The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.There more to the story here.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."
Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."
We don't need congressional hearings to know that Obama is making this speech for his own political benefit. Everything he does is for his own political benefit.
This speech will be completely forgettable. We'll probably find out that a number of parents will have kept their kids home costing the schools a lot of money in daily attendance money from their state, but otherwise the damage will be slight. Stop and think about it - can you remember any speech given by any adult when you were in elementary or high school?
5 comments:
I would be interested to compare the texts of the two speeches. Limbaugh was talking about Obama's speech today, asserting that Obama's actions contradict his words -- that he calls for personal responsibility in the kids' speech but wants nanny state for the adults. And while that is true in a superficial way, take another gander at the kids' speech.
That speech is really much more negative than it's being portrayed. The whole tone is bottom rung all the way. 'My dad was a dead beat.' Maybe your parents "don't support you" either. But you gotta step to the plate anyway.
His assumptions are negative through much of it. Read around in the psychology some -- recall someone made the rather quaint claim that Obama actually uses hypnosis in his speeches -- nah! we know that couldn't be -- BUT note the strong words in the speech.
For instance, "... if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." Who said they were quitting? In studying persuasion, psychologists assert that "not" words slip past the subconscious and in a sentence like that one above, the most salient idea is "quitting." He repeats the word three times.
He uses other strong words with very negative connotations such as "support that you need," someone in your family has lost their job," "there's not enough money to go around," "friends pressure ... are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right." "There's no excuse for neglecting your homework, or having a bad attitude ... for talking back to your teacher, for cutting class, or dropping out of school ... for not trying."
Who assumes that kids plan to do any of this? Really rousing cheer-leading, is it not? Imagine a coach telling his team: "I don't care what others say, you're not a bunch of losers. Really, you're NOT losers. So if anyone says you're a LOSER, dont believe them."
How do you feel? Ready to win the game??
Big O's "pep talk" is an abomination.
The speech was fine.
The furor is absurd and manufactured. Keep drinking the kool-aid, looking for hypnosis...
You people are simply pathetic.
Hmmmm Kool-Aid.
I would be interested to compare the texts of the two speeches.
Well, then go do it ann.
I posted a link to President Bush's speech in another posting.
Or google it
Bush "Alice Deal" 1991
You certainly seem to have a lot of free time.
I guess the husband and children are doing the real work.
Lew is using the Sarah Palin argument against me! My family must be languishing while I write!
Actually I take 'em with me everywhere I go. So, far, however anonymity prevents Letterman from trashing my ordinary American family like he trashes Sarah's.
The whole Ann family enjoys my witty repartee here at Holycoast. We're even going to start a little band and call it Eternal Vigilance.
Post a Comment