressed in the Constitution. Socialists, on the other hand, have no interest in our Constitution.

Socialists in Congress

Rep Bernie Sanders (Vermont) is a self-proclaimed Socialist

+ several undeclared : http://www.rfcnet.org/archives/socialists.htm

If you believe that list, judging by several of their public remarks, I believe most of them.

FWIW, I think the

FWIW, I think the Progressives are the liberal counterpart to the Tea Party.  And you'll find many elected Democrats who label themselves as "Progressive" starting with the POTUS.



There is no mention of being

There is no mention of being a socialist on Bernie Sander's website (I do know he admits this in public however) and as for the list you provided (doesn't not look like a very legitimate website by they way) what's the the "D" next to their names mean? They seem to be Democrats... and Sanders an Independent. You've actually added credence to my point, being a socialist is not something one makes a point of admitting.

But, if you want to believe socialsim is as politically legitimate in this country as the Tea Party, go right ahead.

BTW, I have no ties to the Tea Party and have never even been to one of their events, but I also do not think they are nuts or racists; I think they are every-day Americans pissed off at the way things are headed and have decided to do something about it. And they are.

Unbiased source, of

Unbiased source, of course.

Religious Freedom Coalition:
Seeking authoritarian solutions because they feel invalidated by the government not telling them how special Christians are.  That's freedom-licious. Mmmmmmm.

Definition of radical (from

Definition of radical (from dictionary.com):
2. Thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms.
3. Favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms.
10. A person who advocated fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

I'm not sure if it's your political leaning that does not allow you to see it, but Tea Party folks are pretty radical too.  Again, like I said, they are on widely different sides of the perceived political spectrum (I use "perceived" because the political spectrum is made up of an X-axis (economic) and a Y-axis (social); however in America we talk in terms of left or right of the origin [or "center"]).

The reforms suggested by BOTH sides (Tea Party or Socialist Party) are often drastic, either suggesting total government control (control of production by the state) or very-little government control (dissolution of various accept departments [education, etc.]).  The truth lies somewhere in the middle - in compromise - but neither side is willing to realize that.

Just like with this change to neighborhood schools.  The right wants it done in an uncompromising way; as does the left.  The truth, existing somewhere in between in the facts suggest that maybe a switch to neighborhood schools might be better, IF funding goes to where it's needed.  Those in the higher property tax areas have to compromise by getting their kids closer by agreeing that the money goes to the schools where it's needed.  Otherwise we are simply writing off the lower socioeconomic regions of Wake County.

P.S. Bernie Sanders (VT) in the House is a member of the US Socialist Party.

Wake County School Board

Wake County School Board Chair Voting


OT: Interesting Article On Tata's Prevous....

....system and boss today:


Not supporting the tea

Not supporting the tea party, but number one among tea partiers. Classy.


Didn't Keith Sutton just speak at a NAACP event in Rocky Mount? Why wasn't that reported?

You're assuming I knew he

You're assuming I knew he was going to speak at that event ahead of time. After you mentioned it, I googled it and saw it took place on Thursday. I haven't seen any stories that have appeared since that event indicating what he said. I would have blogged about it ahead of time if I had known.

Maybe you should ask for a monthly schedule

from all the board members. Then you would have no excuse for not being fair and balanced and we wouldn't have to assume you were in the know. Or on vacation.

Your fixation on my vacation

Your fixation on my vacation time is quite frankly just odd. You seem to think that I should work all 52 weeks of the year, including on my own time just to satisfy you.

I wouldn't call it a fixation

Excuses for why something isn't covered are just that, excuses.

If you haven't noticed I'm

If you haven't noticed I'm often blogging on my own time. I can assure you that the paper doesn't pay me when I work on the blog on the weekends, late at night or early in the morning. If I want to use the vacation time that I have and can't bank, I would hope you'd understand why. Or maybe you don't take any vacation time or think you should only be able to do so?

That we're even having this discussion

is odd to me. You don't have to justify yourself against anything I or anyone else says. This is your gig.

For the record, I take a lot of V time.

bait switch kiss

You bait the reporter and then you claim not to care. You, sir or madam, are a horse's backside, flies galore, one assumes, following you hither and about. Though your masking nom seems designed to evoke fornication, I say our democracy is imperiled by the likes of such cats as ye, of whom the citizenry can only hope there are few, but, crap in a toilet, there are always bunches of you, like rotten bananas in a bowl, hovering about to get sticky goop on the sane, rational among the vox populi.



