Crazy Talk
There's a cardinal rule in American politics that anything regarded as too crazy loses the support (and attention) of the mainstream voters. And once someone or some group is relegated to this zone of lunacy in the public's perception, it's hard to get back out. Today may be a turning point for the rational middle-of-the-road in how they view the anti-Obama movement in this country. Because there simply was no Marxist revolution among schoolchildren after the president spoke to them, and it was pretty insane to believe that there ever was going to be one. Which is becoming more and more apparent.
Even the media seemed embarrassed by this one. Even prominent conservative columnists and Republican politicians grudgingly and sheepishly admitted that there really shouldn't have even been any "controversy" over the president telling kids to stay in school and do their homework.
But none of that stopped the anti-Obama rabble-rousers, of course. Through the lens of how they view reality, anything Obama does or says is automatically suspect (consider the source!), and probably part of his plans to turn America into a socialist Hell. The media has been giving them the spotlight and plenty of air time all summer long in town hall meetings, so they've become used to their ideas being taken seriously. But being rabidly against the president's speech to kids may have been a bridge too far for the mainstream to cross with them.
Um, that last metaphor may need some work, as I am now picturing a stream crossing a bridge, when it really should be the other way 'round. Ahem.
The chosen spokesman for the "Obama wants to brainwash our children" non-issue was the head of the Republican Party in the state of Florida. Last week, he was frothing at the mouth over Obama pushing "socialism" on the kiddies. Yesterday, he finally read the speech the White House posted for all the public to read. The Republican leader's response showed the depths of his conspiracy theory: "In its current form, it's fine. But it remains to be seen if it's the speech he's going to give."
You see, not only did President Obama have a secret call-to-the-Marxist-barricades speech which he was going to give to all the impressionable children, but he was going to be sneaky in doing so, by first posting a completely different speech to lull concerned parents into going along with the whole plan.
At some point, the average soccer mom or Joe Sixpack scratches his or her head and says: "But that's crazy talk!"
The GOP leader was on television this morning, expounding on his theory:
"Clearly last week there was a plan with the Department of Education. When you ask students to write a letter to the president on, how we can help you with your new ideas, Mr. President, that is leading the students in an effort to push the president's agenda. Now that the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught, they changed everything, they redid the lesson plans, they released the text, and tomorrow he's going to give a speech that every president should have an opportunity to give.
When asked if he had any actual proof or even inside information to back up his claim of there being two speeches, he replied:
"No, I don't. But I would anticipate, based on this president being so vocal and so aggressive about his vision of America, where government is in every aspect of our lives, I believe that the speech that he was going to give, based on the lesson plans, is different."
There's a term for this sort of thing. It's called "paranoia."
These are the people, it should be pointed out, who -- when the president is Republican -- call for everyone to get behind everything the president does or says, and who also call any dissenting voices unpatriotic and treasonous. But when a Democrat is president, they call for yanking your kid out of school so Johnnie or Katie won't be scarred for life by hearing the president tell them to stay in school. There's a certain irony about that, actually.
But this crusade against Obama indoctrinating our precious children may have been a wakeup call to the suburban parents who make up most of the Independent class of voters in this country -- who usually decide national elections. The Republican Party has purged itself of moderates, and is now down to the hardcore base. The only problem, for them, is that the hardcore base can seem pretty downright scary at times to the voters they're trying to convince. As I said, most Republicans who operate on a national (as opposed to a state or local) scale realized this pretty early on in this tempest in a teapot, and rightly pointed out how silly it all had become.
To be honest, I don't have anything to back up my opinion here myself. I haven't polled thousands of middle-class American voters to see what they think on the issue. Call it a gut feeling instead. But I do know that when a political position starts to be seen as "from the fringe" (whether it's a left fringe, a right fringe, or a sheer lunatic fringe), then the mainstream stops listening to those who profess such an opinion. And the anti-Obama crowd may have crossed over into this territory with their latest conspiracy theory on how Obama is trying to destroy America while everyone's not looking. Because I have heard recently from a lot of people reacting to the "keep your kids out of school so they don't have to listen to the evil president!" bilge. Most of these people don't normally pay much attention to politics, I should add. And they all reacted pretty similarly -- with some version of: "But that's crazy talk!"
