Principal Obama

I already said it was there to some degree during GW's tenure. Remember- I am not advancing a theory as to why we have disagreement between 2 politcial parties and their ideologies. I am advancing a theory as to why we are so polarized and in particular- why Obama is FEARED...
Some people- yes. But nothing that would have made it into the mainstream. Heck- my grandmother is saying it. She NEVER would have used that word. There was a handyman handing out business cards at Home Depot yesterday wearing a "Fed up with Socialism" teeshirt. Of course the word and its concept existed. But not for the vast majority who throw it around these days. It was mostly only heard in polysci and history classes.

Consider this-
Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform. He lost. Can you recall socialism being any part of argument used by his opposition? I honestly can't. I suspect that's because no one taught people like my grandmother to use this word to scare and rally others against his ideas. It wasn't in the GOP playbook or they didn't need to break it out.

I think you are correct. I do not see Obama's politics as being that much different than Clinton's. The socialist words simply weren't part of the republican talking points 15 years ago. When Obama entered the picture it soon became clear that his race was not going to be a detriment, much to the dismay of his detractors. Derogatory labels, some of them even contradictory, were quickly applied to Obama. Legitimacy of the labeling was not an issue. Whatever scares you the most today, that's what Obama is. Tomorrow is a new day awaiting the application of yet another term, poorly understood by the target audience.

This entire thread is absolutely appalling!

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Thank you for so definitely demonstrating why our country is falling apart and why we cannot get anything done.

...what she said. I was going to send y'all to your rooms, again, but this will do.

disclaimer...I couldn't catch up with this even if I tried. Saw enough to see the same old same old lines are drawn. I am glad to see some continue to think outside the box and don't fall into one camp time and time again, because that's all they know. I, for one, am interested in what Mr. Obama has to say and I would have welcomed any President into my classroom. He is, after all, the supreme superintendant.

imo, the name callers are simply, cowards and bullies. Of course, just because people dont "call" posters names, doesn't mean it isn't implied. Bravo to those that stick to the issue and try to see things from both sides. That's where the common ground is.

carry on (without the name calling, please!)

...what she said. I was going to send y'all to your rooms, again, but this will do.

disclaimer...I couldn't catch up with this even if I tried. Saw enough to see the same old same old lines are drawn. I am glad to see some continue to think outside the box and don't fall into one camp time and time again, because that's all they know. I, for one, am interested in what Mr. Obama has to say and I would have welcomed any President into my classroom.

)

Miss Kitty, I noticed both you and Winnie said positive things about the speech. I only hope I can be objective like that when it comes to future issues.

You know what's funny is that the speech hasn't even been made lol!

Won't be back till after Labor Day. Have fun and be careful and remember, we are all Americans and let's all take a deep breath and chill. SURELY if Dems and Libertarians, etc... could support Bush after 911 we can all support a little ole' speech from our Pres to the kiddies.

To all and to all a buenas noches.

G

Miss Kitty, I noticed both you and Winnie said positive things about the speech. I only hope I can be objective like that when it comes to future issues.

You know what's funny is that the speech hasn't even been made lol!

Won't be back till after Labor Day. Have fun and be careful and remember, we are all Americans and let's all take a deep breath and chill. SURELY if Dems and Libertarians, etc... could support Bush after 911 we can all support a little ole' speech from our Pres to the kiddies.

To all and to all a buenas noches.

G

Almost typed that one myself. One would never know that by reading most of the posts in this thread. ;-) Give Mr. Obama a chance...he may jsut surprise the disbelievers and give the youth and adults of America the kick in the rear we all need. If one believes strongly enough to deny their child this opportunity, heaven knows what else they will miss out on in life.

It is truly a shame people have been divided into these neat little dem, rep, lib stereotypes around here, like they have no brains to think for themselves.

Just being real-
I am embarrassed by the attitudes of those who take issue with this president speaking to our youth. The comparisons to North Korea, Saddam Hussein, the continued misuse of the term socialism. I agree with Bill Maher that America is stupid.

Go ahead- make the point that I haven't served in the military so I take for granted my freedom of speech to say such things. Call me a liberal (gasp). Frame me as being unAmerican or lacking patriotism. Call me elite. Tell me that if I don't like it that I should move somewhere else. Yawn...

Miss Kitty, I noticed both you and Winnie said positive things about the speech. I only hope I can be objective like that when it comes to future issues.

You know what's funny is that the speech hasn't even been made lol!

