Obama Skips Boy Scout Jamboree: Shows His Lack of Character
By The Arch City Madman
There has been a tradition that the President of the United States makes a visit to the National Scout Jamboree. This is a tradition that goes back to President Roosevelt visiting the first event in 1937 at the Mall in Washington D.C. Regardless of party, the President knew the significance of the event.
When I heard that President Obama was skipping the event, I was a tad perturbed. Maybe I’m a little biased here, but I feel that by skipping the National Scout Jamboree, especially one during the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts in America, President Obama has shown his character, or lack there of.
According to several news sources, he just didn’t have time in his schedule due to fundraising events and a taping of “The View.” A spokesman for the White House denies that this was the reason.
From Fox News:
“We were always going to be out of town that day,” Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told FoxNews.com in an e-mail. “It was never canceled.”
This event has been scheduled for several years. It generally happens every four years. Obama is the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. The event is being held at Fort A.P. Hill, about two hours from his Washington residence. You’d think he’d make time. I guess not.
That being said, I decided to do my due diligence and research Presidential involvement in the Jamboree. Here’s a short history of Presidents visiting the National Jamboree:
1937 Washington, D.C. – President Roosevelt
1950 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania – President Truman
1953 Irvine Ranch, California – President Eisenhower*, VP Nixon attends event
1957 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania – President Eisenhower (greeting read to Scouts due to illness), VP Nixon attends event
1960 Colorado Springs, Colorado – President Eisenhower
1964 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania – President Johnson
1969 Farragut State Park, Idaho – No One (Nixon did not attend but did attend events in 1953 & 1957 as VP)
1973 Farragut State Park, Idaho, and Moraine State Park, Pennsylvania – No One
1977 Moraine State Park, Pennsylvania – No One
1981 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – No One
1985 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – First Lady Nancy Reagan**
1989 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – President Bush (41)
1993 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – President Clinton***
1997 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – President Clinton
2001 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – President Bush (43) – Via Video***
2005 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – President Bush (43)
2010 Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia – No one
* Recorded Message
** President Reagan was recuperating from cancer surgery
*** President Bush (43) and Clinton were scheduled to attend but heavy storms forced the cancellation of the visits
To be totally fair and balanced, Obama isn’t the first President to not visit the Jamboree. Reagan missed the 1981 event but had plans to attend the 1985 event (which I attended as a Scout), but had to bow out because he was recuperating from surgery – he sent Nancy in his stead. President’s Clinton and Bush (43) appeared via video in 1993 and 2001 respectively due to storms and heavy rain – they appeared in person at the next event. Nixon missed the Jamboree as a President, but personally visited two as Vice President. From all reports, Obama plans to send a video-taped message. How touching.
Below is an interesting history of Presidential involvement in the Boy Scouts from WRAL
Teddy Roosevelt was no longer President when the Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910. He did spend the last nine years of his life dedicated to supporting and growing Scouting in Nassau County, NY. He was appointed an Honorary Vice-President of Scouting.
William Howard Taft agreed to be the first Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America after its founding in 1910. He later hosted the first National Conference of the Boy Scouts at the White House.
Woodrow Wilson signed a bill, with unanimous support from both the House of Representatives and Senate, granted federal incorporation to the BSA. Later, during World War I, Wilson asked the Boy Scouts to collect peach pits and nut hulls to be burned to make charcoal to be used as filters for gas masks.
Calvin Coolidge’s two sons were Boy Scouts. He hosted one of the first national BSA leader’s conferences at the White House.
Warren Harding gave out “Harding Awards” to Boy Scout Troops that gained in membership.
Herbert Hoover supported Scouting by hosting a special dinner at the White House to honor the 20th anniversary of the BSA. He later asked Boy Scouts to collect food and clothing for the needy during the Great Depression.
FDR served as the president of the Greater New York City Council before moving onto President of the United States. He hosted the first National BSA Jamboree on the Mall in Washington, DC in 1937 after the first scheduled Jamboree was canceled in 1935 due to a polio outbreak. FDR attended multiple events at the 1937 Jamboree. Scouts continued their food and clothing collections during the Depression. Throguhout WWII, under direction of the Federal Government, began one of the first national recyclable drive to collect needed materials for wartime production. Millions of books are collected to be distributed to military personnel stationed around the world.
Harry Truman opened the second BSA Jamboree at Valley Forge, PA in 1950. He was also involed in Scouting in Missouri. Truman asked the Scouts to help collect clothing for postwar refugees in Europe and Asia.
Eisenhower served on the National Board for the BSA starting in 1948. He was also active in his son’s Scouting path. Ike did not attend a Jamboree as President but he did adress the 1950 Jamboree before he entered politics.
JFK was the first President that actually was a Boy Scout as a youth. He was also an active adult volunteer in the Boston Area Council.
LBJ attended the 1964 BSA Jamboree in Valley Forge, PA. He was also active as an adult volunteer in Texas and in Washington, DC during his days in Congress. He even organized an Explorer Post for Congressional Pages.
Richard Nixon attended the 1953 & 1957 BSA Jamborees as Vice-President. He hosted the first National Explorer President’s Congress on the lawn of the White House in 1971. He did not appear at the 1969 Jamboree at Farragut State Park, ID.
Gerald Ford, our first and only Eagle Scout to serve as POTUS. He earned his Eagle Scout rank at the age of 14, in Troop 15, in Grand Rapids, MI. He also credited his love of public service to the values he learned as a young Scout. In honor of his many years of Scouting and public service, his hometown of Grand Rapids awarded him a Distinguished Eagle Scout Award in 1970. The local Boy Scout Council, the West Michigan Shores Council, renamed itself as the Gerald R. Ford Council in 1995 to honor the nation’s 38th President.
Jimmy Carter served as a Troop Committee member, Scoutmaster, and Explorer Advisor in Georgia. He did not attend the 1977 BSA Jamboree at Moraine State Park, PA. He did host a Scouting Environmental Day at the White House in 1977.
Ronald Reagan served as an adult volunteer with the Greater Los Angeles and Golden Empire Councils in California. As governor of CA he hosted many BSA activities. As President he did not attend the 1981 or 1985 Jamborees at Fort A.P. Hill, VA. His wife Nancy did appear in person at the 1985 event, Reagan appeared via video.
George H. W. Bush appeared at the 1989 BSA Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill lauding the Scouts’ anti-drug programs. He was also involved as a Scouting volunteer when his boys were young Scouts.
Bill Clinton was a Cub Scout in Arkansas. He attended the 1997 BSA Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, challenging the Scouts to spread their love of community service to others.
George W. Bush was also a Cub Scout. He appeared in a video address to the 2001 BSA Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill. He was planning on attending in person but weather issues kept him grounded. He spoke in person at the 2005 Jamboree addressing the Scouts about the importance of community service.
Barack Obama, the first POTUS since FDR not to have served as a youth or adult volunteer in Scouting or have a direct connection to Scouting has backed off from a commitment to appearing live today at the 2010 BSA Jamboree in Fort A.P. Hill honoring the 100th anniversary of Scouting in America. He will instead send a taped message while he attends a political event in New Jersey and then films an interview with ABC’s “The View”. He canceled the BSA appearance this past Monday.
As an American, a Scouter, and a voter, I’m appalled. I would be appalled if the President came from the other side of the aisle and he (or she) decided to skip the Jamboree due to a fundraising event and an appearance on “The View” – political party has nothing to do with it. The Boy Scouts did not start in America, but it flourished over the last 100 years. It’s an American institution and we now know what the President thinks of the Boy Scouts. What a shame for the leader of the free world.
Over and Out.
- Obama and That Damn Oil Leak - July 11th, 2010
- NASA Chief Using Agency as Muslim PR Machine - July 6th, 2010
- We Don't Need No Stinkin' Immigration Reform! - June 22nd, 2010
- Slo Joe Actually Making Sense? - June 4th, 2010
- Alabama: Land of the Real Men Speaking Their Minds - May 26th, 2010
How many attended Girl Scout gatherings?
You are appalled because Obama didn’t take a feel good photo op with the boy scouts?
These events are nothing more than just a photo op for a President. You should applaud the President for not taking the opportunity for a feel good photo op. I remember past jamboree pics when the President then gets a chance to eat a hot dog cooked by an open fire. All feel good, all nonsense.
And why are you “appalled” at Obama but not at Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan who also didn’t attend as Presidents. They all obviously didn’t feel a need to take a photo op.
I was in scouting and I am definitely not appalled. If anything, I applaud Obama’s decision. He chose substance: explaining to the American people where his Administration is going, over a photo op.
I am glad to see you looking for shame and disdain. I presume you will want to look everywhere. That’s why I just know that very soon now you will post something about the deep disdain of Andrew Breitbart and Fox News in the manipulation and distribution of Shirley Sherrod.
In many ways I see your story here as a lame attempt to wash away the stain made by Breitbart. Your side embarrassed itself once again, this time big time. The Sherrod story will be with us for a while. Eventually Breitbart will have to settle. I hope he waits a good long time to give this story a lot of legs.
I know the scouts had a great time regardless of the President not being there. Why do I know this, my son is there and he is having a great time experiencing the thrill of being at “Jambo”. It was expected that there would be disappointments along the way but overall he is enjoying making new acquaintances, seeing historical sights and learning about his American heritage since he has four ancestors who died in the Civil War from New York Regiments.
Thanks for noting that there were other Presidents who didn’t attend in the past as well. President Obama has met with scouts prior to this. It would have been nice but let’s not dwell on the negative.
Let’s keep a postive spin on this and set an example for our youth who will continue to be good citizens, as they learn by example.
Thanks Mike for your comments.
While I agree with Linda not to dwell on the negative when the 100th anniversary event is something to be celebrated, I definately do not disagree with Madman that the absence of President Obama is noticable.
First, the President is the honorary president of the Scouting organization. That role has been in place since its founding and William Howard Taft (although it has had slightly different names). Next, the 100th anniversary of this organization is hardly a photo op… it is a celebration. Presidents in the past have made it in off years, and this just shows the President’s commitment to the Scouts.
As Madman pointed out, this has been on the books for a while… and is not a last minute meeting. The President had time to properly arrange his schedule, and he did. He set his priorities: a puff interview on The View (because he is losing ground with American women), and fundraisers for Democratic candidates.
Any talk about “scheduled to be out of town” as the press office is suggesting is little more than attempted excuse making.
Wanna talk photo ops? The President (all Presidents) do them on a daily basis. This President has had photo ops in the Gulf, at employers, in hospitals, visiting the troops… even if the 100th anniversary of Scouts was a simple photo op, how does that compare to the 100’s of these the President has done already?
In closing, I like how Mike brings in Breitbart, as if that has anything to do with the Scouts. It is just a common technique used when your argument is weak to try and change the subject.
When exactly did you stop beating your wife?
I just noticed the Chuck Norris wrote a series of columns about Obama’s alleged hostility towards the Scouts.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
I’ve been involved with the Scouting program with my son for serveral years as he was a Cub Scout and now a Boy Scout. I too was appalled by our current President’s decision to be seen on a what I consider to be a gossip talk show over addressing the Boy Scouts. I have to say after reading this article and the posts from it that I am appalled by Mike’s comments especially after stating he was a Scout. It would seem “was” is the key word there. The last time I heard the Scout Law recited at a Troop meeting it still included “a Scout is loyal”. Nice loyality Mike…..how quickly you seem to have forgotten what you learned and what countless volunteers have spent nurmerous hours trying to teach and instill in our boys in an effort to help them become good men over the past 100 years. This is not a “feel good photo op” but an opportunity to encourage our boys and soon to be men to continue with their efforts of community service and learning of life and leadership skills to help them continue to become good citizens and leaders in all sectors of our communities and Nation.
Still waiting for your indignation on Brietbart. I just don’t know how you can be “appalled” at teh P{resident and not Brietbart. Perhaps this speaks a lot more about your character than you would have cared to reveal.
That said, I think your post is partisan politics as usual. Just more mud being thrown. Nobody should take your posts seriously.
Oh Get over yourselves wingnuts!
From past experience I can tell you when the President does attend the NatJambo it is a LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE for the Scouts and their leaders the needed security arrangements delay EVERYTHING. That is one of the reasons RONALAD REAGAN NEVER ATTENDED.
And it is worth noting, that if President Obama DID go you all would be stamping your widdle teabagger feet about how he was “exploiting” the BSA for a photo op.
The Jambo is about the Scouts and their experience at the EVENT. Meeting other scouts and leaders from all over, making new friends etc. And it is also worth noting that having to wait in line for hours just to walk through metal dectectors and have your pack searched to get in and hear a ten min speech by his predecessor was one of the BIGGEST complaints from the last Jamboree.
Apparently Obama was too busy to be with the Scouts because he had to go to multiple fund raisers and eat alone:
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/the_night_prez_dined_alone_xS1XNksXitc2Gbw49fjk4K
At least these are shameless photo ops like the Boy Scouts event.
SFScout-
We appeciate you coming to the site to comment, but I don’t know any child that I went to school with that did not get excited when a big time politician or celebrity came near. It is generally a once in a lifetime experience (unless you are a big time donar, personal friend, or family member) to hear a President speak.
I am sure there are some Scouts or leaders who find a Presidential visit to be horribly inconvienent or a distraction. I would say they are likely in the minority. A visit from the honorary head of the Scouting organization was not only appropriate, but it would have been exciting for Scouts and leaders from all over the country… regardless of their families political persuasion.
Hi Sandi,
Oh please. The definition of a photo op is to fly in, shake hands, given them a quick word, get a few pictures for the 6 PM news, and fly out. If a President really wanted to guide “young men” (and presumably “young women”) he should have programs where they would work at the WH.
Until they have these programs, all of these Jamboree drop ins are just photo ops.
Loyalty means supporting scouting and until Presidents do more for scouting, they are just using these events for photo ops. And you and I know that loyalty does not equal prostrating oneself for a Presidential photo op.
Loyalty certainly doesn’t mean trash the President. But if you feel that way, then first trash Reagan, Ford, and Nixon. I think that your being “appalled” is much more driven by your politics than your honest feelings.
I am no longer a boy scout any more than you are a girl scout. I was a boy scout when I was a teenager. I was one pretty much until the time I traded that nifty three finger salute for a full hand salute and serve my country in war.
You just happen to be “appalled” at anything Obama does.
And by the way Arch, where is that article about being appalled at the behavior of Andrew Brietbart?
Really? With the Brietbart again? Was he in Scouts?
If he says he was, he is probably just making it up.
I am confused about your position. Are you guys in support of Brietbart’s actions or are you “appalled?” Or are you only “appalled” as some sort of fake emotion when discussing politics?
I am waiting on your Brietbart indignation.
I just checked all of Breitbarts sites: Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and Big Peace. None of them had anything on the Scouts national jamboree. On his Breitbart.com, he ran an AP story:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9H6FCOG0&show_article=1
Not much there, but to keep on topic, I have posted it for your benefit.
Hi Windy,
Your inability to speak directly about Brietbart and Shirley Sherrod sinks Arch’s one sided case. With friends like you who needs enemies.
The only way I can explain your post is that you have lost track of the thread. Arch’s thread was at being appalled at Obama. In the same week, other news surfaced at the appalling behavior of Andrew Breitbart in the selective editing of the Shirley Sherrod video.
Almost everyone I know, even people like O’Reilly,have all expressed their deep disdain for this type of behavior by a notable blogger. Brietbart has seriously tarnished his own reputation among the right. I doubt he’ll be quoted on Fox anytime soon.
My question was simple. Is Arch appalled at all egregious behavior, left or right, or is his post strictly a partisan opinion? Most readers (you excluded) have figured out that the question is rhetorical. It is intended to point out the fact that Arch’s opinion is one sided, deeply politically motivated, and reserved for Obama. He is not appalled at all about Ronald Regan never showing up.
His is a one sided partisan rant. What it is not is indignation. That is clear since he couldn’t put together his indignation in the context of the larger events this week.
No inability here. Just keeping focused like a laser beam. We have had several people come to the site from both sides of the issue to discuss Obama’s non-visit to the Boy Scout 100th Anniversary Jamboree. This is not a discussion about Breitbart nor Shirley Sherrod.
A rule we tend to break here is to stay on topic. I am doing so.
No ratholes.
We can comment about your topic on the blog post related to the topic, or on another site (such as yours) where you have posted about Breitbart. I have an opinion that differs from yours… but this is not the place.
Focus.
Windy,
I think most readers will see through Arch’s inability to answer the most basic question. Is Arch appalled at all egregious behavior, left or right, or is his post strictly a partisan opinion?
You have danced around this issue for six, eight or ten posts already, which is something else your readers will likely pick up on.
And why are you answering for Arch? I am beginning to think you (Windy) and Arch are the same person.
Is being appalled just a partisan opinion, or are you (Windy, Arch, one and the same) appalled at Brietbart behavior? And how far will you go avoiding teh question.
Hi Mike,
No I’m truely not appalled by everything Obama does. However, this did bother me, irregardless of what my politcal views maybe. As a parent and Assistant Scout Master I always strive to teach the boys through words and actions to uphold all aspects of the Scouting program and to be and continue through out their life to be good people. Which includes loyality to our Country and respect for the office of the Presidency. That’s part of the reason I felt how I did with this issue. Irregardless of the motivation behind being there, photo op or whatever, the boys don’t see it that way and it’s a missed opportunity to encourage them to continue forward with what they’ve started by joining Scouts in the first place. I leave my personal political views with myself.
Also, I would like to applaud and thank you for your service to our Country!
Hi Sandi,
I applaud your post and comments. I understand your point of view and while we differ, I have no conflict with it. It isn’t easy being a boy scout nowadays, at least no like it was when I was a scout.
I applaud also your service to the scouts. They need more people like you.
Mike
Arch has not answered you, so how has he demonstrated an inability to answer a basic question. Your question is a change of subject. We don’t talk about climate change on a Scout post, nor do we talk about Iran.
You call it dancing. I call it retaining focus.
LOL. Hardly. Arch and I definately different people. I know this because we went to college together. I also know that he is indisposed right now because he is at the Boy Scout Jamboree, and is not at his hotel right now. He wrote and posted this at night. Such a conspiracy theorist, you are.
Take a deep breath and focus.
Sandy, Mike and I have found something we agree on. The dedication of the scout leaders in my son’s cub scout pack is something I really appreicate. It takes a lot of dedication to be that youth leader. Thank you for that.
Mike, I agree with Sandy as well. Thank you for your service to our country in the military. Another point of agreement that we can all honor.
Thank you both for your kind words!!!
Mike,
You have to be the most impatient person in the world. Most of us are out doing stuff while you evidently sit at the computer waiting for a response. I did draft a response to your first questions, but didn’t have an opportunity to post it.
All of this has more to do with not upsetting his main constituency that abhors the values of the Boy Scouts.
And your point would be what? Being President has a lot to do with photo ops. Feel good shots are all about politics. You’re such an “independent,” I’m surprised you didn’t know that. Huh, I learn something new every day.
As far as getting a chance to eat a hot dog, I’ve never seen any recent photos like this. I attended Jamborees in 1985, 1989 and 2005. What I witnessed is the President (or first lady in 1985) flying in on Marine One, talking for less than an hour, and flying out again.
It is a pain to host the President, no doubt. I saw Bush (43) at the 2005 Jamboree and the biggest problem was the security coming into the arena. Having the opportunity to see the President was worth the wait. Even thought I’m not an Obama fan, I would have liked to see him also. It’s the position and not the person.
I think I pointed things out in a very organized fashion, but you failed to read the content.
Eisenhower did attend one Jamboree, delivered a recorded message to one and a written statement to another. Nixon attended two as VP (53 &57), no idea why he didn’t as President. Ford had no Jamborees during his Presidency. I have no idea why Carter did not attend. Reagan planned to go in 1985 but was recovering from surgery. I could not find why he didn’t in 1981. Sending the first lady seems like an ample substitute – it’s called acknowledgment.
That’s a weak argument even for you, Mike.
Substance? He was attending a fundraiser – where’s the substance? As far as taping a segment for “The View,” which by several accounts was not the reason for the snub (and I did point this out), is not really “substance.” As Ed Rendell points out:
“Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a fellow Democrat, scoffed at the idea of a president appearing on such a show.“ I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Rendell told MSNBC, at one point comparing “The View” to “The Jerry Springer Show.” A real ringing endorsement from someone from his side.
As always, you come to the real reason for your initial comment. You always want to steer the discussion to whatever you are interested in regardless of the original post content. OK, I’ll make a quick comment.
Shirley Sherrod was railroaded, not by Breitbart, but by her boss at AG. How that idiot still has a job is beyond me. This case shows the ineptness of government bureaucracy. I felt sorry for her until I read a comment where she is now blaming Fox News for her problems. Please. Her bosses, and ultimately the White House, had access to the full tape and decided to ignore it and make a snap judgment. That’s not management, that’s malpractice.
Actually, this is a lame attempt on your part to bring up some topic that you are interested in discussing. Stop misleading the readers by inserting your own agenda. If you want to cover a topic, start your own blog – I think we’ve covered this ad nauseam.
Now, don’t get all bent out of shape if I don’t answer you immediately, I’ll be joining 45,000 Jamboree participants and 70,000 others at the Jamboree tomorrow. I’ll let you know how it went.
Also, Linda, Marie, SFScout and Sandi, thanks for visiting the site. We look forward to having you visit again soon!
Although many of you are insulting the president (and i feel your pain) i tbhink we should all be happy we’re getting something, right!?! i am in my tent reading this thinking just what a shame. but we’ll find out tomorrow!
Arch,
The first question that come to my mind when I read your post was, how is it possible that a sensible person can be “appalled” at Obama missing a photo op with the Boy Scouts and yet not be appalled at all about Brietbart’s actions.
Brietbart’s actions are nearly criminal. Fox News’ response damages it’s reputation further. Certainly the right has embarrassed itself all over again. You are right that Agriculture didn’t handle this well. There may be yet be repercussions.
Yet a curiously in your response are several notable omissions:
- you dismiss Brietbart’s actions where you should be condemning them.
- you dismiss Fox’s actions, where you should be calling them clowns.
- you fail to call into question the character of Fox and Brietbart.
- while you note that Ronald Reagan didn’t attend the Jamboree in 1981, you fail to question his character.
All this points to the real truth about your post: it’s all just a partisan rant on your part. And, it all points to the real truth about my response: I am calling you out for being one sided and utterly unfair.
All of the rest of your reply is nonsense.
As for the impatient bit, I was speaking to Windy. Why is he answering for you?
I am still waiting for your post at the indignation of what Brietbart did. I know I will have to wait forever, which is the point. You are entirely one sided in this matter. I think it reveals a great deal about your character and about how you view fairness.
Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Carter and Ford did not speak at a Jamboree and President John F. Kennedy was assassinated before the Jamboree in 1964 when Johnson spoke.
@Marie – Nice! Boys good, girls bad apparently.
Mike,
The whole post was balanced with my opinion added. Facts were presented in a balanced fashion (see post). I’m appalled because he could have gone, like most Presidents have, but chose not to – why? Was it soley for a “Fundraiser” or to get softball questions from the ladies at “The View?” One can only speculate, and I have.
You are impatient. You put down some gauntlet about Breitbart, totally unrelated to this post, and wanted a discussion about it. Windy wanted to comment, and he did. You started wondering why I was not there immediately arguing my point. The real point is some of us have other things to do – and that point was made. Everyone reading will come to the same conclusion I have that you are impatient.
I’ve explained Reagan a couple of times. I have no idea why he didn’t come in 1981, but he planned to be there in 1985. Case closed.
I question the character of the government officials that fired Sherrod. Do you? That’s the real story and blaming Fox News, Breitbart and any other “right wing nut” for their actions is silly. They had the whole tape, why did they take those actions before looking at all the facts?
Those are questions to ponder.
Your point is accurate, except for its content.
You chose to call Obama’s character to question, but you did not choose to call in Reagan’s character. You also did not choose to call in Eisenhower’s. He also thought the whole thing to be less important.
That statement right there calls into question your entire “balanced” philosophy.
I see a pattern here. President’s who are much less politicians tend not to go. Nixon went when he was being the party leader under Eisenhower (he was), but skipped when he no longer saw a need. Reagan didn’t feel he needed to.
You are dismissive of an attempt by a right wing nut (your words) to execute a personal attack. You are blaming all of the victims downstream, excusing the source. It is all convenient for your political side.
That strategy will work if it sticks. It will stick with a certain minority on the right, the minority that wants to be blind to their own excesses. The real question is will it stick with middle America? My bet is that the reputation of Fox and Breitbart have been damaged.
It isn’t the first time that the right hasn’t owned up to its mistakes, and it won’t be the last.
You should be grateful that the president is skipping the Jamboree so he will not be endangering the boy scouts. There are very good reasons for the president to chose not to endanger the scouts. There has already been one incident in the last 48 hours that just has not hit the news wire yet.
I was there in 2005 and saw the line of ambulances that were called in because of the number of heat exhaustion before the canceled first visit by President Bush.
Some background on what has to happen before the President arrives. The Jamboree locks down that day. That means there are hundreds of soldiers (with guns) working the entrances to the Jamboree. This is on a Military Base. I know for a fact that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of troops stationed in an outer perimeter around the Jamboree. There are hundreds of troops stationed around the area that the helicopter and the arena area with guns pointed inward. Then there are hundreds of troops lining the road from the helicopter pad to the arena that the President drives (at a high rate by the way). The scouts are assembled at the area starting mid afternoon in full uniform. If you know BSA uniforms, the shirts are very polyester and are not good in hot weather. They are not allowed to bring water but bottled water was provided. This is Virginia in August and it was hot in 2005. A number of boys collapsed at the arena. You must cross a metal detector and empty all your pockets. No knives or other large and ‘dangerous’ materials are allowed like a Philmont belt buckles. At some point, the ‘gate’ close (blast barrier) and if you are not in, you are out.
In 2005, President Bush came during the closing ceremonies and had a basic photo-op, said a few words and left. He was probably on stage 10 minutes.
The cost of this operation was probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. For 10 minutes. It was cool to see the President, but not at the expense and at the number of boys and adults that were taken to the hospital because of heat exhaustion forced to get to the ceremony hours before it began.
When I talked to the boys, they thought the closing show was good. Highlight? Fireworks, Disappointment? Bush (because of the amount of fuss).
You can diss the President for not coming to Hotter than Blazes Fort A. P. Hill for the Jamboree, but I’d rather he did what he did and let the boys have fun instead of being photo op pawns.
To keep this on track…
The 2010 National Jamboree is at Ft. A.P. Hill.
Ft. A.P. Hill is 60 miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a very short flight.
The Jamboree is celebrating the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts of America.
President Barack Obama is honorary president of BSA.
As honorary president of the BSA, he ought to have traveled a short flight away to honor Scouts at the 100th anniversary of an organization CHARTERED by CONGRESS in 1916!
My own dad saw Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the first Jamboree in 1937.It made a tremendous impression on him and he never forgot it.
Dwight Eisenhower appeared to celebrate 50 years of Scouting in 1960. It was the right thing to do.
I don’t care whether you’re a Democratic Obama-worshiping liberal, or a Republican Obama-scorning conservative, or somewhere in between. THIS president had an obligation to honor the Scouts for the 100th anniversary of Scouting during the LAST Jamboree ever to be held at Ft. A.P. Hill, and his lame, videotaped speech just didn’t cut it. Period.
This is NOT about skewering Obama. It’s a simple statement about a dishonorable choice made by the current President of the United States. My Dad, a lifelong Democrat, saw President Roosevelt and never forgot it. My son, political stand as yet to be determined (and it doesn’t matter, frankly), did NOT see President Obama and I am sure he well never forget it. Period.
Thanks for performing your due diligence and posting this information.
Amy,
Read Rich H’s response. Nuff said.
Mike,
I’m sure it was a huge ordeal in expense and logistics to get the President to ABC Television Center in NYC in order to tape “The View.” ANY time the President leaves the White House, this is the case.
Precautions were taken to ensure that this Jamboree was the “safest Jamboree ever,” meaning that the Scouts were better prepared, having learned hard lessons in 2005.
For THIS president to have visited, especially considering that it was the 100th anniversary of Scouting, would have meant a great deal to the boys.
Nuff said.
Hi Amy,
Fair enough. The President could have made it special for them.
The original post was about the President’s character, a complaint which I do not read into your post. Should he have gone there because it was the 100th, or because of these boys?
Thanks, Mike,
I appreciate your understanding the spirit of my message.
It seems that the President should have gone simply because it is the 100th anniversary celebration. My own son was really looking forward to seeing the President. What a great thing it would have been for him to have been able to say, 50 years from now, that President Barack Obama had come to the 100th anniversary celebration at the 2010 National Jamboree! Yes, the President definitely could have made it special for the boys.
Seeing FDR in 1937 helped my dad in his work as a newsman. All his life, he credited that one encounter with his being brave enough to interview Presidents and visiting dignitaries, something he would naturally have eschewed due to his shyness. FDR came and encouraged the Scouts and shook Dad’s hand. He even answered all the boys’ questions when several of them interviewed him.
I wrote to the White House and suggested to President Obama that any time he has the opportunity to encourage 45,000 of our youth, he might consider it a good move! I hope he does!
Hi Amy,
You are right that the President, any President, could inspire many young people. Young minds need to be touched by the possibilities. They would be encouraged to reach for a greater dream.
Real the “Boy scouts Jamboree”, real? Are you saying he disrespect our boys in uniform?, please. Or is he more focused on speaking to adults (The View) about what he is doing to repair our nation (those boys can’t vote, you know). And so you know (or take a look yourself) Twelve other presidents have skipped the Jamboree, including Ronald Reagan (he missed all of them), Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and yes even Dwight D. Eisenhower, among others, so, honestly, who cares, I don’t.
Real the “Boy scouts Jamboree”, real? Are you saying he disrespect our boys in uniform?, please. Or is he more focused on speaking to adults (The View) about what he is doing to repair our nation (those boys can’t vote, you know). And so you know (or take a look yourself) Twelve other presidents have skipped the Jamboree, including Ronald Reagan (he missed all of them), Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and yes even Dwight D. Eisenhower, among others, so, honestly, who cares, I don’t.
Hi Montana-
Thanks for caring enough to write.
I’m just a tad confused on your comments Montana. Did you happen to read the original post? Just checking.
I thought we were done with this issue, but I guess not. OK, I’ll go over this again.
The Presidents that missed the Jamboree include the following (as noted above in the original post):
Nixon in 69 & 73 (He did attend two as VP in the 50’s, no idea why he missed while President)
Carter in 77 (Never could find out why he missed)
Reagan in 81 (He was scheduled to visit in 85 but was recovering from surgery)
Obama in 10 (Although he did have a recorded message played)
Where did the twelve President number come from?
I know you are all hell bent on being thoroughly defensive of all things Republican, but your list is way too lenient of Republicans. The list of Republicans who fail to attend is long.
For example, Eisenhower didn’t attend at all.
Neither did Nixon. He doesn’t get credit for going as VP. As President, he couldn’t have cared less. In 1973, he was busy getting impeached and packing up.
Reagan didn’t go at all. He was having surgery, and perhaps you can post a link where he was scheduled to go, had them all revved up to go, but darn that cancer surgery. Or, it is just as possible that he never had any intention of going at all. I’ll give RR the benefit of the doubt.
All of this history dismisses your proposed idea that it shows anything about character. Obama did send a message. It isn’t as inspirational as a handshake and a speech that so motivated Amy’s father (in yet another great moment in Roosevelt’s life).
It is more like Linda and Montana’s point of view.
(My own feelings are that defending all things Republican is as absolutely foolish as defending all things Democrat. Defending all things conservative is just as foolish as defending all things liberal.
If a country had it all figured out, all conservative or all liberal, more of us would just emulate it. The fact is that there are times in the country’s history where solutions are necessary for practical reasons.
Sometime we need a little more regulation, sometimes less. Sometimes we need more OSHA to keep people from dying on the job, or more EPA so that the pursuit of profits doesn’t destroy communities, or worse, rivers, food supplies, reasonable breathing air.
But you gents are all Republican and a smidge of pretend conservatism. I say a smidge because you just adore George Bush (43). He certainly wasn’t very high on conservatism. He ushered big gov’t, trashed the 4th amendment, spent into oblivion and destroyed the economy.
I don’t get why you support all of that, but you do. And your support of that brand of Republicanism almost requires you to trash Obama.
Reader’s of this blog see that pattern over and over again.)
I attended the jamboree and was glad the sec. of Defense spoke as he is an Eagle scout and could better relate to the event. He attended a Jamboree when he was a scout. Our president was not a scout so it was more appropriate for him not to attend IMO. I don’t care for Obama but if he did show i would have respected the office. He did give a message via video but afterwards most souts around me were nto impressed. I say good call in having an eagle scout give the address.
Mike, regular readers to this blog will see that we hardly love all things Bush, but will notice that you have as many entries in the comment section as we have blog posts. They will also notice that although we are critical of Obama (as he is currently in office, along with a majority of Dems in the House and Senate), that we hardly pull punches on Bush or other Republicans.
You, on the other hand, have nothing kind to say about a single critical word to say about a single Democrat, unless of course the criticize the opinions of President Obama, and will not praise a Republican unless he trashes his own party.
In other words, people will see that we are fair, and that you spare no chance to blame the Bush Administration.
If that “Blame Czar” position ever opens up at the White House, I am sure the President will consider your application. Somehow, Obama blowing off the Boy Scouts jamboree is just another excuse for you bringing Republicans into the fold and figuring out a way to trash Bush.
Well done.
Stephen… good comment and thanks for reading the blog. Your comment, like Madman’s (the author) and other attendees brings good balance. I think we have had those who were upset to those who did not care.
Thanks again.
Windy,
The post is about Obama’s character. If you can call Arch’s post as fair for trashing Obama’s character, then my asking you why you support Bush is absolutely more than fair.
What readers will see is how you strive to call your one sided posts as fair.
