'The Obama Show' ... Now your kids can watch, too

President Barack Obama intends to address the nation's schoolchildren Tuesday in a speech that the kids apparently can watch on classroom TVs. I guess he wants to welcome the students back to school and urge them to study hard and set goals and remind them, despite his convenient presence on the screen, that they are in charge of their own education. Don't we already know that?

Back in 1991, President George H.W. Bush gave a similar speech, broadcast from an eighth-grade classroom in Washington, D.C. And yes, the Democrats criticized the president for doing such a thing. Other than the Bush speech — 12 minutes long — I haven't heard of a president welcoming the kids back to school. It's fun to imagine how much fun we would be having if George W. — "childrens do learn'' — was going to give the speech.

Now, it has developed over the past few days that what newsgathering institutions call "the right'' has gotten itself into a lather about Obama's appearing before the kids. There are certain radio jockeys and various bloggers who are whipping up a pretty good storm of protest and alarm, contending that the president is going to use the speech to enlist the kids to bite off the fingers of the people who disagree with his health care initiatives.

Or maybe the president is going to send one of those subliminal messages across the bottom of the screen telling the kids to go into their mom's purse and send him $5. Soupy Sales tried something like that years ago and got in big trouble.

In any event, school districts across the country are wrestling with what has become a controversy. Do we show the speech or not? The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech. Predictably, Minnesota's biggest teachers union is urging the schools to show it.

If only there had been this much debate and concern and awareness when Al Gore, our very own Captain Planet, was getting away with showing his Hollywood fantasy movie about the climate in the nation's classrooms. That was truly political proselytizing, if that is the fear for Obama's remarks.

Personally, I don't believe the president is going to cast any spells or use secret code language or otherwise attempt to recruit the precious little snowflakes to his always-expanding variety of causes. Besides, the attention span of the average kid is about a millisecond. Most of them will be so busy texting the person two seats over that they won't even look up at the screen.

But even though I am confident that the president presumably means well and does not intend to give a stump speech, I find the spectacle, well, creepy. Maybe it's a generational thing. The only guy we ever saw on a classroom TV when I was a young curmudgeon was Dom Miguel, a Spanish teacher. Remember that guy? I thought he was creepy.

I'm sorry, I suppose it is part of the bargain that I have struck with tradition and convention, but I keep feeling that I see a different America from the one the president sees. I don't think we need to be reinvented. I was opposed to the bailouts and remain so. I was opposed to the intervention in automobile manufacturing and remain so. I was opposed to "cash for clunkers" and remain so. I am opposed to the government gaining even more purchase in the delivery of health care. The cash for clunkers Web site kept crashing. The dealers described the paperwork as a nightmare. The dealers are still awaiting their money. It is not plausible that the government can take care of your bad back. That's not the business they are supposed to be in.

And now Obama wants to talk to the kids. I do not suspect him of chicanery. I do not at all suspect him of evil intent.

I suspect him of being too convinced that nothing can proceed without him or his reformations.

Does anyone think this will be the only time Obama tries this? The idea is to get used to seeing Obama's face on the tv. He is the "endless campaigner" and this is another part of his ongoing campaign. This is why my son won't be allowed to watch. I do not want him seeing Obama's face and connecting it with his education. Obama does not want children educated in the traditional sense. He wants them to connect govt. with education.

Unlike the current Impresario in Chief, Bush 1 didn't have the Dept. of Education contravening the law by producing lesson plans for the schools.

US Code 3403 - Sec. 3403

"The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.(b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources. No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law...."

It was your basic “study hard, go to school, etc.” speech; I think it was in the context of announcing some kind of new funding for education that Bush was going to provide.

In any case, it was broadcast live on radio and television, and not sent only to schools and was not part of a lesson plan that suggested that children read up on Bush. It was probably inappropriate, because Bush I was trying to use the backdrop of a school to show that the GOP was not ignoring domestic issues, but it was a different class of thing altogether from Obama’s Dear Leader speech.

