Is this the definition of insanity, political wingnuttery or racism?

Sep 03 2009 Published by under Education, General Politics

President Barack Obama is planning a webcast directed at the nation's school children.

During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

Apparently, this is something parents must protect their darling children against! [h/t: drdrA who asks you to crash an associated poll]

In Bryan, the end of the school day, did not mean phones in the district's administration office stopped ringing.
In a message left to the district's communication director, Sandy Farris, one parent said "I have a child in middle school and a child in elementary school and I am very concerned about the content and the intent behind President Obama's speech to kids on the 8th."
Phones were equally busy at College Station I.S.D., said Superintendent Eddie Coulson.

Really? "Very concerned"?


"If it is mandatory in every room, we will pull 'em out," said Monica Martinez, whose three children attend Bryan's Harvey Mitchell elementary, "but if they have somewhere where they can go in a separate room, then they would be allowed to stay."

While none of the College Station parents News Three spoke with wanted to keep their kids home, none of them were happy about the speech.
"I perceive this as a socialist type of move," said Tammy Canatella, whose daughter is a freshman at Consolidated High School. "This should not be a forum to promote himself or his cabinet."
"I don't understand the logic of the President of the United States addressing elementary school children. I don't know what they will get out of it," said Jeff Gardner, the father of a Consol senior.

Get a grip people. It is the President of the United States telling kids to work hard in school. This is a problem why?

118 responses so far

  • Greg Laden says:

    OMG, this is unbefuckinglievable. If parents were pulling their kids out of the room for a George Bush presentation, they would be called anti-American.

  • Sigmund says:

    This is exactly how the Great Leap Forward started!
    I used to laugh when I saw items on WorldNetDaily about Hillary Clinton being a communist or CNN standing for Communist News Network - but apparently there really are significant numbers who think this ridiculous way!

  • DrugMonkey says:

    One cannot help but recall all of the "he's the President so you must respect the Office by respecting Bush" crap that was thrown up anytime anyone had a substantive criticism of GW Bush's policies.
    Surely these parents were not following that particular line of argument. Surely.

  • dean says:

    While I was running errands today I heard a portion of a news broadcast that stated the same thing is going on in Colorado. I haven't heard a second, verifying, account, but given this post, it is possible.

  • drdrA says:

    DM- I heart you today. THANKS for enlisting the ranks of reasonable people to crash that ultra-silly poll. You will positively vomit if you read the comments on that article that you link up there.

  • becca says:

    "Is this the definition of insanity, political wingnuttery or racism?"
    Yes.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    THANKS for enlisting the ranks of reasonable people to crash that ultra-silly poll.
    No charge but it was running at least 80% for "no-biggie" when I saw it from your link. It must have been you!
    You will positively vomit if you read the comments on that article that you link up there.
    yeah, I did. a whole lotta crazy. all the pertinent issues are raised though so there's that..

  • D. C. Sessions says:

    This is a problem why?

    Because this is Texas, and good little white kids shouldn't be exposed to black Arab terrorists.

  • Yagotta B. Kidding says:

    CNN standing for Communist News Network - but apparently there really are significant numbers who think this ridiculous way!

    Sometimes it only takes a handful to be "significant." Like when you see them every day.

  • JohnV says:

    Is it wrong that my faith in uh... life/this country/everything is being eroded by these people on a daily basis?

  • mat says:

    Can't link directly but someone named Mary at 9/3, 12:15
    I don't know what Obama's intentions are but this smacks of the same thing that Hitler did in recruiting the children.
    Oh yes, just exactly like that. How about "ask not what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for your country"? Did you keep that message of fascism away from your children's sensitive ears?

  • drdrA says:

    Dean #4- yes, this is apparently also going on in Denver:
    http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/douglas_county_school_allows_p.php
    and The Rude Pundit has a hilarious post up about this as well. :
    http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-realm-of-you-have-to-be-fucking.html

  • Greg says:

    Yes, there is a problem. Presenting Mr. Obama at schools, in the somewhat official setting, under some more or less explicit pressure, amounts to indoctrination. The indoctrination allegation is not about any particular content of the speech. It's about product (Obama) placement strategy carried out toward uncritical, naive audience.
    Yes, I dislike this clown. So what?

  • Cloud says:

    This and some of the craziness in the recent "discussions" about health care... makes me want to go out and volunteer in schools to teach critical thinking skills.
    There's always going to be some nutjob with a conspiracy theory. The problem is the number of people who hear the theory and buy it. A sizable portion of our country can't think through an argument and decide if it actually makes any sense.
    Yeah, Greg- I'm sorry, but I'm looking at you. Obama is the president. He's not a product. Even if you want to think about him that way, I'd say your kids have already been exposed to the fact that he exists. Did you have a problem with George Bush visiting schools? I seem to remember that he did that a lot. Was that "product placement"?

  • Pascale says:

    Wackalunacy and fuckwittery never go away!
    Presidents of all parties do stuff like this (remember, W was reading a story in an elementary school on 9/11; those poor captive kiddies, forced to help him sound out the words... but I digress). Obama's efforts will reach a wider audience via the web. The efficacy of this schtick is unclear, but it ultimately seems to be harmless. If it weren't, those in my age group would all have been hopelessly "indoctrinated" by Nixon et al (and I can attest that The Dick did not harm my political soul by encouraging me to study and/or not do drugs).
    I must admit, I like W more now that he has left office. Oh, don't get me wrong, I still think he was an idiot with incredibly bad policies. But he has gone away unlike the evil puppet-master, Cheney.

