When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
Many bloggers here are outraged that conservatives spoke up about Obama's speech to students. Such as:
I was happy that Obama chose to speak with students and think the uproar on both sides is overdone. (On the other hand, I do think the Dept of Education went a bit far with their lesson plans). But given how many minority students struggle in school, we needed a pep talk from the first African-American President.
But why do all the Democrats seem to forget the Left's outrage when George HW Bush spoke to students? And in that instance the Dept of Education didn't even have any "lesson plans". Back then, the Democrats that controlled Congress ordered the GAO to investigate and Dick Gephardt, the House Majority Leader, accused Bush's speech of "paid political advertising".
So should Presidents be allowed to speak to students? Apparently neither Democrats nor Republicans think so.
The left's outrage is a pretty general and broad term. Did parents pull their kids from school? Did the extremes and not so extreme on the left scream he was trying to indoctrinate our children. Not to make a too fine a point of it, but yes we would be wise to remember our own transgressions. However, in this case I'm thinking apples and oranges. The outrage came from several Dem. higher ups and not a segment of the population as a whole. There was no attempt by school districts to gag Bush. Children were not required to get permission from parents. And in the end Rep. Ford and his cohorts wound up looking rather foolish in their complaint. In the case of Obama's speech a entire class of right wingers look foolish and small minded.
September 9, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without an internet and 24-hour cable news back when Bush spoke, it is hard to know what the "public" response exactly was.
September 9, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet you seem to claim the entire left was up in arms over the speech. When the linked article says no such thing. And since I can still remember 1991 and my children were in school at the time. I know we didn't get a notice from the school requesting my permission for my children to listen to the speech. And while there may not have been the 24 hour news cycle there was still news and nobody got up in arms before the fact.
September 9, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its the conservative way. Take a kernel of truth and grow a cornfield of lies.
September 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My children are in school now and they were shown the speech without any consent needed from me.
Unfortunately schools are a lot different than back in 1991. Back then could your kids bring peanuts to school? How about invite some kids from class to their birthday party without having to invite the whole class? Did every student in your kids class get a trophy for playing on the little league team, even if they lost every game?
As for getting up in arms before the fact, I bet most parents in '91 had no clue until the kids came home from school that there was any speech by the President
September 9, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for link to my earlier post. On that blog last night and this morning (right before it disappeared so most people didn't see it) was a discussion, mainly between Lalo and me, about the similarities -- and the curious differences -- between the two situations. I won't repeat it all here but worth considering I think.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/elizabeth2/2009/09/stray-thought-about-the-indoct.php?ref=reccafe
Ooops, just saw jsfox's post - once again I'm stumbling along in his wake and thinking I'm having original thoughts. Sorry -- but you know what they say about sincere flattery and all that.
September 9, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Elizabeth2 blog rant ...Stray thought about the "indoctrination" speech... jason everett miller posted a link to this rant about Bush Sr and Democrats over a similar issue.
url: http://www.tonysrants.com/national/perspective-dems-slammed-george-h-w-bush-for-address-to-schools/
After I read the rant and the Washington Post article included, I replied with this:
In my opinion,this is definitely and Apple vs Orange difference. The repuglicans are desperately trying to draw similarities between two mutually exclusive events.
The Democrats, as a Party, objected with the DoE using scarce funds mandated for education being diverted to support an Executive function. I tend to agree with that rationale. The Executive Branch has ample funding it receives from Congress for such events and shouldn't rely upon other Department's funds for Executive activities, such as the President speaking to students. At best, they should ask Congress for permission for diverting funds already mandated or special funding to avert any semblance of misappropriating funds for activities not related to education. That's what Checks-and-Balances is all about. Remember, Congress controls the purse-strings and its' their responsibility to make sure all Departments and Agencies seeking funds, spend those allotted funds as they were intended to be spent. Unscheduled/impromptu/ad hoc Presidential addresses are no reason to bend the rules to suit a purpose.
So to state the obvious, the article never mentions anything about them objecting to Bush Sr's speech and its contents. So I fail to see your point unless it's your intent to paint the Democrats as being hypocrites.
September 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Democrats, as a Party, objected with the DoE using scarce funds mandated for education being diverted to support an Executive function."
- You mean - during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
September 9, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming you know for a fact that DoE funds were used for Obama's speech yesterday.
You know Lalo what is somewhat disingenuous about all your sniping in blog after blog. Is that if Hillary were President you would be defending her to the hilt if she were facing the same type of senseless rants and attacks from the right. Rather than quasi agreeing with almost every one.
September 9, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you bothered to comment, clearly you noticed that I'm pointing out a weakness in an argument of objecting on the grounds of scarcity of funds.
Your response?
(a) you don't know "for a fact" if it was DOE money;
(b) you're sniping,
(c) you're disingenuous.
It's as if you know that argument is stupid, but it's beneath you to concede; and so you turn to the only option avaible - ad hominem:
-Person A makes claim X
-There is something objectionable about Person A
-Therefore claim X is false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
September 9, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about 1991 or 2009? DOE funds were apparently used in 1991, per the article, but I don't think that anyone knows where how yesterday's speech was financed. -- Another difference noted in the article: the uproar in 1991 occurred AFTER the speech, not BEFORE. B-I-G difference in the public's perception and target of the opposition.
September 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have thought that since all of it is taxpayer money it doesn't really matter if it comes from DOE or DOD.
As for your other point, I'm not clear why it matters at all, but if you believe the BIG difference is whether it's before or after - it's fine with me.
I still think the biggest difference is people vs party official but even that is minor. Both are just overreactions from opposition.
