Today's the day Obama channels Vladimir Lenin by telling kids to study hard, stay in school, and take personal responsibility.

Viva la Revolucion!

I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

Even if it did have some sort of political message, it certainly wouldn't mark the first time (or even the first time in my admittedly brief lifetime) that a President spoke to schoolchildren and included policy ideas in the speech.

(09-08-2009 10:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Today's the day Obama channels Vladimir Lenin by telling kids to study hard, stay in school, and take personal responsibility.

Viva la Revolucion!

I wish I could say this flap has been unbelievable, but it has been entirely believable. It has been yet another good example of the Republicans' key strategies against Obama. Incite fear of his otherness. Emphasize labels, not ideas.

SA Owl - Both parties play the game far too well. It's right at the front of the playbook nowadays. Just because W was too lazy to do something like this and deprived the Dems of the opportunity to do it first doesn't means the Dems wouldn't have done it. Although I have a hard time envisioning the Republicans trying to provide instructional material. (For starters, what would they put on it? A color by numbers picture that says, "Study"?)

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

Even if it did have some sort of political message, it certainly wouldn't mark the first time (or even the first time in my admittedly brief lifetime) that a President spoke to schoolchildren and included policy ideas in the speech.

I don't think there was any political message and doubt there ever would've been one in this kind of speech. The concept and message are probably good.

What I think sets this apart (at least for me) is that it seems highly unusual for a politician (who after all rely on media exposure and need high name recognition to win . . . . . in most races the advertising dollars can be what tips the race . . . ) to use television to address the most impressionable segment of our population.

Some cartoonist compared this speech to George Bush reading in an elementary school classroom. That's incredibly naive and disingenous. All sorts of people of all persuasions and political affiliations make guest appearances in classrooms. And 98% of the time both the motive and presentation are worthwhile . . . . .

Kids are impressionable. And they are prone to idealistic hero worship. Put a handsome, charismatic figure in front of them, who happens to be the most powerful, influential person living in the world today (by definition the POTUS, although you could argue for others), and how are they NOT going to be impressed?

Could good come out of the address? Absolutely.

But the reality is that 5 years from now, the vast majority of the kids will not remember what the President said, only that they got to see the President address them in school.

Things stick with you at that age.

So my issue with this, is that while some of the motives/results may be good, I STILL see this as an inappropriate, and unacceptable use of power by the Democratic Party.

No matter how you see it, when you make it a nationwide address, aired on TV, it's like advertising cigarettes, beer, breakfast cereal or toys on Saturday morning TV.

Now here is where I'm willing to listen and learn . . . . if anyone can cite an example of a Republican President or politician who uses mass media to address all of the nation's school children simultaneously, then I'm willing to admit both parties have abused this power . . . I just think the President crossed a line on this one . . . .

Makes you wonder if he plans to imitate Hugo Chavez and have his own TV show (Hola Presidente is the Venezuelan version).

As an aside . . . about impressionable kids . . . .

I was 9, almost 10 when UT won the national championship in 1969 . . . .I can say that among people my age (in Texas) there is a huge population of diehard UT fans, many of whom NEVER attended UT, but identified with that team.

In fact I'll go out on a limb here. My personal impressions of UT fans is that fans who are 15 to 20 years older than me, tend to be relatively normal respectful fans. The ESU, win at all costs, gripe at 21-0 victory fans seem to be concentrated in my age demographic . . . ie. fans who first started watching UT football in Texas in the mid 60's and early 70's (Nobis to Campbell) and this includes tons of "UT" fans who have nothing to do with the university but who I would call 'media created' fans during the Arkansas game and the Cotton Bowls in that time period (pre-cable when pretty much EVERYONE saw those games).

In summary, was Obama trying to brainwash the kids or tell them anything bad or something that 99.9% of us parents wouldn't agree with?

Of course not.

Was it, at the same time, did the Democratic Party and the White House realize this was a savvy, subtle marketing tool, particularly in the hands of a charismatic, handsome, young, popular person who is also the most powerful man on earth?

Unless you think they are morons, the answer is: of course.

And when the target audience is an impressionable group of children, is it an unacceptable use of power?

Also, of course, unless you happen to be the beneficiary of that media exposure.

And to reiterate, I have absolutely NO problem with the President visiting schools, giving speeches, or addressing children.

It's the commandeering of the national media to monopolize exposure.

Having said all that, I have no idea of whether my kid's secular private school aired the broadcast, nor would I have objected to my kids watching the broadcast.

