Much Ado

All the fuss was about this? The White House has posted the text of President Obama’s upcoming speech on education — the one which was inspired widespread protest and claims that Obama is trying to teach socialism to the children.

So, does the speech say, “socialism rocks” or “seize the means of production” or “Chairman Mao is my homeboy”? It’s much more boring than that. It encourages students to work hard and study; tells them to set goals and pay attention in class; and mentions the success stories of a few students who overcame long odds.

Perhaps the actual innocuous content of the speech will put a damper on some of the hyperventilating.

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. voted for obama says:

    or, perhaps, the speech got watered down. i agree that it’s boring. 2500 words to school kids?

  2. Bruce Boyden says:

    The fact that you can’t see the references to socialism proves just how insidious the plot really is.

  3. Mike Zimmer says:

    The true background issue pushing the protest is that President Obama is an African American. The idea that that could happen and that the children of these protesters would be shown such a person preaching conventional wisdom to kids just drives them crazy.

  4. Howard Wasserman says:

    Of course it was watered down. It was a great victory for The People against the tyranny of creeping socialism. This is why Obama will fail in his efforts to indoctrinate our children–because the great patriotic core of America will stand up to his evil efforts and he will back down.

  5. voted for obama says:

    i voted for obama and if my life depended on answering the question, “did the speech change after opposition arose?” i’d bet “of course it did.”

    we know for certain that the original outline called for writing letters to the president and for asking the kids to think about how they could “help the president,” and that part is gone.

    btw, was it conspiracy mongering when the Dems objected to George HW Bush’s similar speech to school kids? not in my book.

    finally, there is a diminishing return to crying “race” at every opposition to obama. are we there yet? waaaay past it? not there yet?

  6. Clearly, this is a man who doesn’t grasp a fundamental fact about his job: Not everything is part of it.

    It’s a common problem for politicians, of course, but Obama has got it bad. Doesn’t he have anything that IS his job, to be doing? Maybe something having to do with the economy, or national defense?

  7. Howard Wasserman says:

    For better or worse from a federalism standpoint, education *is* part of the President’s job. And so is using the bully pulpit to inspire and lead the nation, in particular the next generation. Before this month, no one, least of all conservatives, ever denied # 2 (in fact, Reagan is revered for the way he restored the nation’s faith and belief in itself, etc.). Which is why W was sitting in a classroom reading “The Pet Goat” on 9/11 and why H.W. and Reagan both held programs similar to what Obama is doing today.

    Had there been blogs in 1991, I would have told Democratic officials to relax about Bush’s school speech. But it seems to me there is a vast difference between Democratic objections in 1991 (which basically expressed concern that Bush was going to make a political speech) and the current cries that Obama is going to recruit and indoctrinate America’s youth into radical un-American, traitorous ideas.

  8. centrist from Otown says:

    Virtually everyone would agree that Obama and some of his core followers have a very different conception of the role of federal government than, say, the typical Republican from Arizona, right? That’s a real difference, about which people can and do disagree, right? If so, is there something rotten about them being politically active, challenging the president whenever they can, trying to force the president to trim his sails? (What would Van Jones do if there were a GOP president?)

    I don’t want to deprive anyone at this site of the pleasure of a self-satisfied chuckle at the expense of the rubes in the hinterlands. But just a few months ago, I was hearing a lot about the importance of political mobilization, of getting involved, of making sure that the president’s powers are always being checked. Or is that “sooo last year”?

  9. centrist from Otown says:

    from the way-back machine, here’s a recapping of how the Dems and media treated the speech from GHW Bush, including Congressional hearings!

  10. I honestly don’t believe most conservatives care that the President is talking to a group of scholkids(it was the DOE recommendations that got most of us rolling our eyes); in fact, if such speeches keep him away from the rest of his governance efforts, I’d encourage him to start making these speeches a daily happening.

  11. had a laugh says:

    Fears that the liberal elite want to push collectivist solutions are wacky, aren’t they?

    Did you read Friedman’s op-ed in the NYT today? Unless you think he was championing the GOP, maybe there is good reason to voice those fears.

    “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”