My comment was about how can you still defend Republicans after their record. You fail to answer any part of the question. I don’t think you can. Your only defense is to blame the question and questioner. Classy.
I do know that you would love it if somehow you could run away from Bush’s record. You can’t. My question is how you can still defend Republican policies in light of that record. Care to answer the question for once?
It is not a surprise Obama avoided meeting with the Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts represent American Apple Pie, Individualism, True Patriotism, everything Obama has to destroy to further his Socialist agenda. Boy Scouts to Obama are tantamount to a cross put in front of a Vampire, to stop Obama sucking the wealth from hard working Americans to give it to socialist bloodsuckers.
In contrast to the Boy Scouts, Obama prefers a (captive youth audience); it was reported U.S. School teachers now instruct their youngest pupils to sing in choir fashion, songs about Obama. One need only look to the White House to confirm how a promulgated ideology (Communism) can influence a school child and destroy a nation. Obama a red diaper baby inherently does not represent Americans, but a Marxist ideology that mandates forcing socialism on U.S. Citizens, crushing non-believers even at the costs of destroying the economy, certainly the Constitution. If Obama-ism is not stopped it will spread like a disease infecting our youth, inspiring a form of Marxist-socialism that will destroy the quality of life for Americans. Let there be no doubt Patriots are at War with those in our nation that intend a rein of RED TERROR on everything that made America great. America’s greatest threat is not from foreign enemies, but Marxists that slithered into our government.
I am a scout that attended this 2010 Jamboree. I was hoping for a visit by the President as many of my other attendees were. Nobody here has mentioned one of the biggest reasons that his attendance would have been a good thing. Many scouts are going to be the next generations leaders of economy, government, infrastructure and more. They are going to be our next military officers and enlisted men.
The question that continues to linger in my mind is how can the president justify not talking to the more than 70,000 people that where at the Thursday night arena show? How can he avoid talking to the 40,000 scouts who are destined to be the nations future leaders?
I will be of voting age within the next year and I wonder if I will be able to support a “young people’s” president who cannot afford to talk to 40,000 young people in one place.
Jacob,
Thanks for visiting our site. I too was at the Jamboree, this time as a visitor, and was able to see the Arena show. Overall a pretty good show with the best part being the talk by Mike Rowe – Eagle Scout and host of Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch and other things.
I have been to three Jamborees in 85, 89 and 05. Seeing the President was a highlight of the show regardless of the party. I didn’t make the point you made, in the post, about all the age of many scouts in 2012 (voting age), but I did mention this point to people privately. Why the President would alienate all these potential voters is beyond me. I didn’t really start thinking about political things until college. This seems like a voter rich environment.
Great comment. If you have not attained Eagle yet, keep on the path. You won’t regret the hard work.
Roosevelt 1/1 100%
Truman 1/1 100%
Eisenhower 0/3 0%
Nixon 0/2 0%
Carter 0/1 0%
Reagan 0/2 0%
GHW Bush 1/1 100%
Clinton 1/2 50%
GW Bush 1/2 50%
Obama 0/1 0%
Democrat 3/6 50%
Republican 2/10 20%
That Eisenhower guy lacks character.
Just a quick jump-in on this. This is not an ordinary Boy Scouts event but a 100th anniversary celebration. President Obama is the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. It is a snub of the 45,000 participating children to not attend on this special occasion in favor of trivial matters such as fundraising and an appearance on The View. Doing so seems to be in step with a recent wave of disdain for the organization by many Democrats and their supporters on the left. I agree with Madman; his decision to put politics above inspiring a large group of children on their most special day showed a lack of character in my humble opinion.
Mike, Obama is the President, Bush is no longer the President. Any criticism of Obama does not open the door to any criticism of Bush. Maybe that is the way in works in your world, but when Bush spent too much, people did not deflect that by bringing up Clinton and Carter. That is circular argument that proves nothing.
Madman stated (echoed by many in this stream) that Obama showed a lack of character for going to fundraisers and an appearance on the intellectually challenged View, instead of attending the event. As a former Scout, Madman pointed out that a visit from the President was a highlight of his trip, regardless of party. Other Scouts have echoed this, most recently Jacob.
Readers will see that Madman laid out his case, including showing how Republicans and Democrats missed the Jamboree. You seem to believe that any criticism of Obama, regardless of how appropriate, is an open door to bring up George W. Bush. That really makes no sense.
I don’t need to answer your question about Bush and policy on a post about Boy Scouts. Bring it up in a post about Bush. In those posts we defend Bush where appropriate, and criticize him where appropriate. Your lack of criticism for Obama when appropriate proves once again that you are hardly fair or balanced… but rather a shill for his ongoing candidacy
Regarding your comment about blaming the question and the questioner, all I am doing her is trying to keep you focused… a difficult task to say the least… on the subject at hand.
Windy,
Since you addressed me in particular, I’ll respond.
The only thing I get from this thread is that you gents are will defend Andrew Brietbart and trash Obama. To demonstrate Arch’s ridiculous proposition, he post that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Regan all skipped out on the Boy Scouts, but call is a character flaw by Obama.
That led me to ask why. I cast doubt as to whether you are truly conservative as you claim. Rather, I think you defend all things Republican despite logic. I noted the poor conservative credentials of the past administration you so dearly defend, and I noted areas where they were oh-not-so-conservative (like trashing the economy).
What I did not do is to juxtaposition Obama against Bush. Rather, I juxtapositioned your conservative views against Bush, and you had no answer.
Let’s dissect the 100th Anniversary and the Honorary President title.
The entire Honorary President of the BSA is a meaningless sham. The President of the US has no more power to affect the details of the BSA than does Mickey Mouse. If he did, he could have resolved to end all the persecution and bigotry within the scouts. Small matters like outing and removing “gay” scouts.
And why the 100th so much more important than the 27th Anniversary, or the 95th? Those scouts deserve the “thrill” of the President’s visit just as much as the current group. The 100th is only special in the longevity of the organization.
Given that it is a group with significant diminishing members (they are about 33% of what they were just a generation ago), they better reform if they plan to stay around.
Scouting is also upper middle class and mostly white. It costs money to go camping. Just 4% of scouts are Latino and not many more are black. You can get some sense of this at http://robocaster.com/pe/podcast-episode-home/localnews-colton-stories-pe_news_local_w_scouts07_45ec9e7_html/boy-scouts-trying-to-recruit-more-latino-kids-amid-changing-demographics.aspx
The entire thing is mostly run by churches (62%). It is deeply and heavily Christian and religious. I was in a troop in NYC. It was run by a local Merchant’s group. We were one of only a few troops that were not substantially Christian.
You gents grew up in the main demographic where the scouts draw their members: white, middle class, religious, conservative. To you it is America, and American values.
Beyond your niche there is a huge world that could not care less about Scouting.
So why do you gents support a party that is not conservative in its record? Still waiting for an answer.
Impressive research on the Presidential appearances… And for the record, the 1981 Jamboree took place scant months after President Reagan was shot.
I responded to you because your last response was addressed to me.
Breitbart is not part of the Boy Scouts. You have been trying to flog that horse for weeks here. No one is biting because it is irrelevant to this discussion. Obama is the President of the United States and the Honory head of the Scouts. He is relevant to this discussion.
Madman pointed out that they were not there, and did not hide it. He also did not criticize Carter or Clinton for their lack of attendance. This is not a criticism of past Presidents or their motives. Madman looked at the current President’s schedule for that day, the reasoning he made for not being able to attend the Jamboree, and provided his opinion. This is not ridiculous as you suggest, this is reasoning.
We claim to be Conservatives, as in movement. Those Conservatives have positions that are both progressive and conservative. You like to try and apply the small-c “conservative” to us as if you are winning some sort of argument with us on whether we are true conservatives. You accuse us of being robots, spouting the GOP line, and then turn around and say we are inconsistent. Which one is it?
Your battle with this strawman falls down everytime we provide examples. You can look back in past posts to see us shut down this silly accusation each and every time.
Look back at previous posts. Your repeating of this untruth over and over again is damaging your credibility.
This post has nothing to do with Bush, except to say that he attended one Jamboree and not another… the 92nd and 96th anniversary of the Scouts, as I recall. Did Bush go on the View that day, or to a fundraiser? I am not sure… oh wait, I am. Bush did not go on the View, because President Obama broke new ground by being the first sitting President to appear on the View. Joy!
This argument is so laughable, it is hardly worth pointing it out. An honorary title is… um… honorary. You must be downright disgusted when someone gets the oversized “Key to the City” and then finds out that it is a sham, and it does not unlock City Hall.
Mickey Mouse is not the Honorary President of the Scouts.
So, now you are against the Constitution and the rights of the people to assemble peacefully with whatever group they wish? This is a private organization. As much as I personally do not have a problem with gay scouts and scout masters (the Scouts is not about sex, afterall), this private organization has a right to set its membership any way it wants, and then face the consequences of those actions. I am sure that many a parent has decided not to allow their child to join the scouts as a result of this policy, but what you call persecution and bigotry, others call a right upheld by the Supreme Court of the US.
Another laughable argument. Are you kidding me? So a couple’s 50th anniversary means nothing more than their 8th or 13th? Please. The 100th anniversary (or any milestone number) is considered special across the spectrum. This is why there are always celebrations associated with these dates. For example, as I recall, the 1976 bicentenial was a pretty huge deal.
And that is a opinion that you can have. Many other groups have seen diminishing membership. Although, I just read that the World Organization of the Scout Movement is has 28 millions members world wide. That’s pretty good.
Yes, and the NBA is mostly African American. Scouts is not the first choice for every sub-category of demographic in America.
You might remember the pledge, motto, and other things associated with the scouts and refer to God. It has a religious aspect to it.
There are people within my niche that don’t care about scouting. There are people within my niche who love Tae Kwon Do, or swimming, or NASCAR, or basketball. I deal with people on a day-to-day basis who know nothing about scouts at all.
Oops… you went off topic again.
You are not being very honest about Arch’s post, or his motives. The title of Arch’s post is, specifically, “Obama Skips Boy Scout Jamboree: Shows His Lack of Character”
You say he chose not to criticize other Presidents who have “skipped” visiting the Jamboree. The ridiculous part is ascribing motives and behavior to Obama that you don’t assign to other Presidents.
Arch’s behavior demonstrates the utterly ridiculous lengths you gents go through to just trash Obama. No logic, no reason, no consistency. Other presidents skipped the Jamboree, fine; Obama skips it and it is a character flaw.
Arch’s post come on a week when another outrageous event was taking place. The Brietbart/ Fox News video scam. Common decency would have made you gents appalled at Brietbart’s behavior. Instead you gents defend it. Nice work.
That is an incredible juxtapositioning of events, and of your opinion. You are justifying a crime. Is that what we can expect from your side? If so why should I believe you when you talk about taxes or other issues?
You gents make a huge point that the President is nearly duty bound to attend the Jamboree because he is the Honorary President. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument. As “honorary” he is not bound to do anything.
Your reply is both a confirmation of my position as well as a deep tangential offshoot into the minutia of semantics. Come back to the argument: honorary means nothing; he is not duty bound to attend these events at all.
Let’s discuss some aspects of scouting and their quest of bigotry and persecution. Despite the US Supreme Court ruled they have the right to do so, my own personal opinion is that their behavior constitutes bigotry. The US Supreme Court ruled they have the right to do so, but that doesn’t change my opinion. They remain a bastion of bigotry.
