My rant for the week.
I was on vacation last week with my family and one person, reading an old fashioned paper, asked me what I thought about Obama wanting to talk to students heading back to school. I responded that I think it is perfectly appropriate for the president of the United States to address our nations schools and that the students should watch the address.
Being on vacation I was disconnected with the “party line” and didn’t know that republicans should be against such things (unless Bush or Reagan do it).
Enter the problem with our great country.
Bush talks to schools and the Democrats are outraged!
Obama talks to schools and the Republicans are outraged!
And anyone who doesn’t go along with the “party line” is pandering and moderate.
Pat Toomey remarked about the speech,
“U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey called President Obama’s speech today to school children in Arlington, Virginia “an inspiring and moving speech for students across America.”
“Education is the cornerstone of our country’s future,” Mr. Toomey said, “and it is important that we relay that message to our young students. The President’s emphasis on responsibility and the personal stories about his own education are exactly the kind of inspiring messages our children need to hear from our country’s leaders.”
The reporters response (being parroted far and wide),
Toomey has veered hard to the middle since forcing Specter into the Democratic Party, first by endorsing Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, now with this.
Finally we have a conservative candidate who has been begrudgingly accepted by the GOP handlers in PA. But whenever he speaks his mind and cuts through the systems hypocrisy with some good old fashioned common sense he is trounced for being a moderate and “pandering”.
Bully for you Pat! Keep on speaking your mind and using some common sense.
No related posts.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Personally, I had no problem with the speech (it was not “inspiring,” however; pretty cookie-cutter stuff), or even the idea of the President giving a speech to students.
The lessons plans, on the other hand, were well deserving of criticism:
http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/what-does-this-blog-post-inspire-you-to-do
Personally the original lessons plans didn’t seem that “creepy” to me, they just sounded like typical short answer questions at the end of each textbook chapter and I might add questions you should ask yourself prior to listening to anyone speak.
Whey are the talking to me?
How are the talking to me?
What are they trying to get me to do?
Are they effective in doing so?
Will I do it?
Sounds pretty typical to me.
re: to your blog post
Nathan today you have inspired me with your new site design
your comment on my site made me want to respond because it was well written.
And I like your bald head best of all
p.s. Don’t misunderstand, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to criticize the presidents remarks and/or the lesson plan. I was mostly responding to people criticizing the concept as a whole.
Agreed, I take no issue with the president give a message students (especially when it is not required).
As for the lesson plan, they were changed from the initial release (removing the question about “how can you serve the president”) – but I think they were more revealing about the attitude of the administration, and indicative of “cult of the presidency” and/or “cult of Obama,” than they were nefarious.
Also, I take back what I said about uninspiring – I was “inspired” in high school to get into politics by Bush/Clinton/Perot – because they used so much rhetoric without substance, and I thought I could do a better job.
Obama is depending on the radical teacher’s union to promote him as the great leader. How many readers realize that the NEA promotes Saul Alinsky’s books on their website? See below.
1. Obama is a union man to the core.
2. Government schools are run by the National Education Association, a teacher’s union.
2. The National Education Association is left-wing so it supports Obama’s agenda
3. Obama applies Saul Alinsky’s tactics.
4. The NEA promotes Saul Alinsky’s books on its website:
http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm
5. The NEA has posted this (in my view, anti-American) document on its website [note the tattered American flag!]:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/EW-PuttingOurValuesToWork.pdf
When will SOMEONE in the conservative blogs finally take this information and run with it?
Alinsky was a great activist who fought for “human rights” You can disagree with his definition of “human rights” but his main goal was to get people active in fighting for people in their community.
The NEA is a union who believes that quality public education is a human right and is actively fighting towards that goal. You can take issue with how and why but they’re not trying to hide it.
Obama applies Saul Alinsky’s tactics, yeah so does every tea party organizer in America.
By the way on the cover is the flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner.” (Smithsonian Museum of American History)
If you don’t like the way the NEA does things become active, run for your local school board, vote, “become an activist” it’s what Alinsky and Thomas Paine would want you to do.
How come Georgia is challenging Obama’s citizenship and PA is not.