Obama's School Speech Outcry

Even when you do you're often derided as "biased" and they still won't listen
to you. Typical of what happens: Just last year a close friend who is
extremely conservative sent me a segment of "Focus of the Family" on which two
women were complaining about Obama's opposition to a late-term abortion bill
going through the Illinois Senate -- right around the time I read in the New
York Times that the issue was far more complicated than conservatives were
making it out to be. When I told her of the Times' story -- he had opposed a
companion bill that was specifically designed to take on Roe -- she
still didn't want to admit that the women on Dobson's show didn't have the
whole truth. Bottom line, I can't win either way.

I'm not asking you to accept anything anyone says as the gospel truth. I'm asking you not to dismiss it simply because of the source. How can you expect to have a discussion with conservatives if dismiss anything they say as invalid because you've been lied to in the past? I've been lied to by non-conservatives. Should I dismiss anything a non-conservative ever says? Of course you should verify the accuracy of what people say, but if you're not willing to do that then you shouldn't dismiss it.

Even when you do you're often derided as "biased" and they still won't listen
to you. Typical of what happens: Just last year a close friend who is
extremely conservative sent me a segment of "Focus of the Family" on which two
women were complaining about Obama's opposition to a late-term abortion bill
going through the Illinois Senate -- right around the time I read in the New
York Times that the issue was far more complicated than conservatives were
making it out to be. When I told her of the Times' story -- he had opposed a
companion bill that was specifically designed to take on Roe -- she
still didn't want to admit that the women on Dobson's show didn't have the
whole truth. Bottom line, I can't win either way.

Even when you do you're often derided as "biased" and they still won't listen
to you. Typical of what happens: Just last year a close friend who is
extremely conservative sent me a segment of "Focus of the Family" on which two
women were complaining about Obama's opposition to a late-term abortion bill
going through the Illinois Senate -- right around the time I read in the New
York Times that the issue was far more complicated than conservatives were
making it out to be. When I told her of the Times' story -- he had opposed a
companion bill that was specifically designed to take on Roe -- she
still didn't want to admit that the women on Dobson's show didn't have the
whole truth. Bottom line, I can't win either way.

As I said before (to use an overused Obama phrase), I don't object to President Obama speaking to students. I think parents who are concerned about their kids being subjected to political propaganda should at least wait to hear the content of the speech, and if they think it's a bunch of hooey they should tell their kids the truth. However, I do understand parents' concerns about the material circulated to schools suggesting teachers have students write about how they can "help the President". Either someone at the Dept. of Ed thinks that everyone is as eager to ensure Obama's public policy success as he/she is or he/she is completely deaf to how that would be construed.

I also understand the concern some folks have about any president addressing school children as if he's supposed to be some sort of national inspirational leader. I don't like the hagiographic way in which our society looks at the president. But I don't think this is the main complaint of most people. They're more concerned about this specific president addressing students.

And for anyone who's interested, apparently some Democrats thought a president using taxpayer funds to speak to school kids was a really bad idea back in 1991. Perhaps there was a different context I'm not aware of though.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs...

The Gephardt quote is accurate, verbatim, and in the correct context. Given this, the fact that this is a conservative piece is irrelevant.

You wish it were irrelevant -- because the source of the media in this case muddies the message. Reminds me of a piece in World magazine that mentioned prominently -- and falsely -- that Democrats were prominent players in the lobbying scandal of three years ago.

Even when you do you're often derided as "biased" and they still won't listen
to you. Typical of what happens: Just last year a close friend who is
extremely conservative sent me a segment of "Focus of the Family" on which two
women were complaining about Obama's opposition to a late-term abortion bill
going through the Illinois Senate -- right around the time I read in the New
York Times that the issue was far more complicated than conservatives were
making it out to be. When I told her of the Times' story -- he had opposed a
companion bill that was specifically designed to take on Roe -- she
still didn't want to admit that the women on Dobson's show didn't have the
whole truth. Bottom line, I can't win either way.

Thanks for post. I would love it if contributors to this site would read prior posts related to their piece and incorporate a response to those postings (and comments). In this way, writers could model how to conduct a useful exchange of ideas, building on what others have said. It does not preclude saying what one has in mind to say; it simply builds a more valuable dialogue.

As I said before (to use an overused Obama phrase), I don't object to President Obama speaking to students. I think parents who are concerned about their kids being subjected to political propaganda should at least wait to hear the content of the speech, and if they think it's a bunch of hooey they should tell their kids the truth. However, I do understand parents' concerns about the material circulated to schools suggesting teachers have students write about how they can "help the President". Either someone at the Dept. of Ed thinks that everyone is as eager to ensure Obama's public policy success as he/she is or he/she is completely deaf to how that would be construed.

I also understand the concern some folks have about any president addressing school children as if he's supposed to be some sort of national inspirational leader. I don't like the hagiographic way in which our society looks at the president. But I don't think this is the main complaint of most people. They're more concerned about this specific president addressing students.

And for anyone who's interested, apparently some Democrats thought a president using taxpayer funds to speak to school kids was a really bad idea back in 1991. Perhaps there was a different context I'm not aware of though.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs...

My class and I heard the speech. What's ironic is that conservatives should have hailed much of the contents of the talk -- personal responsibility, control over one's destiny -- etc. It was sort of a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of speech that, if had a conservative given it, would have been criticized by liberals. What Obama said today is no different than what Bill Cosby and a few others in the Black community have been saying for years, only to be skewed by those on the Left. It truly is ironic.

The Gephardt quote is accurate, verbatim, and in the correct context. Given this, the fact that this is a conservative piece is irrelevant.

You wish it were irrelevant -- because the source of the media in this case muddies the message. Reminds me of a piece in World magazine that mentioned prominently -- and falsely -- that Democrats were prominent players in the lobbying scandal of three years ago.

So are you saying it's inaccurate? Or are you just trying to encourage people to disregard it without doing the tough work of actually disproving the information presented?

I'm saying it's probably not telling the whole story, which conservative media almost never do because doing so would challenge its overall agenda; I've personally seen dozens of stories in conservative media that conveniently left things out. A rant on another thread by BlueCollarTodd last month actually encouraged me to check something further, and it turned out that he was absolutely wrong. Based on my experience (and not just that one), I suspect the same thing would happen here.

My class and I heard the speech. What's ironic is that conservatives should have hailed much of the contents of the talk -- personal responsibility, control over one's destiny -- etc. It was sort of a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" kind of speech that, if had a conservative given it, would have been criticized by liberals. What Obama said today is no different than what Bill Cosby and a few others in the Black community have been saying for years, only to be skewed by those on the Left. It truly is ironic.

Well, I've been in media for all of my adult life and in the process developed what we call in the business "journalistic instincts," which have served me well over the years. Some years ago a woman called my newspaper about a story that supposedly linked Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda; when she told me that it was in the Weekly Standard I advised her to ignore it. By the next week it was definitively shown to be fabricated. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Because I won't accept other viewpoints as inherently valid? Sorry but, having been lied to a lot, I don't do that for anyone -- I check things out first. And if my findings differ from the conservative agenda ... well, I won't apologize for that.