(09-09-2009 06:03 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(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. It was notreally 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.

Agreed.

(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.

So Obama did just what you hoped he would do, and your follow-up comments* then constitute you being "fully supportive" of the event? I'd hate to hear what being "marginally opposed to" would sound like.

*quotes:
- "I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash."
- "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."

The worksheet is a problem, but I have another... and none of you have mentioned it.

The nightly news, or Bush the Elder's speech are not delivered to all students in all schools at the same time... With ZERO PARENTAL CONSENT OR ABILITY TO OFFER CONTEXT.

If you don't think it was different, then you either don't have children... have older children with whom you have faith that they can interpret and see through the political BS offered by EVERY politician, or you agree with Obama in general... plus you think "it takes a village" rather than it takes parents.

If he wants to put it on you-tube or network tv where I can help decide whether or not it is appropriate for my kids, or if I want to see it first... or if I want to be there while they watch it... then fine... but making it a manditory (or even an optional activity in an environment where 70+% of the influential figures support one party) at school WITHOUT parental input is EXACTLY how some of the worst events in world history were started.

Even if you believe (as I generally do) that Obama's motives were genuine... that doesn't mean that the NEXT President's motives will be... and on what basis will we stop HIM (or her) from addressing the nations kids during school hours... and while the gist of the speech might be something benign like "stay in school"... we already have people on this very forum comparing it to more policy-like speeches given by others. Stay in school, and encourage your parents to support my health-care reform.... or my tax cuts... or my tax hikes to improve education.

Gee mommy, why don't you like Obama's (or Bush's or whomevers) policies?? He told me himself that he only wants to create opportunities for everyone...



*** btw... Do we really need the President to encourage 1st graders to stay in school?? Sorry, but that is a crock...

(09-09-2009 06:03 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(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.

I don't have access to a 3rd grade classroom to gather a bunch of easy examples of writing a letter to oneself based on the speech, so I'll try cooking one up myself:

"Dear Timmy,
President Obama said that it's very important to fulfill your responsibilities. He said you have to show up to school, pay attention to teachers, listen to parents and to grandparents, and work hard. So you need to do these goals: go to school every day except when you're sick and go enough to make the Good Attendance award. Do what the teacher says and don't get your name on written up on the board all year. Listen to Mom and don't get sent to timeout for not listening. Do one hour of homework every night and keep a calendar of how much homework you did.
President Obama said that lots of people have succeeded at something after they failed at it first, like JK Rowling. You need to also do a goal of not giving up even if something is hard like drawing in art class. So your goal is the next time you try something and you're no good you need to try the same thing two more times and see if you get better.
Signed,
Timmy"

I think it fits perfectly with the speech.

(09-09-2009 06:35 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So Obama did just what you hoped he would do, and your follow-up comments* then constitute you being "fully supportive" of the event? I'd hate to hear what being "marginally opposed to" would sound like.
*quotes:
- "I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash."
- "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."

You are taking liberties with what I said.

Obama did not do just what I hoped he would do. It was within a range that I could live with. I do not believe that the speech he would have given without the backlash would have been in that range.

I'm not fully supportive of the event that transpired, primarily because the DOE materials were part of the event. My comment made no mention of being fully supportive, or even partially supportive of them.

I suppose you are doing this to be argumentative. I can think of no other reason. I do not care to waste time in that manner.

(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?

Our president has been using prime time addresses at a frequency that is much greater than any president in recent memory. That's not necessarily all bad, and maybe it doesn't match up to FDR's Fireside Chats, but it has been a departure from the recent norm.

To the extent that it reassures the public he is engaged and involved it's good. To the extent that it's viewed that he's substituting appearance for action, it's not. Two sides of the same coin.

Chavez certainly has commandeered the media to an extent that cannot be matched in the U.S. But it's certainly helped him to remain constantly in the public eye and keeps him in touch with his base.

For charismatic figures, public exposure is seen as a good thing. I can't recall if it was the Chronicle (think it was) but a recent editorial compared Democratic strategy on health care as "More Obama" and compared it to the famous "More Cowbell" skit on SNL. It was an interesting premise.

Bush the Elder made a nationally televised speech to the nation's schoolchildren? I didn't have kids at the time, so I have no recollection of this. I would like more details to know if it was truly a comparable situation. If it was, this would be a good point.

In any event, it seems to be a little over the line, due to the target audience. Maybe when I wasn't dealing with kids on an everyday basis, it wouldn't have struck me the same way.

