There’s no double standard.
Oh, yes, of course when both Bushes and Reagan did it, it was perfectly fine. Heck, even when Clinton did it, it didn’t raise any eyebrows.
But line up pictures of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.
Do you notice anything different about that last guy?
From MSNBC:
Couldn’t find stupid, I guess I was thinking about Obama’s comment about the Cambridge police.
The context for the question was a lesson plan sent from the US Department of Education to all schools. When the lesson plan says that the teachers are to ask the kids how they can “help the president”, and they don’t say help with what, it leaves far, far too much room for those who don’t trust Obama to be worried and concerned. Unreasonable? Sure. Predictable? Sure.
In a larger sense, the context for the lesson plan was:
In that context, the DofEd is already in a parlous state (which is a state somewhere north of Kamikazistan) as far as many people are concerned. The DofEd are offering directions in an area (curriculum) that they are forbidden to mess with.
And in that context, anyone who does not foresee a major problem with the “help the president” instruction is not facing facts. When the White House faced the facts, they changed the instruction … coincidence? You be the judge.
Perhaps you are too young to remember the huge dogfight when the Department of Education was formed. The dogfight was over exactly this issue, which was that people were extremely worried about Federal interference in local schools. See the regs quoted above. There were then, and are now, lots of people who have a problem with the Department of Education providing direction in the area of curriculum. How about we deal with their concerns, rather than advising them to pull their kids out of public school?
As someone just wrote. You’re being too defensive. I’m not calling you names . I’m giving a frank and honest opinion. I can’t help it if it doesn’t sit well with you. Can we advance a viewpoint and make sure we don’t criticize at all?
I despised Bush as well but honestly, for anyone to think a 20 minute talk somehow equals indoctrination is ridiculous. I didn’t trust Bush to tell the truth when it came to implementing policy but I wouldn’t be concerned that he could truly warp my kids entire view of life with a 20 or 30 minute talk.
It’s called having faith in your kids and yourself as a parent. I’d say a responsible sensible parent might listen to the talk and discuss with their kids depending on their age. If Bush said something about fighting the war on terrorism then that’s innocuous enough to do no harm since it contains no policy details. In fact I’d expect every president who’s aware he’s talking to kindergarten through high school to give a fairly innocuous speech so even though I personally disagreed with him on almost everything I can’t see any realistic reason to worry about a brief pep talk to kids. If someone asks "When did you stop beating your wife? you don’t treat it as a legitimate concern.
If someone insists that’s what they heard and you have to prove it’s not true how much effort do you make?
It’s the “in any regard” part that’s extreme.
So if Bush says “stay in school, study hard, make the most of your educational opportunities so you can contribute to our great society” you don’t want your kid agreeing? If the answer to what can I do to help our president make our country better is “help make sure he’s not reelected” then your kid gets to say that and write it down.
It’s not ridiculous to think they could have handled it better. I’m saying it’s ridiculous to equate a 20 minute talk to brainwashing and indoctrination. IMHO it also matters how the lesson plans were stressed. Mildly, as a suggestion , a strong suggestion, or almost mandatory. I can understand that having a lesson plan thrust on a local school rather than just suggested as an option, might feel heavy handed. Even at that it’s a long way from brainwashing.
Objecting is a lot milder term than brainwashing and indoctrination. Can you provide one cite for people being called names for objecting in some realistic way?
Terms like “expanding the president’s cult into the classroom” Washington Times
are not realistic. There comes a time when we can legitimize political BS by treating any question as a valid realistic one.
I agree with that. I think changing the lesson plan was digging. I think they should have said it was unfortunate that anyone would suggest a sitting elected president giving a 20 minute talk was an attempt at indoctrination. It also unfortunate that people would read that into the wording of a lesson plan. That’s certainly not the intention in any way, shape, or form. Those who want to opt out of hearing their president talk about the importance of education are free to do so. That is all.
I can see why you didn’t understand it since I seem to have deleted part of the sentence before I posted :o
Not trusting Bush when it came to policy isn’t paranoid. I felt exactly the same way. I would trust him not to brainwash my kids during a brief talk because I consider that pretty unrealistic. I also trust my own parenting skills and my kids intelligence and ability to think for themselves.
We’re talking about a specific situation here. In this case I called your supposed reaction to a similar Bush scenario as paranoid as well. Not as an insult but as an observation.
For example, I wouldn’t worry that Bush had the plan to get 6 year olds to support the war in Iraq. I wouldn’t worry that he even had the ability to brainwash my high schooler with a brief talk. I’d welcome the discussion.
Not in every case it isn’t. We must find the best way to deal with them without giving irrational fears too much of our time and energy that real problems deserve. We can do that in a method free of ridicule and name calling but still be direct. It’s no good to allow the right to constantly put us in the position of defending ourselves and thinking we have to answer every outrageous accusation. I’d say those of us who support Obama might play a role in helping to expose the lies and allaying some of the fears.