-- Chris Weigant
Let's look at the facts.
Fact #1: A lesson plan was issued by the Dept Of Education in which teachers were to encourage students to write essays on how they can "help" the President.
Fact #2: The Dept of Education recanted that lesson plan, saying it was "worded poorly".
Fact #3: President Obama had intended to issue this address to school children without ANY notice to parents as to what was going to be said.
Fact #4: President Obama changed the gameplan after the outcry, and issued a preview of his speech so that parents could know what was going to be told to their children.
Frankly, I don't see why the Left is all up in arms.
The facts CLEARLY show that President Obama and the Dept Of Education were going to cross a "bright line in the sand" with their original plan to address school children. The simple fact that the administration backtracked on so many different aspects of the address indicates this to be true.
Who knows what President Obama's speech would have consisted of, had he been allowed to go ahead unchallenged..
I refer to my previous analogy (to which there hasn't been ANY answer to the contrary (silence gives assent, ya know.. :D )) of exactly how the Left would have reacted if the Patriot Act or the MCA had been in trouble of failing and G W Bush would have tried an end run around parents and asked school children to "help" him get the act passed.
Wouldn't the Left have gone ballistic??
Of course they would have and everyone here knows it.
I am also constrained to point out the the Left **DID** go ballistic when H W Bush addressed school children. There were investigations and Senate committees and all that other hulaballoo...
So, why is it OK for the Left to act "paranoid" and hysterical, but it's not OK for the Right to act the same way??
Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??
I agree completely with the sentiment that this is much ado about nothing...
But the "much ado" is being committed by the Left and the "nothing" was committed by the Right.
We should be discussing really IMPORTANT matters along the lines of why the Liberal Media has all but ignored the issue of Anthony Jones and his resignation as Obama's "Green Job Czar"...
Anyone wanna talk about that??
Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??
Michale.....
FACT: Anyone espousing insane theories about "backtracking" lesson plans to hide a plan to "indoctrinate" schoolkids (by asking them how they can "help" the president IMPROVE EDUCATION) is a certifiable nut case.
The nut cases have had their day. They have been judged, weighted, measured, and found wanting.
Chris, back in April I coined a term for what we saw in August: The Teabag Terror. I also coined a term for what we're seeing now: The Teabagger Fail.
You're not alone, Chris. The MSM is finally awake to the consequences of letting the fringe have a voice in serious national debate. Joe Klein, of all people, has had enough; David Gregory, Thomas Friedman, and Tom Brokaw have had enough. Even Orly Taitz's "clients" have had enough.
Soon, the only places left for this tinfoil-hat lunacy will be Faux Noise and Wing Nut Daily. The GOP is like that mad scientist who doesn't recognize his creation for a monster until it's too late.
Chris,
You may not have poll numbers to back up your opinion but God help us all if you’re wrong!
Michale,
We shouldn’t confuse the completely irrational anti-Obama vitriol with partisan politics or a left versus right issue, per se. No, all of this nonsense can be best understood in terms of how stupid, gullible and easily brainwashed, misguided and misled some people can be...plain and simple.
Now, it just so happens that the completely irrational anti-Obama vitriol is coming primarily from the right fringe sector of the political spectrum. Though, there is certainly no lack of irrational rhetoric on a number of issues coming at the President from the other fringe sector of the spectrum, too, I hasten to add.. The midterm elections should be interesting.
In other words, it’s not ‘OK’ for anyone to act paranoid or hysterical and it should be the responsibility of the rest of us who live in the real world and who speak the language of common sense - regardless of what sector of the political spectrum we call home - to speak out and call a spade a spade, and in no uncertain terms!
Osborne Ink -
Thomas Friedman has REALLY had enough - I caught him on MTP last weekend, and he had it right - "THIS IS STUPID!"
EJ Dionne of the Washington Post can be added to that list as well, from what he wrote about it today.