  • Danimal says:

    Here is an Email in it entirety that I received from my Maryland Delegate today, suggesting that parents who object keep their kids home. I sent a nasty reply that I will be voting against him come next election. This is getting out of hand. He want his message spread far and wide, so here his is his Email for all to see:
    "Pres. Obama's Address to School Children on Sept. 8, 2009
    With the news having broken yesterday about Pres. Obama's address to school children, I am attempting to get several questions answered by the Baltimore and the Harford County Public Schools. Are they using the address? Will parents have the right to keep their children out of school for it, if they desire? Will their children have the right to a non-absence in this instance? Has this addition to the curriculum been approved by the School Board and the PTA? Has a curriculum outline been sent home to parents?
    I am particularly concerned because of the short notice and the very little time for gathering information about the address, and for allowing for public reaction to this plan, especially since Monday is the Labor Day holiday, and the address is the following day.
    According to the office of the Baltimore County Superintendent of Schools, if you do not want your child to participate, you need only notify the school principal, and your child will have an alternate activity available during the address. However, rather than stigmatize my child by having him pulled out of class, I would just keep him home that day (I do have two children in public school).
    The Harford County Public Schools are meeting this afternoon at 4:15 pm (Sept. 3) to discuss this event, and no information is available yet.
    If you, as a parent, choose not to send your child to school for Pres. Obama's address, I want you to know I support you 100%.
    If teachers have the right to strike, parents have the right to boycott what we fear as the start of the indoctrination of our children without the opportunity to review the material.
    You can look at the White House's concept of this address by going to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/My-Education-My-Future/
    It includes a link to the U. S. Dept. of Education lesson plans.
    Nationwide, some parents don't want their kids participating in the Obama presentation:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/parents-object-obamas-national-address-students/
    Please feel free to forward this information to anyone you know is interested.
    Rick Impallaria
    Delegate, District 7
    rick.impallaria@house.state.md.us"

  • Greg says:

    Cloud: are you trying to convince me that marketing strategies are not used in politics? Pascale: this publicity effort may indeed prove ineffective (a.k.a. harmless), but the strategy is disgusting nevertheless and I see no reason to support it in any way.

  • bikemonkey says:

    the strategy is disgusting nevertheless and I see no reason to support it in any way.
    The question here is whether you (and I mean the plural, Greg in particular is irrelevant*) apply the same standards to all Presidents who have done this or similar.
    We wish to know whether there is a principled objection on the table which should be discussed... or naked, craven, cryptoracist political nonsense dressed up in pseudo-principled clothing. If the latter, we just point and laugh.
    Of course as this starts to take off, there will be some political and punditard types who would have a record going back to prior events and we can, in those cases, take them individually to task for naked hypocrisy.
    _
    * It is a nonstarter to bicker over prior opinions because of course those that are objecting to Obama's address now are going to pretend they objected to prior Presidential addresses to children. Like that hilarious Bush I one described by the rudepundit link from drdrA. Of course, they didn't.

  • Cloud says:

    Greg- absolutely not. Of course marketing strategies are used in politics. But a president is not the same as a brand of soda- you can't try to protect your children from the knowledge that he exists. I'd say the "market" has already been saturated with the message about Obama's existence and even his policies. I see this more as an attempt to use his "brand" to encourage children, some of whom may genuinely look up to him as our first African-American president, to stay in school.
    And if you want me to take your argument at all seriously, George Bush's appearances at schools should have bothered you, too. Did they? You didn't say.

  • Greg says:

    Cloud: First, the Bush appearances at schools. They looked to me more like photo-ops with children, ultimately targeting adults. Plainly for propaganda benefits, but less disgustingly so than directly aimed at kids in the whole country.
    Is the political "merket" already saturated? Marketing specialists never consider their job completed. The interest in the "product" not only needs to be created, but also maintained.
    As a firm believer in the Occam's Razor I don't see any reason NOT TO notice the correlation between Obama's slip in the polls: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
    and this recent publicity effort. On the contrary, it would be completely naive on the part of Obama's political team, if they didn't try to reverse the trend.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    DM --Do you need to even ask the question that titles this post? Of course they're racist. There can be no other reason that someone would fail to adore our Dear Leader.
    In my household, we spend every morning discussing ways in which we can "be a servant to our President." And every evening, we engage in rigorous criticism and self-criticism if we failed to help the President sufficiently.

  • Drugmonkey says:

    N-c, now all trolling between friends aside, can you explain the difference here? Why you Repub/righty/whatever have changed your alleged principles wrt respecting the office and we-won and all that?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Did you watch the video at the link I provided?

  • DrugMonkey says:

    just did, yeah. asinine to include the "to obama" stuff, I agree. so what? the mindless Bush-is-our-President-in-time-of-war crap was more sustained, serious and scarier.
    back to the question. why are the righties getting so worked up about this tepid address to kids when there is a documented history of considerably more jingoistic and/or political actions on the part of Republican presidents? Where were all these people then? Did you read that rudepundit link? I remember that little bit of Bush I anti-drug propagandizing myself....

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    I think it's analogous to lefties suggesting that dissent (even if led by avowed Communists) is the highest form of patriotism, but only when a Republican is president.
    When a Dem is president, offering a dissenting opinion in a town hall meeting is "un-American."

  • Greg says:

    DM: why are the righties getting so worked up
    Because I was raised in one of the socialist paradises, learned to know the scoundrels who used to rule them, I was exposed to the propaganda (and learned how to sift through it), and now I have déjà vu when I listen to the Beloved Leader and his comrades. Sorry, I can't help.

  • Cloud says:

    I'm sorry, Greg. I don't understand what you think the supposed purpose of Obama's address to the schoolkids is? Is it a publicity ploy aimed at the adults? If so, it seems the same as what previous presidents have done. Is it an attempt to indoctrinate school children so that they will vote Democrat later? If so, I suggest you go talk to some school children. I think you'll feel better about the likely success of such a gambit.
    To me, the simplest explanation is that it is exactly what it looks like- a president who believes that education is the key to reducing the inequalities in our society trying to convince as many children as possible to take advantage of the education offered to them.
    Neuro-conservative: I have no problem with people expressing a dissenting opinion in a town hall meeting on health care. I do have a problem with people shouting down any attempt at discourse (and I had that problem with war protesters, too, by the way). And I really wish the people expressing their dissenting opinion would actually make a coherent argument that doesn't rely on disingenuous misinterpretations, half-truths, and outright lies. Are you really going to defend the "death panel" nonsense? Did you not laugh when you read that Stephen Hawking would not have been deemed worthy of treatment in Britain?
    I would positively welcome a true discussion about the actual merits and flaws of our current health care system and how we might go about fixing the flaws without destroying the merits. I haven't seen that discussion yet.

  • Greg says:

    Cloud, no need to be sorry. I wasn't living in any of the murderous systems. I experienced the mild version of communism, which was despicable enough to make one inoculated against it, but not oppressive enough to kill dissent and independent thinking. Kinda cow pox. Won't kill you, but will make you immune. 🙂
    As for the specific issues in your post, we will likely end up differing: I believe it's a publicity attempt with a subtle, collateral indoctrination goal.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Encouraging inner-city kids to respect school is one of the few good things Obama could do as president, imho. However, he (and his supporters) have always evidenced a penchant for this cult of personality shtick. Add to that the tendency of some public school teachers toward left-wing propaganda in the classroom and you have an unappetizing combination.
    Cloud -- I don't think that this post is the place to get into the details on health care policy. But there is little evidence that a bunch of old ladies at town halls have "shout[ed] down any attempt at discourse."

  • Cloud says:

    @Neuro-conservative: you and I are undoubtedly watching different TV coverage, because I've seen large groups of people standing and yelling and not allowing an answer to be given to any of their supposed "questions", not little old ladies politely disagreeing.
    I don't want to debate health care reform with you here. I was merely replying to your comment about us "lefties" calling the behavior at town halls "un-American". I think that rhetoric is overblown- the behavior I've seen is rude and childish and not likely to lead to a solution to our problems, but not un-American, whatever that means (neither, for that matter, was someone protesting a war, even if that person was an "avowed communist"). However, I also think that calling the town hall behavior we've seen the simple expression of dissenting opinions is not accurate.

  • juniorprof says:

    Encouraging inner-city kids to respect school is one of the few good things Obama could do as president, imho.
    and suburban kids?
    Seriously, we've all gone mad... I'm as liberal as they come but I remember Reagan's addresses to school kids when I was a youngster fondly. Its empowering for kids to hear from their elected leaders about how important they are for our future.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    You guys are really sensitive souls, eh? Only interested in moderate and reasoned debate? Have you looked at the title of this post?

  • Stephanie Z says:

    I don't really give a shit about moderate. Reasoned only goes so far. Not pulled out of your ass because you want your side to look better would be fine.

  • daedalus2u says:

    I think this is an effort to stave off what Clinton did. When the GOP proposed something that actually made sense, Clinton adopted it and promoted it which absolutely drove the GOP completely nuts. Clinton went and got in front of every parade that the GOP started.
    This is what the wingnuts can't allow to happen with Obama. No matter what position Obama takes, they have to reject it, even if it was a position they themselves held a few minutes before. It is complete cognitive dissonance for the wingnuts to have even a single thing in common with Obama. This is why they can’t compromise and can’t reach any kind of agreement.
    And yes, it is insanity driven by racism and xenophobia.

  • DSKS says:

    "Did you have a problem with George Bush visiting schools? I seem to remember that he did that a lot."
    Yeah, I remember that one time when he was just sat there at the head of the classroom speechless and staring into space.
    inre health care, and chance of a sensible debate is out the window, although that's as much the fault of the administration as the wackaloon contingent among the opposition.

  • drdrA says:

    Wow, a lot happened on this thread since I stepped away. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about from the conservative side. What the heck is the matter with you people- must you see a hidden motive in absolutely everything??? (Greg and Neuroconservative)
    We are talking about a very accomplished person, a writer, a thinker, who happens to be President - talking to kids about the value of education and working hard in school. PERIOD. FULL STOP. I want my kids to hear the message that education is important and that they should work hard in school, from every possible venue. (BTW- So far I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter out there promoting education, solely for the sake of promoting education)
    If there is a role model for education for our kids, Obama is it. I mean- here is a black man, from a multi-cultural background, from humble beginnings, raised by a single mother and grandparents (careful because this is starting to look like a large swath of the America that we ALL love), came from a household where education was always at the center- and he worked hard during his education, probably got some lucky breaks here and there... and ended up freaking president of the US of A and the most powerful person in the free world. Can you think of a better role model to talk to your kids about education, because I'm struggling to here.
    And- BTW - the reason why GW Bush never did this... and I'm just guessing here- ... but geez, don't you think the message to work hard in school might have sounded a little silly coming from a C student who was a legacy at Yale? Who spent a lot of his youth intoxicated or on drugs, who shirked his military responsibility... who got where he got on education because he had every advantage and his parents were wealthy???
    GOOD GRIEF. Stop the sanctimoniousness already.

  • becca says:

    Anyone else find the presumptive "stay in school, do well and you can grow up to be anything!" schtick offensive propaganda that highlights the role of institutional educational systems in maintaining the meritocracy myth that allows the rampant classism in our society to go unchecked?
    I don't care whether it comes from Nixon or Obama. I don't care whether folks like juniorprof found it "empowering"- the time we spend bickering over things like this with twits that are subconsciously influenced by racism is time we aren't spending actually enacting any change.

  • BikeMonkey says:

    Becca, Greg, neurocon- bullshit all of you. It is a good thing *even* if all this does is the wackaloon right's worst fear- children get to know and like our President a little better. This is one part of the hysteria....a guy who has the better policies as well as the more attractive presentation. Clinton Deja vu ....only in a disciplined persona. Frightening!

  • drdrA says:

    Becca-
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nonexistent meritocracy, rampant classism... it all is what it is, and we all KNOW the score.
    But... what are you going to teach your kids? I've got 2, and rampant classism or no- they surely have a better chance of reaching the goals in their lives WITH a good education than they do without a good education.
    What is so wrong with that message???

  • becca says:

    In the abstract sense, there's nothing wrong with that message (i.e. I'm certainly not about to give anyone criticism for raising their kids that way!)
    That said, I think it's limited.
    I hope to teach my kid that his schooling shouldn't interfere with his education. That happiness doesn't come from a ratrace involving teacher approval as a kid, or peer-approval as an insecure teenager, or obtaining more money as an adult. That he should find his passions and pursue them. That going about education with intention and purpose is incredibly valuable, and that a particular course of formal schooling may or may not be an important part of that.
    Although, I'm going to focus on seeing if I can get him to like reading as much as I do, first. We'll see where that leads.
    That's how I was raised. My parents were brave.

  • drdrA says:

    Good education is certainly more than schooling, and I didn't imply otherwise. (BTW- Obama is a good example of this too- if you read his first book, it is obvious how 'informal' education shaped him as a person, growing up immersed in multiple very different cultures, and following particular dreams where ever they led).

