Obama's address to students
After receiving much unflattering attention, President Barack Obama will broadcast a message to America’s primary school students today. And while the White House is calling opposition to Obama’s message “silly” (along with Obama proxies like the NY Times’ Thomas Friedman who called the outcry “just stupid"), the tempest is understandable.
First, the Administration has had to modify a “lesson plan” that was to go along with the broadcast which included asking students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president." For older students, the Department of Education’s lesson plan asked teachers to use excerpts from Dear Leader’s speech to ask question such as “Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”
Now it may be that the content of Barack Obama’s speech (see full transcript HERE) is objectively non-political…though we’ll never know what was in the speech before the public blowback against it. But the Obama Administration doesn’t do anything without political motivation and the original lesson plan gave a clear glimpse into the open sewer of their minds. Truly, what horrendous dictator of the 20th century did not try to create a cult of personality within the nation’s young people. Stalin and Mao both created youth groups. We’ve all heard of the “Hitler Youth." Pol Pot operated similarly and Kim Jong Il does now. Obama’s tactics smell far too close to that same rancid broth.
The Obama Adminstration knows that much of its support at the ballot box and in grassroots efforts came from young people who fell into Obama’s cult of personality. Totalitarians of all stripes put great emphasis on brainwashing the young, and Obama is no exception.
And that’s why there has been so much outcry against Obama’s addressing the students. It’s not that we know what the content of his speech will be. But it’s that they’ve already tipped their hand as to their intent.
It should also be noted that House Democrats excoriated President George H.W. Bush for wasting Dept. of Education money on a speech to students in 1991.
Some of the content of the speech is interesting, but most isn’t. Kids will be falling asleep after the first 5 minutes. A couple things of note: Although leftists will claim that I’m just a racist or xenophobe, I find it interesting that the three people he mentions by name are Jazmin, Aldoni, and Shantelle. When you have a president who surrounds himself with people like Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright, it’s not too far afield to suspect he seems himself President of Minority Groups but not truly President of the United States.
I’d also point out that Obama says “Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need…” and “I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn." It’s a remarkable difference from President Bush’s speech where he said “Right now in classrooms across this country, in the communities you call home, when things get tough, when answers are hard to come by, there’s a teacher, a parent, a friend or family member ready to help you." The difference in approach is clear. Obama believe it takes government to raise your child and that you just can’t handle it without His help.
One other point needs to be made: Several Obama supporters are making the argument that if “just one kid” stays in school or improves his grades then the exercise “will have been worth it." That’s simply untrue.
How much is it worth to have one student raise his grades or not drop out? Sure, that’s a good thing, but is it worth the combined cost in money, time, and learning of having literally millions of other students lose an hour or two of study, of having teachers take time that would have gone into their normal course of class planning in order to deal with Dear Leader’s address?
And what of the political biases of the teachers? Is it OK that the many left-leaning teachers who support President Obama may over-emphasize the speech while other teachers who do not support the president will feel pressured to show a video they strongly disagree with? Is it OK that parents who do not support Obama may have their children forced to watch what the parents believe to be propaganda?
Different school districts are reacting in different ways. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press", David Gregory read a statement from the New Canaan (CT) school district which is not showing Obama’s speech during its broadcast and is reserving the right never to show it:
“In developing their plans our principals have considered issues such as developmental appropriateness, curricular relevance, the time at which the speech is being broadcast and the importance of teachers assuming responsibility for the selection of instructional materials. In elementary schools the administration and faculty will view the speech, download it and after discussing it, make decisions regarding how it might be used in the future–including deciding its appropriateness for various grade levels. Parents will be notified, if and when, the decision to show the speech is made.”
In Florida, Tampa area schools will allow children to opt-out of watching the speech, but the highly Democratic Broward County area schools will not:
“…(P)roviding for a separation from this Address does not align with our practices and responsibility to provide a well rounded, quality education for all students. This is the first time an American President has spoken directly to students on the importance of education and the challenge to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for one’s learning.”
Anybody wonder where the Broward County superindentent gets his talking points?
I’m not sure whether I would take my child out of the room during Obama’s speech. It might be a better lesson to let a student watch the speech, praise the parts of the speech that really are about making the best of one’s opportunities in life, and criticize anything inappropriately political.
