To Assuage Concerns, White House Releases Advance Text of President’s Education Speech

It’s interesting that the part that the right-wing was so upset about (“write letters about how you can help the President”) is almost exactly the language former President Bush used in 1991 in a speech to students, when he encouraged them to write letters to the White House about “how you can help us.”
Hypocrisy much?
This whole kerfuffle is emblematic of the political strategy of Beck and the right. Just keep throwing stuff up in the air and see where it lands. It doesn’t matter what’s “true” or not.
The school speech thing is a completely innocuous event, one that other Presidents have done. But Beck and others start screaming about it and now you have the MSM saying, as even my local news did last night, “The White House is trying to tamp down a growing controversy about his speech to students…”
All the average non-political person hears is that there’s a “controversy” about something Obama is doing.
Mission accomplished for Beck and the right.
I wish the media would cotton on to this and not ask “how high?” every time the right-wing noise machine yells “jump!”

I read the speech, nothing there that any other president would have said..but wait for the leftist MSN to try to put spin on it and make it more than it is….THEN we will have to knock down another anti-constitutional czar and make the MSN and Obama look like dufuses…AGAIN

The text of the speech seems relatively benign to me and I confess to not understanding the virulence with which some have attack the president’s plan to deliver it to students. It seems much ado about nothing to me. But since this particular president’s followers have so busily created a cult of personality about him, I guess it heightens people’s emotions on both ends of the spectrum where he is concerned.
I can imagine Bush Sr. making his remarks and not sparking controversy, but I can’t imagine Bush Jr. being allowed to speak to all students without alarm bells going off among a certain segment of the population, regardless of what he said. The politics of the personal was not good during the clinton years and worse during the bush jr. ones. It would be nice to see it scaled back.
Of course, I also wonder why the president felt a live national address was the best way to kick off students’ school year. The first days of school are pretty jam-packed as is, and there is a lot of confusion. But everything can stop for the president to address them live? Why not just distribute a video tape that could be played in classrooms at a time of the teacher’s or school’s choosing, so it did not disrupt the day overmuch. And of course, for some of our kids, school has been in session for several weeks now, so they are in a different frame of mind already Maybe he should have made a tape back in July or early August and had it distributed so it could be rolled out in the first week of school across the country, whenever that week might be on the calendar.
Once again, a simple idea was botched by bad execution. It’s a shame. I think the content of the message is fine.

Lisa wrote, “I wish the media would cotton on to this and not ask “how high?” every time the right-wing noise machine yells “jump!” You are kidding, right, Lisa? You don’t seriously think the media is a tool of the right, surely. If they were, would the first report of any questions about Van Jones have appeared in the NYT when it announced his resignation? Would the headline of a piece entitled, “Myths concerning Health Care Reform” indicate a piece of journalism that always, so far as I have read/watched so far, only showcases “myths” (or “lies”– depending on the outlet, like say Newsweek) from those who are opposed to the Democratic plan?
I dream of a media that would actually address “myths” and “exaggerations” made by all sides in the debate, that would vet high level government officials who are brought on board without having to answer questions before congress, that would report on calm, useful town halls as thoroughly as those that degenerate into shouting matches and chaos. BUt then again, I’m a dreamer.

Those who cannot distinguish between “helping us” and “helping the president” are doomed to membership in the cult of personality.
Every day in every way Mr. Obama is coming to resemble Juan Peron, who took Argentina from first- to third-world status in a generation.

Don’t aim too high kids.
Success is punished in the Obama Administration.

I don’t suppose Obama will tell the kids how he has saddled them with debt for their whole lives.
And their children too.

Juan Peron
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
LOL… that was a good chuckle, thank you.
today’s homework assignment is to find as many dictators, warlords, religious figures and revolutionaries throughout history as you can using the ‘internets’, and show how Obama is more dangerous than all of them.
extra points will be given making the most extreme analog, and of course, originality.
special bonus for those who can tie in literary figures.

Remember kids, don’t use the teleprompters.