  • DrugMonkey says:

    That happiness doesn't come from a ratrace involving teacher approval as a kid, or peer-approval as an insecure teenager, or obtaining more money as an adult. That he should find his passions and pursue them. That going about education with intention and purpose is incredibly valuable, and that a particular course of formal schooling may or may not be an important part of that.
    spoken from a position of incredible privilege, becca. do you ever consider that for some populations of kids, the encouragement to succeed in the normal metrics that you so disdain is a huge step up from their status quo? a status that, believe me, doesn't encourage the sort of hippy-dippy find-your-muse stuff you are encouraging either?

  • DSKS says:

    The thing is, I suspect a key motivation for Obama was to particularly reach out to inner city kids in ethnic minority enclaves with a legitimate and supported message of Hope and Change.
    But of course, if the Obama admin publicized a plan like that, all of these idiot white conservatives would be up in arms about the president's racism and general hatred for white people ("WHY AINT HE COMIN' TA SPEEK AT MAH KIDS SCHOOL? WHY DOES NIGERIA HATE WHITE AMERICA???!!!!!!!")

  • It's amazing the contortions that assertedly rational right-wing fuck-ups have to go through to justify their greedy, selfish, hateful ideology. The total wackaloon right-wing fuck-ups have it easy!

  • Cashmoney says:

    assertedly rational right-wing fuck-ups
    who are they?

  • Greg says:

    must you see a hidden motive in absolutely everything??? (Greg and Neuroconservative)
    Sorry for not being naive, and for applying a nasty stereotyping (if it walks like a commie, talks like a commie...)

  • ildi says:

    Greg:
    I'm sure you were just as up in arms about it when Bush Senior did exactly the same thing in 1991, right? Were you calling him a commie? (if if walks like a hypocrite, talks like a hypocrite...)
    In related news, central Ohio suburbs are joining the wackaloon bandwagon (online poll at the Columbus Dispatch under Hot Issues...)

  • drdrA says:

    'do you ever consider that for some populations of kids, the encouragement to succeed in the normal metrics that you so disdain is a huge step up from their status quo? a status that, believe me, doesn't encourage the sort of hippy-dippy find-your-muse stuff you are encouraging either?'
    Thanks DM, you articulated what has been bothering me since I read Becca's original remark.

  • kt says:

    Gotta support drdrA and DM here with regard to Becca's comments -- for the poor black kids I see on the bus in the morning, the message to learn to write well, work hard, and not resign themselves to a life of early pregnancy, poverty, and fractured families is a pretty big deal coming from an educated and successful black man with two kids and a great wife. They need to resist being ground down by "the system" in a very different way than the rich white girl who finds her soul in organic farming rather than in becoming a doctor like daddy wants. They're dogged by the tyranny of low expectations (sound familiar?) rather than by the rat race of privilege.
    I am upset by the "conservative backlash" too; a respect for authority -- listening even if you don't agree -- was one of the important values taught to me by my conservative forebearers. I would be happy to have every kid of conservative parents watch the talk and discuss it with their parents, even. Fine, you disagree, but this idea that you can simply refuse to listen to the guy no matter what he says is ridiculous! If conservatives MUST disagree with Obama when he says "work hard! stay in school!", MUST I disagree when abortion opponents support adoption programs? That's ridiculous. We *can* work together for common American values (to the extent those exist anymore): work hard, take care of babies, be honest, pay your debts. To be thrown off from supporting these sorts of values because the President is of a different color or even a different political orientation is to allow yourself to be co-opted by base and corrupt motives that really don't serve our society well.
    Last but not least, I'm a citizen of a socialist country as well and I love it. Health care, education, and a rowdy political scene with no cult of personality.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Sometimes there are bigger fish to fry, drdrA. I mean, I know lefty-libbies are all anti-authority and stuff but...reality folks. The is not about the minority of goth/geek/alties that feel alienated from high school. Not about the intellectual elite who are just too damn smart for our primary and secondary education system. Sorry, you have to deal. It is about entire schools and school districts where a culture of anti-school does not encourage education unhampered by school's limitations but rather encourages a lack of education, period.
    Sometimes you have to look at the larger picture...

  • whimple says:

    DM, this post makes you sound like all the other screechy-preachy SB mouthpieces (that I don't read). Why don't you just let them handle this kind of stuff?

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Really? I thought my MO was screechy-preachy....

  • BKProf says:

    Ildi, my two kids go to one of those suburban schools that have joined the wackaloonery. I sent the district superintendent a very annoyed email this afternoon. I suggest that all of you who are residents of such school districts and find this craziness repulsive also make your displeasure known.

  • becca says:

    1) I don't dispute the privilege point. There are basically three possible responses to being called on privilege:
    *Denial (not applicable)
    *Chagrin (I feel this when someone points out I could cry my way out of a speeding ticket; not so much here)
    *Righteous indignation that such is considered privilege and not a right afforded to everyone. It should be obvious that all children are motivated and expert learners and they are capable of radically more amazing self-education and self-determination than school provides for, damnit. Go read some John Holt.
    2) Honestly, I don't have distain for "normal metrics" so much as puzzlement. drdrA asked me about how I hope to live my values for my life, not about what values I thought everyone should have, and I responded according to that.
    3) My original point was that privilege confers educational opportunities, far more often than getting an education confers (implied: earned) privilege/opportunities.
    Holding Obama up and saying "look what you can do if you work hard at school!" makes a touching narrative, but is no more true than holding him up and saying "lookee! Racism = totes over!"
    Granted, I can see why you'd prefer the first message to something like "resign yourself to a life of early pregnancy, poverty and fractured families". But that doesn't make the message itself true, or even optimal propaganda.

  • Z says:

    When I was a wee one, we spent a lot of time in school watching tv and movies wherein JFK would talk to us. I thought he was a bit overly earnest and so on, and that some teachers were a bit overly worshipful. However, my brain remained unrotted and my morals remained intact.

  • Lyr says:

    So a message to stay in school is threatening to the wingnuts? I guess it would be, considering how proudly ignorant some of them are. Maybe they want everyone's kids to be as bad at science and history as they are. An uneducated population is easier to control, after all -- that's why slaves in the old south weren't allowed to learn to read, and why the Taliban doesn't want girls to go to school.

