Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
It's Friday. Just show a video.
September 4, 2009
From the archives, Ronald Reagan’s 1988 speech to students
As the country gears up for President Obama’s surprisingly controversial back-to-school speech on Tuesday, here’s a blast from the past: Ronald Reagan’s November 1988 speech to students, in which the outgoing president encouraged students to “ground yourself in the ideas and values of the American Revolution.” The speech was broadcast on C-Span and shown in classrooms across the country.
Dakarai Aarons at Education Week dug up Reagan’s speech and one given to schoolchildren in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush, who sounded the same theme of personal responsibility that Obama has said his speech will cover.
-
September 4th, 2009 11:25 pm
Important not to censor our presidents. Thank you.
-
September 5th, 2009 12:12 am
[...] President Bush Sr. spoke to students in 1991, and President Reagan did the same thing in 1988 (via C-SPAN). The Democrats’ knees also whipped back in protest, and Newt Gingrich, the Republican [...]
-
September 5th, 2009 11:09 am
I don’t care how leftist or rightist they are, I think it’s nice that the President goes on TV to encourage students to work hard and do a good job.
-
September 5th, 2009 11:24 am
Terrifying! And he was known as “The Great Communicator”?
-
September 5th, 2009 11:53 am
[...] that is remotely concerning to me. I mean, according to CNN, Reagan gave a similarly-oriented, but more politically-slanted speech to school kids in 1988, calling taxes “such a penalty on people that there’s no [...]
-
September 5th, 2009 7:22 pm
Folks,
The problem is not President Obama giving a speech to schoolchildren. The problem is with the Department of Education 1) circumventing local school boards and arranging this directly with principals/administrators and 2) the lesson plan created by the DoE and distributed to the schools which is specifically prohibited by the enabling legislation which created the DoE.
-
September 5th, 2009 7:43 pm
Speech isn’t tHe problem lesson plans are! Teachers teach a president should stay out of the lesson and homework part. He used an 11 year old at a debate. Kid was a daughter of someone who worked with Michele Obama in MA.! Even the New York Obama Times mentioned that!
Renee -
September 6th, 2009 12:02 am
I remember watching this as a kid! Strangely enough, I am now a raging liberal. Oh, but if they’d only made me fill out a worksheet, I’m sure that would’ve made all the difference.
David Brooks (conservative commentator, who I greatly respect) was asked about this controversy on NPR, and he quickly dismissed this topic, “I hope the public out there can distinguish between these “death panel Republicans” and the rest of us.”
Truly, the right-wing fringe element out there that gets upset about this sort of topic needs to be ignored.
-
September 6th, 2009 4:00 am
Lets be serious the problem is not that Obama wants to give a well needed motivational speech to children that obviously other Presidents have given. The real problem is that America is still filled with old-fashioned hatred and racism. The people that don’t want their children to hear President Obama speak is merely because they don’t want their children listening to a black man. And have NO other way of justifying their ridiculous arguments. My children will be listening to President Obama and I am insulted that some Americans would think that our children could be so easily brainwashed, as if President Obama’s speech of the importance of staying in school is an example of brainwashing. I suggest to all conservatives get a life! And get over the fact that you LOST!
-
September 6th, 2009 11:14 am
I wonder how the people that are so upset about the President maybe influencing their children feel about those same children being influenced by the schools teaching of all Presidents beginning with George Washington.
What a crock. The people in this country get more stupid everyday. -
September 6th, 2009 7:41 pm
[...] From the archives, Ronald Reagan’s 1988 speech to students | GothamSchools __________________ "Daddy it’s like a hippopotamus on wheels." "LONG LIVE THE PIG" A green and white 55, a gray 40 and a black monty YouTube - pig ride Off Road Runners ”Do you have any tobacco" http://www.marksoffroad.net mark saved my cruiser [...]
-
September 7th, 2009 2:42 pm
Just a question. Is C-Span going to be carrying the President Obama’s speech?
-
September 7th, 2009 2:58 pm
Oh yeah…it all comes down to race for the liberals. Please explain how voting FOR someone because he’s black is any less racist than voting AGAINST him because he’s black. A white man with the same liberal voting record, lack of experience and radical affiliations never would have made it to the primaries…or even received security clearance for a government job. If Barack Obama were not black, Hillary Clinton would be president. I can get over that my side lost. What pains me is that this great country REALLY lost.
-
September 7th, 2009 5:25 pm
One of the forum participants in these entries, Brad Marston, validated the reason for the uproar… the Department of Education got involved in “’shaping” the opinions of our youngsters, which apparently teeters on being illegal. Politics aside, do you really want any and all Presidents of any political bent to have a policy to make a routine out of addressing our public school children exclusively? Think about it; if this pattern were to become established policy, young and impressionable future voters could be influenced en-masse, potentially bolstering the agendas and favorable constituencies of the very party or administration establishing such a policy. Fortunately, policies seem to change or adjust to fit public opinion, or in this case public outcry… thank God the American people are paying attention, and this time got the attention of the Obama administration, and the apparently errant Department of Education!