September 9, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question was trying to figure out if you were talking about 1991 or 2009 when you said "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?" The objection to the use of scare DOE funds was made only in 1991. (Yes, I agree, a silly argument and probably used just as an excuse to fuss.)
The BIG difference is that when the hub-bub comes after the speech, all that is asked of the public and the schools is to sit on the sidelines and watch a fuss about financing something the President did, which hadn't been questioned when he was doing it. ------ When it comes *before* the speech, however, the message and impact on the public can be and was very, very different: it -- has the effect of questioning the President's right to speak to students, -- challenges the propriety of his doing so, -- focuses directly on the content of the speech -- and permits, even encourages, campaigns to encourage people to refuse to listen to their President and public institutions (the schools) to actually boycott him on a national level. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I always thought that at least public officials and public institutions were supposed to show respect for the office, no matter who is holding it. (Non-officials like Limbaugh, etc. don't have any such obligation or, Lord knows, expectation.)
When you think about it, aren't the differences that were possible only because the dust-up was *before* the speech the very things that we find so shocking and disturbing? So, yeah, I'd say it was important.
September 9, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
M*i*s*a*p*p*r*o*p*r*i*a*t*i*n*g f*u*n*d*s
If you ask for x amount of dollars to complete specific goals, but siphon of some funds for activities not mentioned in your original request, it's a crime. You have to state all, not some, of the activities you want to accomplish and the dollar amount necessary to carry all those mentioned tasks to fruition. Otherwise, departments and agencies could claim they need money to carry out a specific set of tasks, but in actuality do something completely different. Someone has to account for where the cash is spent and if it was spent for the programs it was awarded for. In the case concerning Bush Sr. the DoE spent money allocated for educational purposes for the President who happens to have his own expanse account for such matters.
September 9, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely do this, preferring generally to just make my point and move on, but I can't let this go unchallenged. This is about the 10th time I've heard or read about that pathetic little 1991 'investigation', summoned as 'proof' that the current furor is just business as usual.
I've said all I'm going to say about the specifics of the 'School Speech', and really all that NEEDS to be said or CAN be said, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's what I WILL say:
If you think a nuclear-armed submarine is about the same thing as a fish because they both swim around in the water, there's not much I can say to you. You're clearly wrong in every sense that matters, but you've stubbornly decided to stay where you're at, and you're clearly impervious to rational discussion.
It may not even really MATTER in the long run that you falsely consider a fish and a submarine to be the same thing. It's conceivable one could pass a lifetime without actually putting that theory to a practical test.
On the other hand, one of these days it MIGHT: If you find yourself sitting on the ocean in your fishing boat, and something under you (a fish, or a submarine) decides to launch a missle, you may find out the hard way that they really ARE very different things. If you get a second or two to think about it, you might wish you had made the proper comparison to begin with.
That's my last on this.
September 9, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It boils down to pettiness on both sides. It was a petty reaction in 1991, and it's likewise a petty reaction in 2009.
September 9, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I can't agree. And the more I look at it the less I agree. 1991 was indeed petty (and I guess evened out when the GOA found there was no problem - a little egg on the Dems face). It was business as usual, between Dem.politicians and Rep. politicians, ignored by the public, and - as noted - didn't attack the propriety of the President's making a speech or the content.
2009 is not business as usual (thankfully); the public is very much involved; the attack is directly at the content of the speech and the propriety of his making it; and (what I think is the critical difference) the "fight" is between whom? The Dems/left vs. ...??? Not the Republican leaders in Congress; in fact they've been largely silent. So who makes up the opposition this time?
My opinion: it's right-wing radio (for lack of a better description) & its followers .... The half-way reasonable Republican leaders would probably like to stop them (Chaos is so rarely good for a country.) but they're in sort of a bad place to say anything, I suppose. After all, they nominated one of that ilk for VP and let her run around the country accusing Obama of "paling around with terrorists" and such like.
I'm a Democrat and I'm delighted my party is in power, but if I could wish for anything right now it would be the re-growth of a sane, truly-conservative, and responsible Republican party. Right now it's Obama and the Dems v. people who have no identity or goal other than to take Obama down. I think that's very different from 1991.
September 9, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the number of people who objected to Obama's speech is quite small compared to the number of people who didn't object. Regardless how big or small the number, however, it has been hyper-exaggerated by the media.
But that doesn't mean we need to exaggerate the number ourselves and give it front-page importance, does it? I refuse to myself.
There is going to be dissent in this country no matter who is in office. I am not in favor of squelching dissent, nor does this school-speech episode concern me to the point of hand-wringing that Obama does not have unanimous support in this country.
The only difference between 1991 and 2009 is the amplification of dissent via many more media channels.
September 9, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think this is a media phenomenon. The media hyped the shit out of these objection's to Obama's school speech. They then reported favorably on the (utterly unexceptional) speech as if a mere twenty four hours earlier they weren't treating reaction to it as the equivalent of the 1968 riots.
On a related note (not directed at you rtbag), MCB is simply a rightwing troll spouting the Hannity/Limbaugh outrage of the day. We can get this drivel from a million other sources, and anyone who spouts it is not interested in dialogue.
Can we just issue a blanket "ignore" on this guy?
September 10, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another point that should be made. As I recall, also being an adult during Reagan/Bush I, there was growing concern about public funds being used for political purposes during the Reagan years (I actually think this goes back to Nixon, but whatever). This, of course, came to full flower in Bush II, when the White House bascially became nothing more than a messaging operation for the energy and defense industries.
This whole question of use of public funds for partisan political purposes is one that Republicans are demonstrably guilty of. So naturally they use every opportunity to inflate minor instances of similar behavior by Democrats into questions of vital national import.
September 10, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink