Skip to comments.Karl Rove:"I Bet A Dime To A Dollar That The Speech Was Altered" Calls Obama "Supreme Leader"(Video)
Posted on 09/08/2009 9:47:51 AM PDT by Talkradio03
Amazing how the Drive-Bys take Obama at his word when they said the speech wasn't changed, Rove disagrees...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotairpundit.blogspot.com ...
LOL! Love Rove!
Altered or not, what is the problem? It would be dumb for anyone giving a speech, to not be able to change or edit it, right up to the time it is given.
I know so....
No doubt about it...
Damn straight it was altered!
Is “Supreme Leader” of greater stature than “Dear Leader”?
In this case, it was altered after the uproar of parents across America. The original intent was to have the children back this President on his agenda. He got caught and changed the speech. That is different then changing the speech as it evolves. The speech was originally going to be an hour with all sorts of lesson plans aimed at drumming up support for ZERO from the youth of America.
Would bet the lesson plans and original speech were written by Bill Ayers, not someone you would want to write a speech for America’s school children to hear.
You completely miss the point. The original speech was not doubt a political propaganda piece indoctrinating the children on how to best serve Obama and to hate capitalism and encouraged the children to think of ways to help Obama. You can read the transcript of the speech given to students in Utah.
Obamah already has a snitch hotline to report bad parents.
How many edits did Lincoln do on the Gettysburg address?
At least 3 from the history channel.
Can’t forget his wife eschewing working for “corporate America” while she sat on very profitable hospital boards, etc.
It’s too bad the Education department released the lesson plans last week. I would have like to have heard the original speech—and bashed it, of course.
Altered or not, conservatives are the ones who will end up with shoeprints on their d**ks over this one. And it's our own fault ... again ... as usual.
Apolitical folks (i.e., the vast majority of Americans) will judge the controversy by the speech actually given.
If it's unobjectionable -- and it will be -- all that noise will simply have provided Obama's team with ammunition to characterize conservatives as hysterical; and he'll use that perception to marginalize us on other issues: ones that actually matter.
The proper approach would have been to raise a stink after Obama's speech. He can't un-say what he's already said; but he can certainly not say things when he's been given advance warning.
Where is this coming from? Is HotAirPundit adding it? If you go to YouTube and play the video you don't see it.
Stop the quislingism.
Well..... yes. But the key word there is "was," as in "might have been."
It's not the speech or approach he'll actually use, though ... and thus I suspect that uproar will probably hurt us more than it helped.
If we were truly diabolical (and we should probably learn to become so), we would have waited until after the speech actually happened.
I didn’t get a chance to read the first draft, did you? Either way, I would think that changing it’s content, for whatever reason, would be the same as changing it as it evolved.
Hm. Independent thought isn't your strong suit, is it?
No, the goal was to prevent a propaganda speech to schoolchildren. That was accomplished. Conservatives win. Obama losses.
Supreme Leader? How about “Great Deceiver”?
Lincoln did not do a 180 with the Gettysburg address to change from vilifying the soldiers to honoring them in his revisions.
I know that and that it’s all (political (just like the Clintoons. That’s why no 1 should watch this mess.
Wow. That's a misread of the situation.
Of course the speech was changed, with one intent being the ability of the left to say "See! Conservatives went crazy over nothing!" But, present company excepted, I haven't seen anybody fall for that lame spin.
In reality, if unaltered, the speech he gave today probably wouldn't have been too controversial. It was intended merely to establish a new channel, whereby Dear Leader could speak directly to children 5-18 without the bothersome interference from meddling parents acting as media gatekeepers.
That was the mission and it was a colossal failure, specifically because conservatives, rightwing media, and internet buzz raised a stink. We don't have footprints on our dicks over this, but Obama's got a little sand in his vagina.
You seem to be forgetting that millions of schoolchildren would then have heard the speech. They are young and impressionable—K through high school. As it is, they have heard Obama paint school as something to be avoided. Every parent of every smart kid knows you never do that.
However, we must always be vigilant. Now that he has done the 1st speech to kids as apolitical, we must not let our guard down for when the next attempt is made.
It’s also a commonsense conclusion that once there was an outcry about it, they would change it and tone it down no matter what it originally said.
The problem for me was that he had planned a one hour speech and a curriculum to the teachers for a working session.
I and their parents clearly object to an hour working session with Obama where he tries to agrandise himself. The man is an arabic/muslim, a liar, a mafioso, a crook, a communist, and totally dangerous and their heads don’t need to be filled with flowery words with an undertone of socialism. It always sounds soooooo good, but his words and his ACTIONS just don’t mesh into someone I would want my children to trust.