Ethic minorities need to be persuaded to stay in school. For instance, all across the country an average of more than fifty per cent of Hispanics fail to graduate. A poll was taken a year ago about their reasons for dropping out. Peer pressure, getting a job, no encouragement from parents to stay in school, education not a cultural priority. English only was not a problem in school, nor were the courses deemed too hard. I assume blacks drop out at a high rate, as well, and for that reason, a talk from the black President might help. But I doubt it, and the risk of brainwashing is too great. (That civilian security force he’s planning: kids with convicted felons in fatigues marching around with fists in the air praising the Dear Leader.

He could empty the prisons of young black males with drug or gang related violence convictions, and you’d better believe his czars have already drawn up plans to get things in motion.) This is coming as sure as God made little green apples. He’s already talked about the tragedy of too many black kids in jail, and that he wanted to do something about it. Let them out, provide a living, self respect (the fatigues and fists in the air) Put convicted felons in charge of your kids.

As I said in response to a comment on another thread on this subject:

I believe President Reagan gave a speech in 1988 which was nationally televised to students. The difference is Reagan wasnt trying to indoctrinate the students.

The differences are stark. Obama is doing this at the beginning of his presidency in order to troll for votes. Reagan's speech was in the last year of his second term. Reagan had no cheerleading section of Hollywood and musician types pledging servanthood to him. Reagan told the kids to "ground themselves in the ideas and values of the American Revolution." Obama is claiming that he's bringing a new revolution. Reagan wasn't a socialist. Obama is a statist who has been steeped in radical, anti-American rhetoric since his youngest days.

The problem with those who say, well, Reagan gave a speech to students in 1988 and Bush gave a speech to students in 1991, so there's really nothing different about Obama giving a speech to students in 2009 is the fallacy of the undistributed middle: A is M and B is M; therefore, A is B. It just isn't so: Jets have wings. Birds have wings; therefore, jets are birds. Reagan and Bush were presidents and Obama is a president, but Obama is certainly no Reagan or Bush.

And now Obama wants to talk to the kids. I do not suspect him of chicanery. I do not at all suspect him of evil intent.

I suspect him of being too convinced that nothing can proceed without him or his reformations.

Three conditions are described here:

1. Chicanery--someone knowingly uses underhanded methods to get something from you he wants.
2. Evil intent--someone who gets off on doing others wrong, the kid pulling wings of the flies kind of guy.
3. Too convinced that nothing can proceed without him--someone who is just flat out friggin nuts.

The first is just the ordinary crook. The second is bad but not encountered too often. The third has all the bad characteristics of the first two. Who cares if he really, really believes that he's doing what's best for you if it has the effect of chicanery and despoils you of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as you happen to define it? Who cares if his motives are "pure," ie. in line with his beliefs, if he ends up slicing and dicing society to stitch the pieces together in his own Frankenstein version of what he considers to be the just society? And when you combine insanity with overweening pride ("Barack believes there's nothing he cannot do by the sheer force of his will," Michelle Obama) with executive control of military forces and the federal government, you're in deep, deep crap.

I suspect him of being too convinced that nothing can proceed without him or his reformations.

Reagan believed that the American people could accomplish great things of their own choosing if they were unfettered by the dead hand of government.

Obama believes that the American people could accomplish great plans of his own choosing if they were organized enough by him and his czars.

It doesn't matter what he says. As pointed out by Freeper IbJensen in another article, the education department needs to pull back their "materials" at a minimum.

20 USC 3403 - Sec. 3403. Relationship with States

The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. (b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

http://vlex.com/vid/sec-relationship-with-states-19199590

Well put.

The argument that “well, [GOP prez of your choice] did it, so therefore Obama can do it too” is really based on false premises. What Obama is doing in every case, ranging from TARP to this school speech, is entirely different in content and purpose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.