  • Azkyroth says:

    Yes, there is a problem. Presenting Mr. Obama at schools, in the somewhat official setting, under some more or less explicit pressure, amounts to indoctrination. The indoctrination allegation is not about any particular content of the speech. It's about product (Obama) placement strategy carried out toward uncritical, naive audience.
    Yes, I dislike this clown. So what?

    (To Rethuglicans in general): Why the sudden interest in not indoctrinating schoolchildren?

  • JR says:

    Do you have reason to suppose that this is about racism? Why can't it just be about republican parents disliking their kids hearing propaganda from a democratic president.
    They are perhaps worried that he will spread democratic propaganda, not just talk about the importance of working hard and other relatively uncontroversial stuff.

  • WotWot says:

    Greg @ 13 @ 17
    We await your equally strident condemnation of Reagan and Bush Snr, for doing exactly the same thing in their terms (and they were not condemned for it by their political opponents either).

  • WotWot says:

    Ah shoot. Try again...
    Greg @ 13 @ 17
    We await your equally strident condemnation of Reagan and Bush Snr, for doing exactly the same thing in their terms (and they were not condemned for it by their political opponents either).

  • BKProf says:

    My kids belong to a school district that was not going to show president Obama's speech. I sent an unhappy email to the superintendent (see message 54), as apparently did quite a lot of parents, since he has decided to reverse his decision. At least in this case, calmer heads are starting to prevail.

  • Helpful Hippo says:

    DM, this post makes you sound like all the other screechy-preachy SB mouthpieces (that I don't read). Why don't you just let them handle this kind of stuff?
    Here's another great idea, whimple.

  • Greg says:

    Greg @ 13 @ 17
    We await your equally strident condemnation of Reagan and Bush Snr

    Why should I? I resist this product placement effort for a well defined reason, which does not apply to these other gentlemen: it is a minor, but still important aspect of neutralizing the leftist radical, who happens to currently occupy the White House.

  • Greg says:

    Perhaps I should be even more specific: Mr. Obama has presented certain agenda, with which I completely disagree. Thus I want his presidency to be an utter failure. Denying him an opportunity to assert a "leadership" role also counts.

  • Isabel says:

    "and purpose is incredibly valuable, and that a particular course of formal schooling may or may not be an important part of that.
    spoken from a position of incredible privilege, becca. do you ever consider that for some populations of kids, the encouragement to succeed in the normal metrics..."
    Yes! Thank you DM. Any leadership at all here could lead to stunning changes. And yes suburban and rural children too but those furthest behind need it the most, and Obama is uniquely positioned to inspire.
    At the same time, the entire community (nation) needs to be addressed on the subject, not just the kids. The kids can't do it alone. It's a good idea but I'd prefer the whole family being addressed with a 'fireside chat' broadcast in the evening.
    I agree that if people objecting to the address were assured it was all about staying in school they would not object so much, at least that is my intuition... The format does seem a little big-brotherish.
    btw what were the Reagan talks like? Was it a video address in the classroom? How long was it, and did he do it more than once? Was it about drugs?

  • Kim says:

    They're afraid that their children will see the President and think he's... presidential? Reasonable-sounding? A baseball-watching American? A human being, rather than something with horns and a tail?
    And that's dangerous propaganda to them. We've come to this.
    I got a letter from the principal offering to put kids into an alternate activity, and I'm hopping mad that this is even an issue. I hope none of my kid's friends' parents are unhinged enough to find this address a threat.

  • Funky Fresh says:

    At the same time...

    Paraphrase Isabel: "Blah, blah, blah, blah."

  • Ema Nymton says:

    Gee, Greg.
    You're, erm, how should I put this?
    Well, you're a fucking moron.

  • DJ says:

    Greg... blah blah blah. I figured as much. You just explained the whole right wing asshole movement. Can't let the democrats do their jobs can ya? Gotta shout em down at town halls, bring guns, protest reasonable reform, complain to schools about a legitimate back to school message... you fuckers are fascists. Go sit in the corner and stfu.
    The democratic process is meant to accomodate reasoned debate and dissent. The idiocy on the right is in no way reasonable.

  • Greg says:

    What goes around, comes around, you leftist fuckers. You used ACORN, voter intimidation, the race card, without shame and restrain (look even at the title of this blog entry). And now you scream bloody murder when finally you found yourselves on the receiving end? Cry me a river.

  • DJ says:

    Wow, you pull out thoroughly discredited claims as evidence of the similarity between tactics... try again. I'm not crying, because you and your constituents are the fringe minority in this country and we will not let you take control of these issues with your lies.
    This is how Democrats will continue to represent the majority who voted them in:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/why_i_am_glad_al_franken_is_ou.php
    Calm and reasonable responses to the teabaggers who cornered him. This is how representatives should shoulder the burden of educating the public.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Mirabile dictu! The civility, erudition, and flexibility of thought displayed by our compatriots on the left never ceases to impress me.

  • Greg says:

    The majority, which is no more:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
    You guys made one big mistake: people voted AGAINST Republicans, not FOR Obama and Comrades. The last election wasn't a green light for making the US a socialist country, and if you don't believe, look at the polls again.

  • DJ says:

    n-c;
    I can't tell, is that sarcasm? It's hard to catch in this communication format. I would say that even at our worst (most especially MY worst), we are still more civil, erudite and flexible than the right wing conservatives who have been red faced and screaming in the media lately about anything and everything. Wonderful to relate indeed..

  • DJ says:

    Greg, the poll shows a job disapproval rating, doesn't say anything about specific policy issues or tactics for addressing the economy and healthcare... frankly, I'm even disapproving of the job the administration is doing, that is not a valid metric for you to base your argument against policies being forwarded by the administration. At best it is a smokescreen tactic to avoid the facts about the majority who desire a public option in healthcare, at worst it is used to justify the inappropriate behavior of the radicals on the right.
    In other words, just because people disapprove of the job the administration is doing right this minute (myself included) does not mean we agree with right wing ideology. Sorry, that's another fail.

