This is the exact answer I've given my liberal friends who are trying to make parents' objections into a big joke....
Posted on 09/08/2009 9:47:51 AM PDT by Talkradio03
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 isn’t the right word. But it’s 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
Obama.
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.)
I hear ya.
LLS
I think this could have been a factor if he hadn’t lied in the speech about his background making him sound like some poor kid with a single Mom. How many poor kids with a single Mom send their kids to a rich private school in Hawaii. He cannot help himself but stretch the truth and make it about himself. His Dad didn’t die when he was little but you would never know that from the speech.
Too many pundits are so fast to call it a good speech without bothering to check the details. ZERO is great at giving a speech and then when you check the details, you begin to find more and more that was not legit.
Rush calling it a conservative speech but not paying attention to the details was wrong IMHO. When a person lies giving a speech, it certainly is not conservative.
My two cents on the speech and why I think it will have little impact after a short time with his healthcare speech tomorrow night and when the pundits really look at what he had to sal.
On that point I actually feel sorry for Obama: from the perspective of a little kid, his father was worse than dead.
RYMB!
Post 30: SPOT ON!
She remarried and they moved to Indonesia — I would feel sorry if I really thought that was his real father but excuse me for being a skeptic. He was a convenient person and would like to know how much he was paid because the people around him in Hawaii never heard of her, never saw her with him, etc. Did he get into Yale because he played ball with someone?
People from a lot worse background have made something of themselves and don’t go around with I, I, I on their lips all the time. They have actually contributed. He lies all the time and his books are not even his writing but ghost writers first one probably by Ayers.
You hang around with Communists and thugs and I have zero respect including how he was raised although he was raised by a Communist family who was friends with Franklin Davis.
My problem is he never should have become President with his background and the media gave him a pass every step of the way. He is preying on the feelings of young children which is flat out wrong.
"Supreme Leader" is the term used in Iran for Khomenei. "Dear Leader" is used in North Korea for Kim Jong Mentally Ill. Khomenei is supposed to have a direct pipeline to Allah. Kim Jong Il is secular. So I guess it depends on whether you believe in "divine right" of leaders ("divine right" emanating from Allah). .
>>Is “Supreme Leader” of greater stature than “Dear Leader”?<<
Supreme Leader is how he refers to himself and how expects his minions to see hum.
Dear Leader is how the population must think of and refer to him — or else!
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.