At the end of the day, however, Obama is following the standard liberal belief that “it takes a village” or at least “it takes a Progressive” to raise your child better than you can. Obama’s speech will likely be saying things that good parents should already be saying. And while some may argue that the kids will take the President more seriously than their own parents, that raises a few questions: First, is that true? Second, does it matter? And third, even if the answer to both of the first two questions is “yes", is it appropriate?
There is a reason that widely broadcast presidential speeches to students are so rare. (I think the last one was George H.W. Bush in 1991, but without any “lesson plan” to accompany the message, but I’m not certain there wasn’t one since then.) It’s because our presidents usually know that children are to be raised by their parents. But Obama isn’t our usual president. He has an ego that knows no bounds. He’s certain, like all dyed-in-the-wool progressives, that their far-left schemes will work this time, despite multiple past failures, if only the right people are put in charge. And he believes that our children are just another community to be organized.
Yes, the content of Obama’s speech was likely rejiggerd in response to the furor over his giving it (particularly because of the “lesson plan") so that the speech is mostly apolitical. But you can forgive the many parents who are extremely skeptical over the Administration’s true motivation.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 09/08/09 at 12:02:38 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
09/09/09 @ 08:14:17 am
WOW. You - like all of the parents/teachers/idiots who erroneously claimed that President Obama's inspirational address to students would be of a political agenda - are pathetically still groping for any shred of logic to your ignorance by NOW preposterously insisting (AGAIN, ERRONEOUSLY) that the "political propaganda must have been removed due to the controversy." WOW. Read what multitudes of teachers/school officials posted at other sites concerning the lesson plans. They explain that it is routine and welcomed to recieve such materials to aid in conjunction with special projects. Yet, you still continue to grope...WOW. This is 2009 and it is a very different technological world than it was when the senior Bush delivered his address to students way back then. Methods, strategies, technological means, etc., evolve; stop comparing. STOP GROPING FOR NONEXISTANT JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR UNFOUNDED AND IGNORANT CLAIMS. Let your children/students thrive in a learning environment free from your toxicity!
09/09/09 @ 08:21:11 am
Guytano,
What is your axe to grind here? Do you work for a school district? Are you a parent of a school-aged student?
How can something which hasn't happened for 18 years and was controversial back then be "routine"?
Furthermore, we KNOW that the "lesson plan", which many of us viewed as the propaganda part of this event rather than the speech itself, WAS modified based on the outcry against it.
Finally, I note that I said I would allow my children (if they were old enough, which they're not yet) to listen to the speech.
You obviously have an agenda here. Why don't you tell us what it is?
09/09/09 @ 08:42:30 am
...just my opinions and thoughts on the issue...when I say YOU, it is a COLLECTIVE YOU (not just directed at you). I see nothing wrong with both President Obama's speech or the distribution of the study aids. The teachers did not say that it was routine to recieve materials from a President. They said it was routine to recieve such materials for special teaching projects. As for my agenda...(?!)...WHAT agenda? If YOU (THAT you was aimed at YOU) construe my commenting where commenting is welcomed an agenda, well, then I suppose my agenda is to comment where comments are welcomed.
09/09/09 @ 08:50:57 am
I always welcome dissenting comments. I simply like to know where you sit before you tell me where you stand. (As Mike Rosen likes to say.)
The study aids were objectionable because they asked students to write letters or answer questions about how they "could help the President".
09/09/09 @ 09:04:04 am
A few more thoughts: I also thought that the controversy over Bush Sr.'s address to students 18 years ago was rediculous. Perhaps - in lieu of the ubiquitous controversies over Presidential addresses to children - a doctrine should be drawn up to mandate one full week of disclosure of the address/suggested* study materials for parential perusal. There. Problem solved. No more controversy. Everyone is happy. *(suggested study materials does not mean mandatory study materials, as was the case with Obama's materials. Any, all or none of the materials may be used. It is organized and conciencious to provide such materials).
09/09/09 @ 09:19:58 am
Oh, and I also feel that the phrase, "...could help The President" is absolutely fine. Anything that anyone can do to make the USA a better place is helping the Commander in Chief of the USA. A child/student who learns and utilizes this bit of timely wisdom is a better person and perhaps may perpetuate such wisdom far beyond Obama's Term(s). Why Should this issue be construed as anything but honorable and noble?...
09/09/09 @ 09:28:59 am
Since you think the way you do, you simply don't understand why "help the President" is objectionable. In fact, it's ironic that you yourself lay out why conservatives/libertarians would find it so, but you don't even see it.
