« 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?”
The difference is Republicans are lunatics.
I seriously think that we need to do DNA testing on a large broad group of republican voters. I think we are going to find some strange DNA from homo sapiens mating with neanderthals.
I, personally, believe that they might be all descended from the servants who had been with the same aristocratic families for many centuries and there is a racial memory of serving in return for food, clothing and a place to sleep that has been passed down for years as the proper way society should operate. When capitalism destroyed a large portion of aristocracy, these people had to emigrate and the usa got more than their fair share of them. Then we got the Republicans who will vote against their own self interest every time the master says to. In-freaking-credible.
This theory would be played out when the McCain/Palin ticket came out. The lord might screw the servant class again.
I have no problem with Obama speaking to kids as long as parents get to see the message first and opt their kids out if they wish. I do think its a waste of time for the teachers and an unneeded interruption, but principles do it all the time with announcements.
Be better if he made a tape and had the teachers use it as a teaching material at their discretion.
Did you notice that Leonidas did NOT answer your question? There are very few Obama haters who are honest. They speak in Fix News Talking Points and they hate every waking minute.
What I would like to know is whether the answer is as obvious as it seems to why these Obama haters hate Obama.
The profile is white, older, and male. They hate Obama. White, male, and younger, they hate Obama. White, male, and middle age, they hate Obama.
Throw in the White Girls who write for the right wing hate blogs and provide eye candy for television (sorry Ms. Lopez, but the right will never forgive you for looking like the women Ann Coulter attacks even though you are a cliche-spouting hater in good standing you will never get a Television program) and you get a picture of these haters.
And they do not even answer a question. They politicize everything because they are impotent and full of fear and full of hate.
Leonidas, why exactly should parents be given the right to opt their kids out of a speech by the President of the United States? He is the president and was elected by the people. He is the president of all citizens of this country no matter their age. If he wants to give a speech to schoolchildren, as other presidents have done, then so be it. If Americans don't like Obama they can vote him out in three years. In the meantime no one gets a vote on whether Obama can or cannot address the citizens he was elected to lead.
It's asinine that the conservatives want to censor Obama's speech. Why exactly, should a parent actually be able to censor what their kid hears when it is coming from the president? If it was the Republican Party or the Democratic Party I would agree that parents be given the chance to opt out. But why should parents be given the chance when it's coming from the president?
Quite frankly anyone who doesn't listen to Obama and his speeches or understand the issues, and they get their information solely from his opponents, isn't educated enough to make a well-informed decision at the polls.
People wonder what's wrong with this country and it's because people don't listen to their elected officials. They let others, who have their own agenda, make their decisions for them.
So please tell me what makes Obama so different from other presidents that parents should be given the right to keep their children from hearing his speech?
In 1991 everyone knew Bush was the president and respected him, even if they disagreed. Why is 2009 so different with Obama?
Why not go back to the speech Reagan gave to school kids that was very political in supporting his tax cuts?
Well, I was a kid back in 1991 and don't remember the Bush 41 speech ever being broadcast at my school (not to say it didn't), nor do I remember what the political situation was like then. I do know that today the atmosphere is definitely politically charged, with a lot of people split on the policies of the current administration. Information today, big or small, is also in mass abundance and constantly in your face, so it is hard to not know what is going on or have an opinion on it. I don't remember it being that way in '91.
Personally, I see no difference. All politicians have agendas, hidden or otherwise. Bush 41 had an agenda then (re-election), and Obama has an agenda today (pick any of many). It seems that politicians have an endless need for exposure and the methods they use have no limits or morals, including circumventing parents to get some face-time with our children. It's shameful, and saying “well Reagan & Bush did it first” is no excuse.
It isn't always going to happen, but in a controlled environment (such as schools) parents should have a say in what their children are exposed to, whether it's coming from the President or not; it's our rights as parents, especially if it is not part of the curriculum, which in a lot of cases is laid out months in advance (I don't see this speech on the curriculum calendar). The timing of this address, it being broadcast live, and the apparent lack of notice to parents (at least in my school district) is making it difficult for parents to make an informed decision, and I believe this is what parents are finding concerning to say the least. I don't believe this would be as big a deal if it happened during prime time, or was pre-recorded so parents could review it (sorry, a transcript released the day before of what is supposed to be said just doesn't cut it, not when it comes to my kids).