It's the principle of the thing that gets me. And I'm surprised that the media doesn't seem to get it, except for the air time given to "those kooks on the right".

I apologize for not doing research but, yes, there are examples of Republicans doing this (Bush the Elder in '91 gets mentioned). I think we all realize that _any_ appearance by a politician is inherently political. But the President, no matter who s/he is, is the leader of the country and I don't see a problem using the bully pulpit in this non-political manner. I guess we'll just disagree on that.

"Makes you wonder if he plans to imitate Hugo Chavez and have his own TV show (Hola Presidente is the Venezuelan version)."

Now, why did you have to go there?

(09-09-2009 11:57 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  I apologize for not doing research but, yes, there are examples of Republicans doing this (Bush the Elder in '91 gets mentioned). I think we all realize that _any_ appearance by a politician is inherently political. But the President, no matter who s/he is, is the leader of the country and I don't see a problem using the bully pulpit in this non-political manner. I guess we'll just disagree on that.

"Makes you wonder if he plans to imitate Hugo Chavez and have his own TV show (Hola Presidente is the Venezuelan version)."

Now, why did you have to go there?

Wait a minute - you mean the nightly national broadcast news doesn't count?

I'm with SA here - at its core, this type of thing by the president, if not habitual, is an okay thing. Kick off the school year - nice sentiment.

I'd say more, as I'm not sure exactly what I want to say next, but my sick kid needs me to read to him right now.

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

You obviously have a much higher regard for Obama's integrity than I do.

Those who support him will believe--and say--that it's the speech he intended all along. Those who oppose him will believe--and say--that it changed because of the uproar. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure.

I suppose it comes down to how much you trust Obama. I don't.

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

Doesn't this lead us to disagree with everything anybody does prior to them doing it? If it turns out bad, "see I told you so" and if it turns out good, "it only changed because we said something". I realize that you are not playing that game, and for all we know the speech did change, but it becomes an easy game to play and, in my opinion, leads to much more disagreeableness than would otherwise occur. We are now disagreeing, both sides, with what we think the other side is going to say.

(09-09-2009 08:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

Even if it did have some sort of political message, it certainly wouldn't mark the first time (or even the first time in my admittedly brief lifetime) that a President spoke to schoolchildren and included policy ideas in the speech.

I don't think there was any political message and doubt there ever would've been one in this kind of speech. The concept and message are probably good.

What I think sets this apart (at least for me) is that it seems highly unusual for a politician (who after all rely on media exposure and need high name recognition to win . . . . . in most races the advertising dollars can be what tips the race . . . ) to use television to address the most impressionable segment of our population.

Some cartoonist compared this speech to George Bush reading in an elementary school classroom. That's incredibly naive and disingenous. All sorts of people of all persuasions and political affiliations make guest appearances in classrooms. And 98% of the time both the motive and presentation are worthwhile . . . . .

Kids are impressionable. And they are prone to idealistic hero worship. Put a handsome, charismatic figure in front of them, who happens to be the most powerful, influential person living in the world today (by definition the POTUS, although you could argue for others), and how are they NOT going to be impressed?

Could good come out of the address? Absolutely.

But the reality is that 5 years from now, the vast majority of the kids will not remember what the President said, only that they got to see the President address them in school.

Things stick with you at that age.

So my issue with this, is that while some of the motives/results may be good, I STILL see this as an inappropriate, and unacceptable use of power by the Democratic Party.

No matter how you see it, when you make it a nationwide address, aired on TV, it's like advertising cigarettes, beer, breakfast cereal or toys on Saturday morning TV.

Now here is where I'm willing to listen and learn . . . . if anyone can cite an example of a Republican President or politician who uses mass media to address all of the nation's school children simultaneously, then I'm willing to admit both parties have abused this power . . . I just think the President crossed a line on this one . . . .

Makes you wonder if he plans to imitate Hugo Chavez and have his own TV show (Hola Presidente is the Venezuelan version).

As an aside . . . about impressionable kids . . . .

I was 9, almost 10 when UT won the national championship in 1969 . . . .I can say that among people my age (in Texas) there is a huge population of diehard UT fans, many of whom NEVER attended UT, but identified with that team.