Michale -
GHWBush's speech was investigated, you're right. Nobody said a word about the content of the speech (that I'm aware of). They were investigating his use of Dept. of Ed. money. It may have been nasty politics to do so, but nobody suggested he was indoctrinating children.
Reagan, on the other hand, DID use a speech to indoctrinate schoolchildren (on how wonderful tax cuts were). He used such a speech for purely political reasons. So maybe Democrats remembered what Reagan had done when they attacked GHWB, I don't know.
But seriously, what would Republicans say if Democrats pulled their children out of school when a Republican president gave a speech? You don't think the words "un-American" and "unpatriotic" would be used against such Democratic parents by the other side?
Personally, I've never had any problem with ANY president talking to kids -- even Reagan and his tax cuts. It's one of the perks of the job, is how I see it. The office itself is due respect, no matter who sits in the big chair, that's how I view it. If GWBush had given such a speech to kids, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Do you know the most interesting person who came to Obama's defense on the issue? Laura Bush. That pretty much says it all.
-CW
FACT: Anyone espousing insane theories about "backtracking" lesson plans to hide a plan to "indoctrinate" schoolkids (by asking them how they can "help" the president IMPROVE EDUCATION) is a certifiable nut case.
FACT: I never claimed that the lesson plan was backtracked to hide a plan of indoctrination.
My claim is that the White House backtracked the lesson plan because it was worded poorly. How do I know this to be true??
BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE STATED SO!!
Jeeesh, get a clue, dood. You are so obsessed with partisan bigotry, you are actually arguing against the White House.
The nut cases have had their day. They have been judged, weighted, measured, and found wanting.
So, howz that Democrat Agenda working out for ya, eh? :D
Soon, the only places left for this tinfoil-hat lunacy will be Faux Noise and Wing Nut Daily. The GOP is like that mad scientist who doesn't recognize his creation for a monster until it's too late.
I hope you are still around here after the 2010 Mid-Terms when it will be 1994 all over again. :D Normally, I don't revel in saying I told ya so (sheeya, right) but in your case, I'll make an exception. :D
Liz,
In other words, it’s not ‘OK’ for anyone to act paranoid or hysterical and it should be the responsibility of the rest of us who live in the real world and who speak the language of common sense - regardless of what sector of the political spectrum we call home - to speak out and call a spade a spade, and in no uncertain terms!
Agreed..
But where was all the condemnation of Democrats in Oct of 1991? Does anyone here condemn the actions of Democrats in 1991?
Neither you nor Osborne have answered the question as to how you would feel if GW Bush had wanted to do an end run around parents and speak to the Nation's students and ask them to "help" him pass the Patriot Act or the MCA Legislation.
Can I conclude ya'alls lack of answer as an answer? :D
CW,
It may have been nasty politics to do so, but nobody suggested he was indoctrinating children.
"The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,"
-Washington Post Oct 1991
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president"
-Richard Gephard, House Majority Leader, Oct 1991
Regardless of whether or not the same words were used, "Indoctrination" vs "Props", the simple fact is the intent is the same.
Reagan, on the other hand, DID use a speech to indoctrinate schoolchildren (on how wonderful tax cuts were). He used such a speech for purely political reasons. So maybe Democrats remembered what Reagan had done when they attacked GHWB, I don't know.
From what I have researched, this is true. And that was wrong.
Just as it was wrong for the Obama White House to attempt the same thing. Which is WHY the Lesson Plan was backtracked.
I don't understand the issue here?
The White House made changes to the Lesson Plan. This is fact. Why did they make the changes? Because the original Lesson Plan was, in their OWN words, "Poorly Worded".
But seriously, what would Republicans say if Democrats pulled their children out of school when a Republican president gave a speech? You don't think the words "un-American" and "unpatriotic" would be used against such Democratic parents by the other side?
Abso-fracking-loutly they would. Such is the nature of politics. But that doesn't make the Republican accusations accurate. Those would be hysterical accusations based on nothing more than political bigotry and expediency.