I differ with you on your calling “gay” a sex issue. If being straight is not a “sex” issue, then being “gay” cannot possibly be a “sex” issue either.
Gays aren’t joining the scouts to cruise, or to partner, or to find suitable partners to marry. They are joining the scouts to learn camping, hiking, and the other great scouting activities.
To me, scouts have the same obligation to be open to everyone else. They accept people regardless of weight, regardless of height, regardless of religion, regardless of national origin, regardless of hair color, obviously regardless of color, so too regardless of their own personal identity.
Anything short of that is arbitrary discrimination.
I am still waiting on why you support a party that isn’t very strong on conservative values. Apparently trashing about Scouts is much easier than grappling with issues about defending your own beliefs.
Which is true, but that is only the title, and one does judge a book solely by its cover, regardless if the line on the cover is true.
Madman stated where he knew the reasons behind the failure to attend. If he did not know, he did not comment. Obama went on the View and to fundraisers and claimed “schedule conflicts”. So you are telling me that these things were more important schedule conflicts and longer standing than the Jamboree invite? Even you don’t believe that.
Hardly a ridiculous length to criticize a President for skipping the 100th anniversary of the Scouts to go on the View and to fundraisers. But you are right, that Reagan was sure shallow and showed a lack of character for not attending when he was recovering from being shot and recovering from cancer surgery.
I don’t recall a post on Breitbart at all. Where did we defend it? Now, we might have… but I don’t recall any of us even providing comment on the episode at all. Are you making this up or did you read this on some other site?
I hardly think that going on the View is a crime. It is a shame, but not a crime.
No one said he was duty bound. Madman said that he showed a lack of character turning down their invitation in order to attend fundraisers and appear on the View. The View is on TV 250 time a year. Fundraisers can be held any time. The Jamboree is every 4 years, and this was the 100th anniversary. The only thing that is ridiculous is you continuing to debate this as if your side of the argument even makes sense.
See above. See my previous reply. “Honorary” means honorary… it does not mean duty bound. There are things that one has to do, and there are things that are right to do.
I respect your right to believe that. I stated my opinion in my last reply. Personally, I see no problem with a gay scout or scout master, just as long as it does not come up. The Scouts are not about sex… never have been. They promote good values and practice what they preach. Some believe that homosexuality is immoral, and many of them do not want the Scouts sexualized. The problem with a small part of the gay right movement is that it is hijacked by people who throw sexuality in the face of those who don’t want to see it. Their tactic is “we are here and get used to it”. Whether they have a right to do so or not does not win the argument when you turn off those you are trying to convince. Their identity is all about who they sleep with. I have been part of the scouts on and off since I was little. I don’t recall sex ever being part of the conversation. Some want to keep it this way. It is just too bad that a small group has ruined it for the majority of those who just want to be part of scouts.
That said, I respect those who choose not to join based upon their opinion. They have that right. That is called freedom of association.
See above.
I know. See above.
They are. The problem is that sexual orientation is not a protected class when it comes to this issue. It would be nice if people did not have the need to “tribe up”, but people like to get together with people that make them feel comfortable. This has been happening forever. The Scouts feel that their moral code, or whatever, does not allow for gays to involved in Scouts. Instead of forcing the Scouts to take them on, gay families and those who see eye-to-eye with them should form their own organization that is similiar to the scouts. They can do these things and show the world that gay families are not dangerous or immoral. They can show that theirs is a better way. Guess what will happen, for several years it will be a smaller organization, but as time goes by, the Boy Scouts will see the writing on the wall, and the organization will change and probably offer to merge. That worked for baseball, and it is a better organization now than it ever would have been.
We discriminate every day. All of us, including you. That is part of choosing things you like to do, or people you want to hang out with. The fact is, if you think the scouts are bigotted and wrong, why would you want to join them? Why not join with a group of people you would like to spend time with?
I have no idea why you think that trying to steer the conversation away from the scouts makes any sense at all. You change the subject whenever you like, but this is not an open comment string. We have been lax on this in the past and allowed you to wander such as here (Arizona tangent even though the post about the Tea Party) and here (Rush and racism tangent, even though the post was about a thin-skinned White House) and here (BP tangent although the post was about Slow Joe).
Sorry… I am trying to keep you focused.
Mike,
Knowing that many Democrats and most on the left (including yourself) hold the organization in contempt for its policies banning atheists, agnostics and homosexuals, it is not a stretch to surmise why President Obama chose fundraising and taping The View over such a public display. It certainly was not to take a stand against policies he finds abhorrent. Out of the political spotlight, the President officially accepted his role as honorary head of the organization (in a private oval office meeting, March 2009), lends his signature to Eagle Scout certificates, and has authored numerous personal letters to outstanding members. In the spotlight of the organization’s 100th anniversary celebration (a very significant event), he chose not to publicly attend for absolutely trivial activities. This shows a lack of character. Showing strong character would be to attend and inspire these upstanding children on their most special day, or (on the flip side) object to ALL activities associated with the organization on personal principals. Instead, he plays politics.
Also … as a ‘gent’ included in your question of: “why you support a party that isn’t very strong on conservative values”, please indicate 1. Where I or any of the other ‘gents’ here blindly support the Republican Party, and 2. Where we celebrate this party’s supposed strict adherence to conservative principals? Even if any one of us wanted to go off the topic of this post and answer this question, we cannot do so because it is based upon (as Windy pointed out): a straw man. In other words, please answer why you support the Light Party that isn’t very strong on Global Warming?
Again, you are not being very honest about Arch’s post, or his motives. It isn’t just the title. In addition to the title, he says in the body of his post: President Obama has shown his character, or lack there of. and ends it with What a shame for the leader of the free world.
So there is no debate, except perhaps in your mind, that the post is to trash Obama’s character while not using the same language to describe the character of Eisenhower, Nixon, or Carter. In a certain way, he praises Carter and environmentalism.
You are also being coy, snarky, or outright misleading when you say you “do not recall” a discussion on Brietbart. It was brought up and you gents have defended it in this thread. You added the nuance of “post,” but you are all on your own with that statement.
There is a huge difference between your statement, “we discriminate everyday” and what the scouts are doing. That is just a platitude (and there is no place for platitudes in honest debate). What most of us do is to try to not discriminate. We respect people in general and we create the space necessary for them to feel respected and useful.
The scouts, on the other hand, are saying we are going to make you feel inferior, suppressed, unwanted, disrespected, and anti-social.
Somewhere in there is the huge difference between what we do and what the scouts do.
The reason I brought up your conservative views is purely and strictly in context to the Obama trashing all of you feel compelled to do. Why are you gents so bent on defending Republicans, a party that doesn’t respect or supports your views?
In many ways, that is what the Tea Party movement is all about. It is a revolt against Republicans (or Dems) that pretend to support conservative values but never respect them.
You gents call your posts partisan and Arch’s post is part of a continuum of similar entries. So my question, in context, is why are you a Republican partisan when they don’t support any of views? They just play some platitudes to conservatives.
I think if you stepped back you’ll see that there are dimensions to politics greater than a straight left and right. You are free to ignore it, refuse to answer, or say you do not recall. But out of context the question is not. It is central to why you feel compelled to trash Obama.
Viking,
Now you are just putting words in Obama’s head. Obama has had a very religious upbringing. He was a regular church goer for years and years before he went into politics and before he ran for the Senate.
You are just speculating, and the meanest sort of speculation to suggest this was some how about atheism. Obama, as you noted, accepted his role in the Boy Scouts. Had any of your speculation bee true at all – all of the parts about atheism, and gay – he would have not accepted the role in the first place.
You are way out on a limb on that one.
Neither Arch or you have written about what Nixon was doing when he didn’t go, or what Eisenhower was up to. They certainly didn’t clear their calendar for the Boy Scouts.
I would have respected Arch’s proposition if he had said something like both Eisenhower and Obama show no lack of character because they didn’t go. But he didn’t. He singled out Obama for character — and that is just plain wrong. It is trashing Obama by a standard you don’t apply to Republicans. That says more about your character than it says about Obama’s.
It is no secret that you gents are hoping for a Republican upset in November. As partisans, you should. But why? The party doesn’t support your views. In the past they did everything contrary to your views.
It isn’t a straw man argument at all. You do support Republicans. You asked me about the Light Party. That’s an easy answer: I don’t. Never heard of them, don’t want them in office, not even sure they are running for anything. I couldn’t care less about them. I certainly don’t have the same level of fascination about them that you seem to have.
On the contrary, you do want Republicans back in power. The question is why. They certainly aren’t going to run the country any better this time around than they did when they were last in office.
I don’t think you can answer.
This shows a lack of character. Showing strong character would be to attend and inspire these upstanding children on their most special day, or (on the flip side) object to ALL activities associated with the organization on personal principals. Instead, he plays politics.
Also … as a ‘gent’ included in your question of: “why you support a party that isn’t very strong on conservative values”, please indicate 1. Where I or any of the other ‘gents’ here blindly support the Republican Party, and 2. Where we celebrate this party’s supposed strict adherence to conservative principals? Even if any one of us wanted to go off the topic of this post and answer this question, we cannot do so because it is based upon (as Windy pointed out): a straw man. In other words, please answer why you support the Light Party that isn’t very strong on Global Warming?
Repost because of editing error
Viking,
Now you are just putting words in Obama’s head. Obama has had a very religious upbringing. He was a regular church goer for years and years before he went into politics and before he ran for the Senate.
You are just speculating, and the meanest sort of speculation to suggest this was some how about atheism. Obama, as you noted, accepted his role in the Boy Scouts. Had any of your speculation bee true at all – all of the parts about atheism, and gay – he would have not accepted the role in the first place.
You are way out on a limb on that one.
Neither Arch or you have written about what Nixon was doing when he didn’t go, or what Eisenhower was up to. They certainly didn’t clear their calendar for the Boy Scouts.
I would have respected Arch’s proposition if he had said something like both Eisenhower and Obama show no lack of character because they didn’t go. But he didn’t. He singled out Obama for character — and that is just plain wrong. It is trashing Obama by a standard you don’t apply to Republicans. That says more about your character than it says about Obama’s.
It is no secret that you gents are hoping for a Republican upset in November. As partisans, you should. But why? The party doesn’t support your views. In the past they did everything contrary to your views.
It isn’t a straw man argument at all. You do support Republicans. You asked me about the Light Party. That’s an easy answer: I don’t. Never heard of them, don’t want them in office, not even sure they are running for anything. I couldn’t care less about them. I certainly don’t have the same level of fascination about them that you seem to have.
On the contrary, you do want Republicans back in power. The question is why. They certainly aren’t going to run the country any better this time around than they did when they were last in office.
I don’t think you can answer.
Mike,
I presented that in my opinion Obama was showing a lack of character by placing politics above being principled. You put plenty of words in my mouth, as usual.
Your question is based on untruth, a straw man pure and simple, like The Light Party thing … which was also a joke.
Facts are sticky things. The first time Breitbart was mentioned, was by you in the second reply dated “30 July 2010 at 11:04 am”. You tried to get away from the Scout questions and go towards the Breitbart one. I deflected that one in my reply and told you to stay on topic. You attempted to bring him up several more times. Each time I brought you back to the topic at hand.
So who is being “coy, snarky, or outright misleading”? Care to answer.
Honest debate is about building up an army of strawmen and then smashing them down, right?
Yes, that is what the Scouts are all about.
