"When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings"

[theprestige]

Now that Obama's given his speech, let's take a look at what happened after a similar address delivered in 1991:

Quote:

"...when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue."
-The Washington Examiner

[Redtail]

Hmmmm.... Doesn't say anything about the Republican reaction to the '91 speech... I wonder if maybe, just maybe, the shots taken at both presidents were political grandstanding by the opposite parties?

[Dr Adequate]

And apparently the investigation showed that it was perfectly OK for a President to do that. Which turned out to be a handy thing to know.

Someone should tell the wingnuts.

[Praktik]

Oh so they did it too??

Thank god I can split the difference and turn my brain off now

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Hmmmm.... Doesn't say anything about the Republican reaction to the '91 speech... I wonder if maybe, just maybe, the shots taken at both presidents were political grandstanding by the opposite parties?

Originally Posted by Praktik

Oh so they did it too??

Thank god I can split the difference and turn my brain off now

Let me know when actual Republican legislators hold official hearings.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Let me know when actual Republican legislators hold official hearings.

Let me know when actual Republican legislators wait till after the speech to do something stupid.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Hmmmm.... Doesn't say anything about the Republican reaction to the '91 speech... I wonder if maybe, just maybe, the shots taken at both presidents were political grandstanding by the opposite parties?

Indeed!

[Skeptic]

Yes, it IS political grandstanding on both sides (duh) but the democrats, as per usual, are the ones more likely to use the power of government (official hearings, in this case) to try and silence speech they dislike, for all their talk about being the party of "freedom".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Let me know when actual Republican legislators wait till after the speech to do something stupid.

I must have missed the part where Republican legislators held official hearings on the subject beforehand. Could you perhaps provide a citation?

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Yes, it IS political grandstanding on both sides (duh) but the democrats, as per usual, are the ones more likely to use the power of government (official hearings, in this case) to try and silence speech they dislike, for all their talk about being the party of "freedom".

Uh... No. The Dems waited until after the speech and tried to get some ammo for upcoming elections not to try to silence the speech. (Kinda hard to do after the fact.)

Having said that it was still stupid.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I must have missed the part where Republican legislators held official hearings on the subject beforehand. Could you perhaps provide a citation?

I must have missed the part where I said they did. Could you perhaps provide a citation of that?

[thaiboxerken]

Where was the part where people kept their children at home to avoid seeing the speech? Where is the part about the outcry from major liberal media outlets?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Where was the part where people kept their children at home to avoid seeing the speech? Where is the part about the outcry from major liberal media outlets?

All baseless questions. After all we've already determined the equivalency of the issue so there's no reason for further inspection.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Praktik

All baseless questions. After all we've already determined the equivalency of the issue so there's no reason for further inspection.

Who are "we" and what was the determination?

[Praktik]

oh speaking collecti_ely (my keyboard has no letter between C and B)

the determination is that we should all untie the knots in our panties cause the dems did it too.

After all, both the left and right have their crazies.

Nothing more to see here

[thaiboxerken]

you're speaking collectively for who?

what the dems did is not nearly close to what the wingnut conservatives are doing now. This is not just apparent when it comes to this speech either, but also with the health care debate and the claims that Obama is a socialist. It's not the fringe of the GOP, but the major media outlets of the conservative movement.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Where is the part about the outcry from major liberal media outlets?

Here

Quote:

The day after Bush spoke, 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," the Post reported.

[thaiboxerken]

Hmmm.. the day AFTER? Perhaps they didn't like the actual content of the speech. This pales in comparison to the conspiracies theorized about Obama before the speech. Since when is the Washington Post a major liberal media outlet?

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by gtc

Here

Lesse, that's complaining about students being used for photo ops.

Lesse what the complaints were about Obama:

Quote:

"President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?_r=1

Funny. My crazyometer is picking distinctly different readings.

[quixotecoyote]

And what manifestation of public outrage did the examiner find?

Quote:

"That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Would you like me to find some choice quotes conservative groups were saying about the Obama speech? I don't think the comparison would do your point any good.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

you're speaking collectively for who?

for the people in the conversation. Egadz this is like pulling teeth with you.

As in, "we have determined" - during the conversation - that there is an equivalency since "dems did it too"

Of course I was being sarcastic the whole time, which was likely lost on you.

I blame society.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

And what manifestation of public outrage did the examiner find?


Would you like me to find some choice quotes conservative groups were saying about the Obama speech? I don't think the comparison would do your point any good.

The poster asked for evidence that a major liberal media outlet raised an outcry. I pointed to the WaPo. That indicates that there were complaints about the speech.

You are moving the goalposts. I can't prove that the outcry from the nutty left was as big then as it is from the nutty right. The internet wasn't there to record and spread the nutty views. I also suspect that your views about the appropriateness of the outcry then is affected by your ideology.

[tyr_13]

Fair question from someone who doesn't know; is the Washington Post a major liberal media outlet? Was it one back then?