Personally, I've never had any problem with ANY president talking to kids — even Reagan and his tax cuts. It's one of the perks of the job, is how I see it. The office itself is due respect, no matter who sits in the big chair, that's how I view it. If GWBush had given such a speech to kids, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
No offense, but I find it hard to believe that, had GW Bush attempted to do an end run around parents and speak to all the nation's students and asked them to help him pass the Patriot Act or MCA Legislation, ya'all wouldn't have a problem with that. :D
It's one of those "what if" situations that we'll probably never know the answer to, but.... An educated guess could be made... :D
Do you know the most interesting person who came to Obama's defense on the issue? Laura Bush. That pretty much says it all.
Agreed..
As near as I can understand the whole issue, there wasn't any outcry with President Obama wanting to speak to students. No one had a problem with simple generic "Stay In School", "Work Hard, Study Hard" and "Don't Do Drugs" messages from the President to students.
No one had a problem with such and no one SHOULD have a problem with such.
But the point is, that WASN'T the thrust of the President's message, as espoused by the corresponding Lesson Plan. What the hell is the administration doing, issuing a "Lesson Plan" to begin with?!?
Regardless, the White House obviously recognized that those who brought up the issue of "helping the President" and the issue of doing an end run AROUND parents were correct, as those things were changed.
What has ya'all more upset?
The alleged "silliness" of the Republican's accusations??
Or the fact that the White House recognized that the concerns weren't silly and altered their plans?? :D
Michale.....
Apparently, there are prominent liberals who agree with me on how the Obama Administration handled this school mess.
This column has been calling for heads to roll at the White House from the get-go. Thankfully, they do seem to be falling faster -- as witness the middle-of-the-night bum's rush given to "green jobs" czar Van Jones last week -- but there's a long way to go. An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president's innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to "help" the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?
And this one is for you, Osborne.. :D
Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year's tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web -- both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy -- I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/
Ya gotta love Camille :D
Michale.....
Michale,
I hope you’re not going to tell me that I have to condemn every stupid thing the Democrats have ever said or done...’cause, we could be here for a very, very, very long time.
What d’ya say we start in the here and now and move forward. Don’t worry, I’m sure the mid-term elections will provide fodder enough for all of us liberal types to prove that we’re not just a bunch of wayward hypocrites. And, if we don’t, you get to call us on it and use any number of your...ahem...wonderful analogies to take us down. Deal?
:-)
I hope you’re not going to tell me that I have to condemn every stupid thing the Democrats have ever said or done…’cause, we could be here for a very, very, very long time.
hehehehe Naw, the acknowledgment of the fact is sufficient for me.. :D
What d’ya say we start in the here and now and move forward. Don’t worry, I’m sure the mid-term elections will provide fodder enough for all of us liberal types to prove that we’re not just a bunch of wayward hypocrites. And, if we don’t, you get to call us on it and use any number of your…ahem…wonderful analogies to take us down. Deal?
Woot!! :D
2010 should be fun, that much is certain.. :D
Michale.....
Speaking of upcoming elections, let's look at a "Blast From The Past" at the previous election.
Many on here pooh-pooh'ed the claims regarding the criminal conduct of ACORN..
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224631.html
Apparently, the claims turned out to be...
"Dead on balls accurate. It's an industry term."
-Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
Michale......
Anyone wanna join me in some "Live Blogging" of Obama's speech at 2000hrs EST???
Michale.....
Lemme ask something...
What's wrong with the ideas of allowing the sale of insurance across state lines, equalizing the tax system so that individuals and entrepreneurs are on the same playing field with big businesses and unions, and addressing the pressing need for medical malpractice reform.
Those ideas would go a long way towards reducing health care costs.
What's wrong with those ideas??
Oh, besides the fact that those ideas conflict with the agenda of those who are BIG donors to the Democratic Party.
How silly of me. Of course, I failed to take into account that Democrats are only in favor of "reform" that doesn't intrude on their deep deep pockets..
Silly Michale.. Silly, silly Michale....
Michale.....
Michale -
OK, let me try again.
Contrary to what Fox News has to say about it, the GHWB speech is an apples/oranges comparison to the BHO speech. The only thing similar between them is that NEITHER of them were "indoctrinating children."
