Originally posted by: eskimospy
They've passed quite a large amount of legislation and we've still got more than a year left to go. Chances are good that there's a LOT more to come after this.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: eskimospy
They've passed quite a large amount of legislation and we've still got more than a year left to go. Chances are good that there's a LOT more to come after this.
Sadly for the country, you're probably right.
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_school_daze_analysis
Analysis: Obama foes contrived back-to-school fuss
By WALTER R. MEARS, AP Special Correspondent Walter R. Mears, Ap Special Correspondent ? 1 hr 28 mins ago
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. ? There may be a lesson plan for grown-ups in the contrived controversy about Barack Obama's back-to-school pep talk to students. It would be to do your homework, just as the president told the pupils.
That way, the people who protested the Obama speech before they knew what was in it would have realized there is nothing unusual about a president appearing at a public school as the classroom year begins. The previous three Republicans have and there wasn't any stir, aside from some Democratic nitpicking about White House expenses, proving that neither party has a monopoly on pettiness. It was routine. As, in the end, Obama's Tuesday talk was.
Then again, many people doing the complaining, and certainly the broadcast talkers and anti-Obama bloggers who fomented the whole business, were not looking for information or for reasons not to make a fuss. They wanted one, and got it.
more...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_school_daze_analysis
We all knew this was much tadoo about nothing!!
But what do you expect from a bunch of people who have nothing better to do....
But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is no different than the wingnuts on the left screaming about Bush and fascism for years and all their paranoid, contrived crap about invasions of Iran and October surprises.
The nuts on both sides are ridiculously stupid, always have been, and always will be.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_school_daze_analysis
Analysis: Obama foes contrived back-to-school fuss
By WALTER R. MEARS, AP Special Correspondent Walter R. Mears, Ap Special Correspondent ? 1 hr 28 mins ago
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. ? There may be a lesson plan for grown-ups in the contrived controversy about Barack Obama's back-to-school pep talk to students. It would be to do your homework, just as the president told the pupils.
That way, the people who protested the Obama speech before they knew what was in it would have realized there is nothing unusual about a president appearing at a public school as the classroom year begins. The previous three Republicans have and there wasn't any stir, aside from some Democratic nitpicking about White House expenses, proving that neither party has a monopoly on pettiness. It was routine. As, in the end, Obama's Tuesday talk was.
Then again, many people doing the complaining, and certainly the broadcast talkers and anti-Obama bloggers who fomented the whole business, were not looking for information or for reasons not to make a fuss. They wanted one, and got it.
more...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...a_school_daze_analysis
We all knew this was much tadoo about nothing!!
But what do you expect from a bunch of people who have nothing better to do....
Haha, there wasn't any "stir" aside from some "nitpicking" about the expense?
BS. There were Congressional hearings, a GAO investigation, Congressperson railing on about it, and MSM attacks etc. There wasn't any "stir" what a load fo BS.
But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."
link
Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
This would be funny if it wasn't true.
The right wing noise machine is going full steam behind.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is no different than the wingnuts on the left screaming about Bush and fascism for years and all their paranoid, contrived crap about invasions of Iran and October surprises.
The nuts on both sides are ridiculously stupid, always have been, and always will be.
Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
Originally posted by: Dari
But it's amazing how organized it is. I have to hand it to them. Republicans are far better prepared than Democrats. It's good and bad in a way.
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
How is it any different than the left fringe during the Bush Administration, who similarly attempted to politicize every Bush decision? Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and other vocal activists are certainly not representative of all Democrats. Please take the morality of the Iraq war out of the equation and focus on the behaviors.
Of course the Republicans are going to challenge every Obama maneuver...he is losing traction on health care, and forcing him to engage on multiple fronts will distract his ability to regain control of that agenda item. The Republicans have nothing to lose, so they can throw as many wads of toilet paper at Obama to see what sticks. Voters aren't going to remember the school speech incident in 4 years...they will remember if he faltered on health care.
Shame on the media for legitimizing these attacks, and Obama should heed Clinton's advice and ignore the Republicans...he keeps falling into their traps. One good thing you can say about Bush...he effectively brushed off the far left.
Originally posted by: jonks
do you not see the difference between criticizing the funding (still dumb) vs critizing the act?Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
-snip-
Straw man arguments are so much easier than honest arguments addressing actual events and positions. Devoid of useful content ... but easier.Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Fern...you'll never learn...Dem shit don't stink.
Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
How is it any different than the left fringe during the Bush Administration, who similarly attempted to politicize every Bush decision? Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and other vocal activists are certainly not representative of all Democrats. Please take the morality of the Iraq war out of the equation and focus on the behaviors.
Of course the Republicans are going to challenge every Obama maneuver...he is losing traction on health care, and forcing him to engage on multiple fronts will distract his ability to regain control of that agenda item. The Republicans have nothing to lose, so they can throw as many wads of toilet paper at Obama to see what sticks. Voters aren't going to remember the school speech incident in 4 years...they will remember if he faltered on health care.