Helping the President is NOT the same as "making the USA a better place." That's why we pledge allegiance to the flag, not to the president. It's why oaths of office and military service are pledges to defend the Constitution, not the president. We are not here to help one person, and no one person is the nation even if he is the elected leader of the nation.
You are simply a member of either Obama's cult of personality or more broadly the people who support an imperial presidency.
09/09/09 @ 09:59:25 am
OK. To make you happy, the phrase could be, " how could you help - whomever it may be currently in the office of the Presidency - to make the USA a better place." And, WOW. You are waaay off base; I am not a member of your so-called cult...(!?). Actually, It is not even ABOUT Obama. It IS about how I feel about ANNNY President and their involvement with children/students. Period. Please comprehend. REPEAT: I FEEL THAT ANY PRESIDENT WHO DELIVERS AN INSPIRATIONAL ADDRESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION TO CHILDREN/STUDENTS, COMPLETE WITH SUGGESTED STUDY MATERIALS, IS DOING THE RIGHT THING. TO APPEASE THE OPPOSITION, FULL DISCLOSURE OF ADDRESS/STUDY MATERIALS SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE (hopefully the process of determining what could be, should be, can't be included won't sabbotage the integrity of the noble mission). OK. PLEASSSE...
09/09/09 @ 10:21:42 am
OK. SOOO, back to your comment about me having an axe to grind, your diatribe IS the AXE-GRINDER'S MODEL. Read your last paragraph, for example. You say, "...speech was LIKELY rejiggered..." and, "...TRUE motivation." WOW. A blogger AND a psychic...
09/09/09 @ 10:44:12 am
Of course I have an axe to grind. I don't claim to be without opinions. I write what I believe is rational, likely to be true, and in keeping with fundamental principles of the American founding. All of that is entirely different from what, for example, Barack Obama says. How's that for grinding an axe?
I didn't say you shouldn't have a bias. I said I want to know what it is to help judge your statements.
09/09/09 @ 11:30:15 am
Yes. We pledge our allegiance to the flag of the USA, an object which only symbolizes the USA. This is good. Since this inanimate object is incapable of acting/speaking/inspiring, it is the duty of our elected officials to act/speak/inspire in the name of the flag; they ARE the personification of the flag. This is good. The President addressed the children/students of the USA, the FUTURE OF THE USA, about the importance of education. It was a good thing. It was the right thing. Study guides were provided to assist in the residual, timely discussions of the address. Again, a really good thing. It's all good. I'm elated that it happened, and look forward to much more from USA officials, policemen, firemen, mothers, fathers, acors, musicians, trades/craftsmen,...ANNNYONE who may inspire, motivate and empower our children/students to strive and attain, through education, a better life and a chance to help make a better USA. That is my "axe to grind," Sir.
09/09/09 @ 11:43:08 am
We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether the "study guides" were a good thing. Obviously even the government didn't think the original version was a good thing since they rapidly withdrew it.
In general, I'd much rather have motivational speakers (to students) other than the President. But at least if it is the President he must go out of his way to make the talk as apolitical as possible. This Administration started off by making it at least appear political. It's no surprise for the most amateurish Administration in memory.
09/09/09 @ 12:39:07 pm
Guytano,
You shouldn't waste any more of your time preaching to those who are completely and undeniably ignorant as well as blinded by their racists beliefs...this obviously stems from our most recent historic event- a man of color elected to office, hired to run the gun and pony show that America puts on...'land of the free'- these individuals need to wake up and smell the coffee! It is time to stop the whining, and wipe the tears away...NOW is the time to figure out a way to "help" our leader (for the purpose not offending anyone by using 'President' in that phrase) whom ever it may be at the current time, pick up the shreds and pieces that our country has been torn to, and put it back together. Our children need inspiration, and who better to get it from than the man who runs our country??? I am sorry but if Mr. Rossputin feels that our President (past or present) should not inspire and encourage young America, I pity him and all those who share that belief. And I do not feel that this address was motivated by Obama's political motives. This is a man who sincerely cares about the youth and the direction they will lead this country.
Question to Mr. Rossputin:
Why is it that EVERYTHING President Obama does from delivering an inspirational speech to young America to reaching his peek in his political career, be made into a scheme motivation by malicious intent? What did this man do to YOU? Might as well get over it, he is YOUR President for at least the next 4 yrs...start your complaining, moaning, and whining up again around 2011...maybe at that time it will hold some weight.
09/09/09 @ 01:03:12 pm
Daneen,
You result to the last refuge of leftist scoundrels: Calling anyone who dislikes Obama a racist. You are not worthy of further response.
09/09/09 @ 02:04:29 pm
This President, OUR President, faces controversy with every decision he makes, with every step he takes...the immense amount disapproval PRIOR to making mistake...being judged WITHOUT being afforded the opportunity to screw up...why, is the simple question I pose? What is different? I think the answer is quite obvious. I am a strong believer that when one, or rather, a group of people display such a strong dislike for another and what they stand for absent any logical reasoning, in addition to continuously finding insignificant reasons to justify their disapproval, needs to take a look in the mirror and examine their OWN motives....Its a shame that outcome of this presidential election has divided our country during a time when we need to stand together in order to rebuild what has been broken most. Maybe 'racist' wasn't the politically correct term to use; just as when Obama used the word 'stupid' when he spoke on the rookie mistakes made by the Cambridge officers. It's ok though, I see this for what it is- you fail to penetrate the surface by avoiding the content of the argument and instead use a pathetic excuse why not to respond.
09/09/09 @ 06:11:47 pm
Hey, Ross (Kaminsky? MacDonald?...whatever), or as you prefer, Rossputin: CONGRATULATIONS FOR WINNING THE AWARD FROM http://INTERSHAME.COM ! You certainly worked hard for it. You undoubtedly deserve it. Again, CONGRATULATIONS...and I truly mean it from the bottom of my heart. Honest.
09/10/09 @ 08:14:25 am
This blog/blogger is a curious hybrid specimen from a group that has surfaced since it became apparent Obama would be elected.
There are lots of otherwise functional citizens who actually seem to believe that Obama is a totalitarian dictator, he wants to create 'death panels' to decide when the elderly or disabled live or die, he wasn't born in Hawaii, that he is motivated to use his charisma to harm our children, etc.
There are also plenty of pundits/politicians who must know these ideas are not true, but who see opportunity for gain for themselves and/or their causes in spreading these nonsensical ideas.
I just can't tell which camp Rossputin falls into. His passion/sincerity seems to indicate he really believes the stuff he writes, and isn't merely playing the cynical game that other pundits play to manipulate the conservative base. Even above he says he writes about "what I believe is rational, likely to be true"...even though believing that a democratically elected president who will face relection in 3 years and is hemmed in by various checks-and-balances is the equivalent of a totalitarian dictator is neither rational nor true.
It does beg the question, what causes such an irrational blind spot in folks like Rossputin? And sadly, Rossputin is not in an objective enough position to answer that question. In fairness, if/when any of us find ourselves in a comparable cognitively dissonant position, none of us would be either.
09/10/09 @ 08:50:33 am
Daedalus,
Thank you for the note.
I'll try to rationally critique myself in the spirit of your non-hysterical note to me...something I'm not used to from the left.
First, I don't really consider myself a conservative. I'm far more libertarian and/or Objectivist. My son's middle name is Rand. I have not voted for a Republican for president in nearly 20 years. (I really wanted to in 2008, but could not support John McCain.)
Second, it's not so much that I think Obama is self-consciously a totalitarian dictator. But I think his political instincts are too close to those of dictators for comfort. I think he constantly lies, though it's hard to tell lies from ignorance and I believe he has plenty of both.
Objectively, he's the least or one of the least qualified presidents we've ever had, and the consistency of the type of people he's been influenced by and surrounded with, from childhood to his community organizing work and through his political career, is extremely worrying. To me, it just can't be that you surround yourself with people who hate freedom and hate America just out of some sort of random accident. Even his wife said she had never been proud of this country until her husband had become a candidate for President.
As for "checks and balances", they are obviously very thin threads right now with the huge Democratic majorities in place. I agree with you that this all happened through legitimate democratic processes and I do not question the legitimacy of the election the way many liberals questioned Bush. (That said, it would not surprise me a lot if he were not born in the US and isn't actually constitutionally eligible for the office. But I think that will never be 100% known, at least not while he's president. More likely, there's something else on his birth certificate that he wants to keep hidden...maybe a designation of his religion as "Moslem", at we used to call it back in those days.)
