Huh? The POTUS = the White House (at least in the sense that "White House" is a metonymy). Anybody else at the White House is answerable to him, represents him and speaks for him. And I fail to see how speeches from the president, even if there are too many of them, blur the system of checks and balances.

For that matter, I'm curious -- is the current president really using the bully pulpit that much more than any of his predecessors?
Sadly true, even if they don't know what the debate is about.

As a metonymy. So, we agree.

It never begins and ends with the POTUS.

I didn't say the speeches did that.

One criticism of an overly visible President is with the message that it may send. Every POTUS works for us and is never too fantabulous to be, at the end of the day, "treated" like our employee.

People may not want to admit it, but there are plenty of people who forget the above when it comes to a president who they like or a president who is very visible. It happens with every well liked and visible president and Obama has taken it to another level.

I'm not sure whether I'm not understanding you or whether we disagree. I think in the White House, at least until the next election, it does begin and end with the POTUS.

Again, I'm not sure I'm following. Yes, the president does "work" for us, but I think we have to remember what we hired him to do: Lead. It's not his job to represent us -- that job belongs to the members of Congress. We elected the POTUS to fulfill the constitutional and statutory duties that go with his office, and if enough of us don't like the way he's doing it, we give the job to someone else after 4 years. And for a long time, we've expected the president to be more than a national CEO; we've expected the president to set policies and pursue an agenda. Again, if we don't like the policies he sets or agendas he persues, then we say so at the ballot box. In the meantime, we let our representatives in Congress know whether we want to them to enact legislation reflecting the POTUS's policies and agenda or not.

And again, I'm not sure I'm seeing the actual evidence that he's "taking it to another level." Sure, technology allows for more outlets, so to speak. But more than Reagan? More than Kennedy? More than FDR and his "fireside chats"? I'm not convinced yet.

It may be a misunderstanding or a matter of semantics. My opinion stands either way. :)

LOL. I'm sure it does . . . even if I can't quite figure it out. :p

Try studying up a little more. That was not the speech or an earlier draft of the speech. That was a lesson plan put out by the Department of Education, which suggested that teachers could have students write letters in response to the speech saying how they could "help the president." The Department said they thought the intent was clear -- help the president reach the goals outlined in the speech of reducing drop-out rates and the like. Buy that explanation or don't buy it, whatever floats your boat.

In any event, the wording of the lesson plan was changed to the suggestion that school kids "[w]rite letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals." Other parts of the lesson plan asked "What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? What would you like to tell the President?"


Do you think it is a coincidence that the speech was given the day after Labor Day, the symbolic end of summer, and a traditional first day of school in parts of the country?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ntroversy.html

(ETA: As I think Ksig and Mystic said earlier) All of this talk about the revised speech is in reference to the revised lesson plans from the Dept. of Ed. The lesson plans were revised due to some criticized content (in light of Obama's speech).

I don't doubt that the actual speech may have been edited--as speeches are--but we may never know either way.

Either way, these faux-controversies are all a hobglob distractions from core issues.

Not to the symbolic end of summer or the start of school per se, but yes. Congress returned from its August recess this week and will start once again debating healthcare reform. If you're going to make a speech the purpose of which is to try to refocus and influence the debate, seems logical to do it when Congress has just come back to town and before everything starts again in earnest. I think my 6th-grader would say "well duh."

But hey, if it completes your world to think that there was some nefarious scheme to have middle-schoolers from across the country flooding Capitol Hill with letters advocating for a single-payer health care plan, then by all means live your dream.

LOLing at the mental image of sqid smoks crak running off to google the definition of nefarious.

First you're black. Now you're a woman. Congrats, MC!

I know of at least one.

I know a few, yes. There have been at least 2 or 3 of my brothers here who have used it in one form or another here at GC, since it has significance for us.

Just FYI, this MysticCat is a member of the SCOTUS bar and has had quite a few cases there. I really didn't have to look up SCOTUS or POTUS.

