Reading the text yesterday, Joanne Jacobs called it an excellent speech; and she addressed the concerns I noted above:
Should he tell students they have a duty to their country — not just to themselves — to become the problem solvers and innovators of the future? It’s not what I would call a radical idea. These are old-fashioned American values.Yes, they are old-fashioned. But we can't take those ideas away from the personal context in which they are presented. Parents don't like this president pitching personal responsiblity to them because they don't like his agenda of radical change. It doesn't help when Obama's allies in the entertainment/media industry push authoritarian "pledge drives" or when the White House itself launches "snitch" campaigns to track dissenters. Previous presidents did not have that baggage. So the Obama speech to students can never be as effective as was true for President Reagan or President H.W. Bush. Obama's HopeAndChange agenda has created an unprecedented regime of conformity, and the administration's "goals for students" learning packet indeed takes on a disturbing "Obama Youth" aura amid the ugly school-age intolerance the president has engendered.
See also, Michelle Malkin, "Obama’s Sept. 8 Speech to Schoolchildren":
Will Obama be able to resist issuing a call to youth arms to marshal help in passing his legislative agenda?See also, The Western Experience, "President Obama’s Back to School Speech."
The thing is: He won’t need to make the call explicit.
Obama zealot teachers like this one across the country will do all the extra-curricular bullying and haranguing for him.
6 comments:
"snitch" campaign
Ah Donald, if you actually believed that there was a campaign to get people to report, you probably wouldn't have put "snitch" in quotation marks. In fact, quotation marks used in this way either mean to signal an actual quote (which this is not) or a level of ironic detachment. So, did you mis-type and actually believe that there was a campaign to get people to snitch? Or do you not believe there was a campaign to get people to snitch and simply say that sort of thing to rile people up?
yes, it was a good speech ... BUT ...
I noticed that The Washington Post did not have a great big bold headline this morning intimating that Obama used those school children as props for the political. I also do not think that the democrats in Congress will start hearings over Obama's address.
The hypocrisy on the left and certain commenters is great to behold.Mark,
It was a good speech, but only after a rewrite forced by concerned citizens and parents.
Dennis,
I believe you were previously asked for some proof of this rewrite. Do you have that proof now? Or is this just something that you know in your heart is true?
Ben:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it..."
...you apparently begin to believe it, yourself.
Besides, facts have a liberal bias.
I won't be surprised to see Dennis ride that same lie for days, & probably be quoted by one or two others in the echo chamber, as "proof" that there was a rewrite...
---
Yes Dennis... Those Democrats who whined about Bush's speech in '91 were as foolish and wrong as you your friends've been this time. If that makes you feel justified, then keep thinkin' yourself justified. You'll have to excuse me for not agreeing with you, though. I never saw "But, they did it first!!!" (or "too!!!") as a particularly good reason to do much of anything, and I don't think bad behavior is justified by earlier bad behavior.
Repsac3,
You're probably right about that. One thing that I've noticed about your average rightwinger is that you can argue the minuter points of fact (e.g., Obama doesn't use "I" more than Reagan (proportionally)) without ever touching the deep dogma (e.g., Obama has messianic delusions).
There's a certain Road Runner-ish quality to that: even after the base of their argument gets chipped away, the rightwinger won't fall away from dogma as long as they don't look down.
Post a Comment