Honestly, if parents & educators were doing their jobs, which I believe not enough are (especially parents these days), children would already have the president's message ingrained in their brains and there would be no need for any of this.
my2cents
Why the difference or whats the difference? Why is simple, because. Would you ask why an apple isn't a pear? It is because. What's the difference. Well I have said the whole time I don't think it is a big deal but what else would you expect? First there was all kinds of grief about Bush Sr. so stop the whining. Second while they may have hoped that teachers would show the speech to students it was more of a speech from a classroom than to “students” regardless of what he “said” to the students. Lets remember these are politicians guys, it's about poll numbers. Third the whole lesson plan thing just shows a remarkable tin ear on the part of someone. Honestly I just think some people are so enraptured with Obama as an idea they can't conceive of anyone being the least bit concerned. Hell I think Kathy would be gushing if Obama was taking a dump on camera. Sure people are over reacting but all they had to look at was a lesson plan to go with the speech that even the white house basically agreed was a mistake and later changed. So how can people act like there is absolutely no reason for anyone to have any level of unease? Because they are just as partisan as anyone on the right or more so. You guys are just on the other side. You bitch about the crazy partisan behavior while practicing it yourselves and by being so dismissive most likely increase the reaction from the other side. It's just absurd.
One of my right-wing reactionary friends insisted to me that this speech was somehow different than the one given by GHW Bush in ‘91. That was the point at which I left the conversation, so I don’t know why she thought it was different.
Now, though, it is different. This speech will be available to parents before their children hear it, so they can prepare those children for what they will hear, or, t they want them to grow up to not listen to authority, they can keep them home from school that day (I actually know parents who are planning to do this, even though in my district, they are allowing parents to opt their child out of the speech).
That’s right. This one’s different because this President is going to greater lengths to reach out to parents to calm their fears and reassure them. And still the right of right are freaking out, because they can’t think of any non-nefarious reason for that evil man to talk to their children.
I can think of one reason that makes more sense than any other for the President to speak to children on Tuesday. It’s a warmup and practice for the speech he’ll be giving to the children on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
The difference is that the internet and the blocs within both parties. The Democrats receive 100% of the support of the teachers unions. That means the speech will receive wide viewing in schools and that the teachers will support the message.
For President Bush I, the teachers union hate him and his administraiton. There was probably few schools that showed it and the teachers would have downplayed what was said and openly criticized it.
In 2009 the President is a Democrat and Black, in 1991 the President was a Republican and White which is the natural order of things.
In 1991 everyone knew Bush was the president and respected him, even if they disagreed. Why is 2009 so different with Obama?
You answered your own question – not everyone respects the president any more and this is hardly something that started with Obama.
“Well, I was a kid back in 1991 and don't remember the Bush 41 speech ever being broadcast at my school (not to say it didn't), nor do I remember what the political situation was like then.”
I'm older. Looking back on things, there were wide differences between schools I attended. Some sold coke in schools, others didn't. Some let every company and politician come in and talk to us, others didn't. Rarely would anything much from “outside” be allowed to bother us. If something cataclysmic, as when Kennedy was assassinated, happened, then the teachers at the school I attended would tell us. My wife says the school piped in Walter Cronkite on the PA system at her school. She also says, they bussed all the school kids to the airport to greet the President when he came to town once. He may have given a speech.
But, if there was no travel, I don't remember having to get a permission slip signed for these things except once. It was some religious organization on a recruiting “mission.”
I do remember taking a required class called “Americanism Versus Communism.” Maybe that's why I know the difference while others are confused.
“Maybe that's why I know the difference while others are confused.” Nice try at avoiding the question.
President Obama is black. End of story.
Your right to a point it started with Clinton and never stopped and until the people that used the strategy they used against Clinton let it go it will persist. If you lose an election criminalize the winner est. 1993 or so.
I don't know what's sillier. This non controversy or Leonidas' “it's no big deal but…” attempt to seem rationale yet not condemn the wingnuts.
EEllis, “Why the difference or whats the difference? Why is simple, because. Would you ask why an apple isn't a pear? It is because. What's the difference.”
And….
“You guys are just on the other side. You bitch about the crazy partisan behavior while practicing it yourselves….”
First of all WHAT is the difference between Obama and past presidents? They're all presidents elected by the American people and they can address the citizens of this country how they see fit. But what makes Obama different and for conservatives, who have always claimed that anyone who doesn't support the president is a traitor, why are they now talking out of the other side of their mouths? Is it because Obama is black?