Won't be back till after Labor Day. Have fun and be careful and remember, we are all Americans and let's all take a deep breath and chill. SURELY if Dems and Libertarians, etc... could support Bush after 911 we can all support a little ole' speech from our Pres to the kiddies.

To all and to all a buenas noches.

G

excellent advice Gidget. thanks for your positive words and contributions - they are like a breath of fresh air!

Almost typed that one myself. One would never know that by reading most of the posts in this thread. ;-) Give Mr. Obama a chance...he may jsut surprise the disbelievers and give the youth and adults of America the kick in the rear we all need. If one believes strongly enough to deny their child this opportunity, heaven knows what else they will miss out on in life.

It is truly a shame people have been divided into these neat little dem, rep, lib stereotypes around here, like they have no brains to think for themselves.

Yes, Miss Kitty, we all need a kick in the rear when it comes to education...perhaps the President could talk to some of the adults....I think the kids are probably 'way ahead of many of us this time.

On the campus I do not see this kind of fear--I see excitment and confidence, and hope for a better future and enthusiasm for getting involved. And, an energy that was not there before.

Just this morning I had a long "listen" with a young man who has had a very difficult time and had not done as well with school as he could have. It was inspiring to hear him tell me his story and begin to talk about his goals and how he had turned his attitude and his grades around during last semester--and how well he is now doing in a pre-calculus class! when a few years ago, he could barely do basic math.

The people who are deciding to take their children out of school and filling the environment with so much fear, are truly doing a disservice to both the children and our country, but most of all to themselves. IMO No one can live a productive life with so much bitterness and anger, and hatred toward another person. What a horrible example it sets for the students. It defies comprehension, and I find it very sad.

thank you very much GW. You have stated my exact bottom line feelings on the subject.

The people who are deciding to take their children out of school and filling the environment with so much fear, are truly doing a disservice to both the children and our country, but most of all to themselves. IMO No one can live a productive life with so much bitterness and anger, and hatred toward another person. What a horrible example it sets for the students. It defies comprehension, and I find it very sad.

GW58, my thx button is gone for now. SO thx for that great post...
G

As long as the Big O doesn't get into policy issues, the children aren't required to study up on Obama or complete study guides before or after, it is a one time thing and he simply tries to encourage children to work hard in school and achieve as much as they can, this is a good thing.

It does get scary if the kids are required to read up on Obama, do study guides on Obama or if it became a regular thing--say 2 or 3 times each year. Hopefully, that won't happen.

What is really amazing to me is that people like Jim Greer, head of the Florida Republican Party, apparently is feeling so insecure about the way he has brought his children up, that they would be negatively impacted by a "Back to School" speech by the President.

A President who is intelligent, accomplished, kind, and who has become successful in spite of the many obstacles placed in his way. A man who admits that he has not always gotten it right, but who demonstrates through his life's accomplishments that one can pick oneself up and choose a direction in life and work hard to accomplish goals.( all good conservative, Republican traits, I might add!) A president who has gone out of his way (often to the point of angering his own base of supporters) to be open to the Republicans and their point of view. He has tried to be bi-partisan, in the face of absolute refusal by the other side to meet him half way.

What better example to demonstrate to so many of our young people who are struggling to succeed and overcome obstacles that, more often than not, are not of their making? In the world we adults have made today, our young people need all the positive examples they can find--they need inspiration, motivation, and someone to believe in them. They do not need fear, and name calling, and negative energy.

So, what is all this about? I do not really believe Jim Greer the person, feels that his children will be negatively impacted. I believe he is deliberately stirring up a situation to get others to go along with a political plan that has little to do with the President's speech, or the well-being of the children.

It is all about causing this President and the Democratic Party to fail, so that the Republicans can try to regain some of the ground they have lost. For some it is undoubtedly about the fact that a biracial man is the President; for others, the true fringe group, it is just about disruption for any reason...or, no reason at all--the true mob mentality.

I don't think it will work in the long run, but in the meantime, the people who can least defend themselves -- and who have the least voice -- are being affected: the children, the elderly, and those who may not be able to separate the facts from all the horrible, outlandish accusations. That is the hypocritical and sad part.

Where are the adults in the conservative/Republican party? We all know that many of them don't believe this stuff, yet, they are sitting back and letting the "fringe" element take over the entire conservative agenda. And, as a result, we are all losing.

