Blogs and Stories
Presidents and Pupils Don't Mix
A president might eschew the role of Father Figure in Chief, instead addressing schoolchildren about his constitutional duties. I’d go as far as to say that an “inside the Oval Office” civics lecture wouldn’t be a total waste of time.
But it would be creepy if the president wound up using kids as props, or tried to influence the political opinions of children too young to adequately weigh all relevant information. Since the presidency is such an inherently politicized office, I find it impossible to imagine successive presidents regularly addressing schoolchildren without these ills creeping into some interactions.
Is that anything to freak out about?
I’d still send my kids to school that day if I had any. But I see no great benefit to presidents talking narrowly to kids in the classroom, so I regard even small costs as not worth bearing.
What about President Obama’s non-civics lecture speech?
Overwrought as many of the objections to it are—recent presidents have given school addresses without similar freakouts—putting the commander in chief onscreen in the classroom inevitably confers the message, “This is a role model whose advice about life ought to influence you.”
I assume President Obama will offer sound advice to the kids, and I regard him as a perfectly good role model.
But I object to the automatic elevation of presidents generally to the role of “trusted moral leader,” so I wish President Obama and all his successors would eschew that role, rather than entrenching its precedent more deeply.
America requires constitutional officers and moral leaders. We’d save ourselves a lot of unnecessary trouble if we established a bright line between those roles, rather than blurring them in accordance with our ideological affection for the person who happens to be in power.
Conor Friedersdorf writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
How Oscars Ruin a Marriage
Nicole LaPorte is a West Coast reporter for The Daily Beast. A former film reporter for Variety, she has also written for The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Magazine, The New York Times, The New York Observer, and W.
The RNC's Self-Inflicted Wound
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
Assassinating Americans
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
Limbaugh's Latest Shameful Outburst
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
roger37
Who the hell is Conor Freakersdorf, and why is he encouraged by TDB to write a stupid comment like that? He "...objects to the automatic elevation of presidents generally to the role of trusted moral leader...?"
Well, why is that a bad thing? Why is Mr. Freakersdorf's column a bad thing?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
case1234
The question not being asked is why giving a "Stay in School" message from the President to school children is suddenly controversial. It wasn't controversial for Reagon or Bush Sr. What is next? controversy when the First Lady visits schools? The GOP is making acts that where considered standard controversial. The intense anger at Bush was driven by the war, the anger toward Obama is about Obama himself.. he hasn't taken any actions which could justify their hysteria. Paul Krugman noted that Nixons health plan was more liberal than Obama's.
These hyper partisan "conservatives" are sending one message loud and clear: We will never accept this man as our Commander and Chief. Regardless of the Election results. They wish to cripple him even if that means crippling the Presidency itself.
greengirl
You are right case, they have no respect for the office and don't care what they are doing to this country. Their behavior is nearly treasonist. They wll wreck this country just to hurt Obama. They are more important than this nation???????? I don't think so!
AlanD2
greengirl: You have to remember that the Christian conservatives have been ordained by God to rule over the rest of us.
Have a black Democratic President means that Satan has taken control of our country, so naturally they are upset.
Getting rid of Obama is not just a political issue - it is a moral imperative.
BrawkSamson
In elementary school it seemed like we were being constantly being sent to assemblies where the giant projected head of Reagan was telling us everything from "Stay in School" or "We're building a Star Wars missile system that's gonna be really cool!".
At the time I also believed that flipping up my middle finger killed angels or atleast that is what I was told by fellow students and obviously ridiculous adults who thought it would curb profanity.
The point is, kids are gullible. For better or worse.
case1234 makes an amazing point. These Obama haters aren't even thinking for themselves. They inherited their politics, religion, social class and opinions from their parents, grandparents and so on. They don't come up with original thoughts about these issues because they would be shouted down, alienated or cut-off financially from the family and/or it's money jar. It's a shame.
Any ideas?
B21983
Roger37: Who the hell is Conor Freakersdorf, and why is he encouraged by TDB to write a stupid comment like that? He "...objects to the automatic elevation of presidents generally to the role of trusted moral leader...?"
Well, why is that a bad thing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
Because Roger, a president is a politician and to automatically elevate men (or women) of political power and ambition to "trusted moral leader" is to give him or her power and authority beyond that which is granted in the Constitution and beyond which is safe for a Republic. The President is chief executive and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Thats it! He can be moral, he can be a leader, but to elevate him to that status is to make him like a monarch. I thought Americans got rid of that stuff in 1776. I'm sorry people still desperately desire to feel that they need another "leader" to look up to.
If you want an automatic trusted moral leader, someone to look up to because of title or office - do go up to Canada. They have a marvellous and gracious Queen, who is better than any politician.
roger37
There's nothing official about this; he's just giving a effing speech to some kids. Jeez.
gandolf
Nonsense. Of course the President is--or at least should be--seen as a moral role model. Time was, when our ethic and sense of honor in society dictated that we ALL strive to be morally sound both in our private and public lives.