Secondly, the Dems in this country never tried to censor any of Bush's speeches, even when the Dems disagreed with them. I don't understand how you can say (in effect) that everyone does it. Yes, there are people on both sides of the political aisle that say such things, but never something like this as a national movement by the Dems. Under GOP control just a couple years ago the Republicans painted the Dems as unpatriotic just for disagreeing with the president on his policies, even though the Democratic lawmakers voted for the legislation. The Republicans as a group are doing and saying anything they want to gain political points, even if it means destroying the country. There are some Republican exceptions…. but that's all they are- exceptions to the rule of ignorance and hate the GOP practices these days.
“You answered your own question – not everyone respects the president any more and this is hardly something that started with Obama.”
Yes. But in the past those who disrespected the president were the exception, not the rule. This year the Republicans who respect the president are the exception.
My point is that one can disagree with the man but still respect the office of the presidency. This is what the Democratic Party, as a rule, did under the Bush years, as much as the Dems hated him. However the Republicans as a party neither respect Obama nor the office of the presidency.
I'd like to add that in 2000 Gore received the majority of the popular vote in this country but Bush became president because of the electoral college votes. Even though Dems hated him, they still respected the office of the presidency. Obama received more votes than any other president in the history of this country and won be a really comfortable margin. Yet the Republicans are sore losers and don't even respect him or the office he holds. Why? Do the Republicans really not respect the office of the president because Obama is black and is not a Republican?
“First of all WHAT is the difference between Obama and past presidents? They're all presidents elected by the American people and they can address the citizens of this country how they see fit. But what makes Obama different and for conservatives, who have always claimed that anyone who doesn't support the president is a traitor, why are they now talking out of the other side of their mouths? Is it because Obama is black?”
How in the hell do you feel justified in calling me racist? Show anything that I said that could justify that! You disgust me that you would go there for no other reason than to try and win some non existent argument on the Internet. Lowlife
The best way to resolve the issue is to answer the question. Is it because he is black? Is it because he is not Republican? Is it because he is a Democrat? If its none of those reasons that make him different please enlighten us, I am not saying other reasons could not exist and others I think are also not saying other reasons could not exist but we have yet to hear them. So again what makes him different? I think its one of the last two which would not make a person that feels that way racist in anyway but instead just a hyper-partisan that refuses to hold their side to the same standard that they expect from the opposition.
“The best way to resolve the issue is to answer the question. Is it because he is black?”
Bullshit!
Did you read further, like where I say I do not think that is it?
[...] This post was recently mentioned on Twitter by Hans Spee (http://twitter.com/pa5fn), who said: Why the Difference Between 1991 and 2009?: Some of you may have seen references to a speech Bush 41 gave to scho.. http://bit.ly/1r9EOj. [...]
Yes, I was adding to my comment but I must say when I have repeatedly stated my opinion and the basis for it, to have been accused of racism (which is what happened all BS aside) because I disagree with someone is crap. Even after having stated why I disagree and it had nothing to do with Obama's race after being accused of racism you feel the “best way” to handle it is to “answer” it? Again I say bullshit! You must be a child molester because you disagree with me. Now answer the question. Besides the direct and intolerable insult, it also assumes every other thing I've said on the issue is a lie. But who really cares right? So should I assume all liberals are pieces of crap or just you two?
The question is really this: Why did people *trust* GHW Bush more than they trust Obama? Given that Obama's approval rating is now well below his share of the 2008 vote, I find “he's black, Bush is white” unpersuasive. I think the difference is largely because Bush I was a fully-known entity. Every aspect of his life from WWII to the presidency was well known and provided a secure basis for people to feel that they knew him and could trust him. Barack Obama was elected as a symbol, a vessel for people's hopes. His campaign appealed to his autobiographies, not his legislative or executive record. He was then, as he remains today, remarkably elusive in terms of his core beliefs–and this is a charitable assessment. To the extent that we know his core beliefs, they appear to be far to the left of any previous president.
The biggest difference between Bush I and Obama, though, is that there never was anything remotely resembling a cult of personality among Bush's supporters. On the contrary, this is a man who, despite having been the youngest fighter pilot in WWII, was referred to as a “wimp” on the cover of Newsweek. In the case of Obama there is no similar countervailing force, leaving those who distrust him with no faith in any mainstream institution's interest in challenging what he might say. The complete abdication of the MSM from their role as nonpartisan documenters of fact coupled with the permanent-campaign mentality of David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel and the partisanship of the teachers' unons, have cultivated a miasma of distrust among perfectly reasonable people.
