So let me get this straight—the president of the United States wants to talk to the nation’s schoolchildren about the importance of education next Tuesday, Sept. 8, and the conservatives are riled up? When did we become an anti-education nation?
The speech, which is to be live-streamed from the White House Web site, is President Obama’s manipulative attempt to push his legislative agenda, according to conservative commentators and “thinkers.”
(Boy, they were right all along! This guy really is a commie! He wants kids to stay in school!!)
Some conservatives have even called for parents to keep their kids at home that day – a “national truancy day” of sorts—so they won’t be “indoctrinated” by Obama’s nefarious message. And some schools have announced that they will not show the speech at all.
Obama’s opponents – who obviously taste blood after those health care town hall meetings created such a buzz out there and sent his poll numbers nose-diving – say the president’s education message is all propaganda.
“It’s historic in the sense that it’s unprecedented. They do this type of thing in North Korea and the former Soviet Union,” said Republican strategist and commentator Andrea Tantaros.
(North Korea?! The former Soviet Union!! The man’s just saying, “Stay in school and work hard.” Does that sound like the gulag to you?)
Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer wrote a letter to the White House, saying that students are being forced to watch Obama’s speech, and that it’s an abuse of power. (Just how boring does he think the speech will be?)
I’m sorry but there’s only word for all of this: lame. I can’t imagine if former President Bush wanted to speak to students about the value of education that it would have generated this kind of outcry from liberals and moderate Democrats.
Politics is one thing, but this is entering the Theatre of the Absurd. Conservatives need a better hook to hang their hats on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/04/09 at 08:42 AM | Comments (3)
Comments
Not all of the article is included in this post by Mike Mullis or NewsBusters.org . Here it is:
House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) dismissed the criticism. “Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?” he said. “It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education.”
Kenneth J. Cooper; Eric . “Funding of Bush Speech Draws Fire; Democrat Calls Education Broadcast `Paid Political Advertising’.” The Washington Post. Washington Post Newsweek Interactive Co. 1991. HighBeam Research. 11 Sep. 2009 <http://www.highbeam.com>.
Posted by L. McNeil on 09/11/09 at 06:37 PMDon’t worry Stuart. Your comments will go unnoticed and probably met with utter silence. In fact, I bet Mr. Feiler’s response will be “Well, I meant W.”
Liberals write things without really researching.
Posted by Mike Mullis on 09/04/09 at 03:15 PMMr. Feiler says, “I can’t imagine if former President Bush wanted to speak to students about the value of education that it would have generated this kind of outcry from liberals and moderate Democrats.”
What is “lame” is this writer’s “imagination.” This kind of thing did happen when Bush, the first Bush, was in office.
Another web site’s report on this is copied below.
G-d help anyone who relies on the adolescents of The Jewish Times for accurate news and intelligent opinion.
These guys only see what they already believe; what they “imagine” is automatically “true,” merely by virtue of the fact that they “imagined” it.
——
Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
Flashback 1991: Gephardt Called Bush’s Speech to Students ‘Paid Political Advertising’
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2009-09-03 10:45
As Barack Obama prepares a nationwide broadcast to America’s students next Tuesday, it has been revealed that Democrats complained in 1991 when then President George H. W. Bush broadcast a speech from a Northwest Washington junior high school.
In fact, the House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students.”
Such was reported [1] by the Washington Post on October 3, 1991 (h/t KY3 Political Notebook [2] via Chuck Todd):
House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.
The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.
“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” House Majority Leader letter [3] concerning this event, one has to assume it’s costing the Department a great deal of money.
Links:
[1] http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74741197.html?dids=74741197:74741197&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+3,+1991&author=Kenneth+J.+Cooper;Eric+Pianin&pub=The+Washington+Post+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition;=&startpage=a.14&desc=Funding+of+Bush+Speech+Draws+Fire;+Democrat+Calls+Education+Broadcast+Paid+Political+Advertising’
[2] http://ky3.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-obama-school-speech-debate.html
[3] http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
Subscribe to this blog