What are Conservatives Really Afraid of When the President Talks to Schoolchildren?

I've noticed the short fuse too. Sad and scary.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

The media is definitely making it look crazier than it is. They are hand-picking the loudest, angriest, craziest people to talk about their outrage. But--the outrage is there. It's everywhere. I live in liberal Seattle, and some schools around here blocked the speech. I like your point, Groovymarlin, about the knee-jerk rage. It's true!

I remember feeling a bit sad when people booed Bush at Obama's inauguration. I mean, I hated the man, never voted for him, never wanted him president, didn't agree with him --but he was president, whether I liked it or not. We have reached Bush's Last Day levels of vitriol in a matter of months. People need to calm down.

Modern Poverty ( http://modernpoverty.wordpress.com )

Just so you know.

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

The race card is played to distract from the true issues.  Any criticism of Obama, his administration, or his czars,  immediately does not make you a racist and we are tired of hearing it.

Is nothing sacred???!!!!

How dare you!

You're a RACIST!!!!!

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

I would like to add to your list  that he also refused to be a part of the National Day of Prayer yet supported Rhamadon activities.  I also believe his world "Apologizing for America tour" and "We are not a Christian Nation" comment is worth mentioning as long as we are at it. 

I believe with this administration everything said and done is very calculated & politically motivated.  I also believe while he is distracting us with one issue it is only hiding what he is doing behind our backs.  He is a charming and charismatic man with amazing orator skills who simply cannot be trusted.  That is why I question why he is choosing to address our children in school and why he has PSA's with celebrities shown to school children "Pledging Allegience to Barak Obama".  

Can any of the Obama supporters here be intellectually honest and admit that the original lesson plans put out for his school speech, do not match the actual speech he gave?

As usual, a leftwinger making excuses for behavior on her own side of the fence that is similar to behavior on the other side that she is denouncing. How refreshing.  Not.

Still can't get over that one!

(My blogs are http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com and http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com)

I welcome all comments, but let's stay on topic, OK?

For those of you who have been commenting about Bush.......let's evaluate shall we?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

.. why are you here?

In my comment placing GHW's speech within the context of an election season, I clearly stated that his speech was televised. Furthermore, I gave a link to a 1991 New York Times news report, which is a superior form of documentation to an editorial written nearly 18 years after the event.

However, since you missed that, otherwise you would not have asserted GHW spoke to only one school, I am pasting a quote from the NYT 1991 article:

Mr. Bush's speech, which he delivered at Alice Deal Junior High School here, was carried live by the Cable News Network and stations of the Public Broadcasting Service. The White House hired Wetacom Inc., a production company with the local PBS station, WETA, to send in a crew for the telecast. Mr. Bush perched on a stool by a blackboard and read his speech from Teleprompters that were at the back of the classroom, out of the range of the three cameras.

The classroom was as well lighted as a television studio, and the cameras zoomed in on students and their teacher, Cynthia Mostoller, as Mr. Bush made a pitch for his education program.

Secretary Alexander had sent letters to all the nation's 110,000 elementary and secondary schools beforehand, urging them to let students watch the President's speech. (Financing for a Bush Speech Is Attacked ( http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/04/us/financing-for... ), Published: Friday, October 4, 1991)

BTW, the Cable News Network (CNN) and PBS are national networks.

I responded to you based on the article you chose to post, a piece which has clear spin influenced by political leanings. In fact,  the Washington Examiner piece by Byron York, a conservative correspondent, is not a news article, but a column. Columns fall into the opinion category, meaning they have spin/bias. Indeed, the Washington Examiner itself lists York's piece in the opinion category ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/be... ), which means the editorial staff acknowledges that it is how York sees it and not necessarily how it was. It explains why York did not give pertinent facts within historical context.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

The President is a Narcissist.  He just can't stop talking about himself and he thinks everyone should love him.  If he could have refrained from tooting his own horn I would be able to say there was nothing wrong with the speech. 

The lesson plans are another story.

Pop Quiz- who was it that said (paraphrase), "If you can reach the children, you can rule the world."  Indeed.

First- GHW's speech was to ONE high school, not an entire fricking nation.

Second. for the umpteenth million time, it isn't only the man making the speech, or the content, it was the lesson plans that went along with it.  Suggested or not, it was an attempt at propaganda on the part of this administration.  CLEARLY, the original speech was scratched because the ORIGINAL *suggested* lesson plans didn't jive with the speech.  Surely, you are educated enough to notice that?

Ridiculous. 

Yes, and I am sure all the liberal teachers out there would take that suggestion to heart.  How you could not see a problem with this is beyond me. I am sure if it was GW Bush, there would be a problem no?  After all Democrats launched INVESTIGATIONS into ONE speech by GW's Father, made to ONE high school. INVESTIGATIONS!  Hypocrisy anyone?