I should also note that I write, in part, to entertain...because that's an important part of getting and keeping readers. If that means I write my thoughts in slightly more over-the-top language than I normally might, so be it. It's actually great for me when that sort of writing gets me angry posts at places like intershame. (That wasn't as good as Keith Olbermann naming me the Third Worst Person a few weeks back...)
As far as the particular article about Obama's speech to the children, the criticism I'm getting, while not too far off the mark from the left's point of view, is intentionally missing the point that what really bothered me was the "lesson plan" that talked about asking students how they can "help the president". The speech itself was mostly unobjectionable, even if it did have a lot more evidence of Obama's huge ego than you'd want to see in such a speech. But the fact that they led off with the lesson plan that they had intended was unbelievably stupid and gave not just people disinclined to trust Obama, like me, but even school district superintendents cause to go out of their way to let parents opt their kids out, or simply tape the speech and decide later whether to show it to students.
Yes, my lumping Obama in with those horrible dictators was slightly hyperbole. But it should be clear that I was talking about his political tactics, again as one disinclined to trust Obama might see them. Again, it's important to recognize that the Administration gave my side the ammunition with that outrageous "lesson plan". Had they not done that, there would have been nothing for me to complain about in any serious way. And even so, I said in my note that I would have my kids watch the speech if they were old enough (but they're not.)
I continue to believe that Obama lives in a cult of personality, that it's (thankfully) crumbling around him, and that if he keeps trying to shove far-left policies down the nation's throat, he will be a one-term president with a reputation at least as bad as Jimmy Carter's. If he wants to save any sort of legacy or effectiveness, he's going to have to govern more from the center, as he promised he would but which nobody should have believed, given his history.
Again, thanks for the comment.
09/10/09 @ 02:56:36 pm
Wow. 18 posts. Must be a new record.
BTW, I would like to ask these same individuals their position with regard to previous administration? I just need to find out if they had these same thoughts that Daneen had with respect to Bush:
"This President, OUR President, faces controversy with every decision he makes, with every step he takes...the immense amount disapproval PRIOR to making mistake...being judged WITHOUT being afforded the opportunity to screw up...why, is the simple question I pose? What is different?"
Was Bush YOUR president? How about Bush Sr. and Reagan if you were old enough. I am sure when you had slapped all of those "impeach" Bush stickers all over your car, what you were doing was free-speech and you patriotic duty. Now that it is the other way, the opposition is idiots, morons, racists, and terrorists. The benefit that you have is most of the MSM is your mouthpiece so all who oppose Obama are labeled as such.
You want to know why people are upset and frustrated? It's because the majority of Americans are not left of center or right of center. They are centrists and that is what this blog represents. Those that value freedom from the intrusion of government into every facet of one's life, and more times than not it is financial in nature. I think is would be very beneficial to read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" to get a true perspective of the concerns many Americans have with respect to government and government planning. Then you will truly understand why actions taking by this administration whether white or black are unsettling to Americans.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are only provided for those in a free society that truly values the basic rules of indivudual freedom. I find that the left is all too ready to give up the freedoms instead of cherishing them and defending them for all Americans, regardless of race, religion and political leanings.
To be a liberal is not to be a socialist. Find out what being a liberal truly means and then you may find out the path we are heading down is not something that fits your beliefs. But then again, it may be that you feel we should have a government controlling every aspect of our lives for the "common good". Well, your version of "common good" wil be completely different than mine, and that is why less government and more self-reliance is a good thing. That is not what this administration is giving us, nor will they.
09/11/09 @ 10:18:34 am
kjdiamond:
To be quite frank, yes BUSH was my President and I did support some of the political decisions he made; however, I disagree with the means he used to achieve those end goals.
I think that you are missing the point- we need to support our President unless untrustworthy, deceitful actions warrants anything less. Something as simple as giving a speech to inspire children take their education seriously is not worth the time debating over whether or not our president has ill intentions/motives. Ever heard the phrase, 'the elephant in the room'?