Oh, and those creepy videos of kids singing about their fealty to Obama last fall haven't helped assuage any fears now.
I think we took the string of comments a bit differently. I thought they were asking about republicans NOT you, who has stated many times your personal issues with policies. I think you took it more as you, which if I had taken it that way I would have defended you as I have already stated that where as many who lived through the 60's/70's see racism everywhere or reverse racism most of the country does not anymore. I have no reason to ask you if you are racist or accuse you of such. I think it is totally valid though to ask why republicans think this is different though, and again I think it is either because he is not a republican or worse yet he is a democrat which I still find totally unacceptable but its not racism.
Oh and no I am not a child molester, sorry forgot to answer that.
Actually the polls have Obama at almost exactly the same total approval as those that voted for him. I also think Bush I is a bad example and Reagan is a better one but that is because Reagan has a cult of personality still going strong to this very day, and yes I find it very creepy(due to the amount of years it has persisted and the fact that I do not understand it). You can believe or disbelieve his books but Obama's books about his life tread into an openness that I have not seen from other political figures and the only mysteries that I have found are usually on right wing websites who would never be happy with a battleship full of documentation, birth cert. anyone. He admits his drug use and Bush II refused to discuss it and Clinton did not inhale, have you forgotten this?
He is basically where Reagan was in his day, he is more to the left than we have been since Reagan and everyone knows it and is still figuring out how far they wish to go. For those on the extreme right they refuse to budge just as many of the dems did in the early 80's. If things start going well, as they did after a while for Reagan then he will win over enough of the country to shift us back left as Reagan realigned us right after the FDR era. Saying he is “elusive” or hard to nail down on ideology though I think is pretty false since he has talked to the left but shifted to the middle not the other way around so far. He is far to the right of Nixon, at least so far which would also make him far to the right of FDR and everyone between FDR and Nixon. Nixon put in price controls, for cryin out loud. Nixon much like Clinton was more like the opposition party than his own but it was due to the era in which he won the election. As for the fawning media you do know that Bush II was left unmolested until 6 months before the 2004 election and they had no new info they just reported what had been on the internet for up to 3 years prior to that right? Actually they did have new info on warrentless wiretaping but again they held this until AFTER the election, what kind of “liberal” media cabal would do that? They also attack him, Obama, a good more than they did Bush until 2005/6 when they began to treat Bush like an unpopular version of Clinton. If Fox News says it it does not make it true, it just makes it yet another thing Fox said.
My point is that one can disagree with the man but still respect the office of the presidency. This is what the Democratic Party, as a rule, did under the Bush years, as much as the Dems hated him.
I think you're painting a rosy picture of the Democrats during Bush's second term. When Bush had that shoe thrown at him a read a lot more Democrats sympathizing with the thrower than unhappy that he had attacked a US president.
I don't like to play the “what if” game, but if GWB had wanted to address all US students in say 2007, there wouldn't have been many Democrats responding the same way GOP is responding now?
And again, I think it is OK that Obama addresses the students, I won't be keeping my son home that day although I might talk to him about it. I just think this is a reflection of how the office of the president is no longer respected, and it's not anything new.
The OP compared the Obama case to that of Bush I. Try to stay on topic, please.
The relevant point about Obama's approval rating is his substantial *decline* since Inauguration Day. Your “argument,” the race card, has a hard time explaining this decline unless you think people are only now noticing Obama's skin pigmentation.
I don't see much point in further engaging someone who finds a candidate's autobiography a sufficient basis for knowing him or her.
“I thought they were asking about republicans NOT you, who has stated many times your personal issues with policies”
He said that in a “reply” to my comment. If it was intended generally (which it would still be offensive) he should of made that clear.
I agree 100% in 2007 it would have been a huge issue, in 2001 though it would have been considered shameful. He had the same hate, it just took until 2003 for it to take hold and until 2004/5 before it hit near this frenzy but of course by then a great deal had happened. Katrina, Iraq, the economy, lots of different reasons but he did have the same hate though it was not expressed by the leaders of the party nor the media until much later and in some cases no where near as extreme as the current situation. If on the other hand you compare blogs against the MSM and elected leaders the left can look just as guilty but of course the equivalent on the right at this moment is off the cliff as well and is comparable to 2005-7 on the blogs not 2001.