Like I said, I don't think there was intended brainwashing, but it falls in line with his general use of the media. And like it or not the last century was filled with charismatic leaders either were bad, or with whom the U.S took issue (or both). So the perceptions of those opposed to his platforms are going to be impacted.

Leaders who have that gift in the U.S. included FDR, Huey Long, JFK, and certainly Obama. No matter how good the leader is, there is going to be suspicion and justifiable concern if it appears the attention could rise to the level of a personality cult.

Given the way we communicate today, I would think that would be less of a possibility/likelihood. The fact that the President is very tied into the technology and ways we communicate today similarly works for and against him (in terms of public perception).

(09-09-2009 07:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 06:35 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So Obama did just what you hoped he would do, and your follow-up comments* then constitute you being "fully supportive" of the event? I'd hate to hear what being "marginally opposed to" would sound like.
*quotes:
- "I wonder what the speech would have been like without the backlash."
- "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."

You are taking liberties with what I said.

Obama did not do just what I hoped he would do. It was within a range that I could live with. I do not believe that the speech he would have given without the backlash would have been in that range.

I'm not fully supportive of the event that transpired, primarily because the DOE materials were part of the event. My comment made no mention of being fully supportive, or even partially supportive of them.

I suppose you are doing this to be argumentative. I can think of no other reason. I do not care to waste time in that manner.

So what part of the DOE materials didn't meet your standard of "stay[ing] focused on getting an education"?

(09-09-2009 03:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(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.

thanks for the reference. It puts things in a different light, although I'd still argue that a national address to kids below a certain age can reasonably be considered opportunistic and over the line, regardless of the motive or who does it.

I'd be interested in knowing which media sources carried each speech and what the audience size was for each. i.e. C-SPAN versus CNN for example? I just don't recall the media hype (both directions, not just negative) Nonetheless, whether the audiences were equal or whether Obama had 100 times the crowd, the intent was identical.

(Side note, never used the term indoctrination or accused Obama of being a dictator. I do think he is an incredibly charismatic figure, and as I said before, charismatic figures (while they engender passionate support) are always going to be feared by some people because there are people who will follow a charismatic leader because they like them or they 'resonate' with them, regardless of what it is they're trying to accomplish, good or ill). (Please note the word "some" is not "all" or "a majority".)

I don't disagree with your last paragraph. Something about it bothers me, though, perhaps because I think intent and effort should be credited the same. then again, I'm sure the left feels the same way about people who are criticizing Obama who would have been presumably enthusiastic about Bush the elder's speech (assuming we had heard about it).

(09-09-2009 07:19 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So what part of the DOE materials didn't meet your standard of "stay[ing] focused on getting an education"?

Objection. Asked and answered. See other board. I've had enough of this.

(09-09-2009 04:34 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(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.

Again, I don't think he said anything wrong, nor at any point have I thought he intended to do anything other than what he did, address the youth and encourage education.

Having said that, it is still the principle of the thing that nags at me.

The fact that as a popular, charismatic leader he is more likely to be listened to cuts both ways. I'm glad if the speech has a positive impact on some kids. I'm annoyed that someone can give a speech without doing anything else, and will be remembered more positively in the long run than other people who've said the same thing, for no other reason than they are more charismatic and popular.

Maybe the good done outweighs the risks that others see. I don't know. It would be nice if we weren't having to worry about things like this, but history should teach us that the risks from charismatic figures are real (as are the benefits - MLK as an example).

(09-09-2009 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 07:19 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So what part of the DOE materials didn't meet your standard of "stay[ing] focused on getting an education"?

Objection. Asked and answered. See other board. I've had enough of this.

As you wish. We'll keep the subthread over there.

(09-09-2009 07:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Again, I don't think he said anything wrong, nor at any point have I thought he intended to do anything other than what he did, address the youth and encourage education.

Having said that, it is still the principle of the thing that nags at me.

The fact that as a popular, charismatic leader he is more likely to be listened to cuts both ways. I'm glad if the speech has a positive impact on some kids. I'm annoyed that someone can give a speech without doing anything else, and will be remembered more positively in the long run than other people who've said the same thing, for no other reason than they are more charismatic and popular.

Maybe the good done outweighs the risks that others see. I don't know. It would be nice if we weren't having to worry about things like this, but history should teach us that the risks from charismatic figures are real (as are the benefits - MLK as an example).

Personally, I see this as unequivocally the "good" edge of the charisma blade. I'll limit my worrying to things that cut in the other direction.

My annoyance would be directed at charismatic individuals who have the ability to do good with something as simple as a speech but choose to remain silent.