Now please, tell us more about how the news outlets released early versions of the president's speech. Go ahead . . . embarrass yourself a little more. ;)

MMITY?

Of course, it is.

right.

DUDE THOSE KIDS WILL NOW TOTALLY VOTE FOR THE HEALTH CARE PLAN PUT OUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE!

You're one of the dumbest of all the dummies when it comes to tying cause, effect and motive together. None of this makes any sense - what the shit would a speech to kids matter in terms of convincing senators about health care reform? Are the Dems really worried about getting the vote out in 2020?

Rage, rage against the dying of a conspiracy theory. And then read a fucking book or something, kid.

OMFG!! you CURSED!!!!

I'm telling mom!


**slight High Jack**
ETA: How dare those socialist Obamas!! Trying to make us eat healthy by pushing this communist plan on us to sell HEALTHY FOOD! (click this link already!)

Just FYI, you went up about 10000 points in coolness in my book. You have achieved two of my professional dreams (membership in the SCOTUS bar and having cases before the Court).

- KSigKid
SCOTUS junkie

I know. Wow. MysticCat, did you actually argue them there?

About Channel One from last page, None of the schools that I've actually taught at show it. If my red state experience is at all representative, it may not be freaking out conservative parents because their kids aren't in the schools where it's most often shown. Can anyone find data about where it's shown and to how many students? I was surprised to learn it even still existed.

indoctrination

LMAO

My state is a red state, and we watched it throughout middle and high school. They still do, although it is up to the teacher to decide whether they'll turn on the TV or not. Some of my teachers allowed us to watch it, while others chose not to.

I don't remember it being much about any political bias though. The one Channel One "episode" I remember was when I was in 10th grade and they reported on Aaliyah's death. I do remember watching when Maria Menounos was on Ch1.

IDK about specific stats, but Channel One does say on it's website that it's shown across 48 states & DC, to school that have at least 200 students (and they only air it to grades 6-12). And the schools must air Channel One 90% of the school days.

It's just one of those days when I know what I mean but can't clearly and concisely communicate it to others. :p

All I could think about was Monica when I read this.

I have nothing else to contribute to this thread lol

I don't think I've ever seen it. (I'm pretty sure I was out of high school before it was invented, but I don't think even in student teaching the school had it.)

I suspect that what happened here was that in the early days of the Georgia lottery, when they sent money to every school to invest in technology, schools didn't need Channel One as much. If you didn't have to be beholden to watching programing 90% of the time, why would you?

I wonder if only systems that really don't have money to fund replacement technology have kept up with it down here.

I never heard anything about its bias.

Quick!! Turn your TVs off and hide the kids!! Obama's voice will turn you into a socialist!!!

Actually, from what I was reading on the Channel One website, the schools don't have to pay for the technology. If the school signs up and says they'll show Channel One. Then Channel One puts in the TV, the satellite and all the equipment needed to show Channel One in school. All the school really has to do is show it 90% of the school days and give notice to Channel One (usually within 48 hours) if there is some technical difficulty.

If there was a fee to the school, I doubt that my school or any other school here would show Channel One. My school didn't even have enough money to buy enough protractors for the geometry classes (true story...lol).

Oh, right. I guess I wasn't clear. The only reason to have Channel One, IMO, is if you can't/don't want to buy the technology a different way.

Since Georgia had the lottery money for a while to buy technology, I think a lot of the poorer systems were able to get some stuff that they otherwise would have tried to get Channel One to supply.

I think the real risk is that you'd die of boredom.

I don't think there's anyone left on the bubble to buy what he's selling tonight. People have already bought it or don't want it.

Anyone left in the middle is waiting to see the exact details, and I doubt he's getting into that tonight.

I suspect that he's just making people tired by being on the TV three days in a row: Labor Day speech, kid speech, and now health care.

How about some nice pictures of that cute dog instead, O?

oooh ok, I understand ya now. And yeah, you are probably right.