-
September 7th, 2009 5:56 pm
Cathy, voting for someone is not the same as voting against someone. This is political sociology 101. Let’s take race out of it for a moment, because people in this country don’t know how to talk about race w/o getting angry. If I’m a woman and I vote for a woman, then I’m voting for someone with whom I identify because I want to see a marginalize identity (i.e., women) succeed to the highest office in the country. That doesn’t make me sexist. However, if I’m a man and I vote for a man because I don’t want to see a woman in the White House or I allow negative stereotypes of woman to shape my vote (no matter whether I realize I hold those stereotypes or not), that’s sexist. It’s the same thing with race. And, (to others) if it were just about the lesson plans, people would just reject the lesson plans and show the speech. Let’s stop pretending we do things on principle when we do them for partisan reasons.
-
September 7th, 2009 6:30 pm
The speech has never been a problem for me. Despite not liking Obama, he is our president and I think the kids should hear what he has to say. Every study out there shows that parents and peers influence children more than any politician. However, I have always disliked the arrogance with which the democrats involved in this administration run things. In general, once something is federal, they have full control over it and we have no more voice. I believe this is typically at the root of the conservatives concern about feeling steamrolled with the quick passing of several bills, especially when it involves more taxes and they have yet to see those bills prosper them in any way. By circumventing the way the broadcasts have been done in the past, (i.e. - school board and no lesson plan involvement) I continue to see the arrogance (which I hated in Bush as well) of this administration.
circumventing local school boards and arranging this directly with principals/administrators and 2) the lesson plan created by the DoE and distributed to the schools which is specifically prohibited by the enabling legislation which created the DoE.
-
September 7th, 2009 7:16 pm
The objections to Obama’s speech are not sincere — this is part of a cynical, orchestrated campaign to raise a protest no matter what he does. These same people would be screaming if he said “have a nice day!”
Now that it’s widely known that Reagan and George H.W. Bush addressed schoolchildren, the tinfoil-hat crowd is retorting that they spoke to schools but not to schoolchildren nationwide. But that’s false too. Bush opened his October 1991 speech with this sentence:
“Thank you, Ms. Mostoller, and thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you and all these students, and millions more in classrooms all across the country.”
Here’s the link to the text, in the George H.W. Bush presidential library:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=all
And Reagan began his speech by offering “a special hello to those of you who are watching on C-SPAN or the Instructional Television Network.”
-
September 7th, 2009 10:47 pm
Why not just bomb the schools like Bush did in Iraq? Republicans can still sleep with a clear conscience after all the women and children were killed in Iraq? You guys are total loser idiots.
-
September 8th, 2009 1:50 am
[...] In 1988, when Reagan gave his address to young students, George H. W. Bush was running against Michale Dukakis. Reagan surely would not have wanted the White House turned back over to the Democratic Party, and unlike Obama’s speech outlined above (you read it, yes?), right-wing rhetoric pervaded Reagan’s speech – particularly matters of foreign policy, lower taxes, and smaller government. He encouraged students to “ground [themselves] in the ideas and values of the American Revolution.” See the entire video below: http://gothamschools.org/2009/09/04/from-the-archives-ronald-reagans-1988-speech-to-students/ [...]
-
September 8th, 2009 2:03 am
Christopher, I appreciate your civil response. However, what if you’re a man and you vote for a woman, not because that woman is qualified but because you want to prove your not sexist? Voting for someone based on skin color is the same as voting against someone based on skin color. I have no doubt that Obama won the election because he is a black man. This country wants so desperately to move beyond the race issue and so many believed that electing a black man president would do that. Unfortunately, it hasn’t happened…the race card is played everytime someone disagrees with or questions the president. (See Kristina’s post above) Martin Luther King dreamed of an America where his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Ironically, the opposite happened in the last election.
-
September 8th, 2009 3:01 am
Cathy, thanks for the civility. However, I must admit that your claim seems pretty baseless. It’s not to say that you are wrong. It’s to say that you have no evidence, data, or experience to know that Obama won because he’s Black. No one does. And, anecdotal evidence is not proof. I have anecdotal evidence to counter yours, but I wouldn’t say that “I have no doubt that…” without something more tangible.
Choosing an apple to eat is not choosing against an orange. You can vote for someone and simultaneously not be voting against someone else. When they add a box for “vote against” on a ballet, then lets revisit this. Until then, we can’t call someone racist because they voted for the person they like best, assuming that hatred of the other person’s race wasn’t a motivating factor. I don’t know many people who voted against McCain because of his race. But, there is data that suggests people didn’t vote for Obama because of race (the evidence is there).
I am a man, and I have voted for plenty of women (Ann Richards in Texas, for example). Was I trying to prove that I wasn’t sexist? No. I was trying to prove that Ann Richards was intelligent, talented, competent, dynamic and just plain awesome
If your assumption is correct, and proving myself “non-sexist” is my motivation, than it would stand to reason that I might vote for Sarah Palin (w/ McCain) to prove I’m not sexist. I didn’t. However, we can never take race out of the equation, just like we can never take sex, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. out. It all matters for the very reason that you point out. We cannot move beyond those things, at least not yet, because we are afraid to really grapple with them. I’m rambling, so forgive the long post. P.S. If you want to continue the discussion off-forum (so we don’t wear out our welcome), feel free to email me: moshe_beadle@yahoo.com. God bless.
-
September 8th, 2009 3:13 am
I’m black, get over this obama being black and blah… blah. Like some of us black people can’t make up our own minds. I don’t like him. I can’t stand this come together mess while he is tearing down what it really means to DREAM. I’m also sick of some people trying to lump him in with a great man like MLK. He will never come close to MLK. I have been on both sides of the health care. I’m on the better side of health care and have been for many yrs now. So wthat other presidents have speoken to kids.