Please tell me where I said that race is the reason that he is losing the honeymoon? I do not think that in any way so I would be interested to see where I thought falling polls were due to race, I do think DUE to his race he is being painted as the classic “other” but it is only working with those that would not have approved of him either way. As for the bio not being enough how much did we have for Clinton? How about Bush II, lets try Carter, hmm maybe Reagan, nope lets try LBJ or Nixon people knew them. Other than LBJ and Nixon who everyone knew pretty well and Bush I or Truman that we new as VP and Eisenhower from the war years who else has more info out there before they ran for election in this century? So yes I find it sufficient not because its enough but because we generally have little info on people that run for office that they do not want to exist and we also have a history of hiding just the kind of stuff that he openly admitted to in his book.
Try to follow this: You stated, and continue to state, that people who distrust Obama do so because of his race. I listed some other reasons why this might be true. Your replies to my initial argument have consisted entirely of claims that those reasons are insufficient to *you.* Your logical fallacy is the conclusion that because those reasons are insufficient to you they cannot constitute a sufficient basis for *anyone else's* distrust of Obama. Racism is the only explanation you'll accept, so racism it must be.
So really what it comes down to is that the GOP has come to despise Obama quicker than the Democrats came to despise GWB. I think there are lot of reasons for that, but one is that the phenomenon of BDS was almost begging for the creation of ODS. And there absolutely was Clinton Derangement Syndrome before that, so all these claims that this is something new really don't ring true.
I am sorry that you saw it that way but I have stated many times on this site over the last few days that many of those that lived through the 60's/70's see race everywhere WHEN IT IS NOT THERE. The left sees racism and the right sees reverse racism but they are not reality in my opinion anymore than seeing commies everywhere is reality. I have also stated multiple times that only around 10-20% or so of the electorate is truly racist and they are on both right AND left(though many held their noses and voted for Obama, hello Unions). I was asking the question because I want to know. Your answer seems lacking in anything other than that you do not like him, his people nor his policies but if that is your reason for why it is an issue then we should never have any political figure speak at a school because many people feel the same way about any political figure though whether they be left or right.
Hi there everyone: Just me here…
I do not see that anyone called anyone a racist. Some comments have been edited. Ad hominem attacks on commenters and writers are not supported at TMV. Please bring the discussion heat down.
Thanks.
Dr.E
deputy managing editor
(no, they did not really shoot the sheriff, and not the deputy, either)
I see your point now. He said it as “conservatives” and “republicans” but it was in a reply to you without stating that he did not think you in that school but would like an answer from your side(or perceived side) of the fence. 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. Since I do not think you have stated or alluded to anything racist in any way nor do I think that this controversy is race based but political affiliation based I will just bow out of the conversation. I framed my question the way I did for one reason though, I really want to know why and that is how the original question was posed. It was my way of saying walking away from the table does not get rid of the question but for some idiots does validate it and I am guessing by your other posts you may have had some ideas but just got frustrated with something ludicrous which I tend to do myself.
I would kinda disagree with you but only because it is the speed at which it has happened that makes me ask why. Its not that they hate him, its why are they freaking out from the starting line. I cant speak for others though that may think it worse, I guess for once I am kinda in the middle, who would have thought it I am a moderate lol.
I wish it would calm down though just so if something does go down the rest of the electorate will still listen to them because “wolf, wolf” is what it sounds like to me.
EEllis, my question about whether the reason there was a difference between 1991 and today and Obama being black was just meant as a general question. I never called you a racist (and I don't believe you are racist). I apologize if my comment came across that way. Sorry.
DaGoat, “I don't like to play the “what if” game, but if GWB had wanted to address all US students in say 2007, there wouldn't have been many Democrats responding the same way GOP is responding now?”
I appreciate you not liking to play the “what if” game. I avoid it for the most part too. I also appreciate that you understand the limitations of such games. That's refreshing. That said… sometimes it is interesting to look at different scenarios.
If GWB had spoken to school children I do not know how the Dems would have responded. I know that I would have shrugged- big deal. But I do know that if anyone, an individual or a group of people had attacked GWB over his speech to school children the Republicans would have been up in arms and called those people traitors…. as they did to anyone who dared question the president, his motives or his policies. And they would have done exactly what they wanted to do, telling everyone else to go someplace very hot. That's what the Republicans spent much of the last 8 years doing. I also imagine the Republicans would have said what many Dems are saying now….. that GWB as president can address the school children. I don't see Obama or the Democratic Party painting the Republican Party as traitors with the theme that they are a threat to national security. And in fact when Obama did receive some criticism for the speech he made changes. Nothing Bush would have done. Bush probably would have said what he had said many times before over various issues…. that the American people spoke loud and clear at the ballot box and that they support his policies and it his right to give such a speech.