Aneel and flightkeeper-Thanks for your input. Please stay engaged. This forum is hard on people who are wary of government involvement.

Speaking of which, did any of you see Camille Paglia's most recent article in Salon? She writes: "An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House
operations was the way the president's innocuous back-to-school pep
talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students
to write fantasy letters to "help" the president (a coercive directive
quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was
stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this
week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically,
some major school districts, including New York City, were not even
open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare"

This from a liberal...one who is intellectually honest...as I'm afraid many of the liberal types on this forum are not.

"I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books and the equipment and the computers you need to learn."

His nobless oblige knows no bounds.

Especially when that nobless requires most of our oblige.

http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com ( http://flightkeeper.blogspot.com/ )

http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com ( http://cutefuncool.blogspot.com/ )

One of the greatest lessons for any student is to learn to evaluate sources, their agendas, and know the difference between fact and propaganda. And you can do it without taking a position. Thank you.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

I'm starting to see another advantage of getting older: You've actually lived through historic events and know what really happened as opposed to spin done nearly 20 years later.

First, I'll concede that this was political game playing on the part of the Democratic Party. However, unlike the complaint against Obama, the Dems were not objecting simply to Bush being in schools as some kind of infringement on parental rights. Please see this paragraph from the article you posted ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/be... ):

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'" (emphasis added by me so readers will see the motivation of the complaint)

It was an election season leading up to the primaries when Dems hoped to get more attention on their challengers to incumbent G.H.W. Bush. GHW's ratings were dropping in the polls due to economic issues, but he was the best the Republicans could offer and so he was running for a second term.

The objection was that Bush was using the Office of the President and Department of Education resources to make him look good to voters and to pitch his education plan to voters so he would be re-elected.

The objection was not a challenge to any president ever speaking at a public school or a declaration that presidents should never be allowed to talk to children or that Bush was corrupting the minds of children or indoctrinating them to his beliefs, but that Bush was using his appearance as a photo opportunity to sway the minds of adult voters.

This is a common argument waged against incumbents during election season, not just presidents but also governors, regardless of political affiliation. Presidents have the advantage of looking presidential, a benefit the challenger cannot have simply because he/she is not the president.

I realize some readers may not trust this information. The best way to check it is to get access to the Washington Post archives and read the old clips within the context of the election year.

Furthermore, Bush's speech was televised and since it's clearly stated in the clip provided in your comment above ( http://www.blogher.com/what-are-conservatives-real... ) that the GAO ruled there was nothing improper about George H. Bush's action even though it was given in election season, less credibility may be given to Obama's opponents who believe his speech today was improper.

On another point, please consider that while conservatives are very upset that Obama White House spokesperson Gibbs called conservative objections more of "silly season," the New York Times of 1991 ( http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/04/us/financing-for... ) reports Republicans had similar language for Dems back then:

The President's spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, responded by denying that Mr. Bush's talk to the schoolchildren had been a political event and calling the criticism "nonsense."

News delivered without the context of history or the state of the nation at the time, such as it being on the cusp of an election year, can be misleading. And of course, election season is the season for silly objections and investigations, but we're not in election season at the moment.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ). Her thoughts are her own. BlogHer.com is non-partisan.

I have issues with ANY president addressing our children in the classroom no matter party affiliation.  If a president would like to visit a school in person, more power to them what a great experience for the kids.  There are plenty of opportunities for the president to address the kids via television without infringing on classroom time and hoping that the liberal teachers and their unions will carry his agenda further than his speech does.  It was a good speech that I am sure became more inspirational as the controversy became more apparent.  My issue with the final paragraph of the speech is that he is saying that government is the answer to their problems, that government is always the solution.  Government needs to stay out of daily lives & wallets and create an environment where private sector companies can flourish.   

Civil Rights, while associated with African Americans, is not only about African Americans nor only to the benefit of African-Americans. Your reaction to the mention of Civil Rights reveals your issues, not mine. I used Civil Rights because the person to whom I was responding mentioned Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as advocates of liberty and upholders of the constitution, men upholding the virtues and ideals of this nation. It is appropriate under such circumstances to note that these men did not support rights for everyone.

While you've said you are an advocate of free speech, it's apparent that you object to either the use of or allusion to historical facts.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

What part of the speech do you object to specifically?  And you didn't have any problems with any ulterior motives of Bush II??

You have problems with this, the last paragraph?

Now, your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to
make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions.
I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books and
the equipment and the computers you need to learn. But you've got to do
your part, too. So I expect all of you to get serious this year. I
expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect
great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your
family down or your country down. Most of all, don't let yourself down.
Make us all proud.

