On the first day of school, public school kids will have a treat:  they will be addressed by the POTUS for the first time “about persisting and succeeding in school.”  While I can’t imagine anyone having a difference of opinion regarding the importance of persisting and succeeding in school, I can foresee difference of opinion in how this is to be accomplished.  As it stands now, I feel that the current and previous administrations believe that such success is not possible without the government.  Loudoun County School District has not published this unprecedented piece of news; I can only assume that all schools will air this broadcast.  My questions are:

1.  Will they air the broadcast?
2.  Will participation be mandatory?
3.  Will students receive a diffing perspective or will only one be presented?
4.  Is this the first of many addresses to students? 

There are some who are calling for boycotting the address by keeping kids home from school that day and others who will politely and boldly asking these questions from their local school board.  What will you do?  While I feel that the government has it’s uses, like creating opportunities for success it is not their responsibility to ensure such success.  The broadcast will broadcast live on the Whitehouse website September 8th at 1pm.

Obama to Address Public School Students-Sept 8th
Tagged on:         

6 thoughts on “Obama to Address Public School Students-Sept 8th

  • The last known world leader to ‘indoctrinate’ school childern stated “give me your childeren and I will give you the world”

    Adolf Hitler

  • No Deborah
    The last world leader to indoctrinate school children was President Reagan

    On November 14, 1988, President Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. The speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.”
    In his speech to students and the question and answer session following Reagan

    1. stressed the importance of low taxes and free trade. Next he
    2. stressed the importance of religion in our nation.
    3 touted the economic achievements of his administration ,
    4.put in a plug for the line item veto,
    5. told the students that lowering taxes increases revenue
    6. boasted of his administrations aid to Negro colleges
    7. and told students that if guns were banned, burglars would be “celebrating forevermore”

    Can you “indoctrinate” school children any more than that?

    Go ahead, Deborah. Read Reagan’s entire Televised speech to the students here at the Ronald Regan Presidential Library archives.


    Then come back and tell us why it’s OK for Reagan to push his politics upon our children but it’s NOT OK for Obama to tell kids to stay in school

  • If the link above doesn’t work for you, try this one:

    While I don’t remember Reagan’s speech in 1988 nor Bush’s speech in 1991 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a) what would be interesting to find out is whether the Dept of Education was distributing recommended lesson plans surrounding helping the president as it is for the Obama speech(the Dept has recently changed the recommended plans toward achieving students’ goals instead). It’s not the POTUS giving a speech to students, it’s the Department’s pre-empting and preparing an agenda to serve the president (this has since been removed as I understand it).

    Don’t know about others, but if there is going to be a discussion by any political leader, then different sides of the conversation should be provided the same opportunity.

  • A speech like this given by this or any president to school children serves the purpose not only to motivate kids for obvious reasons but also to (hopefully) engage them. Many kids do not and perhaps will not ever fire a single brain cell over social and political matters. A direct presidential speech provides them with an opportunity to listen and think for themselves and discuss whether or not they agree with the current administration and the man giving the speech. In other words, it makes them aware. Just because the President is talking to them, it doesn’t mean they have to agree with him. Now they can listen and now they can discuss. To me that is a good thing.

    But the conservatives ignore this point altogether. It is all gloom and doom: comparing the president to Hitler, Mao, Mussollini, the current administration to a fascist regime. This is goddamned shameful. The rightwing media and its listeners are behaving like brats. The hypocrisy is enormous (as pointed out above by Norris Hall), which should cause anyone to question the motivation of the Right. What is it? To slander and defile. They did it with Clinton, they’re doing it with Obama. People like throwing stones. What is unethical about giving a speech to school kids? It is nothing that hasn’t been done by a conservative president. But it is unethical what the Right has drummed up in terms of slander, fear, distrust, and hatred. That to me is the issue here. But who on the Right would ever admit to this? I won’t hold my breath. The media lynching of the president will continue. And people will let themselves be swept up by it they way they were swept up by the post-9/11 bloodlust and witch hunt.

  • There is no greater propaganda machine for whipping up nation-wide hysteria than the rightwing media. The level of deceit and general misleading of the public by the right’s propaganda machine (by people like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, et al) has far far far more ability to “brainwash” and “indoctrinate” than this or any US president. Boycott the president’s speech? That makes me laugh. It is just stunning, people’s willingness to fall for all of their bullshit. People should be boycotting their news sources or at least fact-checking the knuckleheads they’re listening to.

  • Just two minor points, Rothell:

    First, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly are not public officials, so the comparison is useless.

    Two, they are no better than Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, etc…

    So, I’ll agree we should boycott our media sources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *