Flashback: Stockton, California Elementary Students Forced to Hero-Worship George W. Bush in 2002

[Joanne98]

Singing a song about a sitting president: Stalinist indoctrination.

Attending a school named after a sitting president: patriotism.

Stockton school officials said they believe theirs will be the first school in the nation named for the president. The White House did not respond to requests for confirmation.

To one school board member, Clem Lee, a Republican, the Bush name is an expression of patriotism.

"It was an expression of the sentiment 'America Now' for me," Lee said. "There's probably some post-9/11 stuff mixed in there. We have a president who is facing really an unprecedented challenge. So my vote was informed by a culmination of all those things.

"I am the first person to admit that it might be premature to honor a sitting president," he said. "But it's quite defensible."

It always is.

By the way, the Republican-controlled Stockton school board's decision to brainwash their small children into thinking George W. Bush was a great man name a public school after a sitting president was, according to the WSJ, unprecedented

http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/25/flashback-stockton-california-elementary-students-forced-to-hero-worship-george-w-bush-in-2002/

[Turbineguy]

1. Howz that workin' out for ya?

I was able to go around saying that I was smarter than the President of the United States of America for 8 years.

[burning rain]

2. Is it true they're thinking of renaming it for Warren Harding?

.

[truedelphi]

3. How can you even compare this to Obama and hero worship.

Bush was appointed by GOD! And Obama was appointed by Satan.

The difference is obvious - to any GOD-believing person.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Indoctrination! Poisoning young minds!

Police state! Hitler Youth!

There. Is that enough outrage?

[Igel]

5. "I am the first person to admit that it might be premature . . ."

He was right about that, at least its being premature.

Am I mistaken--did dems in 2002 think it was a great thing to break with tradition?

No, I don't think so. It was wrong then. So since nothing really important in this argument has changed, it's wrong now.

Of course, some would disagree with me. They'd say that something really important *has* changed in the argument, in the logic: That is that there's now a (D) in the White House, so that the principle must have been based on partisanship. Or that there's now an African-American in the white house, so that the principle was built on race.