In fact I'll go out on a limb here. My personal impressions of UT fans is that fans who are 15 to 20 years older than me, tend to be relatively normal respectful fans. The ESU, win at all costs, gripe at 21-0 victory fans seem to be concentrated in my age demographic . . . ie. fans who first started watching UT football in Texas in the mid 60's and early 70's (Nobis to Campbell) and this includes tons of "UT" fans who have nothing to do with the university but who I would call 'media created' fans during the Arkansas game and the Cotton Bowls in that time period (pre-cable when pretty much EVERYONE saw those games).

In summary, was Obama trying to brainwash the kids or tell them anything bad or something that 99.9% of us parents wouldn't agree with?

Of course not.

Was it, at the same time, did the Democratic Party and the White House realize this was a savvy, subtle marketing tool, particularly in the hands of a charismatic, handsome, young, popular person who is also the most powerful man on earth?

Unless you think they are morons, the answer is: of course.

And when the target audience is an impressionable group of children, is it an unacceptable use of power?

Also, of course, unless you happen to be the beneficiary of that media exposure.

And to reiterate, I have absolutely NO problem with the President visiting schools, giving speeches, or addressing children.

It's the commandeering of the national media to monopolize exposure.

Having said all that, I have no idea of whether my kid's secular private school aired the broadcast, nor would I have objected to my kids watching the broadcast.

It's the principle of the thing that gets me. And I'm surprised that the media doesn't seem to get it, except for the air time given to "those kooks on the right".

Bush Sr. and Reagan did something very similar. In fact it looks like Bush's speech was thematically almost identical to Obama's. Reagan actually went into stuff like why tax cuts are great, though as best I can tell, it was a response to a question. Some Dems (according to the link) in Congress criticized Bush at the time for wasting tax money, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Dems were taking their kids out of school and accusing him of "indoctrination" or comparing him to dictators because of the speech.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...school-ch/

As best I can tell from limited info 20 years on, I wouldn't agree with those criticisms. It's a good message whether it's Bush or Obama.

You mention impressionable youth as a reason to oppose it. That's part of why I support it. I work for a non-profit which focuses on improving student success rates. We want to do that across the board, but statistically speaking, people of color, especially men of color, and people from single-parent households have lower persistence rates. This is nothing against Bush the Elder, but Obama telling a young black student you can grow up to be anything you want probably resonates more than when the WASP son of a Senator who traces his lineage back to the Mayflower (literally) says it. I think Obama is aware of the symbolic and historic nature of the simple fact of his presidency and takes it seriously.

(09-09-2009 12:50 PM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

Doesn't this lead us to disagree with everything anybody does prior to them doing it? If it turns out bad, "see I told you so" and if it turns out good, "it only changed because we said something". I realize that you are not playing that game, and for all we know the speech did change, but it becomes an easy game to play and, in my opinion, leads to much more disagreeableness than would otherwise occur. We are now disagreeing, both sides, with what we think the other side is going to say.

Exactly. I mean we can't *prove* Obama wasn't going to call on kids to convert to Islam or join the Communist Youth League. So he must have been. Therefore we should still be outraged about what we know he might have said. (Not referring to anyone here, but basically that's clearly what some people have done.)

(09-09-2009 03:26 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 12:50 PM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

Doesn't this lead us to disagree with everything anybody does prior to them doing it? If it turns out bad, "see I told you so" and if it turns out good, "it only changed because we said something". I realize that you are not playing that game, and for all we know the speech did change, but it becomes an easy game to play and, in my opinion, leads to much more disagreeableness than would otherwise occur. We are now disagreeing, both sides, with what we think the other side is going to say.

Exactly. I mean we can't *prove* Obama wasn't going to call on kids to convert to Islam or join the Communist Youth League. So he must have been. Therefore we should still be outraged about what we know he might have said. (Not referring to anyone here, but basically that's clearly what some people have done.)

Welcome to the real world. When you don't trust someone, you think the worst in certain situations.

Oh well, another Socialist Indoctrination Day and no pony under the tree.

(09-09-2009 03:39 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 03:26 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 12:50 PM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

Doesn't this lead us to disagree with everything anybody does prior to them doing it? If it turns out bad, "see I told you so" and if it turns out good, "it only changed because we said something". I realize that you are not playing that game, and for all we know the speech did change, but it becomes an easy game to play and, in my opinion, leads to much more disagreeableness than would otherwise occur. We are now disagreeing, both sides, with what we think the other side is going to say.

Exactly. I mean we can't *prove* Obama wasn't going to call on kids to convert to Islam or join the Communist Youth League. So he must have been. Therefore we should still be outraged about what we know he might have said. (Not referring to anyone here, but basically that's clearly what some people have done.)

