Parents and lawmakers speak out against Obama's speech to students

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

... but this has been a risk since, well, the New Deal at the latest, and possibly decades before that, hasn't it?

The reality is that the US system has always integrated socialist/collectivist elements into its otherwise Federalist/Republic/Democratic nature.

I think most people realize this. The problem is with going further down that path, particularly feeling as though we're being hoodwinked and bamboozled into doing so.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

If telling kids "if you don't stay in school, you let down your country" can lead to socialism, sign me up....if asking your nations children to be educated citizens means that you are a socialist (which I think is reducing the the term a little...a term, by the way, which though not necessarily right for the USA is not an evil entity) we should all be socialists. What's wrong with wanting better for the next generation and better for our nation?

You made a huge leap here. Obviously there is nothing wrong with the bolded.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by WinniBug

I would REALLY like to view the original speech, if it was altered!

Did I miss something? Has there been any actual report that the speech was altered to deflect criticism, or is that just speculation? I can't say I've ever heard of the text of a speech being released days before the speech is given. An hour or two to assist the press, yes, but up until then, they're usually still drafts.

I get the sense that lots of folks are confusing the speech with the (poorly thought out) lesson plan that the Department of Education issued to help teachers teach around the speech. That lesson plan was withdrawn and revised.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Did I miss something? Has there been any actual report that the speech was altered to deflect criticism, or is that just speculation? I can't say I've ever heard of the text of a speech being released days before the speech is given. An hour or two to assist the press, yes, but up until then, they're usually still drafts.

I get the sense that lots of folks are confusing the speech with the (poorly thought out) lesson plan that the Department of Education issued to help teachers teach around the speech. That lesson plan was withdrawn and revised.

I thought I saw somewhere that the White House has said that the speech was not altered.

[DrPhil]

I don't think it matters whether or not it was altered (or they will tell us that it was altered).

We know that there are drafts of speeches, so that's neither here nor there.

The point is that beyond the eccentrism on BOTH sides of the debate, there are some good points made on BOTH sides of the debate. The problem is that people, in general, are so categorical that they feel they have to be 100% for or against.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The POTUS is not THE White House representative and we do have a system of checks and balances that should never be blurred.

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?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The problem is that people, in general, are so categorical that they feel they have to be 100% for or against.

Sadly true, even if they don't know what the debate is about.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

As a metonymy. So, we agree.

It never begins and ends with the POTUS.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It never begins and ends with the POTUS.

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.

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sqid smoks crak

Parts of the speech were on the news. In one part Obama told the kids it is their job to help the President and he wanted them to send letters or something.

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 the day before the healthcare bill speech?

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?

[DrPhil]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sqid smoks crak

Nice try. Now why is the healthcare speech two days after Labor Day? Is healthcare somehow related to the symbolic end of summer and the start of school?

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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[knight_shadow]

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