I didn’t suggest those things. If he insists there will be death panels and we tell him that isn’t true and it doesn’t say that in the bill what else are we to do? We can challenge the fear mongers to produce factual evidence to support that claim. When they can’t we’ve done our best. We can’t try to convince everyone or allay all fears can we?
I for one do not recommend belittling and insults but I think at some point a little frank honesty is called for. For citizens who eagerly believe political smears I’d say we make the facts available to them and lay the responsibility on them to make a little effort to discover the truth.
IMO this is one of those cases where we need to call it what it is.
A parent might say, “I have the right to be concerned about my kids welfare”
Of course you do. How do you think the president is planning to harm your child with a 20 minute talk and a lesson plan for discussing it?
No I think we’re letting the opposition choose the battles and it’s a mistake. We’ve got an elected president and the bigger part of congress. We should be dictating the battles not them.
I can’t prevent you from being too defensive. I called one specific thing unnecessarily paranoid and I stand by it. I called the suggestion that Obama plans on indoctrinating or brainwashing our kids by giving a brief talk with a lesson plan to discuss it ridiculous. I stand by that as well. It was not a general insult.
An objection to the a required lesson plan might be legit. Reading some insidious malicious purpose into it is not. My understanding is it was always optional so the entire thing was blown out of proportion.
My suggestion is that you stop misrepresenting my position. I never suggested anything close to this.
It depends entirely on the details of the situation. How will we pay for a public option is a legitimate concern. Possible death panels is not. We shouldn’t give both questions equal time as if they have equal standing.
OTOH, if an elderly citizen says, I’ve heard about death panels and I’m afraid" the proper response is not " What a paranoid idiot you are" it would be “There are no death panels in the Health Care plan. That’s a lie created by the right to try and defeat health care reform.” If they choose to ignore the truth I don’t believe we need to spend a lot of time convincing them. Keep repeating the facts. Encourage people to do their own research. Call a lie a lie. Don’t call it a valid concern.
Same with this. The concern that Obama is trying to indoctrinate our kids is not a valid concern. A concern about the nature of the lesson plan may be, but since participation appears to be optional it was never a serious problem.
Incorrect. The reason the WH changed it was that some people didn’t understand a fairly simple idea. The fact that some folks have jumped on this to claim “something shifty was going on” is unsurprising.
From MSNBC:
Couldn’t find stupid, I guess I was thinking about Obama’s comment about the Cambridge police.
The context for the question was a lesson plan sent from the US Department of Education to all schools. When the lesson plan says that the teachers are to ask the kids how they can “help the president”, and they don’t say help with what, it leaves far, far too much room for those who don’t trust Obama to be worried and concerned. Unreasonable? Sure. Predictable? Sure.
In a larger sense, the context for the lesson plan was:
In that context, the DofEd is already in a parlous state (which is a state somewhere north of Kamikazistan) as far as many people are concerned. The DofEd are offering directions in an area (curriculum) that they are forbidden to mess with.
And in that context, anyone who does not foresee a major problem with the “help the president” instruction is not facing facts. When the White House faced the facts, they changed the instruction … coincidence? You be the judge.
Perhaps you are too young to remember the huge dogfight when the Department of Education was formed. The dogfight was over exactly this issue, which was that people were extremely worried about Federal interference in local schools. See the regs quoted above. There were then, and are now, lots of people who have a problem with the Department of Education providing direction in the area of curriculum. How about we deal with their concerns, rather than advising them to pull their kids out of public school?
No, no, no, I’m not saying that it means that “something shifty was going on”. It just meant that the WH realized that the statement was wide open to misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Making vague, unclear statements in a highly charged political context (direct Federal involvement in what local schools are teaching) is a foolish move. They realized that, and corrected it. I applaud their actions in doing so, it’s the quickest way to remove it as an issue.
The other two options are much worse. One is to try to explain why it doesn’t mean what people think it means. That’s a waste of time even when it is successful, and most people won’t agree with your interpretation in any case. Better to change it so it is unobjectionable.
The other option is to just tell people to piss off because we won the election … a very short-sighted course of action that, if repeated enough, leads people to oppose anything we try to do.
Look, friends, I’m on your side. I think it’s wonderful that Obama puts his weight behind kids staying in school. I believe it’s one of the most important things he could do during his presidency. I thought it was a tragedy that it devolved into brainless dispute and name-calling on both sides.
