September 05, 2009

Right wing "controls the debate" and is "nuts" for questioning Obama's kid speech ...

... but, of course, was that the case 18 years ago moonbats?

House Democrats criticized President [George H.W.] Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "

Two [Democrat majority] House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]

Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.

Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits. (Source.)

Hearings! Congressional criticism! Waste of needed funds!

But hey, the moonbats believe that Obama's speech is "historial" (it's not -- and don't ever bother attempting to decipher this guy's writings), and even though some admit that they'd have a problem with a Republican giving such a speech (like all the above liberal/Democrats did), it still "wouldn't be as bad" as the current situation.

Uh-huh. Now excuse me while I clean up my keyboard from the coffee I just spit up all over it ...

Posted by Hube at September 5, 2009 10:03 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

BUT BUT BUT

It's different when Liberal - Progressive - socialistic - democrats do it....

Then it is for every ones good, like it or not.

Posted by: Paul at September 5, 2009 01:56 PM

Ya, politics is theatre.

Posted by: heimp at September 5, 2009 02:12 PM

I don't see the censorship and presumption of indoctrination; it says there was saber-rattling after-the-fact about cost and ignoring issues. This article is apples-to-oranges in my opinion. But also: the argument here is it's okay to rage to prevent Obama from speaking, but it was OK for Bush to speak? Hypocrisy, indeed.

Posted by: Michael at September 5, 2009 03:20 PM

Get a freakin' grip, Michael. What's exactly gives you the idea in your last sentence? It is hypocrisy -- but only in that it is OK to criticize a Republican, while to do so against a far-liberal is akin to heresy.

Apples to oranges? LOL! Politics is politics, whether it was George HW Bush or Barack Obama.

Posted by: Hube at September 5, 2009 06:21 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?