I don't get what the big

I don't get what the big deal is. All kinds of people speak at political events. What's so different about the Tea Party?


What kind of "conspiracy" ? To do what? On one occassion I went to hear a candidate speak and there were many tea party members there.  Does that mean I went there for cigars and to talk (as the ole Irish like to say) 'a little conspiracy' in some back room?  Ridiculous! The whole argument is nothing but intellectual nonsense and political brinksmanship . Keung you can do better.

Chris, you obviously are

Chris, you obviously are aware of the liberal groups who are looking for any connection they can find behind the Tea Party and what's happening in Wake.  Everytime Tedesco denies there's Tea Party involvement in Wake, critics keep pointing to last year's speech. Now they'll point to this new one as well.

I disagree

I can assure you and everyone else there is no connection. Count on it. However if John wants to make a speech to them it only means he thinks well enough of them to do so, and that they share a set of core principles and ideals (or at least a majority of same).  If someone wants to critcize him for that they are welcome to it, but they should remember the same set of rules apply to them.

I'm not saying there is or

I'm not saying there is or isn't a connection between the board and the Tea Party. But I'm pointing out that every time Tedesco makes a speech at one of their events it gives ammo to those who believe there is some conspiracy by the Tea Party to take over the school system.

Really? If so, that "ammo"

Really? If so, that "ammo" is a pea-shooter... shot by someone suffering from delusions.

If the fact that one school board member occasionally speaks at Tea Party events leads some to conclude that "there is some conspiracy by the Tea Party to take over the school system," well, I am not sure there is much one can do about that. They fit into the category of folks still looking for the other Kennedy assassins and the location of the fake the Moon landing.

Keith Sutton speaks at NAACP rallies. Are we suppose to believe the NAACP intends to take over the school system?

Keung, I think you are so immersed in the biased extreme left-wing culture at the N&O on a daily basis that you are blind to the lopsided thinking and reporting that is so glaringly obvious to others.  


Keung's right.  

Reasonable people don't think that the NAACP intends to take over the school system just because Sutton spoke at a rally, that the Tea Party will do so because Tedesco spoke at a Tea Party rally, or that Carolyn' Morrison's Bridge Club is going to take over because she proposed a toast at the last meeting.  But, the key word there is reasonable.  That doesn't really describe all the people who believe in a Koch/Pope/Tea Party conspiracy.

Also, note that demonizing people and groups is part of the liberal modus operendi -- they build up a boogeyman and then, in an election, cast themselves as the people who are going to stop the boogeyman.  "Big Oil," "Big Pharma," Health Insurers, the Gun Industry and the Tobacco Industry are all past examples.  Guaranteed, the Tea Party is the next boogeyman.

(Not exclusive to liberals -- Newt Gingrich does this on the GOP side -- but liberals have certainly mastered it.)


Also, note that demonizing people and groups is part of the liberal modus operendi -- they build up a boogeyman and then, in an election, cast themselves as the people who

That's got to be one of the silliest things you've said here.  Heck, the biggest electoral problem liberals have is that they absolutely SUCK at demonizing the other side! It's hard to think of the last time they actually succeded at it.  Seriously. 
Come on - we're talking about the people whose first move upon winning the House in 2006 was to take "impeachment off the table" and who when they took over the DoJ in 2009 immediately shut down dozens of serious criminal investigations of their enemies.
It's your side that has the magic touch there.  Sliming war heros with outrageous lies (see John Kerry and Max Cleland). Confusing the hell out of America on health care by spending two years yelling lies about death panels and government takeovers and socialism without once even thinking about discussing the issue or advancing a solution.  Making up wild conspiracy theories about powerless people like ACORN and middle of the road yuppies like NPR based on doctored video.  Blaming a crash brought to you by the reckless gambling of the financial elite on poor black people and getting away with it.  Hell, look at the ridiculous things people believe now about public employee pensions - that's all pure fiction from your genius political hacks. It goes way back too....remember Reagan's fictional welfare Cadillac queens?  Remember Willie Horton? C'mon your side has convinced HALF of the Republican party that a guy whose birth was announed in a local paper in Hawaii in 1961 (copies of which exist and are public) was born in freakin Kenya!   How awesomely effective is that for the politics of personal destruction?  There is nothing remotely close on my side.
Meanwhile my side can't even competently demonize the gun industry when it's KILLING thousands (over 3000 Americans shot dead just since the Giffords shooting). Can't competently demonize the oil industry when the biggest spill in history fouls the whole Gulf.  Can't competently demonize the tax cheats when G.E. makes $5 BILLION in the US and doesn't pay a single dime of tax.  Ok, but at least sex scandals are easy, right? Nope -when the Bush administration was giving unprecedented (and undocumented) White House access to a gay prostitute and there were hooker scandals at the top of the CIA we couldn't even get them covered.  Hell we just had a rabid rightwing Supreme Court justice fess up for illegally failing to disclose *millions* in payments to his wife by political organizations.....and we couldn't even get it in the news for more than a day.  Your side would be knee-deep in impeachment hearings by now - you know i's true.
Liberals have one huge political weakness....they believe in fairness and honest debate and they're simply not very good at dirty politics.  There was a time long ago when the LBJ's and Daley's could get in the gutter ....but the last thirty years its all been the Roves and Atwaters and DeLays and Gingriches. 


