PDA

View Full Version : When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings



patriot45
09-08-2009, 12:43 PM
Well,well,well! (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html)
Seems that when a Repub talked to school kids way back the libs pulled all kinds of sissy fits!



The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."

That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

stsinner
09-08-2009, 02:39 PM
The funny thing about all this comparison of Bush and Regan and Obama addressing school children is that, yes, the President has the right to address kids, but only one of the Presidents who have ever addressed the children can reasonably be identified as a racist, a liar, can be associated with very shady characters and organizations, and has expressed disdain for his country to foreigners...

Sure, people make the silly claim that GW Bush lied about Iraq, but it's all speculation silliness and unprovable.. Obama has proven compulsive.

I wouldn't mind an upstanding, respectable person addressing my children, but not a racist, anti-American liar.

FreeAmerican
09-08-2009, 03:27 PM
The funny thing about all this comparison of Bush and Regan and Obama addressing school children is that, yes, the President has the right to address kids, but only one of the Presidents who have ever addressed the children can reasonable be identified as a racist, a liar, can be associated with very shady characters and organizations, and has expressed disdain for his country to foreigners...

Sure, people make the silly claim that GW Bush lied about Iraq, but it's all speculation silliness and unprovable.. Obama has proven compulsive.

I wouldn't mind an upstanding, respectable person addressing my children, but not a racist, anti-American liar.


Hear! Hear! I second that!!

noonwitch
09-08-2009, 03:56 PM
The funny thing about all this comparison of Bush and Regan and Obama addressing school children is that, yes, the President has the right to address kids, but only one of the Presidents who have ever addressed the children can reasonably be identified as a racist, a liar, can be associated with very shady characters and organizations, and has expressed disdain for his country to foreigners...

Sure, people make the silly claim that GW Bush lied about Iraq, but it's all speculation silliness and unprovable.. Obama has proven compulsive.

I wouldn't mind an upstanding, respectable person addressing my children, but not a racist, anti-American liar.


I could make a convincing case to a non-conservative that Reagan was guilty of racism, lying and that he was associated with some very shady characters. Most conservatives don't want to believe that Reagan was as corrupt as any democrat, but...

1. He supported apartheid in South Africa, which some would say made him racist.
2. He lied to congress about Iran/Contra, which makes him a liar.
3. Mike Deaver, Oliver North, Ed Meese, etc. were all shady characters. Iran/Contra was full of all kinds of fun illegal activities, like allowing the contras to sell cocaine in the US to finance their war, while at the same time allegedly fighting a war on drugs that included giving extremely long sentences to americans convicted of cocaine offenses. And, selling weapons to a terrorist state (Iran) to divert the profits to fund a war the Congress refused to fund. Seeing that Iran was funding the very terrorists that attacked our marines in Beiruit, one could even say that Reagan engaged in treason, by providing weapons to an enemy nation.

stsinner
09-08-2009, 04:16 PM
I could make a convincing case to a non-conservative that Reagan was guilty of racism, lying and that he was associated with some very shady characters. Most conservatives don't want to believe that Reagan was as corrupt as any democrat, but...

1. He supported apartheid in South Africa, which some would say made him racist.
2. He lied to congress about Iran/Contra, which makes him a liar.
3. Mike Deaver, Oliver North, Ed Meese, etc. were all shady characters. Iran/Contra was full of all kinds of fun illegal activities, like allowing the contras to sell cocaine in the US to finance their war, while at the same time allegedly fighting a war on drugs that included giving extremely long sentences to americans convicted of cocaine offenses. And, selling weapons to a terrorist state (Iran) to divert the profits to fund a war the Congress refused to fund. Seeing that Iran was funding the very terrorists that attacked our marines in Beiruit, one could even say that Reagan engaged in treason, by providing weapons to an enemy nation.

Well, first of all, the entire continent of Africa could sink tomorrow, and the only thing the world wold notice is that diamonds would become more expensive.. It's an absolute crime to send one American soldier into Africa for any reason, as it is not in any way an existential threat to America.

Second, has it been proven that Reagan lied about Iran/Contra? I've read that a number of Americans believe that he lied, but I haven't seen the proof.. I'd be glad to read it if you have it.

Lastly, American presidents will always have to do dealings with other countries and keep certain things secret and bluff about others to maintain secrecy, otherwise there is no chance of succeeding.. Just as people suspect GW lied about Iraq, there is a lot of speculation about Reagan..

The lies I'm talking about are things like saying that not one tax will increase, saying that he's going to bring the troops home after he's elected, and many other things that are just demonstrable lies-lies made both out of incompetence/ignorance of the complexities and out of malice.. And I think that unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers and racists like Rev. Wright are much worse and are much larger parts of Obama's life than your examples with Reagan.. Obama lies about Bill Ayers, saying that he was not a close friend when the truth is that Obama launched his political career in Ayers' living room...