I don’t disagree with him talking to the kids and he makes some good points. However, what he won’t say is that despite all the money we spend annually we fail a large amount of kids, especially in the inner cities and since unions elected me there is not a chance that vouchers and school choice will be allowed under my administration.
In other words the “status quo” continues.

Wonder how much had to be edited because of the public backlash.
Probably had to leave out the part about joining Obama’s junior security force.
Or the part about kids pleading with their parents to support the “cool” presidents government-run health care.

1 more assignment…
the text of the speech has to be used to find the most far out ‘rightist’ fringe ‘secret’ meanings,
you must use the Da Vinci Code, and the arguments about the perils of forced fluoridation to make your case.

what is with the references to God in a public school?!? Will the ACLU sue Obama?

+ or – writes: “originality”
__________________________
Except the far right posters here are often just cutting and pasting, as the “Juan Peron” smear is making the rounds today.

When is the MSM going to call the abusive right wing press the Radical fringe whackos that they’ve demonstrated that are. What are they waiting for, armed insurrection?

“I am so ashamed of this country and the fake right wing news. Since when can’t a President of the U.S. encourage school children to achieve?”
He can do so. Since when it is okay for the Dept. of Ed. to accompany the speech with materials that encourage our children to enroll themselves as his personal supporters?
Let’s not pretend that this benign speech is all that was in play, and that there were in fact things to be concerned about. If not, why were the materials revised to scrub the cult-of-personality wording?

“Actually, it was concerned parents that ignited the controversy. And it wasn’t just over what the speech might contain, it was over what the accompanying lesson plan did in fact contain. That plan was highly suspect and did smack of indoctrination (inviting students to consider how they could support the president, etc.).”
——————————–
I understand there would be mild concern about that one question in the accompanying materials. However the whole speech was maliciously turned into a cable news “controversy” by right wing extremists.

“that perspective seems to be favored by a certain political ideology … doesn’t mean it’s accurate ..
if you want want to support that reading of the materials………. go for it…..”
Yes, it does seem to be favored … by the Obama cultists. And parents noticed, and objected. Are they not within their rights to do so? Should their voices be silenced? After all, it’s only THEIR kids we’re talking about.
“btw: Obama real citizen… yes or no?”
Irrelevant to this discussion. Were we not supposed to notice your attempt to sidetrack?

Kids…
If you can get the MSM in the tank, the only qualifications you need to be president is a big smile and the ability to read off of a teleprompter.

Would love to see the first version of the speech and compare it to the final one to see how much they changed it.

I don’t understand what is wrong with schools showing President Obama’s speech. I didn’t get it before I read the speech, nor do I after reading the speech. He is not preaching politics; he just wants to inspire children. Considering the high drop-out rate in this country, and our educational system lagging behind other nations, I think it’s great that the leader of the free world wants children and families to focus more on education. Now, if we want children to take us seriously, we have to fund schools appropriately to show education is a priority. It is the first item that is “slashed” when government is trying to “budget” and that gives the wrong message to the children in this country. It’s not enough to tell students to work hard. We have to fund education appropriately.

Posted by: PD
just trying to asses your objectivity..your implication is that the speech is to be used as indoctrination to a ‘cult’
as I said, that’s your interpretation, .. certainly it’s their right to do with their children what works for their belief system… still doesn’t make that assessment .. true or accurate….only what those people believe…line the ‘birth certificate nonsense.
re: Irrelevant to this discussion
can’t answer a simple question can you…
and Foggy…
btw: iVan Jones…….truther?
I believe he did express those sentiments in a speech that was taped…

“just trying to asses your objectivity..your implication is that the speech is to be used as indoctrination to a ‘cult’”
Did I say that about the speech? Or about the associated materials — you know, the ones that have been revised in response to the indoctrination criticism?

–demonizing others rather than acknowledge his own weaknesses
–turning minor issues into conflagrations
–stoking up anger and hatred and bringing out the worst in those around him
–substituting paranoid fantasies for reality
Posted by: Danny |
These seem to me to describe your comments.

Danny,
Rush Limbaugh, their former leader, was a druggie, too. I never looked up Beck’s bio since he was so obviously off the deep-end. I believe it was Jon Stewart or Keith Olbermann that did small piece on him that shot his credibility out the park.
Apparently, when he was with CNN sucking up to the “libs”/”left”, he felt that healthcare in America sucks. As soon as he moved to Fox, he adopted the Fox mantra that the American healthcare system is the best system in the world. Credible not! He will say anything for money. Fox should have just hired a parrot.
/—-
I’ve started thinking more along these lines after looking into one of their favorite leaders, Glenn Beck, a little more.
He’s a “recovered” alcoholic and drug abuser, who has admitted to years of self-hatred, who is leading the most extreme charges against Obama.
Beck doesn’t seem entirely recovered to me, but rather someone still addicted to the rush of feelings of power, attention, and spectacle.
—-/

Glenn Beck was one of those right wing commentators who accused Obama of trying to indoctrinate school kids, but is Beck a rational human being? There are audio clips all over the internet of an incident that occurred on his 7/21/09 radio show. Some say he lost his mind that day. Google up one of those clips and judge for yourself.

“The talk was toned down, as the administration admits.”
That’s a new one on me. When and where did you hear that?

Then they are discriminated against in college entrace qualifications & acceptance. Then they get hardcore racist & leftist garbage from wacky left professors. Then they face Affirmative Action policies that are insane in this day and age of promoting incompetence if the melanin content of one skin is high enough.
Posted by: Adam Smith
it only makes sense then, following your ‘rationale’, to insure that all ‘education’ is conducted by those with the ‘proper’ ‘right leaning’ ideology and POV,.. . with a special emphasis on returning ‘non-whites’ to their former status in society.
re: ‘promoting incompetence’..
ever heard of the Bush administration?

re: Glen Beck
who can forget the memorable portrayal of the poisoning of Nancy Pelosi at a ‘cocktail’ party on his show, … it wasn’t an oscar worthy performance, but it showed a definate flash of the ordinary and paranoid.

Political speak for toning it down.
Posted by: Greenie
what is the ‘it’?

The government can’t and shouldn’t make it a requirement that citizens listen to their speeches.
Posted by: MayBee
when was this speech made mandatory ?
or any other for that matter……

TJ posted-
re: ‘promoting incompetence’..
ever heard of the Bush administration?
Yeah- we voted that one out and wanted change. We were hoping the change would be better….not worse. Why would anyone be amazed at concern over his speaking to school children after his first 6 months of CHANGE? We’re in much worse shape now, and the governement keeps getting bigger.

TJ posted the question-
Political speak for toning it down.
Posted by: Greenie
what is the ‘it’?
Guess we wont know what “it” was, thanks to people voiceing their concerns.

Hi Common Sense–
That’s a good point about Rush Limbaugh. And I didn’t know that about Beck’s convenient switch on healthcare. Not surprising!

Isn’t that the whole point of share-the-wealth, punish those who are successful and give their hard-earned rewards to those who “aren’t”?
Posted by: Eyes Open
if you believe the ‘rightist’ interpretation, what else is there?

Just imagine if this had been handled by the WH in the normal fashion.
Obama goes to a school to speak, and the WH announces the speech will be covered on CSPAN for any school who wants to air it in their classrooms. Just like any other speech Obama (or any other President) has made. There’s no controversy there.
Instead, the WH had to make it historic and create lesson plans asking children how it will be “inspirational”. People who criticized the speech were denigrated by the WH spokesman Robert Gibbs. Pundits on the left decried the idea that school administrators would dare vet Obama’s speech. Thre was no reason for any of that.

People who criticized the speech were denigrated by the WH spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Posted by: MayBee
people who offered the ‘indoctrination into the Obama cult’ nonsense should be criticized.. as should the ‘birthers’ and the ‘deathers’

Just imagine if this had been handled by the WH in the normal fashion.
Posted by: MayBee
do you really believe that someone on the ‘right’ wouldn’t have come up with some other paranoid fantasy of danger…. no matter what procedure Obama followed re: the speech…

The idea, Vietor said, was that students should think
Posted by: WWW
that is a very threatening concept to the ‘far right’.. freedom to think differently from their conservative paranoia…. science, education for all.. very dangerous ideas for those who think the earth is 5000 years old, and that knowledge is something those ‘liberal’ elites do……

Fred said “Why would anyone be amazed at concern over his speaking to school children after his first 6 months of CHANGE? We’re in much worse shape now, and the governement keeps getting bigger.”
According to the ABC/Washington Post poll done in August, 44% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction as compared to 19% in January.

In this case, because they did such a poor job, people who wouldn’t normally be concerned were.
Posted by: MayBee
gets back to who started the ‘indoctrination’ rumors….. ‘people’ were concerned because someone fed them false info..

When Bush was in power, Dems didn’t give a hoot about his pep talks to school kids… We were concerned about his blatant lies and lawbreaking and trampling of the Constitution. To those who are fixated on birth certificates, death panels, socialism and all those other BS attacks: Stop making fools of yourselves and start rooting for America to succeed.

BK, McCain/Palin lost the election 10 months ago. It’s unseemly to still be throwing temper tantrums.

“And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try. That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures.”
He could have illustrated this point by pointing out Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, college dropouts all. At least five divorces between them and not a college degree in the bunch.

I would love to see the original speech but we likely will never know what he was going to say before the controversy. Maybe introduce Van Jones to the school kids also? Who knows?
ps: how did the references to God get on this thing. In a PUBLIC SCHOOL? Will the ACLU sue or at least issue a statement.

I think you’re projecting here. And quit presuming you know. I have a suspicious feeling eyes open actually lives in his parent basement and leeches off of them.
Kind of like Bush lived off his parents’ wealth and connections, and then almost destroyed the country because he had no idea how to be successful or work at anything.
Posted by: julieterra | Sep 7, 2009 5:29:08 PM
Oh, and another country heard from. Projecting and assuming? Seems to me that’s what you’re doing. While trotting out the tired “it’s all bush’s fault.”
I assume that you have five kids by three different men, two of the men currently serving time, and you live on welfare. Nothing you write will change that assumption, as nothing I write about my situation will change yours.
Next!

“I would love to see the original speech but we likely will never know what he was going to say before the controversy.”
Didn’t Glenn Beck tell you? The original was mostly plagiarized from Mein Kampf.

I strongly feel President Obama’s speech to school children is a welcome message. His message to students to work hard, study hard, and stay in school is not a partisan message at all. It is neither a Republican or Democratic message. Never has been.
All parents opposing this message really need to examine why do they really oppose??? Is their opposition truly unbiased and arrived at objectively? President Obama is just reinforcing messages all parents should be conveying to their children.
Opposition to this message will naturally be respected since a parent does have this option. As a Republican and a past strong school volunteer, I do feel sorry for those children who will not have opportunity to watch his speech. I say those parents opposing must not be evaluationg this speech with true unbiased objectivity. President Obama’s speech to school children does not interfere with the rights of parents in any way.
Shame on those who do not want the best educaton possible for their children. Shame on those who do not want the message reinforced to study hard, stay in school, get good grades. It appears these opposing parents are more interested in promoting failure of their children. These parents are saying it is ok for their children not to study hard, not to stay in school, not to get good education.
Other past Republican President’s have addressed the schoolchildren. Now a Democratic President has been elected by the voters.
I strongly support President Obama’s message to school children. This is same message we talked to our children about many times. Both worked hard and went to University of California at Berkely, the number one ranked public university in US. Both are successful adults now married giving their own children the same message. We were not rich, and it was not easy, but we, my husband and our son and daughter all made it. My mother receivd only an 8th grade education and my father only graduated from high school, but all three children were strongly encouraged to go to college and all did go and all graduated. My husband was kicked out of his home at age 13, so had to find the stamina and courage to complete his education on his own. I am not sure how he did it, but he did. And we continued encouraging our children to study hard and do well too.
Those who say they are less fortunate this is just an excuse. Anything is possible. Where there is a will, there is a way. Working hard, getting good grades, and planning are keys that will help. Parents do need to get strongly involved with their children’s education and must expect good grades from their children. Parents must convey to their children they feel they are smart and can do anything. If they have problems, school help is always available to assist in achieving goals. Children are not stupid, and should not be labeled as stupid. Even if children have a disability these obstacles can be overcome too. Parents need to convey message to their children they can do anything they want.
Please stop the partisan bickering Presient Obama’s message to school children is bad. His message is great!!!