The fact that we all fall short of the moral ideal in various ways--citizens and politicians alike--does not mean the moral ideal is no longer worth striving for or upholding.
If anything, it means we need a revitalization of the ideal and to be reminded of why it is important.
A presidential candidate or President should especially be measured by moral principles because these are inherently part of what it means to be fit as a leader. We should demand someone who, as examples only, is honest both in private and public dealings, can be trusted to do what he or she says, is hardworking, intelligent, loyal, patriotic, treats their family and friends with decency, does not lie about or slander adversaries, etc., etc. Imagine the opposite and you can imagine someone willing to rent the White House for campaign contributions, accept bribes to nominate Senators, go to war for oil or revenge based on fraudulent claims of WMDs, attend a church for 20 years where the pastor is a ranting racist and then deny you knew anything about it, sell nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign cash, or pardon wealthy con-artists and terrorists as favors to large donors or voting demographics. Obviously all of these are actual examples of things that have either been alleged or admitted by recent political candidates (most of them by our Presidents).
The fact that we rightly criticize these as moral failings does not undermine the principle of holding public officials to high moral standards. Rather, it reinforces the rule.
The ideal of a moral role model serves to hold accountable, one who seeks the nation's highest office. With the Clinton presidency and even more in the reality-TV era (and Spitzer, Sanford and Blagojevich govs) there is a popular effort to divorce private morality from public responsibility. This has always been and always will be a farce. It cannot be done. For, in the words of one of this country's great moral philosophers, Will Rogers, "We should live in such a way that we would not be afraid to sell the family parrot to the town gossip."
This user is no longer registered.
Samiil
RE: genomegk " Though I would like Obama to share his faith in Jesus".
Talk about trying to talk to a dinng room table, but I'll try.
See genomegk, here in America, religion has no place in the PUBLIC SCHOOL. What rational thinking person would make such a statement? Rational people don't send their children to school to hear anyone share their faith in Jesus or the flying spagetti monster.
In case it has escaped you, and it seem to have done so, is that among the 300 million people in this country, not everyone shares faith, and many do not.
Food for thought: in addition to various demonitations of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Native American church, Buddhism, Islam, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unitarian Universalism, Christian Science, No religion, Jehovah's Witness, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, Caodaism, Bahá'í Faith, Heathenism, Neopaganism, Zoroastrianism, Jediism, New Age spirituality, Scientology are among the MANY faiths and sects practiced by people in this country.
Unless the President is going to talk about MY religion, "New Wave Cave Dewellersism", I don't want to hear it.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
calluna
D-O-U-C-H-E
This user is no longer registered.
Snertly
T-O-U-C-H-E'
thibaud
1. POTUS is not The Holy Father, or the Pontifex Maximus or Fearless Leader. He's a public servant ie serves the people, who can and will turn him out when he f***s up.
2. One of the ways that American democracy ensures that the individual and the family of which he's a part remain superior to the state is by carving out a privileged place for localities when it comes to K-12 education. Presidents and other elected public servants would love to bypass school boards and pitch directly to, or "mobilize," schoolkids, but they can't. It violates the core principle of local control of education.
As a parent of a first-grader in a public school, the first thing I learned about this address was in the press. My school's principal and teachers hadn't heard about it. No one on the school board had received or reviewed the request from the White House. Big red flag there.
Red flag #2: the White House's guidelines for teachers indicated very clearly a desire to create the kind of dopey and creepy personality cult that we saw with the Obamaphiles during his campaign, with a series of exhortations to get the kids to figure out "what Obama wants you to do" and ask "how [they] can help Obama." Sure, this stuff was withdrawn, but it's part of a trend that's at best obnoxious and at worst disturbing.
Red flag #3: POTUS is preparing to give a major national address in support of his botched healthcare initiative. Funny, but his staff was last seen trying to get schoolkids to ask how they can help him. Granted that POTUS at this point needs all the help he can get, but could he at least leave the kids out of it?
Do we really need to cultivate an army of little Pavel Morozovs in this country?
Can we please have a serious grownup in the White House? For once?
billybob
lay off the conspiracy theory sauce for a few seconds there. I mean - are you really that worried? What do you think is going to happen? Are your kids going to come home after watching this address completely brainwashed? Clean it up man!!!!
djanimaequeen
If you are so concerned that your kid will be brainwashed by anything that anybody says, perhaps you are not a very good parent. Perhaps you should lay off the blogging and pay more attention to your kid.
This user is no longer registered.
onedirector
Which half of the country doesn't like the President? The predominantly white FOX watching half? I understand the argument about politics in the classroom--after all we had the immorality of the Cheney-Bush Administration for 8 years--but the message is encouragement from a man who has overcome a great deal to get where he is.
Could the argument really be that these people don't want the President to urge kids who look like HIM to do better and get ahead? After all, conservative whites have seen their grip over the status-quo slipping away lately and they are scared and frustrated--"What if THEY start doing to US what we've been doing to THEM all these years?"God forbid children should see a mixed-race person with a single mom get ahead. The might get ideas. Even worse, white kids might see that just being white is no guarantee of success anymore. Maybe the racist trash their parents have been feeding them might not be true.
If anything should be forbidden to students, contact with Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, and FOX News in general should at the top of that list.
Yeah, and who TF is Conor Friedersdorf, anyway. And, by the way, I am a white former racist whose parents fed me that trash.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
AlanD2
onedirector: I suppose that Portmanteau that the 47% of voters who went for McCain don't like Obama.
I suspect the real argument by conservatives (unspoken, of course) is that they don't want their kids to see a powerful black man - an affront against nature and their religion.
mombabytiger
I like him. I voted for him. Don't watch Fox if I can help it. I still think Obama is screwing up. Either he has absolutely no spine or extremely poor advisers. There's nothing wrong with speaking to school children, but the very minute the nuts start spouting "socialism" talk, someone needs to be there to refute that. Immediately. Same thing happened with health care reform. They let the opponents control the message. If memory serves me correctly, that's how we lost health care reform the last time. George Bush wouldn't be holding town meetings and getting everyone's opinion - he just did whatever the hell he (or Cheney) wanted to do. The stuff he did was moronic. Obama is RIGHT. When you're right, you don't open the floor for opinions. You stand your ground and DO IT. Otherwise there would still be parts of this country embracing segregation.
onedirector
I suspected that Obama has been "screwing up" and mombabytiger points out. But, for a change, we have a president who is smarter than I am, so I have to try to trust him. I think the problem is that he doesn't want to seem to be the "angry black man" and has been holding back to a fault. His speech in Ohio yesterday made me feel better. I hope he brings that same fire to Congress tomorrow. He hit a home run today with the School Speech, despite all the idiots on FOX... I hope Obama decides to railroad the the Ted Kennedy Health Care Bill through without the Republicans. They don't deserve even a nod. All they want is Obama to fail. To purloin a famous battle phrase "DAMN the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead."
Oh, AlanD2. I think you mean the "Election." We won. And yes, many of those McCain voters are in fact "predominantly white FOX watching" folk. No? But even some of them got the idea today. Obama is very much the President. I, for one, am proud to say it. Especially after you know who.
thibaud
Democrat, never liked him. Pegged him as a world-class BS artist ever since his "awesome god in the blue states" speech, and began loathing him when he smeared as an old racist his poor old granny, the woman who raised him when no one else would-- all in order to save his political arse.
We've seen it again and again with this guy:
mellifluous but utterly vapid phraseology ("We are the change we have been seeking");
absurd fibs and fairytales about history, with an eye toward blaming the US, the West, the jews or all three ("a united world defeated communism"--Berlin; the West treats women as badly as the muslims do; zionism was a response to the holocaust, etc);
legislative incompetence, inability to get his facts straight and master his data points (stress tests for banks, healthcare assumptions, deficit projections);
and a complete failure to persuade anyone to move in a direction he or she wasn't already inclined to move in.
What, aside from writing not one but two autobiographies has this joker accomplished in his brief career?
Why, aside from racial identity politics or hatred of George Bush, was anyone ever captivated by the guy?
djanimaequeen
racists can be dems too
mcurry
"I'd still send my kids to school that day if I had any. But I see no great benefit to presidents talking narrowly to kids in the classroom, so I regard even small costs as not worth bearing."
This president will have a tremendous benefit talking to students who, until Obama's election, never felt that great success was a possibility.
And this article's internal contradiction: "I assume President Obama will offer sound advice to the kids, and I regard him as a perfectly good role model. But I object to the automatic elevation of presidents generally to the role of "trusted moral leader," so I wish President Obama . . . would eschew that role, rather than entrenching its precedent more deeply" makes no sense. He's a good role model, but he shouldn't talk to kids because others also think he's a good role model. Really?
An educated, multi-racial, successful, family man we would all agree would be someone to help students visualize their own possible futures. Let's not let the abstract opinion about Obama being the president disqualify him from reaching out and maybe inspiring a new generation of children to take up social and political issues. And most importantly, if he can convince one less child to drop out, then his speech will have been worth it.
conart5
they should've gotten YOU to write this article - great comment! see my comment to flyoverland -
needtoknow
Yes, I agree with you, conart5
This user is no longer registered.
MikeintheMountainWest
"And most importantly, if he can convince one less child to drop out, then his speech will have been worth it."