GHWB was running for re-election. He was in the process of trying to cut money for school lunches from the federal budget, continuing the fine work of his mentor, who tried to pass off ketchup as a vegetable. He gave a speech to students. He used a professional film crew (which he paid money for, about $21 grand) to do this, and the suspicion was that he was going to use it as a campaign ad. His campaign manager at the time all but admitted this (said something like "we're going to use any film we feel like in campaign ads"). Using federal money for campaigning is and was illegal. GWB broke this with some "presentations" on how to best get Republicans elected from a woman who shouldn't have, but that's a side issue. Back to GHWB. After he gave his speech, it was investigated by Congress. Because of the money spent. Was it political (the investigation, not the speech)? Yep. Is $21,000 less than pocket change in DC? Yep -- it's like a budget rounding error. But, even having said that, you have to ask what was the Dems' point. They were using the issue politically to embarrass GHWB on the school lunch funding cut -- he was cutting DoE money, while at the same time using DoE money to make campaign ads. They were (in an admittedly ham-handed way) pointing out this hypocrisy, which was the whole point.
Now, what parallels are there with Obama? He was attacked for giving a speech, and the content of that speech. No parallel there. Nobody suggested GHWB didn't have the right to talk to school children. No liberals pulled their kids out of school. Nobody suggested Bush was indoctrinating kids with a fascist agenda or anything.
I challenge you -- go back and read the quotes you yourself provided on the GHWB speech. Don't they make a little more sense with the proper context?
As to the lesson plan that was changed, a few things. Do you think Obama himself dictated that the offending phrase "help the president" was inserted, or do you think some bureaucrat in the DoE wrote that? Here's a hint: read the document. It is so badly written (full of teachery-wonk speak, instead of plain English) that it could be used instead as a bad example of how NOT to write a clear document. Do you think Obama wrote that? I doubt it.
Lesson plans were provided to teachers to use if they felt like it, not mandated for use. I know plenty of teachers, and some of them would be overjoyed having a pre-made lesson plan to use for a day. Others wouldn't, and would argue that it took valuable classroom time away from their OWN lesson plans (and probably grumble about having to "teach to the test" and not having a moment for anything else). A whole range of opinions. But absolutely none of them would be offended that a lesson plan was provided as an option for them to choose if they felt like it. Teaching is hard work, and this was an attempt to make the day a little easier on them, and that's exactly how they see it, no matter what their other views.
This lesson plan did not say "the student should write about how he or she can help Obama pass healthcare reform legislation" or anything even remotely resembling that. It asked how students could help the president reach his goals. But what scary "goals" could these be? Well, not what Fox News tells you, that's for sure. "Goals" doesn't equate to "Obama's political agenda" by any stretch of the imagination. How do I know this? Because if you read the rest of the document, IT TELLS YOU EXACTLY WHAT GOALS ARE BEING REFERENCED! They are, unsurprisingly, to get kids to stay in school and do their homework and improve education in America. Why the heck is cajoling students to help the president help education by doing some hard work a controversial issue?
The whole thing is mind-blowing. The GHWB situation was about politics, but not the politics of the speech, the politics of cutting money for free lunch programs and then using students as props to get re-elected. There is simply nothing similar about the two except that they were both speeches to kids.
But you know what? I STILL say I don't care. If Reagan wants to push tax cuts and a belief in God to kids, fine with me. If GHWB wants to get a little video with kids in it for re-election, fine with me (although he should have used campaign funds for the camera crew, the speech itself is still fine with me). GWB did give speeches to school kids. He was doing so almost eight years ago to this day. I had no problem with him reading "My Pet Goat" or "The Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar" to kids. Because, as I said, it is one of the perks of the office, and presidents don't get many that are as enjoyable (see that West Wing quote I used a few days ago). And -- EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL OR POLITICKING -- kids need to be exposed to such. Kids shouldn't be sheltered away from politics, and then just magically be an informed citizen on their 18th birthday, they need to think about this stuff before then. The more exposure to politicians the better. They need to develop a "BS-filter" to use in later life. I watched Reagan before I could vote, which certainly honed my BS filter. I see no reason why any president can't talk to any kids whenever they feel like about just about anything. If it's an inspiring example or just raw politics, then either one of those is a "teachable moment." In other words, I'm an absolutist on the subject -- throw the kids into the swamp of politics, it's the only way they'll learn to swim (either with or against the tide).