I agree that the dems were wrong back then, but it seems that their criticism was much more well thought out and actually addressed specific actions by the president at the time (educational spending) while today we have the crazies crying and yelling.

So, one, the actions are not equivalent, and two, even if they were it's still both wrong.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Praktik

for the people in the conversation.

Who gave you the authority to speak for everyone else in the conversation? I doubt you have this authority, especially since a few of those in the conversation disagree with you.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by gtc

The poster asked for evidence that a major liberal media outlet raised an outcry. I pointed to the WaPo. That indicates that there were complaints about the speech.

You are moving the goalposts. I can't prove that the outcry from the nutty left was as big then as it is from the nutty right. The internet wasn't there to record and spread the nutty views. I also suspect that your views about the appropriateness of the outcry then is affected by your ideology.

Not moving goalposts. They weren't mine to begin with. I'm pointing out that their wasn't the massive talk-radio meadia blitz that had dozens of parents calling in to schools complaining about allowing Bush to speak.

I'm saying that the mainstream media wasn't referring to Bush's speech as 'tinged with controversy' and the other weasel phrases they use to legitimize the criticism of Obama.

Yes, I think that the couple democrats in congress who investigated were silly, but they found nothing and let it go.

General reactions, outcry, and nuttery just doesn't compare.
eta:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You didn't see these kinds of interviews making the news.

Or these on tv:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Who gave you the authority to speak for everyone else in the conversation? I doubt you have this authority, especially since a few of those in the conversation disagree with you.

Argh!

Same team!

Dude it was a joke, including the "we decided" part. I was making light of what has become my pet issue here in recent days, the "equivalency game" wherein one has only to find "the same thing" being done by the opposing partisans for us to conclude that it's all a wash and that there's nothing all that different about X (done by a dem) and Y (done a republican).

I think its difficult, given the nature of the subject at hand, to really come up with some worthwhile metrics. How do you measure "outrage"? Or "vitriol"? If we had a lexis-nexis account we could maybe compare the number of hits in news stories back under HW Bush and now under Obama and have some kind of objective measurement - but that still wouldn't get us to what's happening at the grassroots level.

And I think given the hidden complexity of the socio-cultural issues at play here, and the dichotomy of the two-party system, its easier to just wave our hands and say "they did it too - look at these fool partisans, I'm Independent!"

At the end of the day though I think this approach does a disservice to the discussion intellectually. After all, the "progressive left" and "movement conservatives" each have unique histories, unique ways of looking at shared events of American history (from the Great Depression through to Vietnam and beyond), different demographics that make up their base, different degrees of media penetration in the MSM and different language they use to describe the political world.

It most definitely isn't "the same" as what was happening in 91. The Tea Baggers are not equivalent Cindy Sheehan.

They all should be studied on their own merits and the constant equating of radicalisms I think is a shortcut that blinds us to the real differences between these competing blocs.

[thaiboxerken]

Gotcha, Praktik. It's hard to hear the tone of sarcasm in posts. Perhaps the [sarcasm] tag was in order.

[Praktik]

Ya I'd been harping on that in multiple threads so I just assumed you maybe read those rants..

But its cool, cause the miscommunication allowed me to rant again on the subject and that was fun..

[thaiboxerken]

It was hard to tell because there are quiet a few wing nuts that sincerely use the same type of arguments.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by gtc

The poster asked for evidence that a major liberal media outlet raised an outcry. I pointed to the WaPo. That indicates that there were complaints about the speech.

You are moving the goalposts. I can't prove that the outcry from the nutty left was as big then as it is from the nutty right. The internet wasn't there to record and spread the nutty views. I also suspect that your views about the appropriateness of the outcry then is affected by your ideology.

You've begged the question. Namely, you have assumed that there is a nutty left, and a nutty right, and that they are both equal in size.

If the outcrty over Obama was this being a staged event, that it was used to score political points, that it was just a political manuever, yes, I'd be fine with the criticism. I would agree with it.

It was when the right wing turned this into a story about socialist indoctrination camps in our schools that it travelled into nutball land.

This is basically, classic apologist nonsense from you, and evidence of sloppy thinking. Because if the outcry over both was the same, I would agree that it was evidence of partisanship.

It wasn't. The Democrats raised the legitimate point that this was a photo-op. That was their bit of political grandstanding, to counter Bush's bit of political grandstanding. Politics is a dirty game, etc. etc.

If the Democrats had been ranting about indoctrination camps, they would have been called nuts.


This is why I call the right wing in this country fundamentally deranged. Even seemingly sensible posters like Branstar and you are seemingly unable to tell the difference between actions that are partisan, but sane, and actions that are fundamentally insane.

There are indeed elements of the left wing like this. And major left-wing outlets were usually criticizing them for comparing Bush to Hitler, 9/11 troofers, and other various crazy crap they pulled (Republicans, on the other hand, were calling them crazy for claiming Bush violated the constitution and tortured people, when he... well... violated the constitution and tortured people).

When someone is fundamentally incapable of telling the difference between a partisan position, and and an insane one, the difference between legitimate criticism and insane criticism, they are not operating from a sane position.

