Thread: Presidential speech to our children.

Originally Posted by JMS

Reagan did. I trusted him. And so did a large percentage of democrats.

I read that both Reagan and George Bush Snr made similar speeches as Republican presidents. I have no knowledge about those.

How were they received, both before they were made and after? Was there the same level of distrust before the speech was delivered? If not, why might that be?

Note: those questions above are entirely open questions. Please do not read any sarcasm or implied agendas, as there are none. I genuinely would like to know if there were differences between how the motivation behind those speeches were perceived compared to the criticism Obama is receiving now.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Like the past 8 years you mean?

They are nostalgic for the lies and the lying liars who tell them.

Originally Posted by majurey

I read that both Reagan and George Bush Snr made similar speeches as Republican presidents. I have no knowledge about those.

How were they received, both before they were made and after? Was there the same level of distrust before the speech was delivered? If not, why might that be?

*snip*

While I don't know any details about those speeches, I can tell you that the distrust and outright hostility towards "the other party's" presidents (and politicians in general) has increased enormously over the last decade or so. Before, it was just part of the background noise, but now we have the soaring popularity of partisan hackery "infotainment" as a substitute for actual news, information, thinking, etc. It's nauseating, to put it mildly.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Like the past 8 years you mean?

Perhaps Obama's speech to the kids should be to explain why unemployment continues to raise and he's not doing anything about it.
And tell the kids that if their parents don't have a job, Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Too much talk and no music

Originally Posted by majurey

I read that both Reagan and George Bush Snr made similar speeches as Republican presidents. I have no knowledge about those.

How were they received, both before they were made and after? Was there the same level of distrust before the speech was delivered? If not, why might that be?

Note: those questions above are entirely open questions. Please do not read any sarcasm or implied agendas, as there are none. I genuinely would like to know if there were differences between how the motivation behind those speeches were perceived compared to the criticism Obama is receiving now.

Actually, many of Obamas speeches are like Reagans also. Love him or hate him Reagan had his country and her peoples best interest at heart, and we all knew it. Bush and Obama followed his style to impress the people that they were "Reagan like" instead of being honest with the people about who they are.

Originally Posted by northpaw

While I don't know any details about those speeches, I can tell you that the distrust and outright hostility towards "the other party's" presidents (and politicians in general) has increased enormously over the last decade or so. Before, it was just part of the background noise, but now we have the soaring popularity of partisan hackery "infotainment" as a substitute for actual news, information, thinking, etc. It's nauseating, to put it mildly.

Actually it is nothing new. If you read the histories of political parties and campaigns you'll see that the muckrakers were always there on both sides. Looking at the accusations in periodicals of the time that Andrew Jackson's wife was a whore, the political cartoons of Abraham Lincoln as an ape and worse.

During the debates over allowing territories statehood whether they be free or slave states citizens on either side of the issue were killing each other a decade before the civil war began. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten near to death in the senate chamber by a South Carolina congressmen who took exception to an anti slavery speech.

The day that the election results of 1860 were announced 7 states seceded from the union. Talk about not trusting an elected president. When President Lincoln wired the 'loyal' states requesting they send their militias to D.C. to form an army to bring the recalcitrant states into line a few more seceded.

I have been around 60 years and I have never seen the country 'united' save for times of genuine crisis and then only briefly. Witness the period following 9-11. We were all Americans for a brief window of time. Ideologies have always been dominant and now more then ever with the 24 hour news cycle and the Internet.

Singer Donovan Leach had a song called Riki Tiki Tavi that goes, "The United States ain't really united and the organizations ain't really organized." That is the way it is and has always been IMO.

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't you agree that there has been a change as of late in terms of what mass-media is providing?

Whether or not people had their own bitter/hateful feelings one way or the other, there wasn't such a constant, high-profile stage for them. Looking at who has the biggest bullhorn, we've gone from Cronkite to Rather and Brokaw to apoplectic nightmares like Limbaugh and Bill-O. There's a qualitative change in the discourse there, at least in the tone, and people have started to believe that this constant sideshow of poo-throwing is what's important.

Admittedly, you've got a longer perspective on it than I do, but I've definitely observed a big change in the tone of what you see when you channel-surf. Do you not see any difference in that regard?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Like the past 8 years you mean?

The past 8 years? Why such a narrow scope? How about the past 233 years?

But what about the past 8 years? What is your point?

Originally Posted by northpaw

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't you agree that there has been a change as of late in terms of what mass-media is providing?

Whether or not people had their own bitter/hateful feelings one way or the other, there wasn't such a constant, high-profile stage for them. Looking at who has the biggest bullhorn, we've gone from Cronkite to Rather and Brokaw to apoplectic nightmares like Limbaugh and Bill-O. There's a qualitative change in the discourse there, at least in the tone.

I don't think there is as much of a difference in the tone and discourse as there is in the opportunities to disseminate it.

I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore because it seems some of us are interested in arguing and not understanding. This thread I think reflects the many different views in America and how quickly they cause us to lose focus on the topic at hand. President Obama is in office for 4 years, lets try to deal with that. Now this President, who is an inspiration to many many young kids is giving a speech to inspire them to be good Americans. I read the speech, and there is nothing objectionable in it. I do expect the fearful folks of this country to manifest something, as they have very well ( ex. Obama is a Nazi). I have found that when a group of people with different views come together politely and discuss there views in a focused way, good things come from it.

I understand many of you are scared, trust me I am too. But we aren't making progress, and that is what they want. When we can't find a common ground, we become divided, and in order to become united we need to focus on the topic at hand. Our government is having a hard time doing it. Dems are trying to make changes, but they are not strongly united. Republicans are trying to keep the Dems from making changes by spreading fear, but they don't have a united and sound solution either. So it's up to us to unite and speak with each other respectfully. We hold the real power in the country and we are squandering it by arguing amongst ourselves.

Now let's get back to the matter at hand. Is this speech good for our children? How do you feel about the speech? Please do not comment if you haven't read or heard it because your lack of knowledge will add nothing to the discussion at hand.

Peace