Mr. Rossputin claims that this topic was intended to focus on the 'study materials' that Obama's administration initially provided- to be honest, I do not have a problem with my 8 year old being asked how she can 'help the president'. Why? Because if that is what it takes to inspire and motivate her to strive for the best that she can be, then so be it! I remember being in elementary school and thinking of the President of the United States as my hero, as a role model, someone to strive to be just as good as...I know it to be a common practice of parents to tell their children they can be anything, even President, if they really want it and work hard enough towards that goal. Here we use the 'President' as a symbol of great success, yet people are condemning the study materials simply because it presents the question of how can you help the President- to me that is nothing short of hypocrisy. In a nutshell, essentially the message you are sending is, 'don't ask our children how they can help the president, even though we tell them they can be President one day'...a contradicting statement if there ever was!!!
The question, 'how can you help the President', I feel was phrased this way because of the audience to which it was directed. When ever you are attempting to grab the attention of your audience, one must consider the manner in which that message will best be received; and asking young children to 'help the president' is nothing less than appropriate. If I were a young child and I was asked by someone who is a symbol of great success, to stay in school to become a productive member of society, I would be more than willing to do so.
09/11/09 @ 03:37:09 pm
Referring back to my first post and your response:
Believe me, I get the entertainment/shock value of hyperbole and insinuations to gain attention and adoption of a political message, regardless of whether the politics are libertarian, conservative, or liberal, etc.
Agitprop tactics have been around for a while, and its not surprising they have become the go-to strategy to counter an unusually charismatic political leader such as Obama. In some ways, agitprop and personal charisma are sibling substitutes for solid argument. If it makes someone feel inspired just by listening to a charismatic leader, then a lot can be left unexplained and people will still support it. Conversely, if the other side is repeatedly compared to icons of evil, opposition to their efforts is reflexive, and rational persusion is unnecessary.
Agitprop is great for creating mobs, the kind of mob that can be steered to advance narrow political interests that might not fly if subjected to the scrutiny of a direct dialogue. But mobs are hard to control, and once the manipulation of the mob yeilds a couple of quick-hit political gains, the question becomes what to do with the passionately irrational and confused citizens that were required to achieve them?
09/11/09 @ 04:51:31 pm
WOW...every time I read your initial blog, it stirs up feelings of frustration, aggravation, anger...I could go on, but I won't. Did you really just make a comparison between Obama and Hilter? Really??? WOW!
09/11/09 @ 05:57:44 pm
Daedalus,
Whenever there's a group of more than 3 non-liberals, liberals call it a mob. Please show me any such "mob" that has gotten out of control.
Daneen,
You bet I did. But not nearly as strong a comparison as a lot of others have made.
By the way, you should read Jonah Goldberg's book...
09/12/09 @ 02:21:42 pm
> Please show me any such "mob" that has gotten out of control.
Sure - in the political context we've been discussing, the best example is the passionately irrational segment of folks who actually believe the type of hyperbole and innuendo you and many other pundits rely on to attract attention for commercial or ideological purposes.
Acknowledged, these people are not physically assembling with torches and pitchforks as a literal 'mob' but the remarkable consistency in how this geographically dispersed segment adopts and fervently repeats inflamatory slogans and buzz-words, has similar effect to a physical mob: it gets the attention from the larger population if for no other reason than it's unpredictability: when the reason of the individual has been surrendered to the group, all bets are off as to rational discourse and actions.
Are they out of control? Honestly, its too early to tell. Its only been about a year since this segment has emerged. To date it has been steered to oppose the public option component of health care reform (though it is telling that the component most beneficial to the industry -- the mandate -- is quietly surviving the 'debate' despite the obvious gov't intrusiveness). There are already some signs the same agitprop is being used to steered this segment to oppose cap-and-trade. Hard to say if any victories in these or future issues will satiate the mob or merely embolden it for larger targets. I think within the year, we'll have conclusive evidence that this phenomenon has gotten away from its current handlers...much as Tim McVeigh/Okla City bombing highlighted similar though less egregious agitprop aimed at the early Clinton admin.
09/13/09 @ 08:18:18 pm
i think your argument is simply ridiculous.
you can't say that a bunch of people in different locations who assemble electronically to give their political opinions is in any important way like a physical mob.
you would NEVER say such a thing about people on the left.
also, you're idea that it's "been steered" is ridiculous. Nobody is in control of the tea party movement. These are people who deeply believe that Obamacare is a bad idea, that cap-and-trade is a bad idea.
Of course, you just think that if a bunch of liberal get together it's a groundswell of reality whereas with conservatives or libertarians it's "astroturf". Don't forget, political astroturfing was invented by David Axelrod...and who does he work for???