“Can anybody tell me what is historic about this speech?”
It’s the first time an innocuous presidential speech to school kids caused right wingers to throw nationwide hissy fits over alleged “indoctrination.”

Rudy – You’re kind of cute. A bit of a dimwit, but dimwits are cute.
Yep, I sound like someone throwing a tantrum over people I didn’t vote for, don’t I?
Just stating the obvious… Dr. God Father President is hoping to capture the hearts and minds of those who will have turned 18 in 2012. He’s a ceaseless campaigner, because it’s really the only thing he’s good at.

Gold star to Obama for changing the tenor of this speech, and most of the lesson plan As a conservative, I found the original lesson plan unacceptable. Although still borderline, now you can just equip your children with the same critical listening skills they are taught to use with teachers during regular classes.
We’re all afraid of the swine flu contagion getting out of control in schools and dorms When a parent tells their child not to sneeze on others, or a teacher says don’t touch hands, it often goes in one ear and out the other. If they hear the president saying don’t spread germs, they’ll remember it, and will more likely to do it.
There’s been a glossing over in the media of the specifics of the original DoE lesson plan that goes with the speech. The left has deceptively portrayed the objections as being the president speaking to kids at all, rather than the lesson plan that was designed to push certain actions. The fact that that line is always followed with “Bush and Reagan also talked to children” is one attempt to convey that impression.
If you deconstruct those original questions with your kids tonight, they’ll have a fuller understanding of why there was controversy, and gain a little perspective as they listen tomorrow. You can explain why people might have objections, and where the questions went over the line. In that sense, it really will be a teachable moment.

“Just stating the obvious… Dr. God Father President”
________________________________
Perhaps Presidents should say nothing to the people, make no speeches, not address the youth, not address the nation – just remain quiet – because its all campaigning.
Yes, you are stating the obvious – you’re out to smear the President in any way you can – even pretending he shouldn’t address the people. Some concept.. .

“Gold star to Obama for changing the tenor of this speech, and most of the lesson plan As a coonservative, I found the original lesson plan unacceptable.”
I ask you again, mr, where do you get the idea that everything has been changed? The speech was only made public today and only a single line was changed in the lesson plan!

Everyone – speech was not changed except for small lesson plan section. And only was changed to clarify and make more about the students. Please read before responding.

Tom M – It also implies that we are neither fair nor free now. People have more opportunities in this country than any other in the world.

Where is all the liberal outrage on the atheist left? Obama, the President of the United States is going to give a speech from a public high school to millions og kids in public schools all across the USA and will say at the end of the speech, “God Bless You, and God Bless America”. What happened? Since when did Democrats allow the mention of God? What about the liberals interpretation of separation of church and state? Here is the head of state in front of students in an official school capacity wishing God to bless potential atheist students. The outrage…..

Hello again, ellsbells930. Speaking of stepping in it, the other day you said “The original lesson plan included specific questions related to policy issues and how the students could help the President achieve those goals.” What were those questions (plural) and what were the policy issues (plural)?

julieterra – Well let’s look at it logically…. If it didn’t have to be re-written, they could have posted it last week. That’s pretty obvious.

“The original lesson plan included specific questions related to policy issues and how the students could help the President achieve those goals.” What were those questions (plural) and what were the policy issues (plural)?
______________________________________
ellsbells930 – you didn’t explain it to me. Let’s have your answer.

“It seems obvious that it was changed since they couldn’t manage to publish it until after noon today.”
__________________________________
Not ‘obvious’ at all. Who says it was changed? And if so, how?
You presume, but you certainly don’t know.