  • Greg says:

    "about the majority who desire a public option in healthcare"
    You wish. "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform

  • DJ says:

    I must cede the point about the healthcare reform poll. You are correct, that is what that particular poll shows.
    It doesn't change the facts about healthcare and the need for reform though, it only shows the harm dittoheads can do when the media reports on their insane ramblings. There is no negative for average Americans in passing healthcare reform. Not in any of the data I've seen anyway.
    Not that it matters, no matter what evidence is presented it won't change anything. It's very similar to Creationists, Anti-Vaxers and AGW denialists. Once they all latch on to something then that's it.

  • DJ says:

    Oh, one more thing before I get out of here for the night.
    Greg, what do you know about socialism? What makes you think the administration is interested in turning the US into a socialist country? I'm serious, I'd really like to know and understand this common sentiment from the right. Do you even know what socialism is? Have you ever been to a socialist country or had a discussion about socialism with someone who lives in such a place?
    I would really like to know this stuff. I hear words like socialism, communism, fascism (which I admit to using freely), and nazi-ism to describe the Obama administration. I wonder how they could be all of those things, aren't some mutually exclusive?...hmmm

  • Greg says:

    Greg, what do you know about socialism?
    I was born and raised in a socialist country.

  • Greg says:

    May I also ask a question? There are no uneducated morons here. You guys know that socialism/communism was tried many times, in many different variants (which can be roughly divided into three major subgroups). You know the outcome of these variants:
    1. In the radical version (the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia) the outcome was the economic disaster accompanied by tens of millions of victims.
    2. In the less radical, but still quite orthodox variant (Central/Eastern Europe) it was just the economic misery.
    3. In the most mild implementation (Western Europe) the price of socialism is economic stagnation.
    So, I assume that you know about it. What thus makes you so enthusiastic about Marxism, "spreading the wealth" (which is the euphemism for just spreading poverty) and collectivism? Do you think America is unique, and what miserably failed elsewhere can be successfully introduced here?

  • DJ says:

    Ah, yes, I should have scrolled back up and read your earlier post. I forgot you had already stated your frame of reference. I would still like to know however why you think President Obama is trying to turn the US into a socialist country. I'm not interested in your intuition or your ability to sift through propaganda which you apparently learned in your former country of residence. I would like some objective evidence. We have socialized many things that are available for use by all citizens, what would be the reasonable objection to doing something similar with healthcare?
    Back to the subject of the blog as it relates to the current discussion. You may not agree with what you perceive as a socialist agenda, but in a public school I'm not sure you can deny the President the opportunity to speak. It being a government run (socialized) institution and all. Just sayin'.
    On the subject of comment #80: I don't think anyone here is interested in any of the implementations of socialism as you describe them. I would also suggest that maybe some of your description is inaccurate, Western Europe comes to mind. The economic capability of the EU seems to be rising, though maybe it isn't during this whole economic mess, in all honesty I can't be sure and it is too late at night for me to be doing much research.
    Suffice it to say that I'm pretty sure most of us are just interested in fairness, equality, caring for our fellow humans etc., you know, good christian values and morals that we as leftie liberals aren't supposed to have. That is what healthcare reform means to me, equality for all and caring for the least among our citizenry.
    Ok, goodnight and good luck in your endeavors.

  • DJ says:

    Bah! I meant "on the subject of comment #81" not 80. Definitely too late at night for me.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    DJ -- I think typos are the least of your problems. It is deliciously ironic that you view your political opponents as ignorant ranters.
    Before making your last comment at #82, you probably should have been aware that US GDP, and GDP growth, has consistently outstripped the EU for precisely the reasons Greg noted. Since you are too tired to do your research, you might look at the these sources.

  • Anonymous says:

    I remember watching presidental addresses at school assemblies from time to time as a kid. I don't know if they were live like this or prerecorded, but it doesn't really matter. The politics don't matter either, nor do the politicians (I had a mixture of Bush Sr. and Clinton). Kids don't give a crap about politics - but kids DO feel honored and excited by the idea of the most powerful guy in the world talking TO THEM.

  • drdrA says:

    NC @ 84- I love the way #3 on that list of nations w/top GDPs, is China. Just sayin.

  • JR says:

    "Can't let the democrats do their jobs can ya? Gotta shout em down at town halls, bring guns, protest reasonable reform, complain to schools about a legitimate back to school message... you fuckers are fascists."
    When people exercise their constitutional rights and protest policies they do not like I call it democracy. You apparently call it fascism.
    I guess it is one of those tomato/tomahto things.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    drdrA -- Uh, you do understand the concept of per capita GDP, right?

  • drdrA says:

    NC- Uh, do you? In your original comment you didn't refer to per capita GDP or PPP.
    But to get back to the original topic- you will all be relieved that the White House has posted President Obama's remarks to our kids here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
    And let me tell ya, that's some scary shit Greg- I don't know- looks like a benign address to school kids, smells like a benign address to school kids,... hey- MAYBE IT IS A BENIGN ADDRESS TO SCHOOL KIDS!!!

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Actually, drdrA, I specifically selected the first link because it contained both aggregrate and per capita data. If you did truly understand the concept of per capita GDP, your comment #86 makes no sense. Why would it be interesting that the world's largest country is high on the list of aggregate GDP? Besides, China's GDP has only gotten to be even that large due to its effective abandonment of socialism in large swaths of its economy.
    W/r/t Obama's school speech, I think the response was in large part driven by the study guide questions made public last week. Given the now-released text of the speech, it is unclear why the Dept. of Education wanted to assign students to write an essay about how they can help Obama. Unless the text of the speech was altered in light of the public reaction...

  • pinus says:

    Work hard and stay in school. You face a rough road.
    very frightening message!
    I am not saying that the people who are scared about this are being ridiculous, I am just saying that I fear for their mental health, if they still find this offensive.

  • llewelly says:

    ... the leftist radical, who happens to currently occupy the White House.

    And now we know you are an idiot, who has paid no attention whatsoever to his policies. Thank you for playing.

  • I'm a moderate conservative and what is the big brouhaha. I mean God forbid the president actually tells kids to study hard, stay in school, and respect your teachers. Hell Reagan and the first Bush did this (actually Reagan launched into a politically motivated tirade and Bush pimped out the retarded Dare program to which I probably still have a black "Just Say No" t-shirt somewhere in my parents house). Congratulations to the right wing loons who make moderates like myself look like bewildered jackasses thanks to your crazy antics.

