16 Responses to Dissing the Pledge and Dissing the President

1. marchan1940 September 5th, 2009 at 2:02 am «

   Bless you for this marvelous post.

   I signed the boldprogressives.org petition to President Obama and let him know that I very much resented the compromises on health care reform that Rahm has promugated and all the other policy betrayals that are contrary to the values and principles he ran on and for which I voted for hi. In his becoming Bush III he has lost my support and the support of many other progressives who’ve worked hard for him for real health care reform.

   So glad you’re part of the reliable mature commentary at FDL.

   .
• letsgetitdone September 5th, 2009 at 8:12 am «

  Thanks marchan1940. He’s lost my support too and needs to be told in no uncertain terms that he and the blue dogs have more to lose than anyone if he doesn’t pass at least some of the things his base favors.
2. Rusty1776 September 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am «

   Maybe someday, Obama will figure out that the right is going to demonize him no matter what he does. He has nothing to lose by pushing a strong progressive agenda, and everything to gain.

   Thanks for another great post, letsgetiitdone.
3. Hugh September 5th, 2009 at 11:32 am «

   All this is about hijacking the message, any message. Death panels, teabaggers, whether Obama is really a citizen, addressing school children. It is all about talking nonsense so sense is not talked about.
• letsgetitdone September 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am «

  Thanks Hugh. Yes, you’re right. It’s all about distraction, and it does divert attention from the real issues constantly. But ignoring the stuff doesn’t work. I think we have to fight through everything we get and try to discredit the sources over time. That’s the only way to really get beyond these practices.
4. macaquerman September 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm «

   Could you expand on the point “As their President, he has the right to talk to them when they are in school.”?

   It sounds reasonable, but I’m having trouble figuring out why that would be true in the ordinary course of things.
• letsgetitdone September 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm «

  Hi macaquerman, All I mean is that he has the right to give speeches to them as long as school principals don’t object. Since they’re generally honored to have a visit from the President they generally don’t.
• macaquerman September 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pm «

  Thanks for the answer, and hi to you. I can’t really see any reason for a school principal to object, but if some of them would, I hope that it doesn’t mean that they can’t keep calling themselves loyal and patriotic Americans.
  I’ve pretty much never met a foaming mad dog partisan of left or right who didn’t call themselves highly loyal and patriotic.
• letsgetitdone September 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm «

  Depends on why they’re turning down the President, I guess. Again, the basic point is that the President represents everybody, so as their representative he has a right to talk to them in a Democracy without third parties who don’t like his politics standing between. On the loyalty question, I normally would not press that sort of thing. But the right is so often questioning everyone else’s loyalty, I thought reversing the message was worth doing.
• macaquerman September 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am «

  I didn’t really start out to argue with you over this, but I guess that some might say that the President might not have a right to address children when the children are compelled to attend the address.
• letsgetitdone September 7th, 2009 at 8:14 am «

  Well, if the same rules applied to ANY speaker the schoold had speaking to the children I’d agree. But since school assemblies are normally mandatory for children unless they have an excuse on religious grounds, I think it’s reasonable for the President to be treated in exactly the same way except that somewhat more respect ought to be accorded to him because of his position.

  More importantly, however, the real point here is that even though everything is political to some degree, we, as a nation, if we are to endure, have to agree that our political differences will stop somewhere and that we will show respect and teach our children to respect our institutions and our duly respected leaders. I think that applies to Presidents, our judges, and Congress people. They were duly elected or duly appointed as the case may be. We can civilly disagree with them all we want. But I think that to try to bar the President from our schools and to disrupt congressional town halls is ultimately damaging to our nation and its unity. And we need to stop them if this nation is to endure. If parents can’t even bear to have their children hear views and opinions they disagree with, then those parents are being Un-American and they need to be told that, just as the same people are quick enough to remind other Americans when they think those Americans are not being patriotic. Patriotism is not a monopoly of any participant group in our political conflicts, and neither is un-american behavior.
5. nanb September 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm «

   School officials should not have the right to censor something like that from students.
   If individual (nutcase) parents dont want their children “indoctrinated” then they can perfectly well send a note to school and their children can all have a study hall for the duration.
   The liberal or at least sane parents have to dare the school to censor the speech and threaten suit. Go ACLU!
• letsgetitdone September 5th, 2009 at 10:02 pm «

  You bet!
6. macaquerman September 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm «

   nanb, aren’t school officials the people charged with deciding what students do while at school?
• nanb September 5th, 2009 at 9:34 pm «

  Ummm, like banning books ?
• macaquerman September 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm «

  Not much. Do you?