No it won't. And I think that is Conor's point. The amount of time, money, and effort that has gone into this speech will not be justified by one person not dropping out of school. The President has very limited resources to accomplish very big things and his goals should be much bigger than helping one person. Presumably if all the resources that went into this speech were directed toward (insert your preferred stay-in-school program) then many more than one person would be kept from dropping out.
The President has more important things to do.
AlanD2
MikeintheMountainWest: What if the one Obama persuades to stay in school is the one that discovers a cure for cancer, or becomes President in 30 years?
Unlikely, but not impossible.
Of course, the President does have more important things to do, but Republicans are doing their best to block everything he tries.
thibaud
Amen. If Obama and his aides were to spend some time trying to understand the massive, Katrina-style f***-up that is the Recovery Act, they might actually be able to direct some of the $787B toward real reform efforts.
Here in California, $6.6B was made available for education, and only a tiny portion of that is actually going to reach the classroom. Per Schwarzenegger's top aide on his Recovery Act Task Force, fully $2B of that $6.6B has been redirected toward prisons. Of the two dozen senior staffers and bureaucrats I've spoken to across all levels of government-- assemblymen, congresspersons, governor's office, CA Dept of Education etc-- not one can account for the $6.6B for K-12 education in California made available by the Recovery Act.
To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, a golden opportunity to reform CA's absurd, grossly screwed-up budgeting and school funding process has "gone to waste." No reform of a process that sends only 56% of the education budget to the classroom. Katrina-style incompetence, ignorance, buck-passing and power grabs across all levels of government.
Obama = Clown.
AlanD2
thibaud: Just remember "states' rights". The federal government can give money to the states, but it has little control over how states spend that money.
Just think of the conservative outrage if Obama tried to tell Schwarzenegger how to spend this money. Especially as Schwarzenegger is (in theory) a Republican.
I agree that California is a disaster zone, but it has created its own problems, starting with property taxes and super majority requirements. These were conservative dreams come true.
Don't blame this on Obama.
greengirl
How do we, as a nation who believes in democracy, teach our children to disrespect the president and the office. People are stupid and misinformed.
Llplo99
When I was growing up in the sixties and seventies, we were brought up with certain expectations: Go to school, graduate, go to college, get a job and pay your debts. In addition, we were brought up to respect our parents, elders and our president! Many in my generation are doing okay...you look at kids now and many are dropping out of high school and no longer exhibiting a desire or need to get a job (they probably can't get jobs), and they no longer respect adults! There is nothing wrong with the President's speech, including the original assignment of helping the President. You can always suggest an opposing solution if you don't agree with his policies!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Youwot
nice post!
Wellstone
Well said. Conor needs to hang out on FreeRepublic for awhile, and get a taste of what this discussion is REALLY about.
It's about the Right going all in, and being told by their leaders to tell whatever lie, smear, cheat, distort, vilify, demonize, denigrate, and do whatever it takes to regain power and put their agenda in charge once again.
I think the President's team could not believe the depth of the vicious, vibrant and relentless hatred these people have in their evil hearts for Obama and all Liberals.
Now they know.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
roger37
Hey, Daily Beast: Let us fight our own battles and cool it with the censorship, OK? I would like very much to stick the censored responses in the writer's ear. (Bet you $10 it's BullMoose.)
AlanD2
roger37: This is not necessarily the work of The Daily Beast's editors.
All of my posts today in several threads disappeared for a while and then mysteriously reappeared.
Could just be a technical glitch.
lukeliberty
I think he is a great guy. I don't think he is inspiring. I don't think conservatives play any harder than liberals. But when then president takes a stance, "what can you do to help me?" he is tone deaf to the fears across the spectrum that this he is engaged in a massive shift of power to the state. It is as tone deaf as setting up email snitching, or any of a long list of steps that, to me, are poisoning the patient of the US economy. Look, I didn't vote for the guy, but I am glad he won because he represented so many positive things to me and so many. But I am spitting mad at him - one of many conservative and moderate independents who are souring on him for many reasons. The issue is not wanting to regain power - it is too intellectually flimsy to generalize from a few to the many. More accurately, it is NOT that simple. Anyway, have a great Labor Day.
tonyjenson
Obama is engaged in a massive shift of power to the state?
Did you even read the Patriot Act or look at the largest expansion of the Federal Government in modern history, the Department of Homeland Security?
What about the right leaning Supreme Court of the United States' decsion that local government can exert eminent domain on private property, so a corporation can develop it (Kelo vs. New London)?
All of that occured while the right was in control of government AND they didn't even have the decency to let the American people voice their opinion at town halls.
When it came to listening to the opposition of the American people on its' policies, I think the current leader of the Republican Party, V.P. Dick Cheney, summed up the Right's position: "So?"
The Left may be deluded, but only the Right can be deluded and hypocritical all at the same time.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
UponFurtherReview
tonyjenson wrote:
What about the right leaning Supreme Court of the United States' decsion that local government can exert eminent domain on private property, so a corporation can develop it (Kelo vs. New London)?