EEllis, “He said that in a “reply” to my comment.”
Well, yes. I did say it in a reply to your comment and I was asking, as the topic of the post is, what the difference was. Many people believe it is because Obama is black. I was wondering if you thought the same. Whether or not you personally are racist (and I've said I don't think you are) is a different story.
To set the record straight, in that comment of mine I never called anyone or even a group of people racist. I simply asked, “Is it because Obama is black?” Quite frankly I think race does have a part in it and so do many others…. But I do not know how much of a factor it plays. There are lots of racists in this country, many of whom stood up on national television in news interviews and said that they would not vote for Obama because of his race. To pretend that racism is not playing a factor in this crazy. But I am trying to understand what others, especially conservatives who are against his speech believe about the role of racism in this. I don't see how my question, “Is it because Obama is black?” is offensive. But I apologize if it came across that way, that was not my intent.
I agree, parts of that speech should not have been imposed either.
Oh and 1991 looks pretty similar:
http://ky3.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-obama-sch…
Yup, just about the same with Dick Gephardt, the Democratic House Majority leader was playing the current Republican role.
Both sides the Republicans and the Democrats are up to their gills in hypocrisy on this one.
“I think there are lot of reasons for that, but one is that the phenomenon of BDS was almost begging for the creation of ODS. And there absolutely was Clinton Derangement Syndrome before that…”
Yes. And again yes!
I'd like to add, though, that in my view, some kind of barrier was been broken through during the Clinton administration. We went from arguing policies and a reserved respect toward the president (think JFK and his philandering) to incredibly vicious personal attacks on the person of the president — and his family as well. While there have certainly been heated politics in our history, I think some real damage was done by the right to the body politic via CDS.
And the left was not at all outdone during the Bush years that followed. They were not merely critical; they were often viciously hostile. The barrier that went down in the early 90s stayed down and was trompled underfoot.
There was no respect for the president in either of these cases. They didn't just hate his policies; they hated and disdained the man as well.
And thus, 16 years of hostility and disrespect has now landed upon this president. There's nothing restraining the attackers from the most ridiculous accusations. Nothing is out of bounds; the precedent has been set. Pandora's Box was opened… and it's depressing indeed.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l220/Thalniva…
Yup, just about the same with Dick Gephardt, the Democratic House Majority leader was playing the current Republican role
Leonidas, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you. Everything I've read from the 1991 response centered up on “how could you be spending that taxpayer money!?!?!”. That's a far cry from “it's an attempt to indoctrinate our children into socialism!!!!!”
So a month before an election over 3 years into his term is comparable to the first year of a new president when an election is at least a year a way. Gephardt is also an idiot in my opinion, he is part of the Dems that made me a moderate for a long while and then came Clinton. Note though the complaint, it is about the money which is a legit argument to me and if the right was making it I would disagree but otherwise wouldnt have a problem with the argument. Talking about how his commie mind waves will turn children into socialist robots is a bit silly though and that is the jest of the arguments largely being made. Not its a waste of funds, not that it is even political, the argument is that he will “indoctrinate” the children which I think is both silly and insulting.
I think the point of CDS that blew my mind were the attacks on Chelsea, I am an anti-Clinton Dem but those attacks were viscous and she was a child, a young one at the time.
“The question is really this: Why did people *trust* GHW Bush more than they trust Obama? Given that Obama's approval rating is now well below his share of the 2008 vote, I find “he's black, Bush is white” unpersuasive. I think the difference is largely because Bush I was a fully-known entity.”
I agree with you that I also find the “he's black” argument to be unpersuasive. But although I've heard people make the argument about an unknown entity before, I really am not persuaded by that, either.
That campaign ran for 2 years, and there was an enormous amount of information out there about him. He's neither unknown nor scary. However, his legislative record at the national level was thin — enough so that when he was named as “The Most Liberal Senator” by the National Journal, people internalized “OMG! To the left of Bernie Sanders, even?!?”
I think a lot of people just stopped listening to him at that point. A pity, because he's not actually all that liberal.