Oh, and one more thing, I would bet everything I own that Obama would react one heck of a lot faster if he were reading a book to children and was told America was under attack. The video of GWBush (you can see it in "Farenheit 911") as a deer-in-the-headlights reading to kids is the only time I've ever been embarrassed watching a president in front of school kids. And it wasn't for what he said, it was for sitting there not knowing what to say.
OK, that last paragraph is a side issue, but I kind of got carried away.
-CW
To everyone -
Michale, feel free to liveblog here. Me, I can't type and chew gum at the same time, so I'm going to write today's column after the speech and give my snap feedback. So either stay up late tonight, or check it out tomorrow morning.
Just a program note for everyone wondering where today's column is... won't be posted before about 1930 Pacific (10:30 PM Eastern), and that's if I type fast.
-CW
I keep hearing here that Republicans have "no ideas" on Health Care reform.
Imagine my surprise to discover that there are, indeed, good ideas coming out of the GOP..
For the past eight years Democrats have been voting against and filibustering two important reforms that would help all Americans. First, allowing you to buy your health insurance from any of the 50 states. Right now you are stuck buying insurance from businesses in your state, often with expensive mandates pushed on you by the state legislators and lobbyists for special interests This reform alone, known as the Shadegg bill, would drop the cost of health care an average of 15%. Not bad. Democrats have spent years opposing this fix.
Second, we need to reform tort law—stop the trial lawyer billionaires from suing your doctor and hospital to push up the costs of your health care. Obama, Reid and Pelosi owe the trial lawyer billionaires a great deal. They cannot say no to them. So no reform there. Some suggest that such reforms would save billions in legal fees but also tens of billions in lower costs of so called “defensive†medicine forced by the trial lawyers.
And lastly, Republicans are putting forward legislation that would require all hospitals to post their actual prices for operations on the Internet so we can shop around—like we do with everything else in life. That would generate real price competition that does not exist in today’s highly regulated health care.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/09/grover-norquist-obama-health-care-817970110/
Now, I grant you. Those "good ideas" are only good for the American People and for REAL Health Care reform.
For obvious reasons, those aren't very good ideas for the Democratic Party and their very VERY big donors....
So, maybe we can just kill the idea that there are no good ideas coming out of the GOP, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Contrary to what Fox News has to say about it, the GHWB speech is an apples/oranges comparison to the BHO speech. The only thing similar between them is that NEITHER of them were "indoctrinating children."
You are correct. In the FINISHED product, neither were "indoctrinating" children.
However, we will never know how Obama's address might have gone if they hadn't changed things. The path not taken and all that felgercarb.
It's clear that there was some (or WOULD HAVE been some) "indoctrinating" going on when the Obama administration asked kids to "help" Obama..
The simple fact that Obama himself may or may not have had wrote the offending lesson plan is irrelevant.. Like you, I don't think he did because A> he wouldn't have made such a bonehead play and 2> if he HAD done it, as you say, it would have been much more eloquent.
But, as I said, that is irrelevant. Obama is President and he is responsible. The buck stops there..
It asked how students could help the president reach his goals.
Again, I give the example of GW Bush bypassing parents and asking students to "help the President reach his goals" which, in my example, would be the passing of the Patriot Act and the MCA.
Would that have been appropriate? Hell no...
Would the Democrats have screamed to high heaven? Hell yes....
Obama's ultimate message to school children was perfect, dead on balls accurate and very welcome..
But I think we both know that THAT wouldn't have been the ultimate message if parents all across the country had not expressed their outrage at the end run the Obama Administration tried to do.
Oh, and one more thing, I would bet everything I own that Obama would react one heck of a lot faster if he were reading a book to children and was told America was under attack. The video of GWBush (you can see it in "Farenheit 911″) as a deer-in-the-headlights reading to kids is the only time I've ever been embarrassed watching a president in front of school kids. And it wasn't for what he said, it was for sitting there not knowing what to say.