After I posted that, I wondered how lnog it'd take you to respond...

I'm not going to argue with you because this isn't a place we're going to find much common ground.  But, a few points:

(1)  I think your side has won the battle about the root causes of the crash.  It's certainly not because of a 'bunch of poor black people,' although sub-prime mortgages played some role.  A far larger cause was the culture of "private gains, public losses" that permeated Wall Street and encouraged unnecessary risk-taking with the implicit promise that "if things don't turn out OK, the government will bail you out."  

(2) As to GE not paying taxes, I'll quote Learned Hand:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.  There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.  Over and over again, the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.  Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

If you're mad, you should be mad at the century of congressional meddling with the tax code to create the boehemoth that GE is now taking advantage of.  

(3) I'm not sure what gay prostitute your talking about -- the only one I'm aware of on Capital Hill lived with Barney Frank for a while.  However, my memory's like a rabbit's tail (short and fuzzy), so I may have just forgotten.

(4) As for the rest, I don't deny that there have been occasional GOP 'dirty tricks.' especially by that O'Keefe guy and the guys who caught Etheridge being pompous (a common affliction among congressmen).  But, you have to agree that for the next two years, your party's mantra is going to be the Tea Party.  In next year's election, you will talk about how the "Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party."  This year, it will be about holding back the Tea Party on the school board (even though Tedesco's the only one who appears to have any association there).  Heck, even in redistricting, it'll be complaining about how the Tea Party is "thwarting the democratic process" or something similar.

Well Duh

 But, you have to agree that for the next two years, your party's mantra is going to be the Tea Party.  In next year's election, you will talk about how the "Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party."  

Well it happens to be true - which is usually a pretty solid defense!  You're not really gonna try to deny that, are you?  Look at the revolt on his right flank that Boehner is dealing with. Or the wacky nutjobs running loose (and running Republican numbers into the ground) in Wisconsin and Ohio and Florida. Or the fact that solid conservative Senators like Orrin Hatch are scared to death of primaries, etc. Or the attention utter morons like Palin and Bachman are getting as potential Presidential candidates.  Or.....just look at the polling - outrageous Tea Party insanity like birtherism or actually being in favor of a governent shutdown are now REPUBLICAN MAJORITY positions!!?!?!
Republicans are now openly stating that their economic plan consists of increasing unemployment in order to drive down private sector wages!  They're actually saying that publicly! The inmates have thoroughly taken over the asylum.....yeah I suppose we will be pointing FACT out as loudly and frequently as we can.  
But I'll point out one relevant point about all that....we don't need to demonize them because the American people already think they're stone cold crazy.  All we have to do is  remind the public that they're there.  It's like Sarah Palin in fall 2008 - she self-destructed every time she opened her mouth....the Obama strategy of ignoring her and letting her hang herself worked just fine.
Switching off-topic topics, remember the discussion a month or so about Fox News?  Any comment on the latest revelation about the "news" side of the rightwing Politboro house?
. Fox News' Washington managing editor, shortly before a presidential election, deliberately advanced a smear against the Democratic candidate that even he didn't believe? And he's willing to admit this publicly?

Try to imagine, just for a moment, what the reaction might be if NBC News' top editor in Washington had said this. Or worse, NPR's.