They did not make it as big of a deal as he has. Give me a break. He is not a god. Now let him raise or fall as any man does. Stop making excuses for his lack respect of our country. I’m a soldier. I started to learn how to act the 1st day of joining the army. If we must know how to act. Then he needs too. He did bow to the leader of another contry. Oh, I’m also a Chaplain Asst. so when he said the we are not a Christian nation. the Chaplain and myself are some of the first people the troops meet at every post, base in country and overseas. So why believe his lie. I’m not making any of this up this and more is part of my job. So, him being black is not the issue. He is messing up.
Just before I go. You know his vist to the troops at Walter Reed hosp. At first he was going to lessen our health care due to not seeing as many injuerd troops. We put up a big stink. Well I had just got back from deployment. I had to go through a very detailed med process to list any all concerns after serving about 22 mos away from family. the troops found out what he was doing and we spoke up. So, no he did not go the troops because he really cared. This is the real man you support. now tell your friends if you wish. Trust me I’m not a hard of bitter person.
-
September 8th, 2009 3:37 am
thans for having this site. i’m not giving up on obama. i just would like the love feast to stop and let him stand for more than wishful thinking. all sides need to work it out not just hope it will. any and all should never make up their mind and not try to see the other side. that’s all i’m saying. there’s enough blame to throw.
-
September 8th, 2009 7:57 am
umm, a whole heck of a lot of white people voted for Obama, do you think they did it simply because he was black? All that aside, he is our President, the election is over. Kids think Presidents are pretty cool, lets at least cherish that one last position in the nation that the youth respects without us adults ruining with partisan junk.
-
September 8th, 2009 10:23 am
This speech is pure crap. Who was this president addressing the US ARMY before WAR. i cant believe its children. Was he born big?
-
September 8th, 2009 10:47 am
This is a good speech, a strong positive message for our children. Laura Bush is right; we should respect the office of the President.
With his emphasis on personal responsibility conservatives should like this speech, and would if the President was named “John S. McCain” or “Sarah Palin.”
Maybe Obama should change his name, his party, and his skin color. Or maybe he should do the job he was elected to do.
-
September 8th, 2009 10:56 am
Tempest in a teapot.
Rehashing the election not worth parsing.
I’ll take ANY president addressing the nation’s children over the one reading My Pet Goat.
-
September 8th, 2009 11:09 am
to Claris or anyone,
How is partisaan… junk is that not what obama ran on in the first place. i said there is enough blame from all sides. as far as not cherishing the position, you have no idea that i don’t. i don’t care how many white or any other race voted for him. i care that he does the job right. it matters. trust me. he can have all the speeches and the kids or anyone can call him cool. when it comes down to it. he just has to do the job. so far he’s been caring about how he looks and only what he wants to push though, not if it really is wise or not, it matters
-
September 8th, 2009 12:13 pm
It’s not the speech.
The current anger against the President and the Congress ultimately will show itself to have NOTHING to do with political ideology. The anger is fueled by the travesty these offices have become due to the antics of BOTH political parties. The offices themselves have become so disrespectful that it is impossible to respect these offices or their office holders!
We don’t have to give up our liberal or conservative convictions to solve this problem, but sadly, our convictions are being used by ALL of these officeholders, GOP and Democrat, against us! Calling fellow Americans socialists and racists is SHAMEFUL and keeps us from moving forward.
As long as they can fuel the name calling and bickering over things large (health care) and small (presidents’ speeches to school children) our elected officials will continue to fill their pockets with OUR money and grow their own arrogance with the power that WE give them. None of our nation’s problems will ever be solved and the same people who have so deeply entrenched themselves in their positions will continue to be re-elected. The problems will remain unsolved all the while they will be inventing new ones that will also never be solved.
Here are some ideas:
1. Repeal all automatic pay raises, retirement plans, appointments and positions that give them perks that are paid for by the American people.
2. Prohibit any written legislation that is more than 25 pages long (1,000 plus pages is utterly ridiculous).
3. Require a roll call vote on EVERY piece of legislation.
3. Prohibit amendments to all legislation. If the law needs an amendment, it needs to be rewritten. If it can’t be done in 25 (or another smaller than 1,000 number) pages a new and separate law must be drafted.
3. Require the President and Congress to live under ALL of the laws that they so easily hoist upon our backs! Start with health care.
4. Stop the practice of Gerrymandering. 2010 is when the next mischief will occur! Make them draw out their districts in solid SQUARES and RECTANGLES (the edges can be wavy to conform with county borders) without consideration of the population’s party affiliation within these districts.
These few changes would create natural term limits; and it will be very clear to us, based on our own individual beliefs, which bums need to be thrown out!
It will be tough on the 537 people in Washington who WE VOTED TO REPRESENT US, but for the greater good it will release 300 million plus citizens from their tyranny!
-
September 8th, 2009 12:18 pm
No, Susan, the anger IS about political ideology, as well as race.
And simplistic solutions never solve problems. Term limits mean experienced veterans are aced out for rank and sometimes unqualified beginners; the Prop. 13 initiative that started the tax revolt nationwide has nearly destroyed California (where I live). E-Z solutions don’t solve complex problems.
