Conservative media now claim Obama's plans to indoctrinate children were "thwarted"
Responding to President Obama's September 8 back-to-school address, the text of which was posted online on September 7, several conservative media figures have echoed Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer's assertion that Obama altered his speech after "the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught." Numerous media conservatives, as well as Greer, had previously made the baseless charge that Obama would use the speech to push an ideological agenda or indoctrinate children.
Greer: "Now that the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught, they changed everything."
From the September 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX (guest host): You've had a chance to see the president's text here. Have you changed your mind?
GREER: Well, I haven't changed my mind that I was very concerned as a parent last week when the White House was writing lesson plans and telling teachers what they should say to students before the president's speech and what they should say afterwards. And then when the White House said they weren't going to release the text, that concerned me. But now today, that they have released the text, and I've read it. It's an -- it's an upbeat speech, but is it the one the president was always going to give? You know, the White House --
MALVEAUX: You --
GREER: -- should not have been involved in writing lesson plans.
MALVEAUX: So you suspect that this isn't really the speech that he was going to give?
GREER: No, because clearly last week there was a plan with the Department of Education. When you ask students to write a letter to the president on how we can help you with your new ideas, Mr. President, that is leading the students in an effort to push the president's agenda.
Now that the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught, they changed everything. They re-did the lesson plans. They released the text. And tomorrow he's going to give a speech that every president should have an opportunity to give. This was never about the president speaking to children about the importance of education. It was about the White House writing lesson plans.
MALVEAUX: They did change the lesson plan. But -- but you have no information that the White House actually changed the text of the speech. You don't have any inside knowledge of that?
GREER: No, I don't. But I would anticipate, based on this president being so vocal and so aggressive about his vision of America, where government is in every aspect of our lives, I believe that the speech that he was going to give, based on the lesson plans, is different.
Previously, Greer had baselessly asserted that Obama would use speech to "indoctrinate" children. In a September 1 press release, Greer baselessly claimed students "will be forced to watch the president justify" a policy agenda and that Obama would "turn[] to American's children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American's youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves." PolitiFact.com concluded Greer's claim that Obama would discuss a policy agenda was "Pants on Fire" false, noting that "the [Florida Republican] party could not offer any support for the statement."
Conservative media figures accused Obama of planning to "indoctrinate" kids with speech. Echoing Greer's September 1 press release, numerous conservative media figures similarly accused Obama, without evidence, of "indoctrinating" children by delivering the back-to-school speech.
Conservative media assert Obama was forced to change speech after uproar
Goler: "[S]ome skeptics say" Obama would have discussed politics in speech if they hadn't "wav[ed] the red flag." Fox News White House correspondent Wendell Goler uncritically reported that "[f]ormer first lady Laura Bush says kids should see the speech. But some skeptics say the president might have included politics in the speech if it hadn't been for them waving the red flag last week." [Fox Report with Shepard Smith, 9/8/09]
Rove: "I would suspect, a dime to a dollar bet you, that they altered that speech." Fox News contributor Karl Rove stated: "I would suspect, a dime to a dollar bet you, that they altered that speech. And they certainly altered the study guides. But the purpose was partly good, partly political. It's now been turned a lot more good, less political." [Fox News' Happening Now, 9/8/09]
Limbaugh: Personal responsibility was "not the original intent of the speech." Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted: "The theme of his speech, which was not the original intent of the speech, by the way -- the original intent of the speech was a, you know, a 'dear leader' kind of thing, right out of the pages of that potbelly dictator in North Korea, Kim Jong Il. That's what it was gonna be." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/8/09]
Janet Porter: "America demanded a rewrite"; Obama's plans to recruit "Obama Youth" have "been thwarted." In a WorldNetDaily commentary, Janet Porter wrote: "America demanded a rewrite of Obama's speech he is to give to our children today. The indoctrination of the captive audience in public schools was going to be subjected to helping President Obama secure his radical agenda of government take over of health care -- but instead of recruiting 'Obama Youth,' with written pledges, that agenda has been thwarted for another more opportune time -- like when people aren't watching as closely." [WorldNetDaily, 9/8/09]
White House said speech was not altered
White House spokesmen stated that the speech was not changed as a result of conservative complaints. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reported, "White House spokesman Bill Burton says President Obama's speech to school children was not altered as a result of the controversy over the remarks - that it is the same speech that was originally to be delivered to students before critics began accusing the President of trying to indoctrinate the nation's children." Malveaux also reported that "Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the speech was 'largely written (over) the past week or two.' " [CNN.com's Political Ticker, 9/8/09]
Transcripts
From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox Report with Shepard Smith:
TRACE GALLAGHER (guest host): Wendell, what is the White House saying about the schools that decided not to show the speech?