I am ignoring most of what else you said, because you go off topic again. I will only add on your constant wondering why Obama is criticized… well, he is the President and he did something that was quite boneheaded. Feel free to defend his actions if you must, but don’t keep trying to bring it back to Bush, Breitbart, Global Warming, the GOP, or any other topic you feel compelled to change the subject to instead of staying on topic.
Windy,
Glad to see you (finally) admit that Brietbart was mentioned. It is also not any news at all that I brought it up. I asked Arch why (or how) he could be appalled at Obama but not Brietbart.
Your definition of what is on-topic and what is off-topic are yours of your own making. I could understand if I suddenly started speaking about Palin tearing down the “Worst Gov Ever” sign. That would be off-topic.
On-topic is asking how the topic is different than some other aspect of the news. I was asking why Arch felt Brietbart was not appalling, yet the Boys Scouts are. I am quite sure Arch will thank you later for policing his post, even if you are a bit over the edge about what is a topic. Just another day as a Mall cop for you.
You asked me who was “coy, snarky, and misleading” and I will be glad to answer. Unlike you and Viking, there is no gross avoidance of a topic. (I still think Arch and you are the same person since you speak and defend him.)
My previous reply laid it all out clearly when I said You are also being coy, snarky, or outright misleading when you say you “do not recall” a discussion on Brietbart. It was brought up and you gents have defended it in this thread.
You were being coy in suggesting it was never discussed. Answered enough for you or should I go on?
You are again being dishonest when you about platitudes. What part of “all of us discriminate” is not a platitude? And none of it at all is a straw man. I clearly laid out how what you and I aim to make people feel (accepted, welcomed, respected) and what the Boy Scouts do (unwelcoming, bigoted, devaluing, and worse).
None of my post is a straw man. All of it real.
The answer as to why you support Republicans is quite straightforward. I am really really surprised you have been going into convulsions to not answer, but the answer, if it ever comes, will probably read something like this,
[You] support the Republican party because their candidates say the kind of things I like to hear, like (pick one or two: smaller government, an energy that involves constantly higher gas prices, they trash science and [you] were always bad at science, dropped my taxes by 10% even though it will cause my children to pay huge deficits (cause you are bad in math also), and lastly, those 18 and 19 year old looks spiffy in going off into an unwinable war).
See, that wasn’t so hard.
Except you can’t say it. The choices are all bad. The outcomes of their choices are all bad for you. You can’t defend it.
When you gents started working in the 90’s, it was easy to be a Republican. All you had to do was hate Clinton. Your energy turned into the thinnest possible victory for a Republican, but your dream came true. You finally had a Republican president and all those promises: states rights, reduced social programs, incredible growth through reduced taxes, stopping evil global warming, all had a chance to finally be put into action. It was going to be great.
But reality is harsh. The tax thing created huge deficits and almost no growth. If it wasn’t for extremely low interest rates there would have been no growth at all. The growth that there was came in the form of the ownership society bubble. Mortgages with no equity and in some cases 110% and 125% fueled speculation – until it crashed.
State rights gave way to an attack on the 4th Amendment and No Child Left Behind (stronger Fed controls).
A recent report, I can link it for you, shows the incredible rise in the ocean all around the United States in the last 10 years, all within prediction. A photo study of glaciers shows 80 and 90% decrease in glaciers.
You can only be a leader if you find solutions and move the nation to better footing. You have to lead. Your guy didn’t.
In many ways, Bush’s record parallel’s Reagan’s – deficits, banking in tatters, poor growth.
Republicans have never delivered. I asked you why you still believe, why you guys think bashing Obama is so important. It is all in context.
We did not comment on it. You claim we defended him. We have been talking about the Scouts here, you have been trying to go off on tangents.
Depends on the definition of “is” is then? My definition is common usage. If it is about the Scouts and President Obama not attending the Jamboree, then it is on topic. If it is about Breitbart, Bush, or your definition of “conservative”, then that is off topic. I noticed that Madman did not show outrage about a lot of news items that occured that week. That is because he was not writing a post about serial outrage… it was a post about the Scouts.
Then why did you not ask about another subject, such as Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Charlie Crist, Lindsey Lohan, Snookie, or any other person who appeared in the news? No, you wanted to change the subject.
Sorry, the subject is the Scouts.
I don’t avoid topics at hand. The rule is to stay on subject. I think you would rather talk about something else, then wait for that post, and comment on it.
Yes, because I live in both St. Louis and Chicago. Pretty good trick.
There has been no discussion and no defense that I know of. You have brought it up several times and I have tried to bring you back to the subject at hand.
Since I knew I never discussed Breitbart, I went back and searched the comments, and that is when I noticed that you had baited Madman into talking about him. My mistake in saying that there was no discussion. There was no discussion with me, and every time you brought him up that I read, I tried to bring you back to the Scouts.
I guess I will have to ban Madman from the site for breaking our own rule. Either way, I am discussing anything off topic.
Well, since “platitude” means “a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original,” it is clearly not a platitude. I am neither trying to make is sound significant or original. It is hardly meaningless, as it is very meaningful. More accurately, it can be described as truism, which is “is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder.” It was just a reminder to you.
Sure it is. A straw man argument “is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”. You misrepresent our position on this (as well as many others) and then chop down the straw man as if you are being amazingly reasoned. Your saying that the Scouts aim to make people feel “unwelcoming, bigoted, devaluing, and worse” is such a straw man, it is hardly worth debating, except to remind you that it is completely false.
Not on topic, that is why I don’t answer. See answers in previous posts where you have asked the same question.
Example of a straw man… see above.
Whoa… way off topic! Scouts, my friend… Scouts.
Asking why Arch is appalled by the Boy Scouts and Obama but is not appalled by some other presidents who failed to show up, or asking why he is not appalled over event like Brietbart are all valid. Otherwise there is no way to have a conversation and explore the topic.
What you are trying to do is stifle discussion by your arbitrary and ridiculous comments.
So now we have a case where you can’t or won’t answer any question, but you have plenty (as in many paragraphs worth) of pseudo-rules you just invent on the fly. All of them designed to avoid answering the real question.
What readers expect is an answer. Something like yes or no, we support Brietbart, or Brietbart is different because of whatever reason you might choose.
To the rest of your reply…
In our discussion on discrimination of the Boy Scouts, you said we all discriminate, to which I replied that while you and I aim to make people feel welcome and respected, the Boy Scouts make people feel “unwelcoming, bigoted, devaluing, and worse.”
Most readers would understand the subject is the discrimination of the Boy Scouts towards gays, that the two parts of the sentence are that you and I do not try to discriminate towards that group, but that the Boy Scouts do. The history of the Boy Scouts asking members to leave or not feel welcomed are well known and documented – they were the subject of at least one Supreme Court case.
My comments were about well known documented cases. Therefore there is no possible way it could be a straw man argument.
What I believe you are trying to do in your reply is to confuse and mislabel the topic as to render any discussion mute. Nice try. Most readers will read the above and realize you have no idea what you are talking about.
Readers will also notice that once again you refuse to answer why you feel a need to trash Obama. I say you feel that need because you blindly believe in all things Republican, right down to tearing down the economy.
You refuse to answer because you cannot answer, not because of any other reason. Readers are amused but not convinced.
Here you go… knock yourself out on this open thread.
They did not make my son or I feel that way. We are people last time I checked.
I don’t think we disagree that gay scout and scoutmasters should be allowed in Scouts. I think it is the right thing to do. The objection has traditionally come back to the Scouts moral code, yet IMHO it is just as likely that a straight man could be a moral hazard to young boys. I don’t think that gay scout masters are child molesters by definition, and gay men are part of the community. On the other hand, some parents want a place where children are safe from questions about sex and sexuality. An openly gay man, who has a partner whom he loves, might be confusing for a child to whom questions of sexuality have not been discussed. Many parents just do not want this disussion to be part of their boy’s scouting experience. The Scouts is a private organization and has made a choice to exclude openly gay men from leadership roles to protect these wishes of parents. This is their right to do so as a private organization. It is one of those gray areas in life that does not feel good or make everyone happy, but not every person in the US is ready to explain the difference between gay and straight to their 6-10 year old boys.
Your comments were misrepresenting the Scouts motives. You state it is their goal to be “unwelcoming, bigoted, devaluing, and worse” to people. That is not the case. You then tear this ficticious characature down as if you have destroyed their questionable motives. That is the straw man.
I lie repeated over and over becomes true in peoples eyes. This is the definition of propoganda. The only problem is that you are the only one who believes this. You never answered Viking’s question (off topic as it might be):
Feel free to answer this on the open thread.
Windy,
It is pretty clear that we are speaking about the Boy Scouts treatment of gays. I am not saying that every single Boy Scout troop cares about whether a BS is gay or not. So it is a platitude to say that they made you and your son feel welcomed.
They clearly will make you feel unwelcomed, unwanted and undervalued if you happen to be gay.
You have acknowledged that they do discriminate – a fact which we all know. You and I agree that they are wrong. That’s about what you can expect from a basically Christian and heavily driven by local churches organization.
To put the BS to rest, we both agree that they discriminate, that we both don’t like it, and that we both would treat people differently.
As to the question of 1) Where I or any of the other ‘gents’ here blindly support the Republican Party, and 2) Where we celebrate this party’s supposed strict adherence to conservative principals?
First, I never said you gents blindly support the Republican Party, or that they had supposed strict adherence to conservative principals. Those are Vikings words. It is typical to setup an absolute standard and then argue against it. (Something you gents rail against, but use often and then argue against, tsk, tsk).
Quite the contrary, and I sometimes wonder how you miss these things, I said the exact opposite. What I said, verbatim, is of Bush “He certainly wasn’t very high on conservatism.” I then went on to list other conservative principles which he trashed.
I will answer what I stated, which is that you gents defend the Bush record, and it is no secret that some/all of you wish for a Republican victory in November.
There is no need to go any further in answering your question. What remains is asking why on earth would you gents want to support the party that has nearly destroyed the economy?
Your generality is OK, but my actual experience is a platitude?
I would not know. I have not been in that position. I would assume those kicked out for being openly gay in a troop might feel unwelcome or unwanted. Undervalued… not so sure.
And it is their right. Freedom of association.
I do not think it is morally wrong or illegal. I think it is a bad long term decision, but I think it will change as societal norms change. You can not force someone down this road.
No, that is what you get from organizations that do not want to have those kinds of discussions around their children. My son rides the bus with a boy with two moms. No matter how many times I tried to explain it to him, he did not get it. The nature of being gay is not easy for a child to understand. It is not Super Mario Brothers or baseball. They get those things. Having a conversation about people being gay is tough for children to process. Some parents wish to talk about this with their kids when they get older. They do not want the Scouts to be in the middle.
One has to acknowledge the other side has a point before you can understand it.
I would be intereseted in discussing the other topics further if you wish. If so, check out the open thread.
Hello all, especially mike.
I am a fresh eagle scout of the 2010 “flight” my family supports Obama, and I am middle of the road. I will be of voting age in 2 years. I did not attend the national scout jamboree because I worked at camp woodruff all summer . That being said I was if not mad, disappointed because THE PRESIDENT did NOT attend Jambo. You will probably tear this post apart with your political terminology. That’s okay I don’t care. Just remember, when I put myself in harms way in the future as a service member of our nations military, it won’t be for just for other eagle scouts or other service men or veterans( thank you for your service mike) but for all the jerks out there who steal and rob, ruin kids dreams, and even crazy politicians who go on the view. People die for that every day. So why can’t the president spend time with other kids like me and thank them in advance for their sacrifice that keeps this country free? Because don’t most boyscouts serve their country as adults in some fashion? And don’t a lot of scoutsjoin the military as adults. Just sayin’.