-
September 8th, 2009 12:38 pm
screw all of the people who are against obama giving his speech. let the man speak
-
September 8th, 2009 12:52 pm
I suggested that term limitation would occur naturally if US citizens were not hampered by the unnatural direction in which our politicians have taken our country. They have done it by clouding our vision with complexity. Instead of repealing bad law, they amend and create layer upon layer of new bad laws.
Yes, the anger IS about partisan politics on this blog at this moment;
but it has been, is now and will continue to be fueled by BOTH parties to divert the American people from being true participants (by representation) in their own republic.What happened with Prop 13 in California was done legally (the California state constitution allows Voter Referendum).
Because an idea is seized upon by many, does not make it a bad idea. A revolt occurs because people choose to participate in it. Most people possess critical thinking skills. Arrogance, condescension and anger occur among other thinking people who do not happen to agree with their thinking.
“Divide and conquer.”
Julius Caesar“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Leonardo da Vinci -
September 8th, 2009 1:37 pm
Yes, Prop. 13 was done legally, but it has done massive damage to my state over its 30 years of existence.
-
September 8th, 2009 2:14 pm
Knee “jerk” Republican
You may have a knee, and you may be a jerk, but neither you nor David Brooks has any credibility as a Republican. Why do you think he is chosen by the left-wing Lehrer Report to offer straw man representation for the right?
You offer absolutely no opposition to the Democratic perspective. Republicans are sick of you RINOs running around claiming to speak for us. -
September 8th, 2009 2:36 pm
I was reading all posts, and i find it interesting that you all assume that If I don’t want my child t listen to Obama’s speech, that I’m this, or I’m that. (racist, for example). I am just an ordinary citizen, who believes that it is the PARENTS responsibility, not the presidents, to teach your children they should stay in school. My child is a 4.0 student, working towards being a surgeon some day. he doesn’t need the president telling him to stay in school. he is very aware that to obtain his goals, he must not only finish high school, but continue his education. thanks Mr. President for giving all the parents who do not contribute to their kids lives another reason to not do their part.
-
September 8th, 2009 3:07 pm
So, Jill, did you object when President Bush addressed the nation’s schoolchildren in 1991, and when President Reagan addressed the nation’s schoolchildren in 1988? Or, if you didn’t have kids then, now do you think you’d have objected?
-
September 8th, 2009 4:02 pm
my son was not in school until 1999, so I guess it didn’t apply. if he had been in school, i probably would have objected, yes. why aren’t more parents angry that the president has decided to “PARENT” the children? it isn’t about who’s president. it’s about the fact that this is a parents responsibility, not the government. the government, who by the way, can’t make my ex pay his $20,000 in back child support. I’m not pro goverment, anti government, or anything of the like. but i feel that my childs education is up to me. there are lots of kids who do well, and have every intention of staying in school. I feel that this was a waste of valuable education time.
-
September 8th, 2009 4:14 pm
Jill, you have every right to object to others’ giving your children advice on how to succeed in school and in life if you want, but just be aware that that’s not a mainstream view; it’s pretty unusual. Most Americans are happy to have positive role models give their children advice on how to succeed in school and in life — messages that support the parents’ goals for their kids.
Interestingly, in the usual situation, teachers and other educators get bashed for NOT selling kids on this message effectively enough.
You ask why more parents aren’t angry for the specific reason that you are — well, that’s because you have a really unusual point of view.
Most people who are objecting are clearly objecting because it’s Obama — or rather, professing to object; few if any of these objections are sincere. Mostly they’re play-acting, a manufactured ploy to get on Page 1 with more anti-Obama protests. They don’t want to hear about it that Bush One and Reagan did the same thing; these conservatives clearly would not object to their kids’ hearing Bush One and Reagan, so that inconvenient fact messes up their outraged protests.
I have heard some people say that parents’ concern is that their kids will find Obama too compelling and convincing, and decide that maybe they’ll agree with some of his views.
I was trying to decide whether I’d object to my kids’ hearing a Republican president for the same reason. I can’t even keep a straight face at the thought of my kids’ finding George W. Bush (the only Republican president during their lifetimes) compelling and convincing. Not a worry — they’d be free to listen to his speeches all day long.
-
September 8th, 2009 4:48 pm
Re Jill C, and the 4.0 10th(?) grade future surgeon whose father is $20k in arrears and whose mother openly begrudges the government that fact:
If the President’s speech helps even a few kids motivate, it will have been worth it, no?I read it. (Feel free to google it.) IMHO, it’s politically innocuous, and potentially inspirational.
And apparently, not targeted toward your son. But I’d be interested in his reaction to it, and moreover, your or his thoughts on how all those kids without great role models might react to it.
Re CSF and Susan:
I’m from Berkeley. Ditto to CSF re Prop 13.Suggestion to Susan re politicians not serving We The People. I agree with your diagnosis of the disease, but not the cure. Follow the money — to its source. I take bigger issue with the influence of money in politics than the politicians de jour, let alone the length of the bills.
-
September 8th, 2009 4:49 pm
Reagan and G H W Bush both clearly politicized their speeches. In Reagan’s case, it may have worked. The mantras of his true believers are “Don’t Do Drugs” and “Taxes are Evil.” In G H W Bush’s case, it didn’t work. “Study Hard” and “Don’t Do Drugs” are positive messages. “Rat on your friends” is not exactly un-American; it is, however McCarthyistic, and counter to very strong American traditions.