(09-09-2009 06:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Even if you believe (as I generally do) that Obama's motives were genuine...

I don't.

(09-09-2009 07:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 07:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Again, I don't think he said anything wrong, nor at any point have I thought he intended to do anything other than what he did, address the youth and encourage education.

Having said that, it is still the principle of the thing that nags at me.

The fact that as a popular, charismatic leader he is more likely to be listened to cuts both ways. I'm glad if the speech has a positive impact on some kids. I'm annoyed that someone can give a speech without doing anything else, and will be remembered more positively in the long run than other people who've said the same thing, for no other reason than they are more charismatic and popular.

Maybe the good done outweighs the risks that others see. I don't know. It would be nice if we weren't having to worry about things like this, but history should teach us that the risks from charismatic figures are real (as are the benefits - MLK as an example).

Personally, I see this as unequivocally the "good" edge of the charisma blade. I'll limit my worrying to things that cut in the other direction.

My annoyance would be directed at charismatic individuals who have the ability to do good with something as simple as a speech but choose to remain silent.

Did you know before he gave his speech that you were going to be comfortable with your 9 year old listening to what he said? Would you have allowed GWB the same latitude? What if Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich had been elected President? How about Buchanan or Gore? Wouldn't it have made sense to have the Secretary of Defense give a speech to our children about serving the country?? Would we have been okay with that?

"The President", regardless of who they are, wields an immense amount of influence. So much so that we established an opportunity for the minority party to deliver a rebuttal to the state of the Union. Does that say NOTHING to us?? The entire purpose of Presidential speeches was to have families sit around the radio... then around the TV... to listen and discuss... and now, the FAMILY is being taken out of the equation, and for some reason, The President wants to speak directly to my children, without me there... and while he TOLD me it was going to be about education... "he" also told me that Iraq and Vietnam was about making us safe... that the stimulus was about jobs... and that despite having fillibuster-proof control of both houses and the Oval office, that the minority party is the only thing standing in the way of affordable healthcare.

Not pointing at Obama, but a socialist would describe a conversion to socialism as "creating jobs for everyone"... NOT as taking away your freedoms. Just because they SAY it is going to be about "x", doesn't mean it is. A 9 year old doesn't know the difference... because socialism sounds just like when mom and dad taught them about "sharing" and being kind to others.

The fact that he DIDN'T say anything controversial doesn't mean he couldn't have... and I believe 100% that had no one said anything, that he would have been more inclined to do so. Even if you disagree with that last comment... you cannot deny that he COULD have, and that he is setting a precedent for others to do so. Are you willing to give that sort of control to someone you didn't vote for, whose policies you don't support and who might want to use that opportunity to speak to the children as an opportunity to influence the country for the next 20 years in a direction you don't agree with?

C'mon people... this is a smart group of people... SURELY we're not this naive.

(09-09-2009 09:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-09-2009 06:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Even if you believe (as I generally do) that Obama's motives were genuine...

I don't.

I said his motives were genuine... I did not say I supported them. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he INTENDS well... or at least doesn't intend harm.... but I'm smart enough to know that millions have suffered and died because of the unintended consequences of people with good intentions... much less those who wish harm.

Well, I'm late to this party. I see nthe usual defenders are defending, the usual attackers are attacking.

For me, I have no problem with the speech. Zero. Nada.Neither the occurance or the content.

I had big problems with the suggested study materials. "How does Obama inspire me?" made me think of four words: Fearless Leader. North Korea. I asked my son, a liberal who taught in S. Korea for 5 years, what he thought of the topic(s). Same response. How would the defenders have felt about suggested essays on the topic of "How President Bush inspires me"? Be honest, now.

Uh...no - I'm not naive. Yes, I would have given GWB that latitude. Despite my grave disagreements with much of what GWB did, I was able to see him as an American president - a member of this nation's community. I would, in fact, have trusted his administration to not take undue advantage of a school speech (and, besides, I would not have been alarmed about any long-term damage he would have done to young impressionable brains if he slipped in some comments about the failings of government or the virtues of tax cuts above all else). I would have felt confident that nothing he said to those kids would even be in the same universe as something that could eventually lead to the deaths of millions.

Let's be honest (a la 69/70/75): this is not a generic concern. It's Obama-specific.

Just saw Optimistic's post. I would have thought, "I wouldn't have chosen those words. It may be better to ask, 'How do the President's words inspire me?'"

But I would not have been alarmed. Honestly. And my response has nothing to do with charisma.