OK, that last paragraph is a side issue, but I kind of got carried away.
Perhaps he would have.. Most likely he would. However, Obama would have the hindsight of 9/11. The only "hindsight" Bush had was Dec 7th, 1941.. Considerably further back in the past.
I remember my first reaction. I was at work and read a story about an airplane hitting the first tower. It showed a picture of a hole in the tower, but it looked small and there were no details. So I assumed that it was a small Piper Cub or something that hit the tower. Eh.. No biggie and I went back to work.
It's easy to claim in hindsight that Bush should have done this and Bush should have done that. But it's all Monday morning quarterbacking and, until you have walked a mile in their shoes, it's unfair to make grandiose generalizations.
Look, I am not saying Bush was perfect or that Obama is Satan incarnate. My only points have been that, in many instances, commenters here slam Republicans for the same kinds of actions that the Left took against Republicans when THEY had the White House.
And this school address issue is a perfect example of that.
The only difference is that in the GHW Bush example, all the hysterical political bigotry came AFTER the address and in the Obama example, all the hysterical bigotry came BEFORE the address.
But in the swarm of political bigotry in both cases, each side had logical and rational points that made sense.
I acknowledge that when it comes to the Democrats attacks against GHW Bush.
Can ya'all acknowledge the same with the Republican attacks on Obama??
Michale.....
Just to prove I'm sincere -
Here is my lesson plan for ANY president addressing any schoolkids, at any point in time from either (I would say "any" but want to remain realistic here) party.
==================
OK, children, settle down. In a few minutes, we are going to watch a speech by the President of the United States of America. The president, you should remember, is a politician. Now, politicians speak a bit differently than most people, so we wanted to talk about that a bit up front here.
In our American form of democracy, politicians must convince enough voters to elect them. So they try to convince as many people as possible that they are the best person for the job. They may promise you things during a campaign which never actually happen. They also tend to make bad things sound better, and things they don't like sound bad. Now, we've been telling your for years that this is called "lying," but politics is more sophisticated, so we call it "spin" instead.
Whenever a politician speaks to you and says something you either like or dislike -- or when they talk about things you haven't heard about before -- the best thing to do is to go read about the issue yourselves. You have to check a lot of sources and see what other people are saying about it. And don't just check with the ones you agree with, or your parents agree with. You've got to check out "what the other side is saying" as well.
This is because when you turn 18, you will automatically have a job to do for the rest of your life. You have to vote on who will lead the country -- the most important job you may ever do. And in order to make this choice, you have to keep yourself informed.
The president's speech today is part of this job. Don't believe everything he tells you, but don't think everything he says is a lie, either. Find out for yourself before you make up your mind. No matter what you decide, this is called "being a good citizen" or "being an informed voter," and it is part of the job of voting.
We'll talk about all this after the speech. Now, this is the President of the United States, so I fully expect all of you to behave yourself and sit quietly while he speaks. No one will be excused from this. This is our country's leader. You may love him or hate him, but you will indeed respect him. Because while he is just a man, he is holding the highest office in this land, and that fact alone deserves respect.
-CW
Michale -
OK, one more and then I've got to get to work.
Occam's razor -- the simplest explanation is probably the right one.
(1) Obama was going to give a speech pushing his political agenda to kids. Ignore the fact that he's been more centrist than most leftists like, and coming out strongly FOR his agenda is what these leftists have been BEGGING Obama to do for months now. Just put that aside. A firestorm erupts because of this unseen speech. Obama totally rewrites the speech to be more acceptible, and delivers a completely different speech than he was planning, and scraps his plans to enlist the children of America in his crusade.
(2) Obama was probably caught by surprise by the whole kerfluffle. He picked up the phone and called the DoE and said "get the language saying 'help the president' out of the lesson plan," which was then done. The language was thre to "help the president" help the students achieve education goals, but obviously conspiracy theorists have latched onto it, so it's easier politically to just change it. He then goes ahead and gives the speech he intended to give.