==============================
TRUST – it’s hard to earn and easy to lose
==============================
Regardless of what the pundits way, the sobering message for President Obama is that parents don’t trust him with their children. If he was concerned about the sentiment of these citizens, he would take some action to restore that trust. But, instead, Obama berates and smears parents by calling them “silly” and then has members of his cabinet giving the same degrading remarks. His poor handling of this situation furthers the distrust.

“the sobering message for President Obama is that parents don’t trust him with their children”
_________________________________
Hogwash, the sobering message is that fanatical right wingers will try any kind of underhanded garbage they can to try to smear the President.

“I already explained it to you.”
No ellsbells930, you most certainly did not.
You have made several claims about changes.
•“The original focus of the speech was different from what is now supposed to occur.”
When I asked you what was different, you changed the subject to the lesson plan and made a new claim:
•“The original lesson plan included specific questions related to policy issues and how the students could help the President achieve those goals”
I asked what questions had changed (other than the single line) and what policy issues it contained. Further, I asked you to be specific.
You then changed the subject again and made a third, completely false claim:
•“Obama’s people have stated that they have changed the speech because of the outcry – so if it didn’t contain policy issues, why would they have needed to change it?”
The White House NEVER claimed they changed the speech. I asked you again what questions had been changed in the plan and what policy issues it contained.
You then made yet another claim implying that the speech SUMMARY had changed:
•“There is a difference between asking kids to do their best in school (what the summary now says the speech is about) and asking kids to help further the President’s agenda (which is what the original intention was).”
I again asked for specific explanations. You replied: “I can’t provide the summary because the Dept. of Ed changed it on their website.”
I told you that the original lesson plan was still available on various web pages and asked you again to specifically explain what questions had changed and what policy was contained in the lesson plan. You replied:
”I can’t find it. And I HAVE answered your questions, you just refuse to accept it.”
ellsbells930, why do you so adamantly refuse to post the proof to support your unsubstantiated claims?

N Waff wrote: “the sobering message for President Obama is that parents don’t trust him with their children.”
Um, he’s not asking to stay in your house and babysit your kids (though I don’t see why that thought would be scary; he seems like a good dad). He’s simply making a boilerplate speech as President of the United States, as many other Presidents have done, telling kids they should work hard in school. Gasp! Sooo scary! What these particular parents should be doing is examining why they reacted so differently to THIS President giving that same message as other Presidents have done.

julieterra- funny question, but do you work in the White House? How in the world, would you know what his speech was going to be about? I don’t get it…Did you physically see it or something?…I mean, where do you get your information from? Will someone please tell me, how one knows, what is in a speech, if they have not physically seen the original? I want actual physical evidence, please!…

“the message is that the ‘right wing crazies ‘ & the republicans have no message, which is why they keep inventing issues and making ‘stuff’ up”
+ or -, read your own words. Do you not see the dismissive, brusque nature of it?
Of course Republicans, Conservatives. Libertarians and Independents have a message. You are just unwilling to hear it.
Classical liberals were suspicious of all but the most minimal government.
Classical liberalism included the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government.
What happened to modern day liberals? Why do they really want to be Socialists?

When President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech in 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, he said, “Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals.”
Did liberals across America accuse Bush of attempting to indoctrinate their children? I didn’t hear the liberal pundits from the “biased mainstream media” saying:
“Just when you think this administration can’t get any more surreal and Orwellian, here they come to indoctrinate our kids”
“They do this type of thing in North Korea and the former Soviet Union … very cultish.”
“Gee, who had indoctrination last week? Oh, yeah, that’s right, the president.”

WWW writes: “Did liberals across America accuse Bush of attempting to indoctrinate their children? I didn’t hear the liberal pundits from the “biased mainstream media”…..”
****************************************
Actually, WWW, the Washington Post ran a front page article the day after the speech questioning its intent, and Rep. William Ford (Democrit) held Congressional hearings about the speech and whether it violated some kind of law. He subpoenaed Lamar Alexander to testify. And, not to be outdone, the AEA sharply criticized the money spent on producing the speech saying it could have gone to help “feed the school children.”
Please don’t try and defend liberal HYPOCRISY…..it is a losing position.