Excellent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

Eh.

Nice sounding rhetoric, but the specifics of how you do it are pretty important.

And if you consider all the limits he places on the system, I doubt it's even possible.

I happen to think the line about you won't have to change your insurance if you like it is about as honest as Palin's comments about the death panels. ETA: he says "nothing in this plan" will require it. No, but it might be a relatively predictable outcome if your employer thinks they can get something cheaper.

It's kind of an interesting read just to see him pander to such a wide range of constituencies. Late in the speech when he addresses reformers who wanted a lot more is probably my favorite part.

I'll sponsor you when you your time comes. :D

Fortunately, no. I say fortunately because in every case I've had there except two, I represented the winning party in the court below. My briefs were to convince the Court it didn't want to hear the case -- I wanted to keep my win -- and they agreed. In some ways, that's not that impressive -- they hear few cases. But in at least one, I was pretty proud that they said "no" -- there was a fair amount of speculation that they would take it. In one other case, we asked them to reverse and remand for reconsideration without argument, which they did. In the one case where I was on the losing side below, they accepted our petition for cert, but my collegue actually argued at oral argument. (We lost.)

All of this is why I said I had "had cases" at the Court, not "argued," since that to many people implies oral arguments. But I have filed quite a few briefs, so I've argued in that sense. I've been there quite a few times and met a few of the justices.

I have those days too. :o

Haha...you should watch out, I'll hit you up as one of my sponsors.

And...you're being far too modest. In the grand scheme of things, there aren't that many attorneys that get to brief the Supreme Court, and even fewer that get the Court to take their side (even if it's on a denial of cert). I think that's very cool, and it's a level to which many potential attorneys (including myself) aspire. Heck, I'm just excited that I've gotten to help draft a couple of appellate briefs in my time at law school. As someone who hopes to be an appellate advocate in their career, I'm seriously impressed.

Without a doubt, appellate advocacy is my favorite part of practicing law by a mile.

Good luck! You'll get there!

I'm sorry, but anytime anyone uses the "let's just stop the disagreements" line, or something similar, it sounds exactly like "just agree with me now, whether you want to or not, it will be a whole lot easier."

"Why am I not making sense?! I give up!!" :p


Is that in reference to Obama's Congressional pep talk: "the time for bickering is over! The time for games has passed! Now is the season for action...bring the best of our parties...show the American people what we can do!"

It's like the pep talk to kids! "Stay in school...it's easier...don't back talk me!!" Socialism, I tell ya! :p (kidding)

I addressed the school speech in my column (I was pro-speech, anti-stupidity). I did notice on the paper's website that I had 35 comments (but I don't read 'em - they are anonymous, and my e-mail is printed with every column, so I figure if they aren't willing to man up and stand behind their statements I should just save myself the grief.), which is far more than I ever have - I guess the good news is someone is still reading 'em!

But is that any different from the way it is now? How many Americans choose their own insurance program now? For most of us, our employers choose our insurance -- at most we get options as to premiums and co-pays/deductables. Surely whether any reform passes or not, employers can go for something cheaper if they can find it. I don't see how that can be pinned on reform; pin that on the free market.

The part of the debate that I don't quite get is the "just don't let it affect my coverage" sentiment. I know I've seen my premiums go up at a ridiculous rate in recent years, while benefits go down. Theoretically, I could look for somewhere else to cover my family, but practically speaking, pre-existing conditions rule that out. Sure, I'm basically satisfied with what I have, but I'd be a lot more satisfied if there was some stability in cost and benefits.

Care to share? :D

Exactly...if someone truly felt that way, then why don't they give up their side of the argument? One of the easiest ways to stop the bickering would be just to drop the whole health care reform all together, or to concede more on his side.

Of course, I'm one of those that believes the "bickering" is a good thing...checks and balances and all that good stuff.

Ditto.

The ignorance and anger that come with the bickering are just par for the course.