__________________________________________
*** The "right leaning Supreme Court" made this ruling?
In the words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious."
Read this account and think again:
"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer."
Now ... are you really trying to tell us -- with a straight face -- that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy are "right leaning"?
Or would you like to spare yourself further embarrassment and retract that statement?
DeaconDrJones
Just because you didn't wear your tin hat doesn't mean you aren't spouting crazy. That's the thing about this writer's pieces, he starts by agreeing that the right are nuts about something, then goes ahead and tries to make the right wing case in a manner that sounds less rabid. Same with lukeliberty up here. What the hell kind of superman is Obama supposed to be? Sick of Pols? Man, I'm just sick of republicans and the shit they shovel. You're losing patience? The only reason George Bush got anything besides booted out of office is because people in this country were scared shitless after 911. Now Obama gets to clean up the mess and you are losing patience? Tough. You had your chance running the ocuntry and you BLEW IT . Now shove off for a while and give somebody else a chance.
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: If you don't like Kelo v. New London, let us discuss the Supreme Court's decision in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne.
The Supreme Court held that there is no post-conviction constitutional right to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority in a 5-4 vote.
This decision meant that a convicted man in Alaska could not get a post-conviction DNA test that might prove his innocence.
Conservatives: the letter of the law is more important than justice.
UponFurtherReview
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: If you don't like Kelo v. New London, let us discuss the Supreme Court's decision in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne ...
Conservatives: the letter of the law is more important than justice.
________________________________
*** We can talk all day about wrongheaded court decisions on both sides of the fence. Even if your assessment of the Alaska case is correct, which I don't concede because I'm not familiar with it, that's hardly grounds for a sweeping pronouncement about what conservatives do or don't want with regard to justice.
Anyway, rather than change the subject, why don't you offer your opinion on the case we've been talking about -- Kelo vs. New London? Are you a proponent of local government having the right to claim eminent domain on private property so a corporation can develop it?
Using your "one case defines an entire political movement" philosophy, that single ruling would seem to give me the right to make my own sweeping ideological pronouncement, such as, "Liberals: government control over the individual is more important than justice."
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: tonyjenson's original comment said the Supreme Court leans right, using Kelo vs. New London. You refuted this by showing a few liberal justices voted for it. Fine - I have no opinion on Kelo vs. New London.
What I did was bring up District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, which supports tonyjenson's position that the Supreme Court leans right. There are a lot more conservative decisions that I could quote.
If the truth hurts, too bad. Most people agree that we have the most conservative Supreme Court in our lifetime (and mine is pretty long).
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: You didn't seem to like my comment "Conservatives: the letter of the law is more important than justice."
Let me mention two more Supreme Court decisions that I don't particularly like.
Oregon v. Guzek (2006) said states may limit the evidence of innocence a defendant may present at his sentencing hearing to the evidence already presented at his trial.
Herrera v. Collins (1993) said that in the absence of other constitutional grounds, new evidence of innocence is no reason for federal court to order a new trial. Herrera was executed four months after the ruling. In his final statement he said: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight."
Conservatives: the letter of the law is more important than justice.
boomslang
Good post, thanks for deflating the gas bag blown up by Conor.
This user is no longer registered.
princeminski
Hear, hear!
UponFurtherReview
eeasyrider wrote:
Conservatives don't like giving up control. It's just their nature, lose it and they play hard, take no prisoners hard, very much harder than liberals. It is what it is. Just that simple.
_____________________________________
*** Actually, it's not really that simple.
You complain about conservatives not wanting to give up control, yet just before he died, liberal icon Ted Kennedy committed very obvious hypocrisy by pushing for a change in the Massachusetts law to allow the governor to replace his vacant senatorial seat.
Of course, only five years earlier, when a Republican was governor, Democrats changed the law to require a special election instead of allowing the governor to appoint the replacement.
So ... politics is politics on both sides of the fence. You just don't notice it as much when liberals do it.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
kokuaguy
lol easyrider.
Brevity is the soul of wit... and wit is the handmaiden of wisdom.
; ^)
UponFurtherReview
Sorry, Eeasyrider, but if you're trying to refute my point, you'll need more than vague one-liners.
I just cited a concrete example of Democrats trying to bend the rules to hang onto power. You have yet to deliver anything beyond vague analogies and pronouncements in the guise of profundities.
Let's review your "conclusions" so far:
1. "Conservatives don't like to give up control."
2. "It's just their nature."
3. "They play hard."
4. "(They) take no prisoners hard."
5. "(They take no prisoners) very much harder than liberals."
6. "It is what it is." .
Now you challenge my position by declaring that chess isn't like grand theft auto. Ummm ... no, it certainly isn't.