I’m just pointing out that when people have objections or problems or issues with what we do or say, the best thing to do is to deal with those issues. Not to deny that they are a problem. Not to say “you’ve been fooled by right-wing fanatics”. Not to tell people to piss off. Not to say that their objections or issues are fantasies or imagination. Not to just say “You always object to what I do”. Not to question their motives in raising the objections. Not to say (as Obama ufortunately did) that they should just shut up. Not to call them silly or paranoid.
But to deal with the issue in the most polite and friendly way that we can. Change it, clarify it, explain it, do whatever is necessary, but deal with it.
How is this so controversial?
Y’know, maybe there should have been no lesson plan? Just a general guideline that we trust that teachers and classes will have the chance to discuss what the President said in school and with the parents, leave it at that.
He’s the youngest?
Uh huh. Then the complaint would have been that this was dumped in teachers’ laps without any guidelines or materials. That’s why the lesson plan is optional. If teachers want to build an entire lesson around this, here are some ideas. If they want to show the film and leave it that, that’s fine, too.
No way. Nobody was going to complain about that. No conservative would say “We’re upset and angry that Obama didn’t send instructions to the teachers”, they’d be laughed off the bus, that’s fantasy. This overweening mantra of “No matter what we do they complain” is nonsense.
I have no objection to not having a lesson plan, past presidents have done that without problems.
And I have no objections to having a lesson plan, that’s fine too.
But if you’re going to have a lesson, you should realize that Federal involvement in the schools is and always was a hot button issue, and design your lesson plan accordingly. If you don’t act with great care, at best you look totally naive politically, and at worst … well, we saw that scenario play out.
Where have you been the past 8 months? They slammed him for putting fucking mustard on his goddamn hamburger. There is no complaint too stupid or hypocritical for those currently in charge of the Republican Party (Steele, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin) to make.
Is there anything Obama could include in a brief talk that could even be compared to the brainwashing the right is working on by it’s constant flood of bogus information and misdirection?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but nobody has complained that Obama is not interfering enough in local schools. I doubt very much that any conservative would say “Obama is a jerk because he hasn’t directed the Department of Education (which conservatives hate) to send out more lesson plans.” That’s crazy talk.
Y’all seem to think that because some of the complaints about Obama are unfounded, that we can assume that all of them are unfounded. And y’all seem to think that we should trust Obama. I like Obama a lot, but I don’t trust him much, because his political judgement is so bad. For example, he called for people who received “fishy” emails about the health care plan to report the sender’s opinions and their email address to the government.
Perhaps your liberalism stretches that far, but if Bush had asked for people who received “fishy” emails about the Iraq War to report the sender’s email address to the White House, we’d still be castigating his actions. And rightly so, in my opinion. No one should ever be asked to report their neighbors’ opinions to the White House, no matter who’s President. And for the President not to realize that is a huge lapse of judgement on his part. It reveals a lack of political acumen (and common sense) that I find deeply disturbing in a President.
So while I was and remain an Obama supporter, I can sure see why folks don’t trust him. And if folks don’t trust you, it behooves you to be super careful with everything from your appointments to your lesson plans. Obama has not done so, and has paid the price … and despite that, you want to claim it’s all his opponents’ fault?
Dream on …
Sure … he could ask people to report their neighbors’ ideas and email addresses to the White House if they don’t like what the neighbors’ are saying … oh, wait …
oh wait what… come on spit out that nonsense.
He’s already done it … you didn’t know?
Who specifically is ya’ll? I haven’t seen anyone suggest that at all.
I call bullshit on this but you can prove me wrong by providing any credible cite.
Except that’s not what happened. We, the people, need to help this president change the political climate if we can by rejecting this type of nonsense. What Obama did was offer a place for people to report the nature of the rumors {not the people forwarding them} about health care so they could address them with facts. It was also a place where people with concerns about these rumors could go to discover the other side of the story and some facts. For someone who claims to support Obama to be believing and repeating this lie is beyond the pale.
I’m becoming skeptical of this.
Any elected official owes it to communicate with those who elected him, and in this case even those who didn’t, but you’re mistaken if you think our most significant leader {the office, not the person} can lead while walking on eggshells and answering every bullshit accusation that comes along. Yes he needs to be politically wise but since the opposition will eagerly twist any phrase they can possibly take out of context he can’t worry much about that. He must show courage and determination to help lead us forward into a better future and invite us to participate. His supporters should be helping to fight back against the lies and distortions, not by calling our fellow citizens morons and making the divide greater, {even though sometimes we think that} but by calling the ,lies and presenting the facts and truth consistently and persistently and encouraging real patriots from all over the political spectrum to reject them.
No I didn’t. Show me it’s more than another bullshit slur.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
I don’t see where it says anything about “neighbors’ ideas and email addresses”
Are you claiming that all the lies and disinformation come from someone’s neighbor rather than say, GOP funded 501(c)(3)'s?
That’s hard to believe.