In Obama’s case, this is clearly not a political speech. It does however, have political ramifications. To whit, the students will someday be voters. They will view him the way their parents or grandparents view Kennedy and FDR. If he follows through, progressives will respect him, conservatives will curse him, and he will go down in history as a great or terrible President, depending on the lens thru which one looks. This is the whole gist of the Republicanista cry against Obama.
At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, which is as American as apple pie, this is discussed in my song, “We Had The Will, We Found The Way” on http://www.xbcoldfingers.com, and http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/xbcoldfingers
-
September 8th, 2009 5:08 pm
Michael, you are absolutely right. Follow the money and it leads you to campaign finance ‘reform’ which as it stands is a big joke and in part a violation of the First Amendment. If the US Constitution allowed voter referendum, what a nice bill We the People could put before the lords, ladies, kings and queens of DC; much nicer than tar, feather and rails.
-
September 8th, 2009 8:17 pm
If the speech was’t targeted at him, why should he be forced to watch it? That’s time out of his day spent listening to somthing that, in your words doesn’t pertain to him. and I feel sorry for those children who don’t have positive role models, but you’ve made my point for me. Why don’t these kids have at least one positive parent supporting their children? why does the presdent have to emotionally support these children? and as I said in a previous post, i feel that this will just compound the problem. It’s reinforcing the idea that we don’t need to parent our children, the president will do it for us.
-
September 8th, 2009 9:01 pm
Well, it’s a little bit impossible to single out the kids who are likely to screw up and say “YOU and YOU watch Obama’s speech, and the rest of you work on your lesson…” And also, for those with younger kids, you really don’t know what direction your kid will take in the future, for that matter, so it can’t exactly hurt. Anyone who’s been around teens knows kids who seemed to be on the right path when they were younger and then took a wrong turn.
So, why don’t all kids have at least one positive parent supporting their children? Well, because some people have tougher lives than others. That’s a question we all have to ask ourselves and our higher powers, if any.
If your view is sincere, I would reiterate that it’s extremely unusual, if not one of a kind, but that’s your right.
One point, though, is that I was following numerous discussions of this speech in different education forums before it happened, and those objecting (most of whom, again, I believe to be insincere and play-acting for the sake of keeping anti-Obama protests on Page 1) give a whole array of different reasons. Basically they contradict each other. For those tiny few who are sincere, of course it’s their right to have their own unique reasons for objecting. But the fact that they give a wide range of reasons — many illogical, contradictory and sometimes just idiotic — does discredit the notion that this is some kind of principled mass outcry. (One woman was angry because she insisted that this was “unprecedented” — that seemed to be her only objection. When it was pointed out to her that there is definitely precedent, and it came from presidents she admired, she just disappeared from the discussion.)
-
September 8th, 2009 9:17 pm
Jill,
I generally dislike arguing public policy based on individual examples and anecdotes. That being said, it’s sort of difficult to sort out the future surgeons when planning ANY day’s “programming.” Every kid in a school watches or none at all. Schools that across-the-board said “feh” are yet another matter.There’s absolutely nothing in that speech that even remotely suggests parents ought take a siesta on parenting their children, so why suggest that red herring?
In general — not about you or me as parents — I believe, as does the President, that the best motivation is internal — not parent-pleasing.
-
September 8th, 2009 9:26 pm
Reagan’s speech was a lot of blah-blah about US supremacy, then question-and-answer where he gets to defend his own administration’s aims. Obama’s speech just motivates kids to believe in themselves. There is a world of difference — like comparing an apple with an orange.
-
September 8th, 2009 10:20 pm
Jill, with all due respect, I think you are being a little obsessive about this (I apologize if that offends you). No one is trying to parent your kid. From what you describe, he seems quite bright and capable. That doesn’t mean he cannot use encouragement. I know people who have gone through medical school, and sometimes someone just telling them “you can do it” makes a significant difference. If I came across your kid and I said, “good job young man, keep it up.”, I’m not contradicting anything that you’ve taught him. On the contrary, I’m reinforcing it. If you don’t want your kid to hear the speech, that’s fine. But, there are several great parents and teachers who do. The more important question is wouldn’t you rather your kid go to school with kids who look up to positive role models? If so, be happy that they have someone to emulate (like Obama) rather than MTV, ESPN, Spike TV, etc.
-
September 9th, 2009 7:04 am
[...] conservatives forgotten that both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush addressed students? Or was that different because those presidents [...]
-
September 9th, 2009 8:54 am
How many classrooms had TVs in 1988 and 1991, and how many have them today? I know that in 2001 I had to take my classroom students across the hall to the library to watch the World Trade Center towers fall. I do not remember the two earlier addresses, and I doubt the media gave them the pre-speech RAH RAH the current speech received. One last thing, Republican or Democrat, it strikes me as counter productive to interrupt classroom time to tell the students to study.
-
September 9th, 2009 10:02 am
I personally did not see Reagan’s speech in 1988 while I was in school. I would speculate that it was because many school like ours did not have cable TV to access the speech. I was not in school in 1991, but would still think many schools did not have cable television. Definitely not compared to what students have today with either satellite or cable tv and Internet.
-
September 9th, 2009 10:04 am
Oh come on. The speech WAS the problem until the hysteria mongers realized their priceless Ronald and Georgie did the same. So they needed something else to hang the hate on. So they went after the lesson plans…which is a nice thing to offer teachers, is not mandatory in any way but simply ideas teachers can use if they like to add more learning to the speech. Tons of organizations, private companies and TV shows offer lesson plans every day.