Socialists all promise all this wonderful ‘for the good of the people’ stuff, they hand down gobs of taxpayer dollars that look so wonderful. But unless you’ve ever seen exactly how they write the selection criteria for using it, and how much of they suck up into the black hole of government that never gets used for the purpose it was legislated for.
Nope. You've got to look beyond this "might have been" speech to the long-term political effects of the situation as it will actually play out.
The way it all rolled out, Obama was in a no-lose position.
Without protest, Obama gets to give his "Hitler youth" speech (assuming such a speech was actually ever planned -- I begin to have my doubts).
As it is, the general public will judge conservatives by their strident reactions to a speech that will almost certainly be unobjectionable.
It makes us subject to the dreaded "there they go again" tactic, which is the rather unpleasantly effective tactic of pointing out past over-reactions as a means of deflecting current opposition, however well presented.
Agreed. I don't like the thing any better than you do.
But I'm not talking about the propriety of complaining about that sort of thing; rather, I'm pointing out that the political cost of "winning" on this one will probably be a lot higher than if we'd held our fire until after the speech was already given, and the curriculum officially made public.
It doesn't matter if the speech was changed. Folks will judge conservatives' stridency against the speech actually given. And we'll end up looking silly -- which, in politics, is a deadly disease.
Sorry, just see it completely differently.
Myself, and everybody I know who objected to the speech, couldn't care less about the content of the speech.
We objected to the idea that a politician should direct the government-run educational apparatus to force our children into being an unwilling audience for his speechifying.
He could have read Dr. Suess or the bible, it wouldn't have mattered to me. I don't want him talking to my child without my participation and agreement.
That was the what the controversy was, and is, about. It was never about content.
We have thought through and considered and then acted upon with gusto, that bothers you, doesn’t it?
I’m looking for the right word to describe such in-house dolly downers as you, who would denigrate such earnest conscientiousness for the sake of appearances. I like passion in pursuit of righteousness. You don’t seem to, at least in this case.
Quislingism isn’t the right word. But it’s close enough. Maybe Wormtongue-ism is better. What do you think?
I happen to agree with you on the factual aspects of this.
But that's not the important thing here: what's important are the political perceptions generated by the conservative pre-complaints, as compared to the speech actually given.
If Obama gives an unobjectionable speech -- and he will --he can use the situation to quite effectively portray all conservatives as shrill and obstructionist.
Next time we have something to complain about, we're first going to have to overcome the perception of hysteria that Obama has been able to pin on us by making it a non-issue.
Is it rational or factual? No, of course not. But modern politics is not particularly rational: a lot, maybe most, of modern politics is about creating perceptions about the other guy. If you can make the other guy look silly now, he'll be seen as silly when he really needs to look statesmanlike.
Sheesh.... Is there any reason other than an excess of caffiene that makes you think this has to be personal?
I'm doing nothing more than trying to assess the likely political consequences of this speech. I believe this is going to help Obama and hurt conservatives. I've provided the rationale for this in other posts, so won't waste bandwidth repeating it to you here.
Quislingism isnt the right word. But its close enough. Maybe Wormtongue-ism is better. What do you think?
I think you're an idiot.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Oh yeah, Rove was a lot of help when Bush was in power./s/
The USSR had a youth corps and part of their job was to report parents.
One child reported his parents for holding back grain in order to eat and not start to death. The boy reported his parents who were arrested and executed. The boy was stoned by the villagers. The USSR made him a martyr to the revolution.
in the 60’s the radicals said the school children would rise up in the schools. (remember the movie”wild in the streets”?)
Here was the problem — it wasn’t the speech but the material that wanted teacher’s to use including reading two books about Obama. That is where the uproar came from and the DOE had to pull back their materials. The speech was going to aim at students helping with the Obama agenda like hybrid vehicles, community organizing, etc. That’s what got everyone up in arms.
The original speech of an hour in length with all the material that was pure liberal propaganda is what made parents upset. That material was pure leftist they wanted the students to use in their classroom.
I know ... and I agree.
The question I'm asking, however, is whether the actual event will end up being politically harmful to conservatives, who will be seen by the general public as having complained about nothing.
I think Obama's going to make this speech a non-issue, and use the pre-speech conservative "posturing" for a bit of standard-issue political jujitsu.
(Yes, I know it wasn't "posturing" ... but the relevant fact is that by making the contents of his speech a non-issue, Obama can believably portray it as such.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.