The two criticisms were not fundamentally equivelent. At no point did anyone defending Obama suggest that no president in the past was ever criticized for their actions. They suggested that accusing him of indoctrinating students and pushing death camps and Nazi ideology and socialism in his brainwashing speech was fundamentally DERANGED.

Guess what? It's fundamentally deranged. As is, as far as I can see, most of the right wing at the moment. Newt Gingrich is starting to look like a voice of reason here. That's not the best sign of creeping sanity.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Not moving goalposts. They weren't mine to begin with. I'm pointing out that their wasn't the massive talk-radio meadia blitz that had dozens of parents calling in to schools complaining about allowing Bush to speak.

I'm saying that the mainstream media wasn't referring to Bush's speech as 'tinged with controversy' and the other weasel phrases they use to legitimize the criticism of Obama.

Yes, I think that the couple democrats in congress who investigated were silly, but they found nothing and let it go.

General reactions, outcry, and nuttery just doesn't compare.
eta:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You didn't see these kinds of interviews making the news.

Or these on tv:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The problem is that I actually think that the people who complained then that it was a stunt for political purposes and the people who are saying the same thing now are correct. Although, many of the people complaining then and now have gone too far.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by gtc

The problem is that I actually think that the people who complained then that it was a stunt for political purposes and the people who are saying the same thing now are correct. Although, many of the people complaining then and now have gone too far.

No, no, this isn't true. You've drawn a link between two things which aren't equivalent.

If the Democrats went too far under Bush, the worst you can charge is they were too partisan - they tried too hard to try and see ways that Bush was using government funds to party boost.

While I'm not sure that's what he's doing - events use money almost by definition, and I can't really see a sitting president BADMOUTHING his own party - that's actually a charge that could be semi-legitimate. Using his actions to draw attention to areas the Democrats feel Bush is neglecting in education, while partisan, is certainly legitimate.

Saying he was indoctrinating the children in fascist ideology would be insane.

You cannot draw an equivalence. The two things are not equal. Remember, this is not being done by some teenagers in anarchist T-Shirts, some marginal group chaining themselves to trees.

These are accusations made by people on a News station, people embraced by the Republican party and conservative culture, people conservatives consider sources of wisdom.

You cannot draw equivalence between partisan, but sane objections, and insane rantings.

You cannot draw equivalence between the rantings of a few crackpots in self-printed magazines and marginal blogs, and a mainstream TV show in prime time with viewers in the millions.

You cannot posit that those who see equivalence in this are being "non-partisan" or "objective." They're simply being insane.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Now that Obama's given his speech, let's take a look at what happened after a similar address delivered in 1991:

umm..thats 18 years ago. The USSR still existed. The Berlin Wall was still up. Yugoslavia was one country.

can't find ANYTHING more recent?

[skeptical]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

You cannot draw equivalence between partisan, but sane objections, and insane rantings.

You cannot draw equivalence between the rantings of a few crackpots in self-printed magazines and marginal blogs, and a mainstream TV show in prime time with viewers in the millions.

You cannot posit that those who see equivalence in this are being "non-partisan" or "objective." They're simply being insane.

I think this is very insightful and accurately represents what I see as a serious problem. Yes its true that partisan squabbles are part of our process. No doubt, get that, been there done that. Even acrid partisanship is not over the top provided the objections are tethered to reality.

And yes, there are now and have always been people who make deranged and crazy accusations against the opposing party.

BUT, those people have, up till now, always been the far extreme fringe in both parties. In recent history at least, it has never been true that the crazies are actually part of the mainstream of a major party. If their craziness was reported it was more of a joke than to be examined. That seems to have changed. When sitting Senators, VP candidates and major media conservative voices ARE the crazies, something has gone seriously wrong with our process.

And yes, claiming the government wants to put together a "death panel" to kill the elderly is crazy and deranged. Saying a sitting President giving a "stay in school" speech is tantamount to socialist indoctrination is crazy and deranged.

The thing is, it's not just the talking heads. There seems to be a major portion of the populace, I dare not guess how many, who actually buy into this. And THAT, is more than a serious problem.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

This is why I call the right wing in this country fundamentally deranged. Even seemingly sensible posters like Branstar and you are seemingly unable to tell the difference between actions that are partisan, but sane, and actions that are fundamentally insane.

I am reliably informed that this post has been reported to the mods, and yet somehow no action has been taken, and my user name has not been fixed.

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I am reliably informed that this post has been reported to the mods, and yet somehow no action has been taken, and my user name has not been fixed.

Edit time has passed, but if any mod cares to, I'm sure they could.

Nice avoidance of the issue, by the way. REAAAAAL smooth. I'm sure no one thinks you're deliberately trying to draw attention from the lunatic behavior of certain members of the right wing, and the persistence in apologists of drawing parallels between one form of partisan behavior, and another, despite the fact that one form consists of sane objections, and the other is pure and utter babble, ideas that would be embarrassing in our CT forum.