If you have ONE link or ONE piece of proof that there were indeed two speeches, and that the one Obama gave was in ANY WAY different from his original intent, I would like to see it. Because I have seen no such proof at all. None. "But he could have given a different speech" is not proof. Nobody has this proof, because it simply doesn't exist. The entire idea was manufactured out of thin air by people who hate anything Obama does or says. Which is why I used the word "paranoia" -- "just because I don't have proof they're not out to get me doesn't mean that they're not out to get me!"
It's "crazy talk," in other words.
-CW
Chris,
This would really make an interesting study in asymmetries of information.
Part of the conservative strategy seems to be to muddy the waters with as much disinformation as possible in order to obscure the issue as much as possible.
(i.e. If you're focused on "death panels," you're not thinking about how much money we currently waste on relatively low levels of health care.)
This is where I miss the role of objective journalism. The news used to look for the truth. Now, it only repeats what both sides are saying. And more often than not in a 2 conservatives to every liberal ratio.
What would have happened, for instance, if the corporate news outlets had come out and said "we investigated the President's speech and there's no truth to the claim that it's propaganda." Some have done this, but many have not. They just say, Republicans claim it's propaganda, Democrats claim it's not.
Where have all the objective media gone?
In some ways, it's similar to how credit card companies (and lots of other companies for that matter) use language so that it's unclear what the real costs are. They know that most people don't have the time to look past the surface language. Especially if this information is coming from what used to be respectable sources.
-David
Michale -
Here's an olive branch -- a new word we can all agree on!
Maureen Dowd:
"Civil discourse is fine, but when the other side is fighting dirty, you should get angry. Don’t let the bully kick sand in your face. The White House should have impaled death panel malarkey as soon as it came up ... He should take his own words to heart. He can live long and prosper by being less Spocky and more Rocky."
I have to admit, I would probably have used "Spock-like" or even "Spockish" but with the rhyme of Rocky, I have to admit this is a cool conjugation of the noun. "Spocky" -- I like it! Heh heh.
-CW
If you have ONE link or ONE piece of proof that there were indeed two speeches, and that the one Obama gave was in ANY WAY different from his original intent, I would like to see it.
What I have is logical inference.
Given the fact that the Obama Administration backtracked on the content of the Lesson Plan AND backtracked on making the speech available to parents before hand, it's logical to conclude that the speech Obama actually gave was different than the speech that Obama intended to give.
As I said, it's a logical and rational inference. Nothing more.
We'll probably never know. But that doesn't negate the rationale of the thought process.
In other words, since the Obama changed the content of the lesson plan and the procedure for the speech being delivered, it's logical to at least concede the possibility that the content of the speech was changed as well..
"Civil discourse is fine, but when the other side is fighting dirty, you should get angry. Don’t let the bully kick sand in your face. The White House should have impaled death panel malarkey as soon as it came up … He should take his own words to heart. He can live long and prosper by being less Spocky and more Rocky
Hehehehehe I like that...
Obama's problem (or I should say the problem that people who surround Obama have) is that they believe their own press releases. They actually believe that they have a mandate to change America. In other words, they want people to sit down, shut up and let their government take care of them. Obama himself said as much.
The problem develops when Obama et al forget an old saying that my 3rd Grade principal had on his desk.
"I know you think you understand what I said, but I believe that what you heard is not what I meant."
or words to that effect.
In other words, Obama et al seems to think that they alone know what is best for Americans and, by gods, they ain't gonna listen to anyone who says different. Anyone who says different are "nazis" or the like....
So much for "change", eh?
Ready for the speech to end all speeches?? :D
Michale....
Sorry, but I won't be Live Blogging on Obama's speech.
Wife wants to watch back to back to back to back episodes of DEFYING GRAVITY.
And what wife wants, wife gets. :D
I'll be interested to read everyone's comments. :D
Michale.....
I found the above mentioned quote..
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.â€
– Robert McCloskey
And, I have to admit, I am gabberflasted that no one wants to talk about ACORN? :D
I am betting that President Obama wishes he could take back all the nice things he said about ACORN, eh? :D
Michale.....