For that matter, badminton isn't like an appendectomy, and arugula isn't like molten steel.
So like ... do you have any points that you can actually substantiate?
Llplo99
They are like frightened wild animals backed into a corner and sniping at everything.
flyoverland
Obama's most important contribution to history should be his ability to motivate black male students to stay in school. The dropout rates are a National disgrace. I have no problem with any President speaking to students about school. It is a shame his staff couldn't leave it at that. they just couldn't resist the opportunity to politicize it. This staff, one that moderate Peggy Noonan this weekend called inexperienced and full of themselves is dragging down Obama. Perhaps all the adults were with Hillary and he doesn't want to reward them, but these amateurs are simply marginalizing their boss and embarressing the whole country. Exposure to politicians can be a good thing. Paul Simon, who went on to become one of the most liberal Senators in history used to come to my grade school all the time when he was our State Representative. I think Rita will attest he didn't rub off much on me.
Embers
It's amazing that, as the retired CEO of a major surgery company, that you have so much time to spend on TDB, reading and writing comments.
Embers
Shouldn't you be on a yacht or at a charity fundraiser or something, I mean?
flyoverland
Not much call for Yachts out here in flyoverland. I give away 25% of my net income, but do not attend phony fundraisers. Its much more fun to be here and correct whining 20-somethings who wish they lived in France where they are owed a living.
AlanD2
flyoverland: No, we really wish you lived in France and had no internet access.
By the way, this whining 20-something is a retired Vietnam war vet (although I must admit that I never saw any fighting - thank God).
Embers
There's probably an insult in there... somewhere... but you're way off the mark in your assumptions about me.
What are some of the charities you donate to? The GOP is not a charity.
conart5
You miss the point - it has nothing to do with black - it has everything to do with helping to restore a love, respect and pride for oneself & country. The problem isn't the leader it's the parents who don't teach children love, respect and pride in anything. . . as a leader one must expect him/her to lead in all aspects of moving forward - if one kid gains a spark to move him/her to keep moving forward, then it's a good thing.
AlanD2
Conservatives can never be proud of a country run by a black man.
Tmikes
"Moderate" Peggy Noonan explained this all to you?
Who is she?
flyoverland
MSNBC commentator said to be the greatest Presidential speechwriter of all time.
lukeliberty
One of the most elegant and even-handed conservative voices of her generation.
roger37
Noonan wrote the "reach out and touch the face of God" speech for Reagan when he eulogized the first in-air space flight disaster (can't remember the name at the moment--included the teacher). She was Reagan's main writer, but she reported to Pat Buchanan.
The only good thing she said in her book was that the Reagan administration was like an expensive Swiss cuckoo clock, but when you open it up, there's nothing inside. That's Reagan's Teflon presidency to a T.
Easyrider's next post is correct. She is a wordy, fuzzy-thinking elitist for the east coast conservatives, and when she speaks, she puts me to sleep just like reading one of George Will's columns.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
tommytimp
You're an idiot. Peggy Noonan? Lecturing us on who the adults are? PEGGY NOONAN? She wrote one catchy speech and she's the greatest of all time? Tee frigging hee. And no you don't give 25% of your income to charity. Maybe flyoverland does, but inthe real world you don't. And if you do, you're either an idiot or a monk. I'm going with idiot.
Dimlah
It takes a special rhetorical talent to call Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan 'moderate.' Though, compared to you I guess she probably is.
Farmer-Dave
MODERATE Peggy Noonan? What have you been smokin?
roger37
Yeah, but Paul Simon was a freaky little guy in a trademark bow tie that spouted the Democratic party line of the era and put people to sleep.
vboone
Politicians aren't perfect and this isn't a "Christian Nation" so stop pretending.
lukeliberty
I am a moderate/independent conservative Christian and I cringe in pain when I hear conservatives talk about this as a Christian nation. Actually, most of my friends do too. We are not a Christian nation. The point of a faith in Christ is that it is personal and voluntary, not encoded by the state. The country should be in the business of encoding and enforcing freedom to worship as one's conscience and experience dictates.
tonyjenson
Well said, if you need a moderate/independent liberal to watch your back on this topic let me know! You have an absolute right to your beliefs.
needtoknow
Thank you
AlanD2
lukeliberty: I wish more Christians were, well, as Christian as you are.
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen." (Matthew 6:6)
You have my support also.
alforzo
conor f: wtf? just because you feel that your parochial education messed you up, don't assume that every school child went though the same process as you. i am not sure how to react to someone who suggests that the leader of a country should not be viewed by school children as a leader. it is intellectual dishonest to suggest that children are NOT indoctrinated in primary education, it comes with the terrritory. to argue that moral leaders are something different than political leaders is morally and politically bankrupt.