The conservative perspective is vital to our country's success: we need at least two political parties; we need the point of view that supports less government and fiscal restraint; we need it all to make our system work well. Where is the true leader in the conservative movement that will stand up and say Enough. Who is the next Bill Buckley and will he or she please stand up!

Many of you on this board who have said some very harsh things, do not talk this way in person. I know some of you--I've done business with some of you--in real life you are more considerate and factual.
I wish that everyone would step back and take a deep breath and realize that Obama won the election--he is the president and all the facts point to the idea that he has the best interest of the people of America at the top of his agenda. As Miss Kitty said, let's give him a chance. Does anyone really believe that our children are not smart enough to think for themselves; does anyone really believe that one speech by one president can turn an entire nation of school children away from the American values they have been taught all their lives? Let's give our parents and teachers and the children the credit they are due. They are not that gullible.

Many of us did not vote for President Bush, yet after 911 almost every American supported him as our president. It was only after he started to take actions that were so off the mark that the people began to stand up and complain. We complained about his actions (and now we are beginning to realize that even President Bush himself realized that Cheney and company had gone too far) not something that he might do.

If President Obama and the Congress are doing things that the people object to, then there are civilized ways to deal with it. We have been doing this for years in our country. Never before have I seen the kind of behavior that we are now seeing and I lived through the protests of the 60s and the civil rights movement. Those protests were often violent and horrible, but at their core there was a purpose: end the war, and give everyone equal rights.

This behavior is without merit and it can serve no good purpose IMO. All Americans who care about the future of our country would do well to act like adults and put a stop to the hysteria IMO.

.
GW58,
You have no idea how much your thoughtful, level-headed posts make my day(s)!!
Please never go awol on us! ;-)


.

GW, you have echoed my feelings perfectly and I have not seen anyone, anywhere, sum it up better. Thank you.

thanks for the kind words, everyone. I appreciate the feedback. I know there is a better way to handle all of this--hopefully we as a country will begin to realize it before we expend too much more of this negative energy.

I often think of the men and women who are risking and sacrificing their lives for us--and yes, it is to ensure that we all have the freedom to say what we want; yet, how much better if we did it in a constructive, cooperative way?

The people of this country, especially the ones who serve in harm's way and the children, deserve so much more from the leadership of both parties.

Obam won the election fair and square--the American way--the majority spoke. That majority now needs to speak out against this hysteria. The leadership of the Republican Party needs to speak out on behalf of all who want to put America and the well being of our citizens before partisan politics.

Apparently some Republicans are speaking out:

Here's a message from State Rep. John Legg, a Republican(http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/SEctions/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4350&SessionId=42): "While I respect a parents’ individual rights, I would offer that this event should be used as an educational opportunity and learning tool to cultivate discussion among parents and their children. Civic and public discussion should be a priority for all schools. It is important that we instill in our children a respect for the office of the President and whoever occupies that honorable position.
Rather than excluding children from this event, I would strongly encourage parents and students to participate and be a part of the dialogue; using this opportunity to explain their family values to their children and encourage them to discuss what is occurring and why. Parents may choose to attend school with their children, experience this event together and to participate in their child’s education.
ab

thanks to GW and every person on this thread, regardless of your opinion on the school matter. we've all learned from this dialogue. I know I have.

I think you are correct. I do not see Obama's politics as being that much different than Clinton's. The socialist words simply weren't part of the republican talking points 15 years ago. When Obama entered the picture it soon became clear that his race was not going to be a detriment, much to the dismay of his detractors. Derogatory labels, some of them even contradictory, were quickly applied to Obama. Legitimacy of the labeling was not an issue. Whatever scares you the most today, that's what Obama is. Tomorrow is a new day awaiting the application of yet another term, poorly understood by the target audience.

It was definitely thrown around when HillaryCare was being debated. Her original reform was even more progressive than the House bill is today, it embodied a single payer system for the country.

IMHO, "socialist policy" is valid criticism of the progressive left. The progressive movement of the early 20th century had it's root in soviet style socialism and populism. Today's progressive movement is one of social democracy, which has in it socialist idealism. Conservatives and Libertarians are right in pointing this out, as there is a valid argument to be made based on the idea that the rejection of these ideals has made this country "great". While some may consider these views harsh there is no avoiding the the obvious fact that forcing people to rely on themselves has provided very positive incentives for growth throughout our history. Therefore fighting against the advance of the social democratic model is valid.

Obama is a social democrat. He has made his view very clear - the loss of the advantages of conservative idealism is worth the gains he perceives in implementing a more social democratic (e.g. more socialist) system. If you disagree with this view, criticizing Obama as being a socialist, or for having views that lean socialist or social democratic is valid critcism.

