Too bad he wasn't more specific

[POAS]

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

With those short paragraphs Pres. John F Kennedy launched the program that landed men on the moon. No mention of Saturn rockets, Mercury space capsules or lunar excursion modules. No mention of John Glenn or Neil Armstrong.

Today Obama is criticized for lack of specifics in his Oval Office address on the Gulf spill. How can we accomplish the goals if Obama doesn't spell out all the specifics of the trip. How can we find our way without a Presidential GPS to guide us?

[WeDidIt]

1. Every time Obama has ever given specifics in a speech

the MSM and most of DU criticize him for being too specific.

He cannot win for losing because the black president is held to a higher standard than any president in history.

[treestar]

2. It's ludicrous

When did anyone ever say exactly what Bush should have said? Or demand that pappy visit Alaska and comfort everyone who lost out there? Good god, it's amazing.

[CTLawGuy]

15. don't say that!

I posted once that the experience of Obama has firmly convinced me that black people have to work twice as hard for the same recognition and I got my ass handed to me by the 6%ers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. The moon landing would've happened faster if JFK discussed the propulsions systems in more detail...

and explained to people the specifics of how we'd sustain life on Mars once we colonized that planet too.

[quiet.american]

4. Lol. So apropos. nt

[POAS]

7. Well if only he had

destroyed Sputnik as soon as the Soviets launched it 3 years before he was elected we never would have wasted so much money on space.

[Cha]

5. Wonder if JFK had the

hypercritic treatment after this speech because it wasn't "specific" enough?

[POAS]

6. some criticisms

as found in an article at the CNN Archives

Some derided the dream as lunacy. Others viewed it as just another strategic move in the Cold War chess match between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Despite skeptics who thought it could not be accomplished, Kennedy's dream became a reality on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong took a small step for himself and a giant step for humanity, leaving a dusty trail of footprints on the moon.

[Political Tiger]

8. These comparisons to Kennedy's "moon speech" are ridiculous!

It's apples and oranges.

In the first place, the United States had been competing with the Soviet Union for decades. In fact, if we weren't competing with the USSR there probably never would have been an urgent push to go to the moon. This all happened when we were at "war" with the Soviet Union, the Cold War, a time when Americans were told to "duck and cover" if the Soviet Union sent nuclear missiles our way.

This disaster in the gulf is not even two months old yet and suddenly we are expecting Obama to have some comprehensive plan to get us off oil despite the fact Americans have been addicted to oil for damn near a century. Suddenly, while fighting two wars, struggling with an inherited economy that is in shambles, high unemployment, an unstable housing market, the threat of terrorism, instability in the Middle East, health care and a massive on-going oil leak in the gulf, suddenly in less that two months, Obama is supposed to end our dependence on oil by giving a speech. Please! Let's open the door and let reality in for a change!

Presidents since Nixon have called for America to end its dependence on oil, yet little has changed, but now, suddenly, it's all up to Obama. Obama, in one speech, is supposed to do what Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and even Dumbya collectively weren't able to do.

People have a short memory. Obama has already taken steps end our dependence on oil, it's called The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, not to mention the $2.5 billion of stimulus money that went to the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which, according to PolitFact, "Of that, the bill earmarks $800 million for biomass projects, $400 million for geothermal projects and another $50 million for research to improve information and communications technology. But that leaves $1.25 billion for such things as solar and wind research....."It's a great bill for renewable energy, it really is," said Gregory Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association."

Yet I don't see anybody giving Obama credit for that!

So let's get real here. Let's start relying on facts instead of hyperbole for a change!

[quiet.american]

9. You go, PT! :) nt

[POAS]

10. I wonder

are you being critical of my OP or the ridiculous expectations of specifics recommendations by his critics that I was trying to contrast with Kennedy's broad brush that got the ball rolling for the manned moon missions?

Obama's speech was broad brush, specifics must come from behind closed doors. His critics are simply wrong to have expected a Bush like "you either with us or against us" speech.

[Political Tiger]

11. The latter

I wasn't exactly sure where you were coming from and let's face it, these days on DU 9 out of 10 posts are some sort of ridiculous criticism of the President and unless you are familiar with the poster sometimes it can be hard to tell if they are being serious or sardonic.

But I have heard this talking point over and over leading up to Obama's address from the Oval Office that he needs to give a Kennedy type "moon speech" or else and I'm sure that talking point is still being blathered about but since those who say what, IMO, is pure idiocy, I usually put on ignore, I can't say for sure and when I saw your post I guess I had an automatic reaction to respond.

[POAS]

12. Well the point I was trying

to make, all-be-it poorly, was that if anything this speech was "Kennedy like".

The situation at hand is extremely fluid and to get overly specific would open the WH to more criticism when or if they had to shift positions to meet a changing reality.

[Political Tiger]

17. I see that now and well done! n/t

[Cha]

16. Good reason not to watch corporatepundit head snooze...

<snip>

"PUNDITS STEAL THE SPEECH"

There’s real value in offering people an informed analysis of major presidential addresses. But the way that the analysis gets delivered can be more or less corrosive to the relationship between the government and the governed. When pundits are so clear in their demands, so visceral in their disappointment, so numerous, and so verbose (the 18 minutes that Obama spent delivering his speech was a fraction of the time the cable channels devoted to talking about his speech), it weakens the communication between president and audience that defines theater, political or otherwise.

"First the talking heads work themselves and their audience into a fit about what the president must do. A sort of collective narrative takes shape—with heroes and villains, successes and reversals—building as it goes. Thus Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer both referred to onscreen clocks counting down to the speech, like the Super Bowl kickoff. Suzanne Malveaux told CNN viewers, “He’s going to try to convey that he gets it.” John King caviled a little, saying that actions would matter more than words.”Without a doubt,” confirmed Anderson Cooper from a photogenic corner of the gulf. “What the president is going to do tonight is hold BP accountable,” added Gloria Borger.

By the time Obama appeared, CNN and MSNBC had done a thorough job of telling the audience how to judge what he said. (I imagine Fox did the same, but it’s so riddled with its own pathologies I didn’t check.) Did the president “get it”? Well, he studded the speech with the language of war, referring to his “battle plan” and describing the spill as “a siege.” Was BP “held accountable”? He failed to use the head of a BP executive as a paperweight, but he did say in plain terms that the company “will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.” Characteristically, he seemed most engaged not during the backward-looking stuff about assigning blame, but the forward-looking stuff: offering a big-picture look at a clean-energy initiative. “We cannot consign our children to this future,” he said, neatly evoking a kind of inverted Mad Max scenario, with oil spills everywhere."

<more>
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/16/pundits-like-that-are-the-only-people-here.html

[Uzybone]

13. Well said. Nice contrast.

[POAS]

14. Thank You