Video Of Obama’s School Speech
Fear the socialism! The transcript was released earlier. Here’s the video:
I think the uproar over the speech actually insures that more people watch it than would have otherwise. I hope this helps to bring down the temperature of our political debate a little bit.
Tags: President Obama, Republican Crazy
It was a nice speech. So was Bush’s speech to students in 1991, but apparently Bush’s speech lead to an investigation and hearings:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
For everyone reading, this is the wingnut flameout du jour.
From the Washington Examiner, no less.
So you know that there is data missing and here it is:
1. George HW’s speech was part of a broad policy roll out of a new war on Drugs initiative — one that would cost $8B.
2. Unemployment was quite up, repubs were not happy he raised taxes to address the Reagan deficits and there was a mild recession all ahead of a 1992 campaign season.
Now, none of that may make much difference to the fact that Dems had majorities and could do these investigations, but let’s not make pretend that the Bush and Obama speeches had the same purpose. They didn’t.
But think about it this way — if the Obama speech did indeed help roll out a real policy we wouldn’t be left with these folks sheepishly trying to find every bit of equivalence the can. Even if they have to omit crucial details to get there.
cass, that “broad policy roll out” that you cite was 1989, the speech that was investigated was in 1991.
So?
The speech was still propaganda in support of a policy initiative.
ps. The speech reported in the NYT article has the speech in September 1989.
The speech that I cited that was investigated by Democrats and apparently warranted hearings was in 1991. It was about working hard, staying in school and keeping off drugs.
This is a different speech — one that was at the beginning of a Presidential campaign and required the DOE to spend money on enough TV production capacity to produce something that the networks couldn’t.
So the hearings were about spending money from the DOE on a Presidential address. The hearings were not about the content of the speech — but about the money spent on it.
So you are arguing now that Congress shouldn’t wonder how money gets spent? No doubt some of this was quite partisan, but Congress was not investigating how the kids were being indoctrinated, socialized or other wise programmed to pull the plug on grandma.
If you read the link I posted the investigation that the Democrats ordered the GAO to do was over the expenditures and the LEGALITY of Bush even giving the speech.
OK.
So you are arguing that Congress should not ask questions about how DOE money gets spent — or even if it was legal for them to do so on what looked like a campaign event?
No, I’m arguing that there was “uproar” over Bush’s speech to students where he urged them to work hard and stay in school, too, and the “uproar” went as far as investigations and hearings. That makes the “uproar” of this past week look kind of lame in comparison.
Actually, what looks lame is this attempt to get your false equivalency on.
Now — wingnut parents and pundits get in a snit because they think President Obama is indoctrinating their kids to socialism, to pulling the plug on grandma, to thinking that climate change is real or whatever the non-stop, overcooked BS was.
Then — Bush gives a speech spending DOE funds (funds NOT going to a classroom I might add) and Democrats in Congress ask the GAO if this is a legal or real expense ahead of an election year. Mind you, there was no uproar about keeping kids out of school or a concerted attempt to lie about the agenda here to scare the weak-minded. The Congress. Investigating how money gets spent. Which used to be their job, I thought.
OK then.
This is what the GAO found in 1991:
“The speech itself and the use of the department’s funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal,” the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. “The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda.”
And one more time, Democrats had the GAO investigate the legality of “the speech itself”, not only the use of DOE funds for it. Again, in comparison, the GOP reaction to Obama’s speech is tame.
Well, you keep working at your equivalencies then. You’d be better off making this argument over at your place, where people won’t think about this too hard.
But if you don’t mind looking a little peevish after Obama delivered a fairly no threatening speech after all of the wingnut sturm and drang, that is up to you. Me — I would have left well enough alone.
I liked the speech. It was just as non “threatening” as Bush’s speech in 1991.
I don’t think that the GAO or Dems had an issue with the “threatening” or non- nature of the Bush speech. Just the funds spent and the legality of a campaign pitch on the taxpayer dime.
Maria: Are you saying you don’t think Obama would face such problems if he had a Republican Congress? The current response was “lame” only because the GOP doesn’t have the votes to make history repeat itself.
Also, I would expect that the intervening 18 years would have jaded us a bit about these photo-op events. I don’t recall any broad liberal outrage about this in ’91; it was basically an opposing Congress making life difficult for a Republican president. In this case, there are millions of right-wingers acting outraged — and, admit it, few of them remembered when the shoe was on the other foot. Or that it was a tempest in a teapot then, too.
I think anyone making a big stink out of a speech by a president to schoolchildren should hang their heads in shame. It’s ridiculous. What I didn’t like were the hysterical “he’s trying to indoctrinate our kids” reactions. I didn’t think the lesson plan was all that controversial either. It certainly wasn’t when Bush I and Reagan used them.
Just for fun, let’s prove that this was solely about Obama.
Priceless.
Actually, the stupidity first surfaced on email and facebook and twitter. As the media began getting calls, and had to investigate what was causing the uproar. If you were only connected to liberal connections, you were late getting the notice.
Stupid people passing on stupid information. Is there anything wrong with it? No, unless we mistakenly confuse their stupidity with intelligence. (it’s a trait not bound to a single party).
Exercises such as this flap over the Obama speech are beneficial because each of those making the fuss, have egg still on their faces, so the next time they open their mouth, we say…..”yeah… right…”
Actually, the stupidity first surfaced on email and facebook and twitter…Stupid people passing on stupid information.
I’m pretty sure these things are started by PR firms paid for this sort of work.
I see you guys trying to make me do work to see where the talking points first came from. Grumble, grumble
pandy, field trip = signed permision slip.
The Arlington Independent School District, which passed on airing President Barack Obama’s live classroom address, has announced that some students will be bussed off campus to hear a message from former President George W. Bush on Sept. 21.
District officials said it’s part of a Cowboys Stadium field trip that the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee invited 28 fifth-grade classes to attend several months ago.
In addition to hearing from Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, the students will hear from legendary Dallas Cowboys players and North Texas business and community leaders. The event launches the Super Bowl committee’s largest-ever youth education program.
Students must have their parents’ permission to attend, school officials said.
nbcdfw.com ^ | Sep 9, 2009 | STACY MORROW
Sorry, I thought school time for school subjects couldn’t be interrupted. My bad.
I still think it was a waste of time. I would have preferred seeing this former teacher of Constitutional law take the time to teach our children a lesson about the Constitution.
Hmm… Obama gives a speech on the Constitution. I’m seeing Republican heads exploding.
Obama is not qualified to speak on the Constitution.
Hell, the man thinks the Constitution “grants” rights. Makes you wonder what the hell kind of Constitutional Law he was teaching.
Obama is not qualified to speak on the Constitution.
Too bad you aren’t running for something; your opponent would have just raised a million dollars based on your comment.
“Hell, the man thinks the Constitution “grants” rights.”
And what do you think grants right?
I also heard Obama asid the sun “rises.” Therefore he is not qualified to speak on science.
It is technically true that the Constitution does not grant rights. It is also true that conversationally we often speak as if it does. Being caught in such a moment does not mean you think the Constitution grants rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.