  • drdrA says:

    NC- I just hate the way absolutely everyone, including the media, is misquoting the original study guide. The original study guide said- 'How can you help the president achieve his goals in EDUCATION???' Not...write how can you help Obama. Uh, maybe by studying hard and staying in school?? Those are two totally different statements. I find nothing objectionable about the first statement, but the media and people who didn't actually READ the original study guide have morphed what was said into a different statement.
    And I think you are wrong about the controversy being mostly about the study guide. Where I live (which BTW is EXTREMELY conservative) that is not the case, the uproar over the study guide didn't occur right at the beginning. What occurred right at the beginning here was that a few loudmouth people didn't want their kids 'indoctrinated' by their democratically elected president about who knows what fearful topics. They were motivated by fear and lack of education. period. Actually, that's just sad.
    NC- I respect your right to believe as you want. But I have to say- you don't have to blindly stick to the conservative talking points to justify the situation when it is clearly stupidly overblown by a few on the conservative side. Not everything is one giant conspiracy. I hope that I would not do the same, were the situation reversed.
    And while I'm on this tear- I'm seriously worried about this country. Why? We've got huge problems, brought on in part- yes, from the last 8 years- huge, bad, costly problems- including 2 wars. If we can't all get behind the simplest gesture to motivate school children- how are we possibly going to tackle the really difficult issues that lie ahead???
    I'm quite finished now.

  • Stephanie Z says:

    DJ, don't apologize to Greg. His polls just don't show what he wants them to. The one he linked to only asked whether people supported Obama's plan. They don't, because they don't know what's in it. Considering all the work people have been doing to spread lies (NC, is lying about little old ladies civil?) about the plan, that's utterly unsurprising.
    If asked about a public option, more than three-quarters of the country is in favor, including 61% of Republicans. To put that in perspective, if the Republicans polled were the Senate, that would constitute a supermajority, and we'd have a public option already.

  • DJ says:

    As ever, Stephanie Z is WAY more articulate than me. I get too frustrated with teh stoopid to make a coherent argument.
    Anyway, the speech turned out to be a good one for kids to hear. No socialist indoctrination, if anything it had more of a capitalist slant: work hard and become a success type vibe.
    NC, Gregg didn't give any reasons beyond "teh socialism did it", and is GDP reflective of quality of life? I suggest that it is not, and so do many economists: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.PDF
    On page 4 you will see that the US falls behind 12 other countries... Oh, lookie-there, most of them are in the EU. Yeah, its a 2005 paper, but the other index I looked at from 2008 had the US 3 further down, and didn't have the nice article to read either.
    JR, instilling fear and stifling the participation of others in the political process is not "exercising constitutional rights" it is utilizing scare tactics and infringing on the rights of others... a hallmark of fascist movements. Granted, the right is not fascist, they are free market capitalists using fascist methods. I still call 'em fascists though, much quicker than the long explanation. I think it is important to call them on that, and so I do. I may have mislabled some in the process, apologies if that is the case. But if you aren't ashamed and speaking out against the deplorable tactics of the right these days you are just as guilty in my book.

  • Coolidge says:

    You mean as "deplorable" as a coordinated smear campaign to call a popular pundit a murderer and rapist, DJ? As revenge for chasing a Troofer out of the Obama Administration?
    If you aren't speaking out against the deplorable tactics of the left these days...

  • llewelly says:

    And yes, it is insanity driven by racism and xenophobia.

    Posted by: daedalus2u | September 4, 2009 8:54 AM

    What? I thought it was driven by low NO ...

  • DJ says:

    Yeah Coolidge, because that is even remotely the same thing as I was talking about./sarcasm
    Nice try though.

  • daedalus2u says:

    llewelly, yes low NO does make insanity driven by racism and xenophobia worse. It lowers the threshold and makes those who have it less rational.

  • juniorprof says:

    Daedalus2u for the EPIC WIN!!!11!!!!!

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    drdrA #94 -- Concerning the study guide, you are simply mistaken. The original study guide encouraged students to "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." The sentence ended there.
    Even the White House acknowledged that this phrasing was poor, and the redacted materials specify that students can "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals."
    I also believe your perception of the conservative response is erroneous, or at least may be highly specific to your locale. If you review postings at leading conservative media outlets and blogs, (Washington Times, Fox News, Hot Air, Ace of Spades, to name a few), I think you will see that it was the study guide that really provoked the opposition to the speech. You will also see that many conservatives shared my attitude that the speech itself would likely be innocuous but that it might provide a further occasion for teachers to impose an ideological agenda, abetted by the study guide.
    I do agree with you that it is frustrating to attempt dialogue across the right-left divide in America today. I'm not sure that I have any easy answers. However, I think that crude stereotyping of political opponents as uneducated cretins is not helpful, even if it makes you feel better about yourself.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Stephanie Z #95 -- Your insinuation that I am somehow mistreating little old ladies is cleverly phrased, so kudos on that -- even if it is utterly bogus, as you are well aware.
    The poll you cite appears to be an outlier, or perhaps was worded in an unusual fashion. The majority of polls show very tight divisions, both on the overall approach and on the public option specifically. This one appears to be representative of the several I have seen in the last month.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    DJ #96 -- I must admit, I am surprised to see you make a return appearance on this thread. It takes particular moxie to refer to your opponents as "teh stoopid" after your performance a few days ago. Kudos to you as well.

  • daedalus2u says:

    NC, if you want to use per capita income as a measure of social effectiveness, if you look at state per capita income, there are only 2 states with median per capita incomes above the US median that voted for McCain, Alaska, and Wyoming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_of_America_by_income
    This suggests that people with higher incomes support Obama.