Mauiboy
Anyone who has taught and knows that these pre-packaged teacher plans that are handed out are full of ideas that the teacher can pick and choose to talk about depending on the particular class. The Neocons seize on one question in the teacher's guide and all heck breaks out. One wonders that when health care reform is complete, that maybe some civility will break out once again.
lukeliberty
The comment in the teacher's guide is of a cloth with the alarm that people rightly have about the statist direction of the administration, and the concern about a president of supreme self-regard who has cultivated a cult of personality. A different approach is, please let me know what I can do to help you --> that is what public service is about. The White House was absolutely correct to remove the question "please tell me what you can do to help me." Nancy "payback" Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Charles Rangel - they are just as bad as the Republicans. Congress is an uncivil cesspool that we should vote out and change, no matter what happens on healthcare.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
AlanD2
eeasyrider: I prefer to compare conservatives to hyenas. I concede to bleating like a lamb. Got anywhere I can hide?
(Actually hyenas are pretty decent animals. They just have a bad publicity agent.)
UponFurtherReview
So answer this question honestly:
Would I have had any objections if my child had been required to write an essay titled "What can I do to help President Bush?" or "What has George Bush done to inspire me?"
Of course you would have. It's just that your admiration for Obama blinds you to the fact that not everybody in the world is inspired by him or wants to help him achieve some of the goals they personally disagree with.
DeaconDrJones
Do you guy''s hate Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you," line, too? What happened to the Uber-patriotism of the first eight years of this century? Perhaps you need to ask yourselves why you are so angry over some rallying talk?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: When George H.W. Bush spoke to school children on October 1, 1991, he said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." Where were you then?
On November 14, 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. The speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program to schools nationwide.
While much of his speech was innocuous, the president went off on a tangent at one point about the importance of low taxes - telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue. This sounds pretty political to me, and I'm sure there were a lot of parents who personally disagree with his goal. Did you complain then?
Isn't it funny how the immediate accessibility of facts on the internet can mess up you arguments?
Facts: The bane of conservative reality.
UponFurtherReview
AlanD2 wrote:
Isn't it funny how the immediate accessibility of facts on the internet can mess up you arguments?
_______________________________________
*** It's funny how they mess up YOUR arguments, Alan.
Democrats are wailing like banshees about the conservative reaction to Obama's little chit-chat with the kiddies, but let's take a trip down Memory Lane and see how the Donkey Party and their media pals behaved when the shoe was on the other foot.
Oopsy! As columnist Byron York recounts in the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/
When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-5769434 7.html
"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 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.'"
"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.'"
So tell me, Alan ... if conservatives are overreacting to Obama's message by merely objecting to it, or even going as far as keeping their kids out of school, how far off the overreaction chart is it when the Democrats HOLD A HEARING!
So ... here's how I'd summarize this particular final score:
Supposed cost of Bush's speech: $26,750.
Comedic value of yet another example of Democrat and media hypocrisy: Priceless!
UponFurtherReview
DeaconDrJones
Do you guy''s hate Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you," line, too? What happened to the Uber-patriotism of the first eight years of this century? Perhaps you need to ask yourselves why you are so angry over some rallying talk?
_______________________________
*** Who said I was angry, Deacon? Fact is, I'm having a great time pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of the Left.
For example, the original Department of Education materials that were designed to accompany Obama's speech expressed practically the opposite of what Kennedy said.
Kennedy urged Americans to work together for the betterment of their country. Not a bad sentiment.
Whereas in Obama's case, the message was essentially, "Ask not what Obama can do for you; ask what you can do for Obama."
UponFurtherReview
eeasyrider
"Of course you would have." I like your question, UponFurtherReview. I know, you don't know what I would say. That is your deficiency.
I am unconcerned about any president talking to our children. Why should I be. I don't know whether to be amused or feel sorry for you.
__________________________________
*** And your deficiency is that you mistake your own unsubstantiated pronouncements for actual points.
Let me know if you ever manage to construct a post that contains something more complex that whatever just popped into your head.
Here, in the interest of bringing you up to speed, I'll give you a free tip on where to start looking for those mysterious things called "links" and "excerpts" and "substantiation." It's called www.google.com
You're welcome.
AlanD2
UponFurtherReview: You might recall that I didn't ask if Democrats complained in 1991 or 1988.
I asked, "Did you complain then?" I notice that you didn't answer my question, but changed the subject instead.
Facts: The bane of conservative reality.
nobuskidotcom
Obama and his robots need to stop drinking their own Cool Aid.
Using our tax dollars to brainwash our kids, and asking them to write something (I assume something nice) about our dear leader is just plain creepy.
It's one thing to encourage our kids to strive for the best, but this is just way off the chart. What the fuck were these idiots thinking.
