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 ...
OK
No, the goal was to prevent a propaganda speech to schoolchildren. That was accomplished. Conservatives win. Obama losses.
Good work.
“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.
bttt
LLS
I wonder?
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?
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.