  • DSKS says:

    Point of order. Obama is not a leftist radical, unless we redefine socialism in a manner that allows us to place the likes of GWB in the same box as Hugo Chavez.
    Obama's views actually - shocker - err closer to the third way politics of Tony Blair, which incidentally is not far removed from the neo-conservative position of the previous administration; hence the compatibility of the Blair and Bush governments on foreign policy, and hence the certain aspects of policy, both domestic and foreign, that have been carried over from the previous admin to the current.
    Case in point: the idea that forking over 1 trillion tax dollars to bail out rotten financial institutions sans nationalization (indeed, a rather strenuous effort to avoid it at all costs) is in the socialist playbook for economics is thoroughly absurd. That particular move, which was very much consistent with that position of the Bush admin previously, is based on a neo-conservative/third way economic philosophy very much related to supply-side Reaganomics. Whether it was a good or bad policy decision is one for lengthy discussion, but one thing is for sure: it wasn't remotely "leftist", and it sure as hell wasn't "radical leftist".
    In fact, it would be quite apt for somebody like Geithner to stand up and say, much like Peter Mandelson said of Labour and Thatherism some years ago, "We are all Reaganites now!"
    The propensity for American conservatives to appeal to their bizarre New American Lexicon - where they can find new and constantly changing definitions for words that make them more immediately politically expedient - is getting quite tiresome. Are they trying to be the ultimate Orwellian stereotype?

  • drdrA says:

    NC @ 102- Ok, if that is really the original study guide, I stand corrected- but the one you post is dated Sept. 8, which makes me wonder if it really is the original (maddeningly- I had posted a link to the original in a related post on my own site, and I actually read it, but I took it down so I no longer have it in my post).
    As to the second point. What people are actually talking about on the ground, and what (and how) the news media choose to cover- as you know- are not necessarily the same animal. So I don't take your citing of fox news coverage to be what was really going on on the ground in local markets. I was looking at and reading primary local media outlets, looking at what was going on in my own city, and talking with the local school district officials. If I had cited the NYT, you'd be all up in arms about how I only listen to the 'liberal' media.
    Third- while I don't think all conservatives are 'uneducated cretans' - there are some loudmouths on both sides that pretty much blindly follow what is said on talk radio. (well, ok, that'd have to be conservative talk radio because 'liberal' talk radio doesn't really exist- at least not in my market). Unfortunately, these particular individuals scream loudly whenever and where ever talk radio tells them to. This is one factor that drowns out any discussion that might have occurred between more reasonable people on both sides. It is counterproductive, and just sad.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    drdrA #107 -- Just to clarify:
    1) Sept. 8 is the date of the speech/lesson plan, not the date of issuance of the materials.
    2) I was citing these conservative sources not as witnesses of fact but rather to demonstrate the opinions that were being voiced by leading conservatives and the communities of commenters that can be found at those sites. These opinions were primarily focused on the study guide.
    3) I'm still not sure to whom you are referring. I suspect these bogeymen are strictly notional. In this particular thread, for example, you were the individual who was "screaming" most loudly (ie, using all caps) despite being wrong on the basic facts. Reviewing the comments on this thread, beginning with the title of the main post, I think you will find the preponderance of blind, knee-jerk frothing to be concentrated amongst soi-disant intellectuals of the left.

  • soi-disant
    What are you, some kind of America-hating French idiot?

  • Anonymous says:

    NC-
    I'm sorry- If you go back to September 2 or 3, when this whole 'controversy' started, you will see no mention of offensive lesson plans in local papers reporting what parents who objected to the speech were saying. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13257516,http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/56730637.html, and http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13256838?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com.
    So, I'm not wrong or uninformed on that point. The controversy did not start with the lesson plan.

  • Stephanie Z says:

    NC, my "insinuation" is a reference to comments 29, 32, and 33 in this thread. Do you not pay attention to what you've said, or would you just prefer you not be responsible after you've said it?
    That poll is not particularly an outlier, as you'd have seen had you clicked on the link, which discusses two polls. The second one is by SurveyUSA, one of the best polling firms when it comes to predicting election outcomes (i.e., reflecting public opinion). The same cannot be said for the WSJ, who produced the numbers you prefer. The SurveyUSA poll uses questions from the WSJ poll, but you can read about the differences in the methodology, as well as looking at the impressive results yourself. If you're not scared to look at my links.
    And no, that's not stereotyping. That's an observation based on your past interaction with my links.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Anon #110 (drdrA?) -- Sorry, again, but your sources are weak, and your inference is faulty.
    First, the Obama administration would not have altered the study guide so quickly (within less than 48 hours) if it was not a flashpoint.
    For additional evidence, please see these two sources from those same dates, which I referenced previously. Both of these sources are likely to be a bit more plugged in to the conservative viewpoint compared to local papers, and both strongly indicate that the study guide was the primary source of objection.
    I would also re-direct your attention to entries posted on conservative blogs (eg., Hot Air) from those same dates, and you will find the same thing: the study guide was the predominant complaint.
    I think you are better off simply admitting that you had an ill-informed, knee-jerk reaction, just like the one you accused the great unwashed conservative mass of having.

  • I think you are better off simply admitting that you had an ill-informed, knee-jerk reaction, just like the one you accused the great unwashed conservative mass of having.

    At least she's not an America-hating French-loving douche like you, with your soi-doucheante French-ass bullshit.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Stephanie Z #111 -- I am well aware of what I said and your mischaracterization as "lying" and not "civil" are certainly unfair and uncivil in their own right. These and this one are amongst the little old ladies to whom I was referring. Why do you feel the need to deny the existence of people who disagree with you?

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    More on Stephanie Z #111 -- As for the polls, I did look carefully at your links, and I now see that they did indeed use atypical phrasings. Most notably, they interpreted a rather ambiguous question about the "importance" of the public option as indicating support for the public option, which is not what was asked. I think the results reflected here are more clearly interpretable. For example:
    Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?
    Favor: 43%
    Oppose: 47%
    An overview of all recent polls here clearly indicates a strong trend against President Obama's efforts.
    It does you no good to attempt to wish your fellow citizens away.

  • Cashmoney says:

    N-c, SZ, drdrA- who cares what precise fraction of the population has been misled by the rightwing echo chamber talking points?

  • Greg R. says:

    In the course of this discussion, we touched the issues of respect for the President, about looking presidential etc.
    A photo that recently emerged illustrates WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE we are talking about, and for this reason I wanted to revisit this old thread. Here is the First Couple coming to preside over a solemn ceremony of awarding a posthumous Medal of Honor.
    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/20/what-not-to-wear-to-a-medal-of-honor-award-ceremony/

  • Cashmoney says:

    illustrates WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE we are talking about
    you mean nonStepford-Americans? Yeah, we knew that...

Leave a Reply