GOLER: Well, obviously they're disappointed, but they won't admit it. In fact, the president's press secretary yesterday compared the fight over the whole thing to the -- the controversy over the whole thing to the Animal House food fight. Education Secretary Duncan points out that the speech, both the video and the text, are on the White House website right now for parents who want to watch it with their kids. Former first lady Laura Bush says kids should see the speech. But some skeptics say the president might have included politics in the speech if it hadn't been for them waving the red flag last week, Trace.
From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
JON SCOTT (host): We know that the Education Department sort of scrubbed or altered some of the lesson plans that were to go along with this speech. Here's my question. The White House took the extraordinary step of releasing the text of the president's speech 24 hours in advance. That doesn't usually happen. Do you think that the speech itself was altered?
ROVE: Oh, I bet it was. I mean, look, the White House was tone deaf. They clearly had a purpose here, which was, let's have the president speak to every student in the country, let's have a study guide, let's have them write the president and the president can write them back. In fact, they still have that in there. The president's -- the students are now being encouraged to write the president about, sort of, their life experiences, so the White House can then, you know, using the Department of Education budget, send out God knows how many, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of letters to students, signed by the president, saying thank you for writing me.
This clearly has a political import; it's clearly using the government's budget in a way to advance the president personally. It's the kind of thing that makes us -- that makes all Americans uneasy about what the White House is doing. But they clearly, I would suspect, a dime to a dollar bet you, that they altered that speech. And they certainly altered the study guides. But the purpose was partly good, partly political. It's now been turned a lot more good, less political, but there still is a political utility to this, which is have them write the president and then, using the Department of Education budget, have the president write them back.
That is the Rallying Cry of every Right-Wing Resident.
Turning the first Black President into a Sub-Human is their Ultimate Goal.
It cercainly helps to have Conservative Congressman & Senators in your Extreme Right Foal.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Proposing a speech.... Cons scramble for talking points
Going live in school.. Cons promote indoctrination being used
Keeping kids home from school..Cons fear the boogeyman
Giving a speech which Newt likes..Genius
Cons taking credit for changing the speech...PRICELESS.
They made a mountain out of a mole hill. But in the Con World, they were digging a hole....Beautiful
Whew, glad they caught this in the nick of time.
Obama had no choice but to give his "plan b" speech.
Thank god we have FOX News and Glenn Beck to save the world.
It was a close call!
Let me put my sunglasses on.....
It is remarkable how low people will stoop to try to undermine their own country and leadership. If the Repubs ever get back into power, I certainly hope that this behavior is not exhibited by the left.
That's part of their paranoia. The other factor is Obama being black and these teabaggin' parents don't want their children exposed to a well-spoken black man telling them to work hard and stay in school because it flies in the face of their racist views.
How can you reason with people such as these? It's not possible.
I wonder if Obama will ever take the gloves off. I'm thinking of Richard Belzer's speech as POTUS in The Groove Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgTzlXdviWk
"Show us your birth certificate and the original speech!"
When will the idiocy end?
But their mindless drones will just laugh stupidly to themselves as they lap this up, thinking they've won and that somehow we'll all be better off for it.
God, I really hate these people.
Word on the street is that Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer plans to gather barnyard animals and small children for a giant GOP Bacchanal to be held in the Florida swamps tomorrow.
We need to expose this right now, or he'll feel confident in going forward with his plan !!
Sure, the president asked kids to write to him as to how they could help him CHANGE EDUCATION for the better. They always leave that part out of it.
Anyway, nothing was changed. The screechers can claim "victory" about this, but they still look extemely stupid.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/
<You may have guessed this already, but news reports from the time indicate that Democrats criticized Bush for giving the speech.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives."And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Patricia Schroeder, then a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, said the speech showed "the arrogance of power," and that the White House should not be "using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education.>
Sorry, a couple others beat you to your false equivalence talking point by a full day, and were already schooled.
I won't bother asking you for any specifics about "the preparation materials" that caused most of the opposition. You've been suckered.
And don't forget the most important distinction. The Bush speech to school kids took place DURING a political campaign and was paid for by our taxes and not by campaign funds. That was the objection.