The whole thing is a made up issue to keep the people from focusing on the real issues facing this country today.
-
September 9th, 2009 10:08 am
Quote: “The whole thing is a made up issue to keep the people from focusing on the real issues facing this country today.”
I whole heartedly agree Eml. I believe we should not be wasting valuable time and money giving speeches to schools. Very good point. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
-
September 9th, 2009 10:57 am
Well Mark, you and I and everyone here, and the media have certainly spent a lot more time on this than the president has on this speech. The right has made this a huge issue and I’ll bet has spent tons more time and money on making it an issue than the government has.
Let’s move on to campaign contributions setting the political agenda in this country (surely that’s non-partisan). And health care, and taxes and the war, and unemployment and the infrastructure and on and on. That’s real. This speech was just a simple little blip in the presidents time and focus.
-
September 9th, 2009 11:11 am
Thankfully I didn’t have to spend any time or money on the issue. My children’s school did not air the speech simply because they are in preparations of taking the TAKS state required test and did not need the interruption.
-
September 9th, 2009 11:40 am
TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
Per Texas Education Agency website, next test window is September 28 - October 16.
Clearly (wink), not an hour to spare in the upcoming 3 - 5 weeks for a pep talk.
Sheesh.Pardon me while I go clear me some brush.
-
September 9th, 2009 11:47 am
QUE PEDO VATO.
-
September 9th, 2009 12:03 pm
[...] ever since America has had schools. Even Republican Presidents – George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan - have in the past delivered similar messages to classrooms around the [...]
-
September 9th, 2009 12:23 pm
An hour for the speech, but how many hours used to readjust schedules? Our schools also figure in possible lost school time during hurricane season since we have had 3 hurricanes that left students out of school for 30 days or more in the past 3 years. Unfortunately, that 3 -5 weeks is barely enough time to prepare my 3rd grade daughter to take an exam that lasts all day. I equate that with Microsoft certification exams computer folks take that last all day, and spend 6 months or more preparing. Keep in mind, if Texas students fail their state exams then the state loses federal funding of our schools.
-
September 9th, 2009 12:34 pm
I found this article to be very interesting.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/53712
But I’m sure people will find a way to explain it away. -
September 9th, 2009 1:01 pm
Well, there it is…. if i’m not racist, I’m obsessive. We have free speech. Doesn’t mean I (or you, or anyone else) has to listen. It’s too bad that people can’t have a simple opinion without some sort of motivation behind it.
-
September 9th, 2009 2:09 pm
Jill, have a little faith in your intelligent 4.0 child. He is going to hear a lot of speeches that you will not be able to censor before he makes it to the operating room. Any one of them by your standards could lead him to dropping out of school, or what ever.your so called fear is
Believe me I know from what I speak, one of my many very educated children, a daughter, told me when she was nine that she was going to be a doctor. She made excellent grades, worked hard but I did not see where I could get the money needed for such an expensive education. and I told her it wasn’t possible . Well my little speech to her went in one ear and out the other. She sure didn’t listen to me. she found a way, She is a Doctor today.
How much more, than her mom. do you think she would have been listening to the Prez? -
September 9th, 2009 2:22 pm
Hey Mark, don’t blame you for not wanting your kids to listen to the President.
Heck man, if some of your Texas compatriots get their way Texas will not be a part of the United States before too long.
Hope Texas will keep all drugs, dealers, bad people inside your new country.Good luck in the next Hurricane season, maybe you can get som help from Mexico.
Don’t come begging our Black President for help. Remember when you go to get your passport to visit my country you will be considered an alien. Hopefully you all won’t get our cable or TV stations but with a lot of cojoling maybe you can get your hero Glenn Beck. -
September 9th, 2009 2:23 pm
For those who don’t remember, my original post was “I was reading all posts, and i find it interesting that you all assume that If I don’t want my child to listen to Obama’s speech, that I’m this, or I’m that. (racist, for example). I am just an ordinary citizen, who believes that it is the PARENTS responsibility, not the presidents, to teach your children they should stay in school. ” I’m not trying to censor the president. I’m not racist. I’m not left wing, I’m not right wing. I’m not anti -establishment. If someone wants to tell my son “good job”, go for it. but don’t waste 20 minutes of his time. he’s at school to learn.
-
September 9th, 2009 2:30 pm
he’s at school to learn.
Knowing and listening to the President of the United States is considered a learning experience. I would call it a significant learning experience.
to each his own. there are a lot of educated fools out there. They can recite, quote or operate ad nauseum
but they can’t tell you what the president of the United States looks or sounds like.
shame but true -
September 9th, 2009 2:40 pm
Wow disbelief, not sure where that came from. I don’t believe I have said anything negative or derogatory on here. Not sure what you’re so angry about. However, if you’d like some facts to go with your rant:
How many states have filed resolutions invoking the 10th Amendment or Bill of Rights.
http://www.bignews.biz/?id=794467&keys=Illuminati-government-sovereignty-Freedom
An interesting article on the success of our state:
http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/Opinion_Editorial/REASONS_FOR_TEXAS_TO_SECEDE/24005
Seems there is also a map from an economic study running around the Internet showing how the red states are fairing the economic crisis far better than the blue states. The there again, when presented with intelligent comments there are always those to resort to personal attacks rather than stating or quoting legitimate comments. -
September 9th, 2009 2:44 pm
By the way disbelief, I do not recall stating I did not want the President addressing my child nor did I mention anything about wanting my kids’ school to give them access.
-
September 9th, 2009 2:44 pm
When I was a wee lad, “civics” was considered part of a well-rounded education. As was “band” and “gym.” Not to mention “geography” and “social studies.”
These days, if it’s not on the ELA or Math test, it’s simply not given its due.
Amongst a number of points touched on by the President YESTERDAY was the notion that one-time students grew up and founded this country, and every child can make a unique contribution to it.
For many kids, it was time well spent. Per GS, some were “rapt,” while others napped. Typical.
For NYC public school (non-charter) kids, the whole broo-ha-ha is MOOT; school didn’t start until TODAY. So for 1.1 million kids, save the few thou in those charters that started before today, it was parent choice exclusively. Let’s, as they say, move on.
-
September 9th, 2009 3:08 pm
Sorry Mark, you are right. I was lashing out because I saw ” Texas” in you post. Do those people in Texas that advocate seceeding from the Union know how very bad they appear to the rest of the country? My ancestors fought in the Civil War and several died there.
The same Civil War that determined that this is once and for all THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. These secessionist spit on their graves…..the ugly part of me says Good Ridence the practical side is just appalled that there is still such ignorance in this country. -
September 9th, 2009 4:25 pm
Disbelief,
My son knows who the president is, and what he looks like. However we have never personally met him, and I would not presume to say that we “know” him. Maybe the president should have aired this speech at night, so that all of us could learn from him. -
September 9th, 2009 4:26 pm
One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up—fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth. However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he finally replied, “Okay, my father’s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night
for the money.” The teacher was visibly shaken by this statement, and hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask him, “Is that really true about your father?”
“No”, the boy said, “He actually works for the Democratic National Committee and helped get Barack Obama elected President last year, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the class!” -
September 9th, 2009 4:36 pm
So, Mark, now that your “true colors” are showing, let’s talk.
How much did you have to pay?
-
September 9th, 2009 4:38 pm
Haha, that was a great comeback Michael. I’m glad to see none of us are so serious that we forget to exclude humor.
-
September 9th, 2009 4:56 pm
Back to doing your own typing I see.
“Include.” Fixed it for ya. Free. That’s socialism for ye.
;- ) -
September 11th, 2009 12:47 pm
To Kristina Dixon. ….
Your comment is highly offensive and totally assuming on your part. It makes you look prejudiced yourself.
I don’t have kids, but if I did, they would not be listening to Obama’s speech. Not because he is black, I could care less what color he is…. but apparently you notice he is black and make sure to point that out and say anyone not support him is racist.
I personally voted for another “black” man this past election - Alan Keyes….. a true American that actually looks at the constitution for how to legislate rather than what is popular or twisted in the media.
I don’t support Obama - not because of color - but because his ideas are ridiculous and takes this great country down a road that many of our grandfathers fought against in our past. It takes us down a path that I believe is going to lead to total destruction of this country if we don’t get these fools out of office.
That is why I wouldn’t allow my kids to watch this speech….nothing to do with racism.
While I am sure there are some that are racist and let that stupidity run their lives, that is not the case for me…. and your comment stating that all of these people are racist is just not fair and down right a lie and you know it - that is unless your own racism has hidden that from you.
-
September 11th, 2009 12:57 pm
Bryan, I think the ideas of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are destructive (to be clear, my politics are rather different from yours), but I wouldn’t consider preventing my kids from hearing them speak. Or Alan Keyes either, should they have the opportunity.
The notion of “protecting” your kids by preventing them from hearing any opinion you disagree with is doomed to be futile, so what would be the point? Is that really an effective child-rearing philosophy?
-
September 11th, 2009 4:50 pm
Bryan,
The point to the majority of Americans is not who’s president, but that whoever it is IS “The President.”
Funny thing about Alan Keyes and standing for the un-popular — which as a general concept I respect though I may personally disagree with the individual positions taken.
Yet the more people get to know Alan Keyes, the less “popular” he seems to be, having nothing to do with media twist.
Most recently, he is a plaintiff in at least one lawsuit challenging President Obama’s citizenship and presidency.
But even that has a further, and ignoble, context: as an until-then non-resident of Illinois — who had previously criticized Hillary Clinton for “carpet-bagging” when she ran for U.S. Senate in NY (Keyes’ nominal home state de jour) — Keyes ran against Obama for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat in 2004. And we know how THAT turned out.
When principles are self-serving, or sacrificed when not self-serving, they may not be racist, but I fail to see the principle.
Our Constitution is principled. Alan Keyes can wrap himself in the flag and espouse his religious values until the cows come home… but principled he ain’t, even if he’s not a racist.
(Note that Keyes is not color-blind: he has advocated income tax forgiveness for blacks as slavery reparation. Agree or not, that’s not color-blind.)
I dare say your sense of principles may be stronger than Alan Keyes’.
Question: Would you have felt differently had a President McCain been the one attempting to address school kids?
(Note for trivia buffs: McCain himself was not born in the United States proper.)
-
September 12th, 2009 9:17 am
[...] the action “unprecedented.” I guess they weren’t paying attention during similar speeches given by Reagan and George H. Bush. (Though perhaps if they’d paid better attention in school they would have developed some [...]