Why didn’t President Obama attend the Boy Scout Jamboree? Because he knew they were kids who boo when they saw their parents booing him. Maybe the Boy Scouts should show more respect if they want to get respect in return. Much a do about nothing.
Eagle 2010,
Thanks for visiting our site. Good comments. I too was there and had a great time. Glad to hear you attained your Eagle. You’ll never regret it. Make sure to always give back to Scouting with your time and efforts. Help the next generation of boys achieve great things.
Jane,
Thank you for also visting out site. This post has really brought out a lot of new readers and great opinions on both sides. I was at the Arena Show and I can tell you that there was massive clapping after President Obama’s taped talk. There were approximately 100,000 people in the arena, with around 45,000 Scouts and leaders. You are going to have some boos, it’s inevitable. They are teenage boys. Besides, many of the clips I’ve see have no context AND some do. That’s life. Poor judgement occurs in with Boy Scouts (did I mention they were teenagers?) I must have missed clips showing parents booing (the Scouts and the parents were not in the same place at the Arena Show.)
I’ve really enjoyed sitting back and reading the back and forth on this subject. I can’t believe the discussion is still going on. That being said, I don’t know what else I could add to the comments, so I really haven’t. There are a few things I’ll chime in on just to close the loop.
President Visits
It seems some of our readers can’t seem to read the original post. I went back and documented, with great effort, who went, and if they didn’t, why. I tried my best to find out as much information as possible.
I still believe it goes to a character issue. The question that should be asked is why he skipped it? He could have done The View and the fundraisers at another time. Why now?
Why did other Presidents not go to the Jamboree? In some cases I could find out, some I couldn’t. Clinton and Bush missed because of weather (noted in post), Reagan missed because of health issues (85 – Cancer surgery, 81 – shooting). I noted that I have no idea why Nixon missed the Jamborees as Presidents as I couldn’t this info, but he did attend two events in the 1950’s. Nixon had all kinds of ethical and criminal issues during his Presidency and his Character was very poor, IMHO. We could go further back, but I think I made my point. (BTW Eisenhower did go in 1960, but missed 1953 & 1957 – no idea why.)
Breitbart
Yes, I did take the “bait” – sort of, but did point out that it was off topic and had nothing to do with this post. That is still true several weeks later. It’s good you now have an open forum (Mike) to vent your pet projects.
Just to refresh everyone, here’s my response:
And I went on in another comment:
Yeah, that’s really taking the bait. You brought this up because you wanted to discuss it and decided to tie it in with my opinions about the President and the National Jamboree. I don’t think my privileges to post will be revoked anytime soon!
We can differ on whether the President should or shouldn’t have attended, in person, the Centennial Celebration of the Boy Scouts at the National Jamboree. His excuses for not attending were lame and ridiculous. If there was some type of catastrophe, or weather problem or anything else, it would not have been a big deal. Scouters and others would have said, oh well, maybe next time. As it is, just another PR blunder on the part of the White House.
In this forum we’ve heard from several Scouts – which is great. Many of the younger ones brought up that it would have been a great opportunity to see the leader of the free world and the fact that they will be voters in a couple of years. Both very good points.
Mike,
Now look at us, do we really look like the same person?
I’ll never wear anything with a “C” on it. The Bears, Cubs and Black Hawks suck. It’s all about hating Chicago sports. It’s a St. Louis thing. You wouldn’t understand.
We all know why you keep bringing that up.
Sure Arch/Windy whatever…
You addressed the problems with the Ag Department. The question on the table was why are you not appalled with Brietbart’s behavior. I am still waiting.
I suspect that the reason why you don’t want to answer is because you would almost certainly want to come down on the side of being “appalled” at his behavior, which at least would have been the right thing to do.
But you didn’t.
I think I will post my opinon about Breitbart at the open thread…. probably later. I’m going to the pool right now.
Mike/Independent/Lucy/Jose Whatever,
Glad you recognized what we addressed and what we didn’t.
Here’s another one of my quotes from my initial comment:
This is a recurring theme on this blog for you. Twist the discussion to what you really want to discuss. I don’t care how much you want it to fit, it doesn’t in this case and never will. That dog won’t hunt. Get it? Got it? Good. Now…. we can move on.
See http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=9027 for the “OPEN THREAD” discussion.
Have a nice day!
Arch,
I have stated before that it is fair to compare one set of actions with something else in order to discuss them. To draw a parallel, if I were praising Obama for his handling of the war in Afghanistan, it would be fair to ask how does it compare to Bush, or why I wouldn’t also compare it to Bush’s efforts. It would certainly not be off-topic.
The only reason you feel it is off-topic is because the comparison makes you uncomfortable and raises disturbing questions about your post.
Comparing one thing to another is something we all do, and it is something I plan to continue. I imagine you’ll continue to state comparisons are off-topic. Just don’t ever do it if you really feel that way.
Like comparing Apples to Oranges. Nothing uncomfortable on my end.
No matter. Whatever helps you sleep at night Mikey.
The subject matter was being appalled at behavior. You were appalled at Obama. I asked you if you were appalled at Brietbart. The question is gauge whether you have very highly sensitized sense of moral conduct, or whether as I suspect is more the case, you have a rather selective sense of moral conduct.
It appears to me that you are appalled only at the behavior of the other party.
You may not have understood the purpose of the question, or why it was on-topic. I can believe that you felt it came out of left field.
You asked about it being off-topic and I have explained why it is on-topic, more than once. There is no reason for you to be surprised now.
Most readers would feel by now that you are pushing a wagon full of off-topic and that there are no buyers for your definition.
So, are you appalled at Brietbart’s behavior in the least?
Wow! I can hardly believe this subject is still being discussed!
Clearly, the President made an error in not going to Jambo. In my own home city, the local paper interviewed a Scout parent who wanted the President to appear at the Jamboree. If you would like to check it out, you’ll see that it, too, generated a lot of discussion. Here’s the link:
http://newsandtribune.com/local/x2064734372/Negative-view-Local-woman-says-Obama-snubbed-45-000-Boy-Scouts-by-skipping-annual-jamboree
As far as I’m concerned, politics should have nothing to do with this. Nothing. This is about a sitting president who did not go to the 100th anniversary Jamboree. If the Boy Scouts were not doing wonderful things with America’s youth, and if they were simply a partisan entity, then I could understand why people might think it’s not something worthy of a presidential visit. However, the Boy Scouts have stood the test of time. Think of what it means to be able to include “Eagle Scout” on your resume, and you’ll understand the work done to achieve this honor and appreciate all efforts to help guide young people to take part in Scouting.
After due reflection, it occurs to me that there IS a “character flaw” element to all this. President Obama (or his staff) decided that he would not attend the Jamboree. Ok. Not political. But the stated reason for his absence listed: that he was attending Democratic fundraisers…actually, THAT does make it political. As for his appearance on “The View”….well, that’s pretty insulting. “The View” is one of the most banal shows on daytime television.
So, the final message is this: “I’m not going to attend the Jamboree of the honored and beloved all-American group chartered by Congress nearly 100 years ago. Never mind that I received the invitation to this event well over a year ago (certainly he did–the Scouts had to sign up and start paying for the event more than a year ago). I’m going to ignore it. No one will notice. In fact, I might just do something the Scout fans would view as frivolous–tape an interview on the stupidest TV show I can think of. That way, I can give this honored group the message that they’re not really so very honored after all. Oh, and I’ll toss in some political fundraisers to further legitimize the trip to NYC. That’ll really show ‘em.”
Now, whether he meant part of this or all of this or none of this, I don’t know. However, THAT’S the message a lot of people derived from the president’s act. I have really tried, very hard, to see it from the viewpoint of the supporters of President Obama, but I honestly cannot. It was rude and mean-spirited.
The Scouts that booed should not have done so. My son did not. He just sat there (in the front row, as he was hoping the President would still give a surprise visit), disappointed. The President’s message said nothing, really, and was not enough to make up for the slight.
I’ve seen this president speak with fervor and energy and emotion. He showed none of this fervor in the short clip they sent from the White House. Shame on him.
Now, you’ll all jump on this, but, after some time has passed, I see this action on his part as a purposeful negative act. Someone, his staffers or he himself, made a CHOICE not to attend, and instead to go on “The View” so he could be seen by more people, real voters, and a targeted female audience. It was a frivolous substitute for what he should have been doing.
And that’s how I see it after reflecting on it further. Supporters of President Obama appear to have difficulty conceding that he does anything wrong ever. But, ya know what? In this case, he did. He did the wrong thing. Shame on him.
I don’t want to think about it any further.
Amy,
Fair enough. I’ll ask the same question of you that I asked of Arch: are you appalled at just Obama or are you also appalled at Brietbart — and for the same reason: is it partisan or not.
I can see someone being appalled at both Obama and Brietbart. A judgment against just Obama is a political cheap shot, one that is not worth answering.
Just taken completely as a non-partisan, non-political point, for this to be a character flaw it would mean that the person is someone who is mean to children. Just taking a look at how he treats his own children tells you quite a different story.
Obama’s actions may not have given him a lot of traction with the Christian middle class, or the right in general. He missed an opportunity to look good on the evening news, and so on. Worse he may have missed an opportunity to gain you as a voter.
I suspect your decision is just a pure partisan shot.
Amy,
Thanks for visiting our site. I was the author of this post and I too am surprised it’s still being discussed.
Good points and great opinions.
The Boy Scouts represents what, for the most part is missing in this country, Character and Leadership. Character is what made this country Great. Real leadership is not telling everyone what you will do if you are elected, it is doing it after you are elected.
George Washington, the father of The United States said, “Honesty is the best Policy”, Honesty is part of the Boy Scouts foundation. If there was ever a place to acknowledge and honor right now, it is The Boy Scouts of America
The bottom line on the Scouts thing is this: by not attending the Jamboree, Obama showed incredible tone-deafness at best (an increasing occurance from this White House) to being rude and insulting at worst. Many scouts were disappointed, and the White Houses reasons (excuses) for not attending are weak.
Mike is completely off-base when he tries to draw parallel to this even to a completely unrelated news event where the White House overreacted and fired an employee in order to beat the news cycle. This has nothing to do with Obama and the Jamboree. Claiming that if one is outraged by one he must be out raged by the other is silly. When my three year old draws all over the wall with crayons, I do not state that my discipline of her must be first compared (or reflectively) upon the poor choices of my seven year old son. They are independent events, and can be and should be judged separately from each other.
Hey, there is a good place to go on this site to make completely unrelated comparisons… it is called the Open Thread.
I think your “outrage” is all partisan based. Obama this and Obama that. Everything he does is a source of serious discomfort to you. It would appear to me that anything the right does, even if it is dirty politics, is just fine with you.
I will ask my question in the context of your children. Suppose you wrote a blog about what your children do day-to-day. Would it be alright to be “appalled” at what the seven year old does and to ignore, support, excuse, or refuse to answer about the appalling behavior of your three year old?
Clearly you should be appalled at anything both of your children do. Just as clearly, you should be appalled at the wrongs both sides of the political debate do.
What you continue to demonstrate by your refusal to answer the question is that this thread is a one-sided partisan rant against Obama dressed up as some sort of a character flaw.
That is all.
If my seven year old misbehaves, I don’t judge him based upon the behavior of another. His behavior is his own. To keep your analogy going, this is more like my seven year old’s behavior, vs. the behavior of a kid from the next neighborhood over. Breitbart has nothing to do with Obama and the Scouts.