Who do you think paid for the Obama address? You think Arnie Duncan took it from his own pocket? It was tax dollars. The fact that Bush's was during a campaign doesn't mean anything. He was the President at the time. It wasn't a campaign speech, it was an education speech. What, were those Democrats who complained "against education" at the time? That's what this very site has said of some of those on the right who complained about the speech.
2) I don't base my posts on anything that was previously written by anyone on this site. I honeslty don't give a hoot who said what in previous posts. I wouldn't use any posts from others on the right to boost my point, nor would I let any previous left-wing loon posts deter me from posting my points. I do my own research. Just because you think you "schooled" other posters doesn't mean squat. Although I do appreciate the "schooled" pun given the subject at hand.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/teabagger-even-too-dumb-dr-nancy-msnbc
I was only trying to avoid redundancy, and save you some embarrassment.No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
I don't know why you've limited it to elected Republicans, they've got enough people in the media doing their dirty work that most of them can sit back, but how about this;
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Got something from Gephardt or Schroeder that matches that?
how about (from the same link);
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
I understand you added an "elected" restriction, but I'm ignoring your phony rules.
School district that barred students from hearing Obama will bus them to Bush speech.
gee, what a surprise...
Note how the basis of the complaints by the Democrats were based around using Dept. of Ed. funds for a campaign ad. Note how the uproar didn't start until after the speech was given. Note how the GAO cleared President Bush of using funds inappropriately.
President Reagan also addressed schoolkids, in 1988. He actually talked policy with them, including how important tax breaks for the wealthy were.
What no one has ever done before is accuse a POTUS who was scheduled to speak to the nation's schoolkids of trying to indoctrinate them into socialism, or convert them into proponents of his health reform, or otherwise turn them into goose stepping zombies.
Bringing up President Bush and President Reagan is what's known as 'false equivalence.' I pointed this out previously, and find myself needing to point it out again. President Obama has been treated by the press and the opposition party in a way that is completely new and unprecedented in American politics.
You can read it yourself here: http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450
I guess Bush was a socialist too? Heck, that wasn't even a "suggested lesson plan", it was in the actual speech!
There was no reason for the outrage. If this were ANYONE other than Obama, the outrage would not have existed. They knew the outrage was false because they were taught critical thinking too, and understand when there's a lesson plan around a speech, the questions and activities are centered around the speech not the President's overall agenda.
I ask who among the Republican Party is willing to stand up and denounce these fear tactics for what they are?!!!
Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.
Gee, those right-wing screamers may have a point . . . WAIT A MINUTE, that quote isn't from the most recent presidential speech to school children! That quote is from 10-01-91, and it was delivered by a Republican.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10
It is time we take back the process. It is time that we start speaking up strongly and loudly to make it clear that we will no longer allow the loud and petulant drown out and overrule the majority in this country.
What I have a problem with is when a group of people try to create this cloud of fear on something that they hadn't even read yet. Instead of waiting for the speech to be released and then make a decision about it, they "claimed" that it would be used to brainwash and indoctrinate kids into some Obama Youth Group to be used against Obamacare opponents. The only thing that they had to base this on was a part about the kids writing to the President asking how they can help him out. What is wrong with that? As a little kid I would have been excited if the President asked for my help.
The speech has turned out to be a good one, even by their standards, they chime that they know that it was not the one that he was going to give and that one had all the bad stuff in it. Now they will feel that they can make the President do whatever they want as long as they make stuff up and create enough fear and hate.
who was it that called those who opposed their policies un american?
who still to this day say that even though the intelligence that said there were wmd's in iraq and there was a terrorist connection, even though both were false?
who even now scream about government intrusion in health care...and inject themselves into a private family matter on an end of life decision?
who's administration had federal employees literally in bed with the companies they were supposed to be regulating, having sex, doing drugs and such?
and who was it that called for bill clinton to resign when he got caught with his affair only to be caught in affairs of their own and refuse to resign themselves?
takes some kinda ego to be a hypocrite doesn't it.
I swear, I've seen the Christmas decorations in stores this year before I saw any Halloween decorations. If Christmas was thriving any better (?), Santa would be at 4th of July parties.
Oh damn.
At that time the idea was ludicrous. It hasn't been now for many years. I feel old.
That name begins with 'm' and ends with 'ers.' There's an 'f' in the middle somewhere.
They are completely disrespectful of the office of the President of the United States of America.
probably not the only one, though.