Once I read the speech yesterday I was ok with it until a read the last paragraph. That last paragraph was the most disturbing to me. His patronizing and arrogant demeanor are hard to digest. The curriculum disturbs me as well....just by looking at the big picture and putting everything into context is what concerns me. The speech is actually alright, but I just can't trust this man. He has a political ulterior motive that perturbs me and undermines the nice things that he had to say to the school kiddos. 

Beverly, I love this idea!  Think of what an engaged electorate we could help create with this line of questions.

I think the great "lesson plan" for children is to use all of this to help
them understand the source of the hype. If we can put our own feelings of outrage, or suspicions aside, it's actually kind of fascinating to watch the different ideologies and the viewpoints.

We could ask kids, "why does one group think it is bad, and another think it is good? How can they have such different opinions?" Help them to really think about the dynamics that are in play.

It would be great to teach our kids is to watch what people say, what they do and how they can take the same sentence from one person and, depending on who is interpreting it, have a whole new meaning.

THAT is the part that's fascinating education for our kids!

---

Beverly Flaxington

Blog: Dealing with Difficult People ( http://dealingdifficultpeople.blogspot.com/ )

Book: Understanding Other People: The Five Secrets ( http://www.understandingotherpeople.com/ )

---

Beverly Flaxington

Blog: Dealing with Difficult People ( http://dealingdifficultpeople.blogspot.com/ )

Book: Understanding Other People: The Five Secrets ( http://www.understandingotherpeople.com/ )

The lesson plans were offered as a "suggestion"..not a requirement. 

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

My opinion is that those who are in opposition to President Obama used very real fears and prejudices of some conservative parents to their advantage.  There ARE conservative white parents out there who ARE less than receptive to having a black (regardless of the percentage or the details of how it came to be) POTUS.  The language that was used to create the furor of "sneakiness" and "violation of rights as a parent" are inflammatory statements which is ALL it takes to get some people on the bandwagon.  Race IS a factor in all of this whether we are comfortable addressing it or not.

BOTH parties make inflammatory statements about the other to gain support.  Even IF it means 'misplaced truths and half-told lies.' IT is what makes THEM politicians.  It is up to US as parents and reasoning people to weigh the issues and make a determination for ourselves.  THAT process involves looking at the ALL the facts and evidence (Not just that which is reported on certain news stations).

THIS is an opportunity to teach our children how to behave respectfully even when faced with opinions that are different from their own.  Sadly, I fear that some of us have failed miserably at this.

To fear a speech, to believe that our children cannot withstand whatever values or ideas are conveyed, either harmful or positive, is to say that we believe they are brainless zombies.

What's really being said is that parents don't feel capable of discussing issues with their children.  If anything, Obama's address is a perfect opportunity to sit down with the kids and have a meaningful discussion.  At the least, we will have spent valuable time with our sons and daughters and that is worth its weight in gold.

http://www.thecluelesscrafter.com/

I have tried to understand this issue.  (I don't think that it's a "conservative" issue though.  I know many conversatives who respect the Presidential office and have no issues with the President of the U.S.  addressing U.S. students.) 

The main justification that people who were in opposition to the speech used was "parental rights." Ultimately though, I just don't believe that is the real issue.  I could be wrong (gasp!), but I just don't buy it.  I honestly believe that the same people are looking for any excuse to gain political leverage/ to undermine the President/to get "free" publicity.  That makes me sad - not just for the adults, but also for the kids who were a pawn in all of this.  On to the next drama...

-Kimberly/Mom in the City

Actually, there was outrage and claims that Bush was addressing students as a campaign strategy. This is nothing new. The far left and the far right are always going to find ways to make waves.

Link Text ( http://www.blackbeltmama.com/ )Black Belt Mama

Is this what *respecting* the office of the Presidency is?  Should we call for an investigation of Obama's Administration because of this speech?

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

By: Byron York ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/byron-york.... )
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT

The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/be... ) will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But 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.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. 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.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."
Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."
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."

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

As an obviously educated woman, you know the importance of symbols. The Obamas are free to spend their money on anything they like. The point is that when they take lavish vacations, wear expensive clothing, etc., it sends a signal about who they are and what they care about. In an age of almost 10% unemployment, I would respectfully submit that this suggests they are out of touch with the primary concerns of most Americans. You might recall the "let them eat cake" comment that got the French into so much trouble.

This is also suggested by the polls which show the deficit and the economy top the list of American concerns...not health care.

I don't really have a problem with Obama addressing school children. My original post was to suggest that the basis for the uproar may be the growing lack of trust in this president.

"According to Christina Erland Culver, who is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Education, the classroom activities provided by Obama for his speech may violate federal statute. Federal statute denies any authority to the Department of Education to provide any kind of curriculum or anything that can be passed down to the state, and that’s part of the statute forming the Department of Education. So they kinda got themselves into this mess because they didn’t really understand some of the key legal roles ore the dos and don’ts at the Federal Department of Education.”