Shame on the media for legitimizing these attacks, and Obama should heed Clinton's advice and ignore the Republicans...he keeps falling into their traps. One good thing you can say about Bush...he effectively brushed off the far left.
Nothing to lose? How about the parties legitimacy as a whole? They are losing voters left and right because of stupid and meaningless crying like this.
Originally posted by: Patranus
I don't think the GOP had a problem with Obama telling kids to try hard in school and what not...the issue was the activities devised by the White House and distributed through the Department of Education.
No.Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Yes.
That's one way to spin it. Sort of true on the surface, though spun way out of context,And the WH has apologized then they changed it.
But of course that's not where this controversy started, nor does it have anything to do with the DOE or Obama administration. It was one school taking a promotional video and choosing to air it at a school assembly. It wasn't part of any activity promoted by the WH or the DOE. It wasn't even something promoted by the state's DOE. It was one school making a questionable choice, and it's the latest in the face-saving diversions by the right.This is what started it
On Sept 2 this 4 minute commercial was shown to some school kids. The commercial has political content and ends with pledging to serve Obama, and pledging to be Obama's servant
What about those who are saying prove the original lesson plan was overtly political as so many of you keep pretending? Based on the little I've seen, the main problem with the original plan is its wording was ambiguous enough to give the crazies something to pervert. For anyone with any familiarity with lesson plans, it was actually pretty standard, non-political fare, laden with all the usual education buzzwords and concepts that tend to make lay people look at them like they've lost their senses. (Which they may well have, but that's a separate issue entirely.) By they way, they're the same sorts of concepts and buzzwords one sees in your average Fortune 500 HR and Training departments.Those who keep repeating "but prove the speech itself was changed" atre engaging in a weak diversion. In popular vernacular, the 'speech' is entire event including the lesson plan and Obama's words.
Really? How do they not mesh? Be specific. This looks to me like another one of the vague, unsupportable allegations used to muddy the waters and let the crazies keep insisting they were right all along. I think it's time for them to man up and say, "Yeah. We overreacted. Sorry."BTW: The earlier version of the lesson plan doesn't mesh with the speech actually given. It may have been changed, why don't some of you it wasn't?
Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bowfinger, you're not going to get the crazies to apologize. What we did get is them falling all over themselves to talk about how good the speech was a few days after calling it 'socialist indoctrination', and for me that's enough. They realized they had stepped in shit.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Yes.
And the WH has apologized then they changed it.
This is what started it
On Sept 2 this 4 minute commercial was shown to some school kids. The commercial has political content and ends with pledging to serve Obama, and pledging to be Obama's servant
Those who keep repeating "but prove the speech itself was changed" atre engaging in a weak diversion. In popular vernacular, the 'speech' is entire event including the lesson plan and Obama's words.
BTW: The earlier version of the lesson plan doesn't mesh with the speech actually given. It may have been changed, why don't some of you it wasn't?
Fern
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bowfinger, you're not going to get the crazies to apologize. What we did get is them falling all over themselves to talk about how good the speech was a few days after calling it 'socialist indoctrination', and for me that's enough. They realized they had stepped in shit.
So...being apprehensive prior to seeing the speech, then realizing it was a good speech is "stepping in shit"? If you were open enough to read into what the right had problems with, it was mostly the Dept of Educations involvement, not the speech itself.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bowfinger, you're not going to get the crazies to apologize. What we did get is them falling all over themselves to talk about how good the speech was a few days after calling it 'socialist indoctrination', and for me that's enough. They realized they had stepped in shit.
So...being apprehensive prior to seeing the speech, then realizing it was a good speech is "stepping in shit"? If you were open enough to read into what the right had problems with, it was mostly the Dept of Educations involvement, not the speech itself.
There is a large, grand canyon sized chasm between being 'apprehensive' prior to the speech, and ranting and foaming about how our children are being indoctrinated with socialism. Nothing wrong with the first option, significant insanity with the second.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bowfinger, you're not going to get the crazies to apologize. What we did get is them falling all over themselves to talk about how good the speech was a few days after calling it 'socialist indoctrination', and for me that's enough. They realized they had stepped in shit.
So...being apprehensive prior to seeing the speech, then realizing it was a good speech is "stepping in shit"? If you were open enough to read into what the right had problems with, it was mostly the Dept of Educations involvement, not the speech itself.
There is a large, grand canyon sized chasm between being 'apprehensive' prior to the speech, and ranting and foaming about how our children are being indoctrinated with socialism. Nothing wrong with the first option, significant insanity with the second.
Fair enough,and agree; however, the foaming did not originate within the GOP party itself.
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
This sums up the topic perfectly. If you think the President of the United States is out to "get" your kid, you really need to consider upping your meds.