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

[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 That lesson plan was withdrawn and revised.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 That lesson plan was withdrawn and revised.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.