This user is no longer registered.
conart5
to connie47 from conart5 - whew! that was a perfect response to all the creepy statements -
BetsyM
connie47, the right always has a double standard. If they were honest they would just flat admit that they hate Obama. They can't stand the fact that they are at an all time low. So what do they do? They attack, attack, attack. And of course they lie about everything and anything involving Obama and his policies.
lukeliberty
The difference is in the mass television exposure. That is much different.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
ConorFriedersdorf
Flyoverland,
You write: "Obama's most important contribution to history should be his ability to motivate black male students to stay in school. The dropout rates are a National disgrace."
I agree that the national dropout rate is a disgrace, and I sincerely hope that having an intelligent, charismatic, black Ivy League grad in the White House inspires black students in schools where achievement is thought uncool or impossible to think otherwise.
But this is going to happen or not irrespective of whether President Obama gives a specific speech saying "stay in school." It is the mere fact of his being president that matters.
Roger37, I answered your very question in my article before you even wrote it!
Embers
I love it when writers answer back.
Tmikes
Your point being just what? That a black president shouldn't be addressing the nation's kids at all? Or just after Labor Day? Or unless all the right-wrongers get their precious little Marys out of earshot?
lukeliberty
I would probably let my kids listen, but I'd sure exercise the right to think through it. We are at a juncture point in history with a President who is losing the trust of independents, including conservative independents like me, who desperately wanted him to succeed. My "precious little Marys" by the way are sweet kids that have friends whose parents are, amazingly, arch liberal, arch conservative, and in-between! I bet you and your kids would like them too! It is a cheap shot to intimate that those who wonder about this have a racial motivation. It is inflammatory and does not correspond to anyone I know.
AlanD2
lukeliberty: See my post above on how George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also made speeches to school children which included political statements.
I have to wonder if those complaining about Obama also complained in 1988 and 1991.
Not all Republicans / conservatives are racist, but enough of them are to make questions about this issue legitimate.
Like that woman at a town hall meeting who screamed "I want my country back!"
Conservative translation: "Get that damn ****** out of the White House!"
I'm not accusing you of this, lukeliberty. I would probably enjoy meeting you and your children.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
MatKen
Hey Conor - Do you know a lot of black students in schools where achievement is thought to be uncool or are you just being a bigot? Name 5 of these kids. Too hard? Than name one.
Another bigoted hack.
WashYourHands
I will be watching on September 8th from Japan!!!
Alaric
Conor,
Kudos for a good assesment. Any speech by POTUS is inherently political and therefore it is not recommended for schoolchildren. This includes previous speeches by presidents.
workonit
I am amazed by the number of actions by previos presidents and legislatures Republicans are suddenly now aghast about. Did you complain about it then?
lukeliberty
School is mandatory. Classrooms are compulsory. A mass TV exposure to individuals in a compulsory setting is inherently different from single classroom visits.
This user is no longer registered.
AlanD2
lukeliberty: How is TV different from the compulsory setting of a personal visit? The students have little option in either case (or they may be able to skip it in either case).
It sounds to me like you are against giving Obama more national TV exposure.
A less kind person might suggest that some conservatives don't want their kids to see a black man who is in a position of power.
jbw3013
Obviously you don't think students should be told the need for education.
namedujour
I once did research on a paper about banned books. In my research, I learned about an English professor who started every school year by handing out a list of books that were banned. He told the students, "You are forbidden to read these books." Then he handed them a second list of REALLY banned books, and told them, "If you read any of these books, you risk expulsion. DO NOT READ THESE BOOKS."
So, of course every year the students would line up to buy these books, which they voraciously read. The first to sell out were the REALLY banned books, which every last student read cover to cover.
The moral is: If you want a kid to do something, forbid him to do it.
What conservatives are doing is ensuring that a large portion of students will do anything possible to hear President Obama's address. They will probably also commit it to memory, simply because it's "forbidden".
Good work, conservatives. You're doing a great job for our President and the country's children. We thank you.
lukeliberty
The issue is just as you framed it. It is not a matter of "forbidding" students to listen. It is a matter of forcing kids to listen, and I am glad that parents of whatever persuasion are contesting that. That is the difference that makes a difference.
DeaconDrJones
You are really overreacting, man. Calm down.
AlanD2
lukeliberty: Were kids forced to listen to Reagan in 1988 or Bush 41 in 1991?
Federalist
Of all the controversies this summer, this is the most ridiculous. The POTUS providing a message to school kids that they need to "work hard, and finish their education" is a good thing - regardless of your opinion of the man, his party or ideology.
downbytheriver00
Interesting article, complete with the self-bashing of the writer's original religion, a requisite on the DB. His best sentences were in the last paragraph. He's correct in his assessment but the human race as a whole looks to it's political leaders for leadership in all manners. I don't think we're prepared to compartmentalize our President into just our political leader. Too many of us look to him to provide moral leadership as well. I think we are generations away from what the writer asks, and it will clearly happen in the older, more established countries before it happens in the US.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.