In other words, the O Admin is breaking the law.  It wasn't OK when Bush was breaking the law right?  So, those of you who love to talk smack about Bush, better start owning up to O's illegal activities or you will just further prove what hypocrites you are.

Missy

Amen.

LOL- and another thing. Good luck getting my comments to qualify as spam.  You do know what SPAM is right?  I am only giving my opinions, the fact that they are different from yours doesn't make them SPAM.  If I were promoting a website or trying to sell a product you would have a leg to stand on. Report away!!!

Missy

Because it is SOCIALISM and last time checked America was not a Socialist country.  Where was your Patriotism for the last 8 years and the respect for the Presidency? Again, the hypocrisy here is rank.

Missy

Because it isn't being brought up for educational purposes. It is wielded as a weapon and and attempted to inflict guilt.  Wake up and smell your hypocrisy lady.

Missy

Wow, I am trembling. This is typical of you left wing types. You cannot handle dissenting opinons because you know your arguments are weak. I was not saying Obama was Hitler, but I can understand why your type would think I was. I said the comparisons were unfair. 

My comments sound hateful? Good lord, anyone who comes here can see that the hateful comments are coming from your side. You just can't handle being challenged. I am not surprised.

Missy

I was replying to someone else who was complaining about the Hitler comments.  Try to keep up.

Missy

While I hear your concerns and I agree that there are many important things that demand the President's attention, I'm not sure how a back to school speech hampers those goals.

While I agree that I wish we were further along on the economy, health care and many other things, I have to say the money he spends on personal items is really a red herring.  No one seemed to mind if Bush spent tons of money on the many, many trips and taxpayer dollars we spent on Air Force One for him to clear brush.  And I don't recall anyone being outraged at Mrs. Bush's designer outfits.

As for Obama's approval rating -- it's pretty much where all President's have been at this point in their 1st terms.

This has been an interesting discussion here on this post -- what I really wish now is that we could all come together and take this energy to do something really positive for our country and our children.

I know that as a country we are very far from that, but it's still what I would love to see happen.

The uproar over his speech isn't because he's black. The race card is always a convenient one to play when positions aren't defensible.

It's because after eight, going on nine months in office, the American people have learned not to trust him. The polls prove it.

People who once believed in "hope" and "change" are seeing interest groups favored over long-established rights (the GM deal). People are seeing important policy making appointments made without public examination (Van Jones, et. al.). People are seeing an engorged deficit that threatens the future of their children...and on top of that, they're seeing spending bills being enacted without debate or even without lawmakers reading them. (Cap and trade and health care.)

They're seeing an adminstration and Congress dismiss their concerns in the most hateful terms. They're seeing a president call for action as he did this weekend on legislation that he doesn't even have a clear position on. (Does he support a public policy option or not?)

Moreover, they're learning that this president is totally out of touch with what is most important to us....the ability to work in a functioning economy.  One out of ten people are unemployed and watching every dime they spend. We're happy he enjoyed a week at a $25k rental property. We're happy Michelle wears $500 tennis shoes. We're happy he had a outing in New York to the tune of thousands of dollars.

But it's not our reality. Obama doesn't get it. He's wedded to a dangerous agenda that could easily sink what's left of the American economy.

So why should people trust him to talk to their children? I think this is at the root of the uproar.

He's squandered trust. No amount of race baiting or name calling can get it back.

No one is being required to show the speech.  That has been an inaccuracy in some of the reports about this from the get go.

And I agree the government is too big on some things -- like military spending and sending our men and women to two wars we shouldn't be in.  Time to move that money to helping our own people who go hungry every night and can't see a doctor when they need one.

I think we adults sometimes forget how opinionated our young children can be all on their own, and wouldn't it be great to have kids send letters to Obama if they don't agree with him!

-- that people don't like feeling that they've been backed into corners.  That's one reason I have a love/hate relationship with politics.  I am desperately trying to figure out a way for women who have views across the political spectrum to come together in a productive way (hey, the guys aren't doing so well!).

In today's fire-tossing world of shouting head politics, how do we get back to the time when people COULD be bi-partisan and talk about things like talking to kids, budgets, health care, wars, etc., without resorting to partisan shorthand?

Since we are both girls from the same part of America, I would love to start that dialogue and have it spread from Central Pa. to the rest of America.

... did you find offensive?  I agree -- I don't want 'repeat back to me' exercises.  The whole reason PunditGirl goes to the school she does is because it's known for getting kids to be critical thinkers -- and that's what I want, even if she someday becomes a Republican.  ;)

Your comments are rude and I have reported them as spam. It was mentioned earlier that the Hitler comments are DONE.  Every comment you have made sound very hateful and you are not doing any justice to your argument.

Why does the mention of a fact of American history and culture disturb you so?

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).