What a ridiculous thing to get worked up over. If I remember correctly there was a picture of the President displayed prominently in every school I went to and nobody ever even mentioned it. This is simply a toxic mix or sour grapes and paranoia, and yes, I would say the same thing if it was W planning on doing this. How quickly we have abandoned the 'respect for the office' concept!

It was definitely thrown around when HillaryCare was being debated. Her original reform was even more progressive than the House bill is today, it embodied a single payer system for the country.

Maybe a few right wing elites threw the term socialism around referring to Hillarycare while dressing in the country club locker room. But it did NOT even come close to making it into mainstream conversation.

What did make the mainstream (and ended up being surprisingly effective) was a tv commercial produced by the insurance lobby which depicted a middle aged couple expressing their concern over the "bureaucratic nature" of HillaryCare.

Go ahead and do a quick search for papers and post mortems on why HillaryCare failed. You will be hard pressed to find the usage of the term "socialism" in anything that wasn't recently written.

IMHO, "socialist policy" is valid criticism of the progressive left. The progressive movement of the early 20th century had it's root in soviet style socialism and populism. Today's progressive movement is one of social democracy, which has in it socialist idealism. Conservatives and Libertarians are right in pointing this out, as there is a valid argument to be made based on the idea that the rejection of these ideals has made this country "great". While some may consider these views harsh there is no avoiding the the obvious fact that forcing people to rely on themselves has provided very positive incentives for growth throughout our history. Therefore fighting against the advance of the social democratic model is valid.

Obama is a social democrat. He has made his view very clear - the loss of the advantages of conservative idealism is worth the gains he perceives in implementing a more social democratic (e.g. more socialist) system. If you disagree with this view, criticizing Obama as being a socialist, or for having views that lean socialist or social democratic is valid critcism.

The McCain campaign realized that the word socialism evoked fear in lots of "real americans" when it was applied to "that one".

The good news for folks who voted for Obama is that hope trumped fear. The bad news for the country is that fear ate its Wheaties after the November beating the GOP took and it remains a common thread to scare the uninformed.

There is a reason why you didn't hear Joe the Plumber call Obama's ideas progressive instead of liberal. Just as there is a reason you didn't hear him call him a social democrat instead of a socialist.

You are clearly smart enough to articulate nonemotional objections to a social democratic model. Most Americans aren't.

But when you and the pundits cleverly swap the term socialism/socialist with social democrat the concepts change for the masses and end up eliciting the emotional response of fear- which then ends up trumping all logic and reason.

You are clearly smart enough to see the point I make about the usage of the fear inducing term "socialism"as being valid but for some reason you are resisting and instead repeating your talking points about all of the "social terms" being valid critiques of Obama's politics (which they are).

Quit. Would you please?

Here's a new one I like-

Soccer moms and tradesmen are doing on camera interviews saying they don't want their kids exposed to the president's speech because they "oppose the indoctrination of our youth into liberal socialism".

Puulease. That language wasn't used by these folks until it was scared into them.

SOCIALISM = FEAR
FEAR = ACTION

This is what the GOP is going with...

Get over it!

The elected President of our country (a strong proponent of education, hardwork, and the father of 2 kids currently in school) is addressing our country's public school children.

Quite frankly, I don't care what he talks about - he's the President. That's why he gets to talk to your kids - he's earned it. And that's why when he wants to talk to us, he preempts regular programming on the major Tv stations.

The amount of time and influence this address will have is a tiny fraction of what your kids hear from you, their peers, the radio, the tv, video games, the computer, reality stars and other celebrities, supermarket tabloids, and the media outlets whose sole purpose is to spew fear and hate.

The text of the speech will be released Monday. The speech will be given Tuesday AT A SCHOOL and broadcast to our kids.

I challenge you to ACTUALLY READ THE SPEECH, not read or listen to some commentary on it but read the speech, and THEN if you do not like what he is saying or want to discuss or refute what he said, you can object to your kids watching in school.

There are much bigger threats to your children's education and future than our president talking to them. I wish we could have 5% of the coverage and passion dedicated to this nonissue dedicated to the REAL issues that are actually affecting us.

I so agree. What do you think it would take to get more attention to the "real" issues, and less to the nonsense?

I so agree. What do you think it would take to get more attention to the "real" issues, and less to the nonsense?

I really don't know - If I knew, I'd do it. Biting my tongue, ignoring, redirecting, distracting, calls for civility and common sense, and introducing non-political topics don't seem to do much.

Someone said "We'll achieve peace in the Middle East when we realize we love our children more than we hate our enemies."
Maybe we'll stop squabbling when we realize "We love our country and our children's futures more than we hate the other politicial party?"

Sadly, I think it would have to be something extreme (like 9-11) to make people get a long overdue reality/priority check (and even that was short lived). It just seems like the sniping and politricks gets worse every day and it isn't doing our country or us any good.

Maybe a few right wing elites threw the term socialism around referring to Hillarycare while dressing in the country club locker room. But it did NOT even come close to making it into mainstream conversation.

What did make the mainstream (and ended up being surprisingly effective) was a tv commercial produced by the insurance lobby which depicted a middle aged couple expressing their concern over the "bureaucratic nature" of HillaryCare.

Go ahead and do a quick search for papers and post mortems on why HillaryCare failed. You will be hard pressed to find the usage of the term "socialism" in anything that wasn't recently written.


The McCain campaign realized that the word socialism evoked fear in lots of "real americans" when it was applied to "that one".

The good news for folks who voted for Obama is that hope trumped fear. The bad news for the country is that fear ate its Wheaties after the November beating the GOP took and it remains a common thread to scare the uninformed.

There is a reason why you didn't hear Joe the Plumber call Obama's ideas progressive instead of liberal. Just as there is a reason you didn't hear him call him a social democrat instead of a socialist.

You are clearly smart enough to articulate nonemotional objections to a social democratic model. Most Americans aren't.

But when you and the pundits cleverly swap the term socialism/socialist with social democrat the concepts change for the masses and end up eliciting the emotional response of fear- which then ends up trumping all logic and reason.

You are clearly smart enough to see the point I make about the usage of the fear inducing term "socialism"as being valid but for some reason you are resisting and instead repeating your talking points about all of the "social terms" being valid critiques of Obama's politics (which they are).

Quit. Would you please?

Here's a new one I like-

Soccer moms and tradesmen are doing on camera interviews saying they don't want their kids exposed to the president's speech because they "oppose the indoctrination of our youth into liberal socialism".

Puulease. That language wasn't used by these folks until it was scared into them.

SOCIALISM = FEAR
FEAR = ACTION

This is what the GOP is going with...

When has whipped up fear of the extreme not been a part of our political landscape? What are you complaining about exactly, the fact that a political party is using fear of extemes to build it's support or the fact that the republicans are the ones doing it successfully today?

YouTube - LBJ Daisy ad

I really don't know - If I knew, I'd do it. Biting my tongue, ignoring, redirecting, distracting, calls for civility and common sense, and introducing non-political topics don't seem to do much.

Someone said "We'll achieve peace in the Middle East when we realize we love our children more than we hate our enemies."
Maybe we'll stop squabbling when we realize "We love our country and our children's futures more than we hate the other politicial party?"

Sadly, I think it would have to be something extreme (like 9-11) to make people get a long overdue reality/priority check (and even that was short lived). It just seems like the sniping and politricks gets worse every day and it isn't doing our country or us any good.

Here is one explanation. This is Matt Taibbi writing about the health insurance reform fight, but what he says can be true for many other things as well:

"
Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It's more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators ? the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses ? who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all ? they, at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with the wearing of a T-shirt in November."

What have we all done to support the implementation of the issues we felt so strongly about when we voted for Obama?

.
There's a poll on facebook that asks "Should President Obama be allowed to address the nation's school children without a response from the opposition?"
Another version adds "without parental permission" or something like that. POORLY worded poll!

Anyway, I'm wondering what the "response from the opposition" would be? The poll politicizes it, for goodness sakes.
Would the opposition say: "Now I know you have heard your president tell you that you should strive to be all you can be and stay in school and all that, but we on the opposing side think you should save that rhetoric for the military if you were to join. If you find the going gets tough in school and life, it'll be OK if you don't try as hard, no one will hold it against you. blablabla"

Dumb arse polls.:roll:

.

This thought occurred to me: We have people getting miffed that Obama is going to give a little pep talk to public school students, yet it is totally acceptable that military recruiters have access (enthusiastically endorsed by the most vocal Obama critics, I dare say) to the same? Why not outrage aimed at recruiters? After all, Obama is the commander in chief, and recruiters are there for no other reason than to potentially put kids in harm's way. Why the inconsistency?