seems to me if you don't want your kid to hear about working hard, you don't deserve any government funding for your kid's schooling.... honestly this has got to be about the dumbest thing I've heard in recent times. Where I live at least it's the white haughty taughty schools that don't want it played. Sounds pretty racist if you ask me, more than partisan. Regardless of his political ideologies, the message is sound, and anyone saying it's not is grasping at straws. If it's not the message it's the person, and it used to be you would respect the president regardless of your political leaning. The only thing I can think that makes any shred of sense is that people are still racist....

^ Basketball... Football... Golf... The Presidency... what's next, a black Pope?



**apologies to any Jesuits in the audience**

I'll use Saul Alinsky tactics for radicals here and describe what is really going on here in language that neolibs can understand and appreciate. Let's call this whole issue one of "Seperation of School and State"...

It is interesting to hear neolibs call political opposition to Obama out of control, unfair, racist, et al... Personally, I didn't care beans about Obama's speech. If Presidents want to do this kind of stuff, fine by me. But I understand and appreciate that there are others who are opposed to anything smacking of political favoritism in our schools.

In 1991, Bush Sr. made a speech in schools that wasn't much different than Obama's. The Democrats of the day conducted a congressional investigation on it. They didn't want him turning the school into a campaign commercial because that would be BAD. There was nothing in Bush's message that was worth of such paranoia. And yet they did it anyway because they opposed him and they were very strongly against even the APPEARANCE of Bush 'indoctrinating' the kids.

Now it's 2009. Lather rinse repeat. You would think that the Democrats who were so paranoid of the appearance of impropriety in 1991 would be a bit more supportive of the concerns of parents worried about the appearance of indoctrination... But no - of course - when THEIR guy is the one doing the indoctrination then they're all for it... :eyeroll:

So for you neolibs - just think of this as an issue of "Seperation of School and State" and you'll understand it a bit better. No matter how kooky, hypersensitive, or ridiculous the opposition may seem to you... You just have to accept that there are those who are very against the notion of the government stepping into schools for the purpose of 'establishing' a state party. Much the same way you are opposed to even the vaguest, most innocent appearance of religion in school might somehow offend people, or 'establish' a religion.

Can you provide a citation concerning the 1991 firestorm and congressional investigation?

^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32737733/ns/politics-white_house/

Let's highlight part of what W_P said: In 1991, Bush Sr. made a speech in schools that wasn't much different than Obama's. The Democrats of the day conducted a congressional investigation on it. They didn't want him turning the school into a campaign commercial because that would be BAD.

The speech was in October of 1991. The Presidential election was the next year. The congressional investigation cleared Bush.

Obama is up for reelection in 2012. This is 2009. It's not a campaign commercial.

Wait, that was never the concern was it? The worry was political indoctrination of children. Why the concern? Probably because St. Ronnie did it in his speech to school children in 1988.

Turns out Obama didn't do that, either...

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker. It's interesting that there was some backlash to President Bush senior giving a speech to school children. I hadn't heard about that, so I looked it up. Apparently the backlash came AFTER Bush Senior talked to school children. People were concerned about how he funded the event out of the Dept of Education. They wondered if it was right for him to take money from the Dept of Education for something that turned out to be a sort of media ploy to help his campaign.

To me, it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. However, I'm perfectly fine with people trying to make that argument. If people were trying to make a similar argument about Obama's speech, I would understand. What I don't understand is all the screaming about indoctrination, starting the next generation of junior lobbyists, and teaching our children socialism.

>> ^Payback:
^ Basketball... Football... Golf... The Presidency... what's next, a black Pope?

apologies to any Jesuits in the audience


sorry bud but no pope is the next step.

The speech was in October of 1991. The Presidential election was the next year.

So? A year is a long time in politics. The Presidential election campagin season doesn't even start until after the primaries, which didn't start until mid 1992. The speech wasn't anywhere/anywhen near a campaign thing. Anyone with an ounce of sense knew it was void of actual offense. And yet people who were of a different political persuasion felt perfectly justified in ridiculously dragging the matter through the entire process of a full-on congressional investigation. Why? Well - like many politically motivated attacks - it was all done 'for the children!' (scream it like Helen Lovejoy)

That brings us to Obama. I don't think he abused his office, but there were a lot of thins in his speech drafts that legitimately were concerning. The bit where he has kids writing letters about "How can I help my President?" more than smack of political catechization. There was plenty for protesters to hang their hat on.

But once the protests hit, the objectionable stuff was hastily sanitized from his talk. I'd say the protests did some good in that regard. Regardless, there was more than enough reason for "seperation of school & state" parents to be getting their trews in a wad. There was at least as much to be concerned about with Obama's little speech as there was from Bush's or Reagan's.

So - howcome we're supposed to think all the objections to Obama's school speech are 'too much' and 'out of control' but that the same whack-a-doodle craziness is perfectly OK when applied to Bush1? The only possible explanation is naked, unvarnished, hypocritical political bias.

I've noticed four sub groups, to the three camps in the poltical arena. We have the traditional three: Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals. But the conservatives & liberals have two other groups: the comprimisers and the fanatics.

Comprimisers, tend to think on legistation, and talk with their counter-parts on the isle. Finding ways to agree to one thing, but come half way on another issue. In do this, they can they have the other side, come to their side on an issue. Its a give & take relationship. When that happens, alot of good works come out of congress, and help propell this country forward.

Fanatics, are the opposite. They take the route of 'my way or the highway' attitude towards discussions. They would not move an inch on their position, regardless if God, Himself, said so. These are also the ones who just flat-out reject the other side, regardless of the issue or arguement. Even if the issue stands to help their side of the arguement.

Today's politics, has these four groups, a compriser & fanatic to each side. The liberal side seems (for the moment), to have a heavy percentage of comprisers then fanatics. Were as conservatives, have a heavy amount of fanatics to comprisers. This creates a huge amount of tension on even simple issues (like education, and the President talking to American children), let alone a complication issue (like Health Care in the USA). We actually call these fanatics the 'neo-' group. Neo-lib, or neolib, and the neo-cons.

Moderates, however, tend to not be as full of passion on the subject matter. They are there, and discuss of things. They tend to have mixed views, liking the ideas of one side, and the other. Some try to bridge the gap of the arguement, to bring a consenus and move on to the next task at hand. And some, rather enjoy the chaos that is created, and just hangs on. Since, the issue will come up in the next election, and judging on how people in their home area feel, is how they market themselves. Which is why many of the issues we all say come up on the Democratic and Republican sides, are the same ones from 1930! Yes, some issues, are new-er, due to history conditions (i.e. events of Sept. 9, 2001, and following it), and some due to technology (i.e. stem cell research and the Internet). But most issues, are just blown over from issues that go back decades.

The liberal side seems (for the moment), to have a heavy percentage of comprisers then fanatics. Were as conservatives, have a heavy amount of fanatics to comprisers.

I'd say that both sides are almost entirely composed of fanatics. Also, I reject the concept that government needs to 'get things done'. Some of the BEST, most productive legislative sessions in US history were times when the government was 100% deadlocked.

My opinion is that the LESS government accomplishes in a session, the better that government is. The fewer agenda items that pass, the better. When government does nothing, the people prosper.