The topic was modified after the uproar.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  1. Did you know before he gave his speech that you were going to be comfortable with your 9 year old listening to what he said? 2. Would you have allowed GWB the same latitude? 3. What if Nancy Pelosi or Newt Gingrich had been elected President? 4. How about Buchanan or Gore? 5. Wouldn't it have made sense to have the Secretary of Defense give a speech to our children about serving the country?? 6. Would we have been okay with that?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.
Re: 5 & 6, I was not (when I was in high school) and I am not now comfortable with the idea of army recruiters going to high schools and recruiting. But it happens. I think it should stop.
I don't see how that relates to the President talking to school children about the importance of school.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  "The President", regardless of who they are, wields an immense amount of influence. So much so that we established an opportunity for the minority party to deliver a rebuttal to the state of the Union. Does that say NOTHING to us??

It says to me that if the President had said anything that needed rebutting, then it would have happened. The opposition would have rallied, shouted, and screamed and either achieved a similar venue or would have reached out through their own channels.
Wasn't necessary, so didn't happen.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The entire purpose of Presidential speeches was to have families sit around the radio... then around the TV... to listen and discuss... and now, the FAMILY is being taken out of the equation, and for some reason, The President wants to speak directly to my children, without me there...

I don't know if there is a general, catch-all "purpose" to Presidential speeches, but I know what the purpose of this one was: to speak to schoolchildren about staying in school. He picked the best possible venue to reach that audience.
As to him talking to your kids without you there, well you were more than welcome to be there in spirit-- there's absolutely no reason you couldn't watch or read his speech and discuss it with your family. (Heck, you probably could've been there in person; I bet the teachers wouldn't have objected to a parent sitting with his kids during the speech, space permitting.)

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and while he TOLD me it was going to be about education... "he" also told me that Iraq and Vietnam was about making us safe... that the stimulus was about jobs... and that despite having fillibuster-proof control of both houses and the Oval office, that the minority party is the only thing standing in the way of affordable healthcare.

I don't get this fear. Is he really that persuasive that in one short speech he could completely ruin your kids with his lies? It's just not much of a risk -- if he really did go off spouting propaganda, then:
a. Neither he nor other Presidents would've ever again had the opportunity, and
b. The backlash would've been swift and loud, and lasted considerably longer than his speech.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not pointing at Obama, but a socialist would describe a conversion to socialism as "creating jobs for everyone"... NOT as taking away your freedoms. Just because they SAY it is going to be about "x", doesn't mean it is. A 9 year old doesn't know the difference... because socialism sounds just like when mom and dad taught them about "sharing" and being kind to others.

So do you vet everything that's said to your kids in advance? Have all their teachers provided you with verbatim copies of their lessons for your preapproval? If one speech is so concerning, I don't see how you're comfortable in letting your kids be influenced by anyone, much less the same person for roughly 145 days.
There are many, many opportunities at school for your children to be influenced by ideas you don't agree with. Given the transparency (the speech was both broadly televised and available in transcript) involved, this is actually one of the few times you'll have an opportunity to review exactly what they've been presented in school and to correct anything you disagree with.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The fact that he DIDN'T say anything controversial doesn't mean he couldn't have... and I believe 100% that had no one said anything, that he would have been more inclined to do so. Even if you disagree with that last comment... you cannot deny that he COULD have, and that he is setting a precedent for others to do so.

You're right on half of your last comment: I can't / won't / wouldn't deny he could have been more controversial. However, I completely deny that he is setting a precedent for others to use such a speech for political purposes. In fact, if you compare to Reagan's speech and Q&A in '88, Obama is in fact setting a precedent of being absolutely apolitical.

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you willing to give that sort of control to someone you didn't vote for, whose policies you don't support and who might want to use that opportunity to speak to the children as an opportunity to influence the country for the next 20 years in a direction you don't agree with?

Yes.
If I have such a fear of the president that I think he can ruin my kids in one speech, then I'm leaving the country. (Which I already did once, but then I came back.)

(09-10-2009 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  C'mon people... this is a smart group of people... SURELY we're not this naive.

I see you're extremely concerned with what COULD have been said.
Please tell me, what in your mind would be the long term repercussions of the worst-case-scenario most politically influential speech?

And given that he didn't do any politcal inluencing, I just don't get the continued unhappiness.

**PS: All of "my kids" in my response are purely hypothetical. I have no children as of yet.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/w...02034.html

>>Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

(09-10-2009 07:38 PM)Padrino15 Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/w...02034.html

>>Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

That was not the only recommended lesson plan, as that article implies. What I said holds. There were even guidelines for making posters, both content and form, and separate recommendations for grades K-5.