-
September 17th, 2009 11:35 am
The issue was never with Obama’s speech, but the content of the “Original” speech he intended to give to students. In 4 years, these “students” will be “voters” in the presidential election. Reagan was on his way out of office in 1988 and these students will not be voters in the upcoming election. Same with GW Bush in 1991. The election would be complete before the audience would become “voters”. So, as most of you failed to realize the BIG difference, there they are.
So, in closing, maybe I helped you understand or maybe I didn’t. You cannot deny that Reagan nor GW Bush would gain nothing by addressing the children when they did, yet Obama is addressing the voters in his next election. Think long and hard before you reply.
-
September 17th, 2009 11:53 am
Jeff in NY, that’s ridiculous. By that token, a president shouldn’t make any speeches at all, ever, since it might influence voters in the next election. In fact, no one should. In fact, no news or information should ever be disseminated out, ever. Oh, and school? Better get rid of it entirely or kids might learn something that would influence their future votes.
Also, I’ve followed this discussion with interest, partly because the tinfoil-hat folks give a whole array of different rationalizations for objecting to Obama’s speech. The one I love best is that their kids might be influenced to admire or agree with Obama if they don’t shelter those poor potential victims from ever seeing him in any way, shape or form.
I think Calvin Trillin may possibly have put his finger on the real issue in his poetry collection describing the 2008 campaign:
“And to be frank, they pointed out, he’s black.”
-
September 17th, 2009 1:33 pm
I pointed out the facts. No past President addressed the impressionable youth of this nation and had anything to gain by so doing, UNTIL now. I know the liberals in this country prefer that it become the sole domain of the government to educate our children, including their political views, but it is not. To consider it unlawful detention for me to keep my children from attending school because they are not sick? Last time I checked, they were my children, not the state’s.
Let’s not even talk about the DoE violating the legislation that established the its’ existence. Public Law 96-88 Sec 103 (b) - “No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or 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 acorediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of the library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.”
Democrats were enraged when Bush addressed students, but parents cannot be enraged when a Democratic President addresses students? What hipocrasy!!
-
September 17th, 2009 2:19 pm
Jeff,
Got “Occam’s Razor”?
-
September 17th, 2009 2:20 pm
I cannot believe that just because I didn’t think the speech was a good idea for MY particular situation, that you all think I must be racist. Was The President being racist when he called Kanye a “Jackass?” He must be, because Kanye is black too! One of the great things about America is that we have the right to our opinion, and just because it doesn’t agree with yours, doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
However, I do have to ask, wasn’t the speech supposed to be aired in ALL the schools? elementary included? these children will not be voting in the next election. -
September 17th, 2009 3:11 pm
It’s not really worth pursuing this idiocy, but it’s not true that Democrats were enraged when Bush addressed the nation’s schoolchildren. There was apparently a small ripple of comment over the cost to taxpayers of broadcasting the speech, which got no traction and no media attention whatsoever. Plus, of course, half of you folks are still insisting that Bush never addressed the nation’s schoolchildren to begin with.
Actually, yes, I do think the objections are based in racism, and that has nothing to do with Obama’s calling West a jackass.
-
September 17th, 2009 3:36 pm
The only ones who say GW Bush (part 1) didn’t address school kids are those, like you, with their heads in the sand about what their “heroes” do. I do not suffer such issues. You may also want to consider, 18 years ago, very few classrooms had televisions, where as today almost every class in every school has cable television.
Caroline, you must be racist too, because you hate white people. After all, since you disagree with me and I am white, then by your own logic, you hate all whites. I have zero problems with the President’s race, other then liberal idiots like you throwing it in the face of anyone who disagrees with something he does. I disagreed with a lot of the stuff Bush Jr did and voiced my opinion then. I guess, by your logic, I hate white people too.
The only people who bring up race are the ones doing it to try to stifle criticism of the horrendous decisions he keeps making. Keep trying, and I will keep pointing out the ones talking race are your ilk, the rest of us are talking facts and issues.
KThnx Bye
-
September 17th, 2009 3:47 pm
That’s silly — classrooms routinely had televisions in the ’90s. It wasn’t the dark ages. In fact, Chris Whittle was doing Channel One, in fact (for-profit in-class educational TV), and making SURE that classrooms had televisions.
-
September 17th, 2009 5:11 pm
So…. the reasons to object to President Obama being beamed into classrooms now include the horrendous decisions he has been making.
Like appealing to bipartisanship? Like trying to make sure all Americans have access to affordable health care? These, btw, aren’t even decisions per se: he’s trying to get the kids in the sandbox known as Congress to make the decisions. He’s got the fountain pen ready to sign a deal — too quick for some tastes on the LEFT even.
As if anyone’s subjective political opinions detract from his role as The President.
Sheesh.
Everyone who objected has their own reasons. Fine. Not all are racist. Fine. Some who ARE racist wouldn’t even recognize it. Fine.
NYC classes (with the exception of some charters) weren’t even in session yet on the Tuesday in question.
Let’s Move On.
Or read the transcript of the speech and then tell me what’s wrong with it.
-
November 22nd, 2009 7:13 am
He was one of the greatest presidents in the history of US and probably the most loved and respected by people in 20-th century. And that’s not just my opinion.
Look what famous world leaders said about Ronald Reagan: http://www.tributespaid.com/quotes-on/ronald-reagan
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
86 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack