« Utah Republican Gov. Gary Herbert Supports Obama’s Speech To Schoolkids
Anne, Please, Drink A Glass of Warm Milk and Get Some Sleep »
Why the Difference Between 1991 and 2009?
Some of you may have seen references to a speech Bush 41 gave to schoolchildren in 1991. Jim Lindgren was curious enough to look into the matter further (emphasis in original):
I was intrigued by the links to a Washington Post story about George H.W. Bush speaking to school children on October 1, 1991. My daughter was in school then and I didn’t remember hearing about her watching any such event.
On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was reported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, “Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter. I’m serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.”
Why the difference in reaction then and now? Why, people?
67 Responses to “Why the Difference Between 1991 and 2009?”
“That is how I took it but that was a projection since I am kinda used to you and a few other of the posters and did not think for a second that he was painting you that way, its easy not to see it when you think its ludicrous I suppose.”
I don't know or care if he believes it or just uses it because he can but as far as I'm concerned it's insulting, unacceptable behavior.
“I really want to know why”
Come on pure partisanship would do it even if Obama was purple, the idea that it must be because he's black ignores that both Clinton and Bush were hated while still being white. Obama is the farthest left president we have had in a long time, how could there not be people who dislike him?
“That's a far cry from “it's an attempt to indoctrinate our children into socialism!!!!!”"
So they are made because the “Right” did a better job? Hmmmmm
snark
I agree 100% with your reason, I think its unacceptable but I think your right and I agree.
Immediately, when someone says “morons, lunatics, etc” it means they typically have no defense for what they say.
With that said…..
The difference between 1991 (and any other time a President of any party has talked to children) and 2009 is amazingly simple:
NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER MANDATED THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO IMPLEMENT LESSON PLANS BASED UPON WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS OR BELIEVES!!!!!
I don't remember teachers in 1991 being asked to have children:
Write essays to themselves about what the President is asking you to do.
Research and read speaches given by the President.
Write about what you can do to help the President acheive his goals.
(From the Department of Education website)
Doesn't that pretty much put the question to rest.
There is a VERY big difference in what President Obama has planned, and what has been done in the past with other Presidents.
And DNA testing on democrats would be fruitless as well, since they're all homosexual and don't mate at all.
LOL
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/0…
So after you read the speech that is even more vanilla than the Bush or the Reagan speeches are you still worried? I agree a VERY large difference he is saying things that are non-political and about true personal responsibility instead of trying to win an election or push through his message on his policies.
The issue, as well described above, is trust. Without trust many otherwise mundane actions, such as this speech, can be perceived as potentially harmful because we as humans fill in the unknown intent. If he wants people to trust him, he needs to clearly communicate his objectives and approach well in advance of taking any actions. The trust building approach would have been to provide the speech text a week in advance, and mention it in one of his press conferences, how he looked forward to speaking with the kids and telling them the importance of staying in school and listening to their parents and teachers. There would have been no issue if he had taken a well proven approach to trust building. A leader who does not have the trust of the people under his/her care has to proceed cautiously and clearly or risk generating a great deal of harm. It's very difficult and frustrating being the person in charge.
@ Polimom
Gepthadt said:
Thats the same accusation, political advertizing and indoctrination amount to the same thing here.
“NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER MANDATED THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO IMPLEMENT LESSON PLANS BASED UPON WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS OR BELIEVES!!!!!”
Umm…. JD, THIS PRESIDENT DIDN'T MANDATE IT EITHER!!!!!
Sorry to shout. I thought, though, that you might be hard of hearing, since you were intermittently shouting out there…
“Thats the same accusation, political advertizing and indoctrination amount to the same thing here.”
Sorry, Leonidas. Political advertising does not = indoctrination. No way, no how.
Polimom,
Sorry about the shouting.
The Whitehouse did, indeed, direct the Department of Education to coordinate lesson plans coinciding with President Obama's address to the school children.
Proof of that is found on both the Whitehouse and Dept. of Ed. websites.
I'm not spinning (and I never will). Just stating the facts as reported by the administration itself.
No one takes issue with telling school children to be responsible, stay in school, or strive for success.
God love him for doing that. All presidents should.
The issue is coordinating lesson plans through the Department of Education, and requiring children to write “glorifications” about the President, through researching his speeches and writing essays on “how they can help the President accomplish his goals”.
(Once again…..the above is straight from the Department of Education website).
And where you see “glorifications” I see kids writing to the president in agreement, disagreement or totally off topic. Note how no politics is in it unlike prior presidents that did the same. My issue is that he is being better than any before about such things yet a small group blasts him like he is the scary neighbor down the street. I suppose I should not complain to much as it makes that side look and sound insane but I would eventually like to have another real party to vote for but it is look more and more like a few election cycles with fundies vs dems and that is a fight even dems can win.
Kids are not automatons, if Reagan had asked more for something similar in grade school I would have went off about Iran Contra to him because my geeky self skipped out of school to watch the hearings, H.W.Bush would have gotten an earful about his “new world order” crap(graduated around when Clinton got in so I would not have seen a speech from him but NAFTA would have been the topic). Just because I was young did not mean I lacked opinions of my own and engaging me would have made me a better citizen later more ready to write my reps.
You are 100% about the state of politics – especially the fundies vs the dems.
One point that you may have missed, though, are the “glorifications” themselves.
Like I said, straight from the DoE website, the lesson plans asked “Write essays on how they can HELP the President acheive his GOALS.”
Now in that one statement, a child would be asked to say how he or she could assist the President push his platform.
I would agree with you if they DoE's lesson plans asked, “Write an essay on whether you agree or disagree with the administration” (or the like), but as stated, it simply leads the children in a direction.
You have to admit that.
If Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, or W Bush would have pulled that, then I would hope a similar uproar would be heard by all in every party.
“Like I said, straight from the DoE website, the lesson plans asked 'Write essays on how they can HELP the President acheive his GOALS.'”
And that's only what was suggested this time. What about the next time?
The difference between now and earlier is that this year, we have liberal Democrats increasingly running crazy and alienating the better public, with whom Obama has sided and wrongly agitated on behalf of the House climate craziness and now with the health care takeover, has slandered the better public and tried to discourage if not suppress dissent (with generous help from the liberal media), with a non-stop post-election “campaign” and staged appearances, and exploitation of the personality cult surrounding him — all of this in a setting of education, which has been infected (as well as higher education and specialized areas like medical education and public health, in the case of anti-Reagan-and-USA “nuclear education” in the 1980s) by liberal politics beneath and below the ordinary related politics of the teachers' unions.
I, for one, am insistent on remaining informed and thoughtful about this and related matters, such as that “nuclear education” in the 1980s that could be reapplied to health care or “global warming” as suitable “areas of action” in the schools now. Nobody intelligent trusts the lib Dems or any political operatives in education, given what we've already seen in the schools as well as by the Dems this year.
The ignorant or “unable” may not appreciate or understand it, and exploiting these people as well as children in schools is what had informed people concerned.
http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-Teaching-Guide-N…
“Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, or W Bush”
Eliminate Clinton and you would also encounter the robotic parroting again of “Imperial Presidency!”
“The issue, as well described above, is trust.”
Obama has joined the lib Dems in Congress in *** losing that trust *** increasingly this year.