Also note the larger context here. Shortly before Election Day 2008, Sammon not only repeated talking points he considered dubious, he also wrote a memo urging Fox News' on-air talent to link Obama to "Marxists" and "socialism."

What's more, we recently learned that Sammon ordered the network's journalists to downplay the science of global warming, and circulated a memo telling Fox News reporters to use REpublican-endorsed rhetoric exclusively, to describe the public option during the health care debate.



Republicans are now openly stating that their economic plan consists of increasing unemployment in order to drive down private sector wages!

Huh?  Who's saying that?  Why would you want to drive down private sector wages?  That doesn't make sense.  But, occasionally somebody goes off the reservation and, lets face it, politicians generally have a very poor understanding of economics.

Personally, I think unemployment is the wrong thing to focus on in measuring the health of the economy -- low unemployment is an effect of a healthy economy, not the cause of it.  So, policies that focus on boosting employment are effectively pushing on a rope.  You have to get companies to the place where they see opportunities for profit; then they'll hire.   

As to the Sammon thing, I don't know -- I've really only looked at the piece you linked to above.  I'd want to see his side of it before making a judgment.  Both sides of the political spectrum are great at finding outrages on the other side.  


Huh?  Who's saying that?  Why would you want to drive down private sector wages?  That doesn't make sense.  But, occasionally somebody goes off the reservation and, lets face it, politicians generally have a very poor understanding of economics.

....Speaker of The House, John Boehner.  It can hardly be called going off the reservation when it's in an official policy paper  from the party's most powerful leader, can it?


In light of our comments earlier in the thread about demonization I found the appearance of this article with a somewhat related premise today timely.  Needless to say I not only agree with it, I think it's glaringly obviouse :




You need a '5' at the end of that first link.  Secondly, that's a statement not by Boehner, but by the staff of the Joint Economic Committee.  And, it states an economic truth: if you reduce government employment of people with in-demand skills, then it will be easier for the private sector to find people with those skills.  And that necessarily reduces labor costs (doesn't necessarily have to be wages; can also be search costs, relocation costs, etc....)  Reduced labor costs means that good and services produced by that labor are cheaper, which is a net economic benefit.

That's not going to be popular with the government unions, but is probably correct.

note that demonizing people

note that demonizing people and groups is part of the liberal modus operendi -- they build up a boogeyman and then, in an election ...... the Tea Party is the next boogeyman.

So are Art Pope and Bob Luddy.  County commissioner Stan Norwalk has listed among the criteria for his replacement that the person must be able to withstand Pope/Luddy's attempt to destroy our school system.  Regardless, I don't see their bogeyman strategy working very well.  When they rail about the Tea Party or Pope/Luddy destroying the public school system, the come across as paranoid radicals to most of the people I know.  As an aside, I personally find it insulting that these people believe that I can't think for myself, and I must be brainwashed by the right wing if I believe in neighborhood schools.

What about how proud he is about not laying off Teachers.

Since John has been touting the new budget that does not lay off any teachers, perhaps he will tell the Tea Party how wrong they were about the 'Stimulas' since that is why no teachers are being laid off this year.

And perhaps he will ask them to contact their Legislators and tell them not to cut education beyond 5%  since that is what Super Tata just asked, even if it means maintining temporary taxes.

Whaler, good to see you back

Whaler, good to see you back in the conversation--any thoughts on candidates to replace Tony Gurly and Stan Norwalk?  (See posts on those topics below.) 

Replacements have already been decided

Yvonne "the obstructionist" Brannon is taking over Norwalk's and Reverend "I'm really Cash's brother" Barber is taking over Gurley's. Once Anne "blow my stack" Sherron and Diana "the screamer" Bader infiltrate the school board later this year we'll be surrounded by failures.

Those are the kind of candidates Whaler supports and works for. When he's not playing a confused radio fill-in these days.

Way to go John

I say speak at anything & everything you like. It certainly gets you the N&O coverage doesn't it!

Well it gets you coverage

Well it gets you coverage unless you are Keith Sutton speaking at a NCCCP rally. Hey isn't the NAACP suing Wake County Schools? I suppose there is no reason to being up conflict of interest... apparently there is no known scenario that actually falls under conflict of interest guidelines as the concept is routinely dismissed.

JT Move

Maybe JT will move to Greensboro.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Homes View All
Find a Home

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.

About the blogger

T. Keung Hui covers Wake schools.