The school speech was scrubbed clean

[ArlJim78]

after the outcry, the Obama school speech was scrubbed clean of anything offensive before he gave it, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503697.html?hpid=topnews).

"When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience. "

and then the liberal commenters from PA read the regurgitated pap from these progressive sites, and then claimed that "oh you guys are over-reacting. The president simply wants to talk about doing well in school." At which time conservative commenters at PA called BS and said that the speech is being revised as we speak. I wonder what "potentially problematic wording" had to be removed?

well now we know the truth. that the speech was disinfected and that there are so many faithful lapdogs that unwittingly help to spread the big lie.

I'd give anything for an unedited copy of the original speech.

[Tom]

I'd give anything for an unedited copy of the original speech.

Rules for Radicals.

[andymays]

Rules for Radicals.


:lol:

[cj's dad]

8 months in office and this guy has more baggage than MO has junk in the trunk

[LottaKash]

Perhaps, BO needs a "new propaganda czar"....

As Clint Eastwood said in some "dirty harry" movie...."BO, your mouthwash ain't makin it"....

best,

[mostpost]

"Scrubbed for problematic wording" does not indicate or mean "totally revised so people won't know that we're fascists trying to indoctrinate their kids". I means removing or changing any wording which could give an INCORRECT impression of what the speech is about. Or looking at the speech from the viewpoint of a paranoid minority.

[ArlJim78]

"Scrubbed for problematic wording" does not indicate or mean "totally revised so people won't know that we're fascists trying to indoctrinate their kids". I means removing or changing any wording which could give an INCORRECT impression of what the speech is about. Or looking at the speech from the viewpoint of a paranoid minority.
you swallow their every utterance hook line and sinker. we don't know what the revisions were.

if it was such a benign attempt to motivate kids there would have been no need to "scrub" it for problems.

[mostpost]

you swallow their every utterance hook line and sinker. we don't know what the revisions were.

if it was such a benign attempt to motivate kids there would have been no need to "scrub" it for problems.
And you swallow every utterance of Fox News hook Line and Sinker. If we don't what the revisions are, why do you feel justified in implying that any changes that were made completely changed the tenor of the speech?

[lsbets]

And you swallow every utterance of Fox News hook Line and Sinker. If we don't what the revisions are, why do you feel justified in implying that any changes that were made completely changed the tenor of the speech?

I have no idea what, if any, revisions were made to the speech. As you saw me say, my concerns were with the original lesson plan, which was changed. All one can do is guess at any changes, but the speech seems to have had very little to do with the original plan, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that there were elements removed from the speech after the public outcry.

[ArlJim78]

And you swallow every utterance of Fox News hook Line and Sinker. If we don't what the revisions are, why do you feel justified in implying that any changes that were made completely changed the tenor of the speech?
my opinions are my own, Fox is usually too slow on the uptake for me.

Why do I imply that the changes were more than just changing a few words? Common sense, and the fact that this report came from the Washington Post , charter member of state-run media and official Obama defender and cheerleader. they sure had to scrub that initial study guide that instructed teachers to have the kids write letters about how they can help the president.

Since when do these guys concern themselves with the rantings of a paranoid minority? If that was truly the case, why make any changes? any changes they had to make were to make it palatable to common ordinary parents.

the uproar came about in the middle of the week before, they waited until the day before the speech to release the "scrubbed" version. If these changes were so innocuous as you seem to believe, they could have immediately released the un-editted speech and it would have made this paranoid minority look very dumb, and instantly settled people down. So because it took like 5 days to release it, I'm assuming it underwent a major modification or else it would have went over like a lead balloon.

at a minimum I'm assuming they had to remove a bunch of stuff about community service.

[mostpost]

The main point of the column by Anne Kornbluth was how the Obama administration was reacting to attacks by the "Right wing noise machine". Changes, if any, to the school speech were just one example. To claim that the Washington Post ran an "Expose" of the Obama speech is disingenous at best.

[Quagmire]

The main point of the column by Anne Kornbluth was how the Obama administration was reacting to attacks by the "Right wing noise machine". Changes, if any, to the school speech were just one example. To claim that the Washington Post ran an "Expose" of the Obama speech is disingenous at best.

Isn't Kornbluth part of the "driveby media" the "evil" MSM? Are her columns to be believed only when they agree with certain points of view?

[witchdoctor]

I have no idea what, if any, revisions were made to the speech. As you saw me say, my concerns were with the original lesson plan, which was changed. All one can do is guess at any changes, but the speech seems to have had very little to do with the original plan, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that there were elements removed from the speech after the public outcry.

Does anyone have a link to the original lesson plan and the revised plan?

[PaceAdvantage]

The main point of the column by Anne Kornbluth was how the Obama administration was reacting to attacks by the "Right wing noise machine".You see, I as an intelligent human being can't quite follow the logic the left has been putting out ever since the election.

You tell us YOU WON....WE LOST (whomever WE is)...yet there is all this bitching and moaning and aching and crying over this supposed right wing cabal that is just making life miserable for the President and the left.

You can't have it both ways. Either YOU WON, WE LOST, and the Republicans and the "right wing neocons" are DEAD and BURIED.

OR

They're not.

Which is it? The left is acting as if they DIDN'T win, and that they DON'T have a huge majority in Congress.

I thought YOU WON?!?!?!

And yet, bye bye goes Van Jones, and revised goes Obama's speech, and you can't pass the health care bill you so desperately want...

WHAT IS STOPPING YOU?

It can't possibly be Republicans...they're dead and buried, remember????....marginalized...sent packing to the fringes of the deep south...you haven't forgotten all that post-election rhetoric already, have you?

We were told that Democrats would be in charge for at least the next 100 years given the result of the 2008 elections....

WHY ARE YOU STILL SO IMPOTENT AS A POLITICAL FORCE?

[Tom]

The democrats couldn't pass gas at a chili cook off!

[boxcar]

The main point of the column by Anne Kornbluth was how the Obama administration was reacting to attacks by the "Right wing noise machine". Changes, if any, to the school speech were just one example. To claim that the Washington Post ran an "Expose" of the Obama speech is disingenous at best.

Anyone who dares disagree with this administration's political ideology or agenda is going to be labeled as a radical or as part of the "right wing noise machine", or tagged with some other pejorative. Surely you don't think for a moment that they're going to call BO's detractors "ordinary people" or "mainstream Americans", do you? :rolleyes:

Boxcar