Welcome to the real world. When you don't trust someone, you think the worst in certain situations.

I must say that Islam and the Communist Youth League were much worse than anything I had imagined, so I guess I didn't really think the worst. I'm guessing they were thrown up as sort of reductio ad absurdiam arguments to marginalize the legitimate concerns of many.

But I do not trust Obama, not in the slightest. Much like many felt about Shrub, he has already lied too much for me to be able to believe anything he says or does.

I don't think Shrub was an intentional liar so much as he was siimply too lazy to find the truth. Since he was in a job where we were paying him to find the truth, among other things, that was a pretty fatal flaw.

I think it's more a matter of intent with Obama. In that regard, I think he's more like Cheney or Rummy than like Shrub.

(09-09-2009 03:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You mention impressionable youth as a reason to oppose it. That's part of why I support it. I work for a non-profit which focuses on improving student success rates. We want to do that across the board, but statistically speaking, people of color, especially men of color, and people from single-parent households have lower persistence rates. This is nothing against Bush the Elder, but Obama telling a young black student you can grow up to be anything you want probably resonates more than when the WASP son of a Senator who traces his lineage back to the Mayflower (literally) says it. I think Obama is aware of the symbolic and historic nature of the simple fact of his presidency and takes it seriously.

I agree 100% with JAAO here. Obama is the first black president, and immensely popular among the vast majority of blacks, at a level of popularity in all likelihood that's only been rivaled by MLK Jr. There is a major national crisis with respect to the drop-out rate among black youths. This is the absolute perfect use of the national bully pulpit for Obama -- go on TV and push the value of education, hoping to influence any impressionable young, black students to focus on school. Hopefully his message will resonate with the whole rainbow of students.

In my mind, once one realizes the rare opportunity Obama has here, it would be outrageous for him NOT to address the nation's students on the importance of education.

If you want an example of a political use of this sort of thing, see my post in the spin room ( http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=38...pid4586852 ) on Reagan's speech in '88. He spoke to junior high students via C-SPAN and the Instructional Education Network, nominally to kick off the beginning of "American Education Week". I'd be interested in others' opinions of exactly what (if anything) that speech had to do with education.

(09-09-2009 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

You obviously have a much higher regard for Obama's integrity than I do.

Those who support him will believe--and say--that it's the speech he intended all along. Those who oppose him will believe--and say--that it changed because of the uproar. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure.

I suppose it comes down to how much you trust Obama. I don't.

Why the change from your earlier position?
Quote: "So long as the event (either Obama's part or the teachers' part) stays focused on getting an education, I'm fully supportive."

(09-09-2009 04:37 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

You obviously have a much higher regard for Obama's integrity than I do.
Those who support him will believe--and say--that it's the speech he intended all along. Those who oppose him will believe--and say--that it changed because of the uproar. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure.
I suppose it comes down to how much you trust Obama. I don't.

Why the change from your earlier position?
Quote: "So long as the event (either Obama's part or the teachers' part) stays focused on getting an education, I'm fully supportive."

No change in position at all.

What I'm expressing here is that I do not trust Obama or the Department of Education to fulfill the "so long as" clause unless faced with the kind of backlash he got.

I'm fine with the speech he gave. I do not believe that I would have liked the speech he would have given without the backlash.

(09-09-2009 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 04:37 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:19 AM)CTRice10 Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash.

I imagine it would have been just about the same, since it was probably drafted a while back...

You obviously have a much higher regard for Obama's integrity than I do.
Those who support him will believe--and say--that it's the speech he intended all along. Those who oppose him will believe--and say--that it changed because of the uproar. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever know for sure.
I suppose it comes down to how much you trust Obama. I don't.

Why the change from your earlier position?
Quote: "So long as the event (either Obama's part or the teachers' part) stays focused on getting an education, I'm fully supportive."

No change in position at all.

What I'm expressing here is that I do not trust Obama or the Department of Education to fulfill the "so long as" clause unless faced with the kind of backlash he got.

I'm fine with the speech he gave. I do not believe that I would have liked the speech he would have given without the backlash.

Obama could have made that speech without the "worksheet" with suggested activities that was issued by the Department of Education.

That Department of Education worksheet had very little application to the speech that was delivered. The specific activiters suggested were not really relevant to the speech delivered.

Lets see someone write a letter to himself about washing his hands and staying in school.

The "Smoking Gun" is that worksheet. That is the basis for the objections.