If you want to bring it back to Bush, like you so often do, it would be like comparing my sixteen year old’s behavior vs. my 20 year old’s behavior when he was 16, even though he is off at college now, and not around.
Instead of trying to compare Obama’s behavior to others, why don’t you accept that he made a gaffe, and move on. President Bush and Breitbart made gaffes, but we don’t make excuses for them because President Clinton and Dan Rather made gaffes in the past.
Windy,
You are all over the place with 16 and 20 y/o. The point, which I made before, is that I am trying to determine whether your complaint is partisan. It is if you only see wrong with Obama.
Seems to me that your post is strictly partisan, which brings doubt to any assertion you and others make about character.
Had you said yes, you were as appalled at Brietbart as you are at Obama, you would have established that your argument was non-partisan. You would have been able to say that you have an impartial standard, that you apply it to everyone, and that you are appalled at all of these behavior.
But it is too late now. To you Brietbart is a 3 year old, Obama is a 20 y/o in college, and you have no idea whom to blame.
Once again, you have run circles and hoops to avoid what was teh obvious.
Mike, your reply is avoiding the obvious. You can pretend you don’t understand, but the bottom line is you can criticize the bad behavior of one person without having to justify others. You refuse to acknowledge Obama’s poor behavior. You can say whatever you want, but until you acknowledge this point, there is no reason to keep discussing.
I don’t agreed with the point made by this thread. I don’t think it shows a character flaw, or bad character. I have said when this issue was first posted. I am just not appalled by it.
I do think that this post is just more needless and pointless partisanship. According to you, “miss the Boy Scouts and the President is damaged personal goods.” That point is ridiculous.
The rest of the thread has been about making you fail in one moral test after another. So far you are failing at a rate of 100%. I’ve asked you about Breitbart. You fail to address the issue. You’ve danced everywhere but on the issue.
I have explained why it is important. You replied about a 3 y/o.
Mike,
Your constant harping on Breitbart is getting kind of old…This is nothing but a red herring, apparently intended to get everyone off topic.
I am perplexed that you cannot concede Obama’s error in not attending the Jamboree. This was not a “feel good photo op.” It was taking the time to visit kids who exemplify the very kind of behavior and work ethic that we all want to see in the next generation. Obama (or his handlers) made a mistake, and he should have gone.
When I worked for Agence France Presse as a political reporter (my beat was the European Union), one of my colleagues brought me a story off the wire: “Dubya” was not going to go to the Jamboree. He asked me what I thought about that.
I told him the same thing I’m telling you about Obama. It’s the right thing to do to go visit the Scouts. It’s a mistake not to go. I was dismayed that “Dubya” didn’t go, and was glad he went the next time.
Also of note–the media was all over “Dubya’s” choice not to go. People castigated him with reckless abandon, and it even made it to the wire service in France!!
President Obama, however, was protected by the media, and, as far as I can ascertain, very few of the media covered it at all, much less made it any kind of major story.
My French friends at AFP tell me that there was some awareness of Obama’s snub, but no big wire service story, as there had been with Bush. Interesting…..
As for the importance of Obama’s act, I’d be very much surprised if this doesn’t have strong repercussions in the voting booth in 2012. Breitbart is forgettable. Snubbing Scouts is not.
As I said, I’m tired of thinking about it because it was really a sad moment in Obama’s tenure as president.
Having said that, Arch, I’m glad you authored this post, and I thank you for your kind comments in support of my responses. It’s a great topic worthy of discussion!
Hi Amy,
In your view, Obama is wrong. In my view, it is a pointless photo op. Dubya thought so as well. He caved to political pressure; Obama didn’t.
I have no idea why Obama chose what he chose. I just know that it isn’t everything you say he is: it isn’t a character flaw, it isn’t meanness, it isn’t tone deafness. It is none of those things.
As I noted before, Breitbart was raised to gauge the how political was Madman’s and Windy’s position, as well as your own. You have chosen not to answer. (I happen to know from experience that Madman and Windy’s opinions are all political, all the time). They happen to be biased.
I am not sure I can reconcile in my mind that you worked for AFP and also believe Obama’s political fortunes rests with 45,000 Boy Scouts. Seems a bit of a hyperbole. That said, I find it fascinating that you worked at AFP and had a not so common resume.
Pardonnez-moi mais votre penchants républicains se montrent! Plaisir de vous recevoir dans notre discussion.
Amy, thanks for the nice comments.
I’m not going to speak for Amy, but in my mind it goes way beyond the 45,000 Boy Scouts (and leaders) that attended the National Jamboree. Despite the fact that many of these Boy Scouts will be of voting age in 2012, this represented a lack of character, on the President’s part, within the Scouting community. Don’t think that the Scouting community has a single political view.
Obama was not elected solely through the support of those identified as Democrats. With his poll numbers in the toilet, it seems perplexing that he wouldn’t take a couple of hours (trip down, speech, trip back) to talk with not only the 45,000 Boy Scouts but also the masses around the world watching. If he would have been attending some kind of official affair, was overseas,etc. etc., it wouldn’t have been a big deal.
Breitbart is being discussed right now here. Glad that thing is settled (Breitbart, I mean.)
As far as us being political partisans, that’s a little out there. Yes, we all come from a conservative way of thinking and this is a blog about our ideas, so yes it will be biased from your point of view. So what? This is not the AP or NYT or any other credible news source. This is a blog, it’s all about opinion of the writers. We throw out something that we want to comment on, provide source material, and make our opinions known. We allow our readers to comment and interact with us. How magnanimous of us!
I can’t wait for 2013 when the new President is in charge. We’ll see how much slack we give the President from the other side. Should be good fun.
I’ll answer presidential ratings in the open thread.
I doubt this will be anywhere in the election cycle in 2010, never mind in the 2012. The mosque, jobs, and other issues will have replaced it. Already health care has given way in this cycle, so I doubt very much a little BS will carry the election.
I guess time will tell Mike, although all of my “BS” friends won’t forget!
Dear ACM,
I was a Scoutmaster at the 1993 Jamboree when Bill Clinton canceled less than 24 Hrs. before the Stage Show. It was done over the BSA stance concerning Gay leadership. The decision was Hillary driven.
Louise Mandrel heard of the Scouts plight and flew in her band and put on quite a show. The teenage Scouts and their middle aged leaders were slobbering all over themselves. President “who”?
In 2001 Clinton did appear with three Chinook’s filled with reporters, looked like a battalion sized air assault with the 101st Airborne. The birds were weaving all over the sky as the Jamboree band played the Emperors theme from Star Wars.
No one could figure out why all of the New York State Scouts were on the front row. A few years latter we did.
No one could figure where the thunderous applause were coming from. 100 thousand people with no one clapping. Canned applause on the PA system?
Basically the kids want to see a President with there values and don’t care for frauds. Much like their parents.
As past scout and a now a scouter, I believe it’s wrong for ANY President not showing up a Jambo. But, what makes this one a little different is 1) 100 year anniversary and 2) the lame reason for not going.
I have never post to a blog before, so I hope I am not out of line with the this. After reading all the postings, I have a question or two. This Mike guy is he for real or is he just posting to create slams on everyone. If he is real, is your real name Obama or does he work for him? And what is his problem with this Breitbart person, I don’t know how he associated with BSA.
Curtis and Charles,
Thanks for visiting. Hope you’ll be back. This is an open forum as long as you are civil and refrain from coarse language, you’re in line here.
Yes, Mike is for real. At this blog we write what we believe and Mike writes what he believes. We all think he’s way off base most of the time, but it is always interesting hearing a far left point of view (I know you’ll refute that Mike, but that’s the way we see it.)
You are correct that the Breitbart story has nothing to do with the BSA. A fact that we pointed out to Mike several times but he kept ignoring the comments. You can follow the Breitbart discussion here: http://www.thegreatilluminator.com/blog/?p=9027
Thank Madman.
Well, he may believe as he wishes. As a disabled veteran, I served (as all veterans have) for him and all Americans to have that RIGHT to their believes and options.
With this topic I believe him to wrong!
Hi Curtis,
We are both veterans. I served in Urgent Fury, Lebanon, Korea, and Desert Storm. The guys who run this blog think I am far left, mostly because they are far right. I am center and independent, although in this cycle I happen to be a volunteer for a Republican state senator.
I think I know what is good for American families. I happen to disagree with these guys. I think we should pay for what we spend. I also happen to think American families need things like a reasonable tax policy and health care.
I don’t happen to believe the conservative talk radio line that is so prominent on this blog.
I was at both 1969 and 2010 National Jamborees and for the life of me I do not understand what the big deal is with Presidents attending or not attending a Jamboree. For the record here are the Jamborees not attended by a sitting President:
Jamboree not attended by standing presidents:
1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jul 17) Message Recorded for the Third National Boy Scout Jamboree.
1957 Dwight D. Eisenhower
1969 Richard M. Nixon
1973 Richard M. Nixon
1977 Jimmy Carter
1981 Ronald Reagan
1985 Ronald Reagan
1993 William J Clinton
2001 George W. Bush (Jul 30) Videotaped Remarks to the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree
2010 Barack H. Obama (Aug 7) Videotaped Remarks to the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree
What I believe you adults are forgetting is, the National Jamboree is for the kids and not the adults. I for one was glad not to have the heavy security checks and delays which would had been encountered on a VERY HOT day just to hear a 20 minutes speech. I enjoyed Gates speech and thought that it was on target for the scouts in the arena.
Michael, we appreciate you visiting the site and commenting. Your opinion seems to fit into the tapestry very well. We had another scout who expressed a similar opinion about security checks, but it seems as if it is the minority opinion.
Most of the kids, since they are not hard core partisans, appear to be excited by the appearance of a President… any President, regardless of party. It is an experience that they remember for the rest of their life.
Madman, the author of this post and an active scouting parent, told us that he and his son were disappointed that there was no appearance by President Obama, but that the other speakers were excellent and they both had a great time.
Michael,
Thanks for commenting. Glad to have you at this years Jamboree. I was with our contingent in 2005 and the security was ridiculous, but it was still great for the boys to see the President. The same would have been true this time. I was able to attend the big arena show as a visitor this year.
As far as the list of Presidents that have attended the Jamboree, that was covered in great detail in the original post as well as the reasons each did not attend (when known.) I did quite a bit of research to find out who went and if they didn’t, why not.
The whole point of the original post was to point out why the current President did not attend – it was a very lame reason on his part. Weather issues were the problem in 2001 and 1993, a shooting recovery in 1981 and cancer surgery in 1985. Beyond that, I could not find information.
Again, thanks for the post.
I am also a Scout who was disqusted by Obama’s inability to appear at the 2010 Jamboree. Like you, I attended the 1985 Jamboree and heard Nancy Reagan speak. It was something I will not forget.
Maybe in the end, Obama did teach the boys something valuable – government can not be trusted. That may be one of the best lessons they could learn at such a young age.
http://redbloodedamericanboy.com/2010/07/29/obamas-lesson-for-boy-scouts-government-is-worthless/
Trackbacks
Latest Cub Scout Knife Auctions
Latest Cub Scout Training Auctions
Latest Cub Scout Patches Auctions
Boy Scouts Celebrate 100 Years | Camping Tents, Camping and Backpacking Equipment
Latest Scout Auctions
Obama missed Boy Scouts 100th anniversary - AllDeaf.com
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes, 36 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags