When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
49 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fit fit
15 years ago
Siding with the child molesters now Mike? This has already been debunked as one of the most misleading politcal advertisements in American history. You should be ashamed of yourself and your candidate.
Rather than talk about the issues you attack the messenger.
Of course you can’t discuss Obama’s education policy because he doesn’t have one.
It’s all promises and lipstick on pigs.
You know it and I know it.
Neo
15 years ago
Hey, Obama did head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he oversaw the spending of $150 million to improve the public schools of Chicago, but had little impact.
Given that this is his only executive experience, it’s easy to see why Obama perfers to take a pummeling for not having any executive experience, rather than admit he headed a failure.
scofflaw
15 years ago
Take a read for yourself. I find little in the bill that deals with child molestors and everything that suggests the primary purpose of the bill was to teach sex to ages/classes as low as kindergarten.
Further, it appears the following was stricken from the final bill. I guess it was deemed too controversial: “Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage. Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage. Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.”
Dreadnought
15 years ago
Actually it does (top of page 4). But clearly it is not a primary motivation for the law.
doug
15 years ago
A tip of the hat to the McCain’s campaign “gallantry” in spotting and seizing the moment to push the idea Obama was besmirching Palin. It’s a good hit reflective of our current political environment.
But here, for our simple entertainment pleasure, the race will now move from simmer to molten.
They usually are dunderheads, on both sides; that explains our current intensification.
An effect does not always entail a causal relationship, especially in social dynamics. Certainly Obama realized the relationship after the crowd ‘lifted’ it over the conventional pig-lipstick trope. Obama should have said something at that point, but didn’t. However, his intention to besmirch cannot be distilled during the act, as far as I can see.
Ah yes teaching little toddlers about aids and sex is what we all want in Illinois. Sex Ed should be taught by the parents not the schools.
jainphx
15 years ago
Just teach our kids to read, do math, and science and you will be surprised how much better off we will be. The Democraps lust for power allows for “Tenured” teachers that at best are mediocre. The good teachers are being held back by the systems that people like Obambi put in place. Just teach the fundamentals and then mind your own business.
Timothy
15 years ago
It’s been reported on drudge….
Obama on Letterman:
“Palin is the lipstick….McCain’s policies are the ‘pig’ ”
Also (it gets better) Joe Biden loses it!!!! Admits Hillary would had been the better choice!!!
Folks, you can’t write it better than this…..OMG!!!!
“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight.”
SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE….SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!!!!!!!!!
This is worse than a “macaca moment”, its political seppuku.
Missy
15 years ago
Timothy, Biden’s purpose for making those statements was to lure the disaffected Hillary voters back into the fold. It’s transparent and it isn’t going to work.
BTW, I have been appreciating your posts.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
we all know tha tthe dems are fallin apart. the best they can hope for is for every single republican and every ind. voter to either die or not vote in november. since neither of those things are likelly to happen, well they are screwed. theres is a sinking ship and the rats are a runnin’.
Timothy
15 years ago
Missy,
I agree, it’s transparent and extremely stupid panderng. However, IMO, to the average voter (excluding Hillary supporters), it makes you scratch your head. If Sarah would had said, “Well, maybe Romney would had been a better pick,” the press would had gone ga-ga-ape-S**T.
It’s fodder for talk radio.
He maybe trying to get the Hillary supporters back but in a way it comes off as “rubbing salt in the wound”. Think about it. It’s like saying “gee, maybe she was the better pick, but you’re stuck with me so deal with it.”
just to add a few thoughts of my own to the Biden/Hillary bit. I’m quite sure Ms. Hillary is not only enjoying that moment, but is most decidedly not going to ride the white horse to Obama’s rescue. She will quietly accept his election demise with a smile, and run in 2012.
And boy is she going to be loaded with a lot of “I told you so’s” for the next term.
Don’t underestimate Biden’s ability to be patronizing to women by making a comment like that. He may respect Hillary as he says, but I doubt he really believes she should be there instead of him. It’s Obama who probably thinks that.
Gregory Dittman
15 years ago
Obama doesn’t even know what “feint” means and he wants to talk about education? That lipstick non controvery had the guy tied up for two days. Obama launched an ad questioning McCain’s honor. McCain ignored it and so Obama spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to run an ineffective ad.
Obama also has to realize another thing about education. In war, the enemy as a vote. In education, the students have a vote. The average student remembers around 10% of what he or she learned in school a year after graduation. That means that 90% of what the student learns in school is forgotten.
Here is are more important facts about education liberals do not want you to hear. Japanese students have a high suicide rate so the schools may look safer, but that’s only because students would rather kill themselves than somebody else. Also Japanese test scores in grades 1-12 are very high compared to the U.S., yet they are equal to American students when both sides have a 4-year university degree. The main reason for this is Japanese students spend their whole life trying to get into a university. Then when they get in, they sluff off for the first two years and then play catch up in the next two years. Also Japan pays less per students in grades 1-12. They also seperate special needs students from the general schools which can help boost their average scores.
Neo
15 years ago
Biden’s “Hiliary supporter” lure is about as effective as ..
telling beaten women that he himself was a wife beater but gave it up.
Lisa
15 years ago
Actuall, Yesterday Sept. 10, Rush had the audio of Obama saying that teaching kids sex ed. in K-12 was “the right thing to do” He was speaking in front of the N.O.W. making fun of Alan Keys bringing up this very issue. So whoever thinks this isn’t true doesn’t have his facts right!
chipset
15 years ago
Mr. Obama has major issues when it comes to education. If he was such a strong believer in the public education system, why are his children in a private school?
Why was the CAC such a huge failure for him?
And for the record, I love the kids at Digg. They constantly talk about Intrade and Mr. Obama’s lead there. A lead that has turned into a loss.
And, based upon the lipstick comment, he paused for the laugh before continuing on.
Mr. Obama, if the schools are so great and if you can do so much to help them, why do your children go to private schools?
Hard Right
15 years ago
From what I’ve seen the bill originally didn’t have a provision to teach kindergartners, but it was added!
Obama voted for it. Debunked? Yes, obama and his drones have been when they say it’s a lie..
I agree with MataH (are you shocked ma’am?). This ad has been debunked. It is not true. And to focus on the un truths will only hurt in the long run. The actual facts are that he has never been able to improve education despite millions and millions of dollars thrown at the problem. Let’s all stick to that.
Obama, contrary to the ad’s insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
SB99: Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.
Real American Patriot
15 years ago
Good reply… Yes CentFla it is not true…….
there are many ads the McCain campaign has put out that are full of lies….
check out this link…
Surely RAP you know that neither side has completely been truthful
* Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
* He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
* Obama asked why McCain would “define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year”? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, “But seriously …”
* Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would “tax people’s benefits” but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s “broken with his party,” has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
* Obama said “average family income” went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn’t correct. An aide said he was really talking only about “working” families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
no you are just wrong Aye Chi, the bill died in the senate. Yes, Obama voted for it, but it did not pass, you are wrong. And I did read it, I posted part of it in my post above so clearly I had to read it. The part of the bill that you are talking about says that the instruction was to teach children where people should not touch them.
From my post above:
SB99: Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.
The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.
If you do not care about the details – or “narrowed” your focus then we have nothing further to discuss.
One of the details – You said the bill passed, it did not.
Ultimately the bottom line is that as Mata said apparently much clearer than I, (17) there is plenty to attack him for. In the Ill Sen he threw $160 at education with no improvements. That is what we should be talking about. Not this story. It diminishes our real argument against him.
Actually, CentFla, I’m not surprised that every once in awhile we agree. Hang, most of us in the nation are such a potpourri of policy opines that it’s not unusual to find areas of agreement. And you are far from the most “left” of posters here.
I don’t agree with Obama’s education, energy or general domestic policies. On foreign policy? It’s possible he may do the right thing in the end, but his instincts on things… a dogged stubborness to fixate on a position and never vary… strike me as flawed and wrong. I look back at what he takes pride in, and can’t help but see that the “broken clock, right twice a day” syndrome applies. And unfortunately, being wrong in foreign policy nowadays, can lead to extreme vunerability in national security and deaths.
I also agree that McCain is also flawed, and doesn’t strike my fancy all that much either. But I do like Palin. I think she offers a good example of a new and more vitalized GOP. I have to say that researching Palin has sucked up much of my time as of late. Perhaps I was hoping for “hope”, so to speak, to redeem a vote for McCain that is really just “no Obama please, thank you”. There are things they say about Palin that have a half truth to them in moments in time. i.e. yes, at one time early in her campaign, she was for the Gravina Bridge. But by the end of the campaign, she had significant doubts as to it’s wisdom.
I’ve found that to get a better handle on the actions of a pol, you really have to go thru the timeline of events. Unfortunately, we live with a media and politically charged electorate blogosphere (yes, including us here at FA) that sometimes doesn’t spend enough time and research necessary to go thru that timeline.
I’m here to tell you, that research is very time consuming. But it’s also very revealing.
This election, IMHO, is going to come down to something very simple: those who desire to push the nation towards a more socialist government, and those that don’t. Along the way, the economic repercussions of that thrust come into play… from welfare/health/education to energy.
Obama may very well get elected if enough are ready to be government supported throughout their lives. But I suspect buyer’s remorse many not be far behind. If Obama gets elected, the DNC will lose at least one house in Congress in midterms to compensate. For tho socialism sounds inviting, that charm wears when your paycheck shinks after serious personal endeavor. Most of us don’t like to work our tush’s off, only to have it sucked up by overzealous spending Congress… BOTH parties.
But we all takes the lumps as delivered, right? And on this 911 anniversary, I can say I’m really reticient to be very combatant with anyone but to the most overt of current events challenged that post here. For I do believe that as Americans, we have a bond that should overshadow our enemies.
Unfortunately, sometimes it takes an overt act by that enemy to remind us of our familia bonds.
That is one of the best things I have read here in a long time.
I, as you may remember, have been a McCain fan for years. When I was roasted for supporting his position on McC-Feingold I held firm. When I was nearly banished for believing like McCain that the Bush tax cuts were the right idea, but wrongly apportioned at the top I was still a McCainiac. During the primaries when I was absolutely the only person commenting here that was a McCain fan I never faltered.
I believe that the party and the country have leaned too far in one direction. But we are basically headed in the right direction.
I am a moderate Republican, but a staunch conservative. It just used to mean things like fiscal responsibility and reduced spending and not state-building and asking Americans to sacrifice when needed, not to go shopping. Today I am told by others that because I still hold to the same things Ronald Reagan believed in I am the one that is not conservative.
But you are right. We are all on the same line politically, it is just a matter of where you sit on that line and as you said, the things that put you there on that spot. My upbringing in a poor Alabama home and time in the Marine Corps and marrying my HS sweetheart from Cleveland, OH shaped most of who I am. Who you are and why you are there is good enough for me.
But as a moderate, more than anything else, I am sick of the outrage and the fear. I am not voting for Barack Obama. But I do not think he is a muslim, a communist or even a bad guy. I just think he is wrong on the essential topics of the day. Where I disagree with him 75% of the time, I disagree with John 25% of the time (though lately I am more often in agreement with the British Magazine the Economist on bringing back the old McCain).
I enjoy reading your research. I was not a fan of the Palin pick as I am sure you read. But I do think she is an honest woman who is a skilled politician. I would simply have liked to have maintained the experience edge in the race and chosen someone with much more time working with matters of foreign policy. But I have enjoyed getting to know her through your posts and other on line sources. I am confident that she will make a fine VP.
Until then, you keep digging and I will keep reading your posts and as always scolding those in our party that lean to far to my right, and surely they will continue to punch right back.
Aye Chi… so that I can catch up on the apparent IL bill in dispute. Frankly, I’m confused on the specifics.
Scofflaw’s link leads to a IL Senate bill SB0009. However it appears that bill was in the IL Senate, if the link is correct, in the 1993 era (i.e. 093 SB00099).
Obama wasn’t in the IL Senate then…. so rather moot, eh?
Or perhaps we’re all discussing an IL Senate bill and voting record that I cannot find online. perhaps someone will provide a link to a Senate session when Obama was actually a member??
The “93” denotes the 93rd session (2004-2005). This current session is #95 (2007-2008).
The link in scofflaw’s post is correct. It goes directly to a pdf file of the bill. Here is a link to the legislation on the General Assembly site.
Now, back to you CentFla.
You claimed that the ad is false.
I say that it’s not.
You made some statement about child molestation when that is not the point of the ad at all. Nor was that the point of the bill. That is simply a convenient excuse that the Left is tossing out there to see if anyone will run with the bait.
The ad says that Obama was in favor of sex ed for Kindergarten.
The legislation that he passed out of his committee did just that.
Yes, the legislation PASSED his committee. The committee that he was Chairman of.
He reaffirmed his desire for sex ed for Kindergarten students in his speech before Planned Parenthood.
So, is it your position that Obama OPPOSED sex ed for Kindergarten students?
Thanks for the link, Aye Chi… and clarification of session via year.
I don’t see a vote record via member via site as it says:
No vote detail available for the selected legislation.
So I can’t assess whether a first year IL Senator Obama voted pro, con or his infamous “present”.
The fact remains… this is not an Obama sponsored bill. We’ll be lucky if a first year Obama showed up to vote. In fact, when it comes to Obama, he has zip, nada, nothing to show for education except two things…
1: campaign talks
2: Chicago Annenberg Challengenge
It’s really a dead issue, Aye. Frankly, let the boy go down this road. Can you say piece’o’cake?? Otherwise, concentrate on what we can prove to the national audience.
Again, I say to you… CAC. I’ll say it again louder.
I’m not sure why Centfla insists that the ad is wrong. It’s just a recitation of the headlines that define Obama’s total ineptitude when it comes to the education.
Cent always latches onto whatever weak point he can find in an argument to undermine the central thesis.
P.S. Mata has another fan! You go girl! He’s all yours!
Mike I did not say that the ad did not reflect the newspaper headlines. I said the ad did not reflect the truth.
Ever non partisan fact checking organization has said that it is dishonest because it is dishonest and that is my problem. We are not focusing on the real issues because this lie is sexy. Eventually that will come back to bite JM on the butt if we do not focus on the real issues.
He did not author the legislation even though the ad calls it an accomplishment – FALSE
It did not pass the senate even though it is described as an accomplishment – FALSE
It propsed to teach what inappropriate touching was as I posted above but the ad says “comprehensive sex education” – FALSE
This is not about weak points. It is about producing an ad that is false.
If Dick Cheney trusts factcheck.org – why won’t you?
Centfla: You are challenging the ENTIRE ad on the basis of ONE POINT.
So let’s review the ad with the text from the link Buker provided and then you can ad your acerbic assessment:
ANNCR: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education”.
•Education Week: “In His Eight Years In The State Senate And Two Years In The U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama Hasn’t Made A Significant Mark On Education Policy.” (“Obama’s Annenberg Stint Informs White House Bid,” Education Week, 3/7/07)
ANNCR: That he’s “elusive” on accountability.
•The Washington Post: Barack Obama “Elusive” On School Accountability. “Mr. Obama, as the New York Times’ David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability.” (Editorial, “Focus On School Reform,” The Washington Post, 7/7/08)
ANNCR: A “staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly”.
•Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman: “Obama Is The Staunch Defender Of The Existing Public School Monopoly.” “On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he’s allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.” (Steve Chapman, Op-Ed, “Change: A Matter Of Convenience,” Chicago Tribune, 7/20/08)
ANNCR: Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.
JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.
•”Before His Election To The U.S. Senate, Obama Was A State Senator And Chairman Of A Committee That Approved Legislation That Would Have Altered Illinois’ Sex Education Standards To Include Instruction In Any Grade From Kindergarten Through 12th, Rather Than Grades 6-12.” (Jim Davenport, “Romney Tries To Build SC Support With Appeal To Conservatives,” The Associated Press, 7/19/07)
•In Committee, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of Legislation (S.B. 99) That Would Amend Requirements For Sex Education Classes. “Amends the School Code and the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act. Changes and adds criteria that sex education classes and comprehensive health education programs must satisfy.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
•The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten. “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
•”ABC News’ Teddy Davis And Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Told Planned Parenthood … That Sex Education For Kindergarteners, As Long As It Is ‘Age-Appropriate,’ Is ‘The Right Thing To Do.'” (“Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•The Obama Campaign Tells First Read: “You Can Teach A Kid About What’s Appropriate And Not Appropriate To Protect Them From Predators Out There.” (“Obama And Sex Ed For Kids,” NBC News’ “First Read,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•The Obama Campaign Issues Document Citing Sex-Education Curriculum For Kindergarteners From The SIECUS And Oregon Department Of Education. “In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States [SIECUS] has curriculum for those in kindergarten.” (“Obama And Sex Ed For Kids,” NBC News’ “First Read,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•Click Here To Read The SEICUS Guidelines For Children Between The Ages Of 5 And 8: http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
•The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten. “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
Mata,
Here is an interesting article about the CAC.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that this may be the Achilles Heel.
There is a secret group in the Obama-Biden campaign tasked with shutting off any leaks from the record that links Barack Obama to his longtime adviser and mentor Bill Ayers, professor of education at the University of Illinois and unrepentant Weatherman terrorist and fugitive from the 1970s.
This surprising fact has been developed by Chicago-born and Ralph Nader-supporting Professor Steve Diamond of Santa Clara University Law School, who maintains the Global Labor and Politics blog and has pieced together over many months the unusual surreptitious activity around the public records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) grant now housed at the University of Illinois and Brown University.
Since the spring, Diamond has led the investigation into the intimate working relationship between Obama and Ayers that dates back at least to the beginning of 1995 and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grants.
Diamond believes this group is not harmless. “It’s a ‘Plumbers’ unit. You know, we are old enough to recall the Plumbers in Richard Nixon’s White House. This is like that. The job is to stop anyone trying to use the (Chicago) Annenberg (Challenge) papers to figure out how Ayers and Obama worked together on education.”
The “Plumbers” were a Nixon administration fiasco, the so-called secret White House Special Investigative Unit 24 tasked to stop the leaks of classified material. Once revealed, the Plumbers unit led to more bizarre discoveries that culminated in the Watergate impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.
Diamond believes this Obama-Biden “Plumbers” unit was responsible for the harassment of Stanley Kurtz of National Review, who sought access to public records of the now defunct CAC at the University of Illinois Library in Chicago in mid-August. He also believes it may have played a part in frustrating his own investigation of similar CAC records in the papers of the nationwide Annenberg Challenge program that are housed at Brown University. The question now is who among the major figures in the Chicago progressive circle, as well as former Annenberg Challenge officials, are unofficial members of Obama’s Plumbers? And who among other responsible officials of the University of Illinois are their unwitting allies?
Mike I appreciate you trying to understand my point, but I feel like I made it three times. I meant to bitterness in any reply if you saw it somewhere I did not intend.
I have three problems with the ad, it was not his accomplishment, it did not pass and it did not promote explict sex ed for kindergarteners. I linked to fact check a site that Dick Cheney himself called fair and that is the end of my argument.
In the meantime the issues that Mata and now AYECHI bring up are the real reasons for a commercial.
Why can’t you and I simply agree to disagree on this one? I am sure there will be plenty to fight about in the future.
Centfla: You still want to throw out the entire ad based on one point where you think Obama’s support of sex ed for kindergartners is not an accurate statement.
Just for the benefit of our readers I’ll reprint the SIECUS.ORG guidelines for sex education for Kindergartners which formed the basis of the Illinois Bill Obama voted for:
Level 1 middle childhood,
ages 5 through 8;
early elementary school
• Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
• A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of
the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.
• Bodies change as children grow older.
• Puberty is a time of physical and emotional change that happens as children become teenagers.
• People are able to have children only after they have reached puberty.
• Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
• Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to
reproduce.
• Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.
• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm
and egg to join.
• When a woman is pregnant, the fetus grows inside her body in her uterus.
• A woman can be pregnant with more than one fetus at a time.
• Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
• Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.
• A woman’s breasts can provide milk for a baby.
• Not all men and women have children.
• People who cannot have children may choose to adopt.
• Individual bodies are different sizes, shapes, and colors.
• All bodies are equally special, including those that are disabled.
• Differences make us unique.
• Good health habits, such as eating well and exercising, can improve the way a person feels about
his or her body.
• Each person can be proud of his/her body.
• Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
• Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone
of another gender.
• Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone
of the same gender.
• Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
• People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
• Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.
• A family consists of two or more people who care for each
other in many ways.
• There are different kinds of families.
• Children may live with one or more parents or caregivers including biological parents, step-parents,
foster parents, adoptive parents, grandparents, friends, or other combinations of adults.
• All members of a family may not live in the same place.
• The makeup of individual families may change over time.
• Each member of a family has something unique to contribute.
• Families have rules to help members live together.
• Family members take care of each other.
• Many adults may help care for children.
• Family members show love for each other.
• Change in a family may make its members happy or sad.
• When a baby is born or a child is adopted into a family, some parts of life will change for family
members.
Struck from the bill were the following:
(2) Course material and instruction shall teach
29 honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
30 (3) Course material and instruction shall stress
31 that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until
32 they are ready for marriage.
33 (4) Course material and instruction shall include a
34 discussion of the possible emotional and psychological
-3- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual
2 intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of
3 unwanted adolescent pregnancy.
And it’s undeniable that Obama voted FOR the bill in Committee.
I guess you can’t call it one of his accomplishments since the bill failed to pass. But Obama certainly supported it. If that’s your excuse to trash the entire ad, which you have done, then your claim is weak.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can fill me in on the effort you have made to get the lefties to stop saying McCain would fight the war in Iraq for one hundred years? Or, if you can’t do that, can you show me where you have expressed your disagreement with lefties on ANYTHING?
Mike in this very comment section (28) I posted seven fallacies of the left against McCain. There have been many other threads where I do so as well. You just choose not to see them when I post them for some reason.
Siding with the child molesters now Mike? This has already been debunked as one of the most misleading politcal advertisements in American history. You should be ashamed of yourself and your candidate.
Really Fit fit?
Debunked by who?
Where’s your source for that statement?
Your candidate is the one who voted for the bill. You should share in his shame.
Hmmmm…. sounding defensive again F.F.
Rather than talk about the issues you attack the messenger.
Of course you can’t discuss Obama’s education policy because he doesn’t have one.
It’s all promises and lipstick on pigs.
You know it and I know it.
Hey, Obama did head the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he oversaw the spending of $150 million to improve the public schools of Chicago, but had little impact.
Given that this is his only executive experience, it’s easy to see why Obama perfers to take a pummeling for not having any executive experience, rather than admit he headed a failure.
Take a read for yourself. I find little in the bill that deals with child molestors and everything that suggests the primary purpose of the bill was to teach sex to ages/classes as low as kindergarten.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB0099lv.pdf
Further, it appears the following was stricken from the final bill. I guess it was deemed too controversial: “Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage. Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage. Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy.”
Actually it does (top of page 4). But clearly it is not a primary motivation for the law.
A tip of the hat to the McCain’s campaign “gallantry” in spotting and seizing the moment to push the idea Obama was besmirching Palin. It’s a good hit reflective of our current political environment.
But here, for our simple entertainment pleasure, the race will now move from simmer to molten.
Obama was besmirching Palin.
Watch and listen to his audience of dunderheads.
Even they understood what he was doing.
They usually are dunderheads, on both sides; that explains our current intensification.
An effect does not always entail a causal relationship, especially in social dynamics. Certainly Obama realized the relationship after the crowd ‘lifted’ it over the conventional pig-lipstick trope. Obama should have said something at that point, but didn’t. However, his intention to besmirch cannot be distilled during the act, as far as I can see.
If they would have tought my kid’s this crap that early in school, I would have sued the damn school system!
Why oh why are Liberal’s so friggen ignorant?
Ah yes teaching little toddlers about aids and sex is what we all want in Illinois. Sex Ed should be taught by the parents not the schools.
Just teach our kids to read, do math, and science and you will be surprised how much better off we will be. The Democraps lust for power allows for “Tenured” teachers that at best are mediocre. The good teachers are being held back by the systems that people like Obambi put in place. Just teach the fundamentals and then mind your own business.
It’s been reported on drudge….
Obama on Letterman:
“Palin is the lipstick….McCain’s policies are the ‘pig’ ”
Also (it gets better) Joe Biden loses it!!!! Admits Hillary would had been the better choice!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html
Folks, you can’t write it better than this…..OMG!!!!
“Make no mistake about this,” Biden responded. “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight.”
SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE….SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!!!!!!!!!
This is worse than a “macaca moment”, its political seppuku.
Timothy, Biden’s purpose for making those statements was to lure the disaffected Hillary voters back into the fold. It’s transparent and it isn’t going to work.
BTW, I have been appreciating your posts.
we all know tha tthe dems are fallin apart. the best they can hope for is for every single republican and every ind. voter to either die or not vote in november. since neither of those things are likelly to happen, well they are screwed. theres is a sinking ship and the rats are a runnin’.
Missy,
I agree, it’s transparent and extremely stupid panderng. However, IMO, to the average voter (excluding Hillary supporters), it makes you scratch your head. If Sarah would had said, “Well, maybe Romney would had been a better pick,” the press would had gone ga-ga-ape-S**T.
It’s fodder for talk radio.
He maybe trying to get the Hillary supporters back but in a way it comes off as “rubbing salt in the wound”. Think about it. It’s like saying “gee, maybe she was the better pick, but you’re stuck with me so deal with it.”
Dohhhhhhh.
UPDATE: I see Neo and I are on the same wavelength….
Why make it so complex? Obama has a record on education.
$160 million in funds spent in Chigago local schools… not one scholastic improvement for the bucks.
It’s called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
End of story…. next?
Timothy and Missy…
just to add a few thoughts of my own to the Biden/Hillary bit. I’m quite sure Ms. Hillary is not only enjoying that moment, but is most decidedly not going to ride the white horse to Obama’s rescue. She will quietly accept his election demise with a smile, and run in 2012.
And boy is she going to be loaded with a lot of “I told you so’s” for the next term.
Don’t underestimate Biden’s ability to be patronizing to women by making a comment like that. He may respect Hillary as he says, but I doubt he really believes she should be there instead of him. It’s Obama who probably thinks that.
Obama doesn’t even know what “feint” means and he wants to talk about education? That lipstick non controvery had the guy tied up for two days. Obama launched an ad questioning McCain’s honor. McCain ignored it and so Obama spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to run an ineffective ad.
Obama also has to realize another thing about education. In war, the enemy as a vote. In education, the students have a vote. The average student remembers around 10% of what he or she learned in school a year after graduation. That means that 90% of what the student learns in school is forgotten.
Here is are more important facts about education liberals do not want you to hear. Japanese students have a high suicide rate so the schools may look safer, but that’s only because students would rather kill themselves than somebody else. Also Japanese test scores in grades 1-12 are very high compared to the U.S., yet they are equal to American students when both sides have a 4-year university degree. The main reason for this is Japanese students spend their whole life trying to get into a university. Then when they get in, they sluff off for the first two years and then play catch up in the next two years. Also Japan pays less per students in grades 1-12. They also seperate special needs students from the general schools which can help boost their average scores.
Biden’s “Hiliary supporter” lure is about as effective as ..
telling beaten women that he himself was a wife beater but gave it up.
Actuall, Yesterday Sept. 10, Rush had the audio of Obama saying that teaching kids sex ed. in K-12 was “the right thing to do” He was speaking in front of the N.O.W. making fun of Alan Keys bringing up this very issue. So whoever thinks this isn’t true doesn’t have his facts right!
Mr. Obama has major issues when it comes to education. If he was such a strong believer in the public education system, why are his children in a private school?
Why was the CAC such a huge failure for him?
And for the record, I love the kids at Digg. They constantly talk about Intrade and Mr. Obama’s lead there. A lead that has turned into a loss.
And, based upon the lipstick comment, he paused for the laugh before continuing on.
Mr. Obama, if the schools are so great and if you can do so much to help them, why do your children go to private schools?
From what I’ve seen the bill originally didn’t have a provision to teach kindergartners, but it was added!
Obama voted for it. Debunked? Yes, obama and his drones have been when they say it’s a lie..
I agree with MataH (are you shocked ma’am?). This ad has been debunked. It is not true. And to focus on the un truths will only hurt in the long run. The actual facts are that he has never been able to improve education despite millions and millions of dollars thrown at the problem. Let’s all stick to that.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
Obama, contrary to the ad’s insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
SB99: Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.
Good reply… Yes CentFla it is not true…….
there are many ads the McCain campaign has put out that are full of lies….
check out this link…
Well isn’t this just the cutest thing?
CentFla and Sky55110 agree on something.
Turns out that they are both WRONG!
Imagine that.
The legislation is very clear and was linked above for anyone who wants to read it.
Turns out, the ad is true.
Obama voted for it and it passed.
There’s even a video where Obama is speaking to Planned Parenthood and says that sex ed for kindergartners is a good idea.
What’s difficult to understand about that?
Of course some of already know that Sky55110 cannot be trusted to tell the truth, don’t we Sky?
Surely RAP you know that neither side has completely been truthful
* Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
* He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.
* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
* Obama asked why McCain would “define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year”? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, “But seriously …”
* Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would “tax people’s benefits” but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.
* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s “broken with his party,” has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
* Obama said “average family income” went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn’t correct. An aide said he was really talking only about “working” families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
no you are just wrong Aye Chi, the bill died in the senate. Yes, Obama voted for it, but it did not pass, you are wrong. And I did read it, I posted part of it in my post above so clearly I had to read it. The part of the bill that you are talking about says that the instruction was to teach children where people should not touch them.
From my post above:
SB99: Course material and instruction shall teach pupils … how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&
SessionID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=0099&print=true
The bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it. But the measure promptly stalled and died in the full Senate, and no action has been taken on it since late 2005.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314
CentFla,
The bill passed committee. Obama voted for it (he was Chairman and bragged before Planned Parenthood about it being “the right thing to do”.)
What’s your point?
The bill called for comprehensive sex ed for K-12. In fact it was modified from the original 6-12.
I haven’t narrowed my focus onto any particular portion of the legislation itself outside of the ages that covered.
So, again, what’s your point?
If you do not care about the details – or “narrowed” your focus then we have nothing further to discuss.
One of the details – You said the bill passed, it did not.
Ultimately the bottom line is that as Mata said apparently much clearer than I, (17) there is plenty to attack him for. In the Ill Sen he threw $160 at education with no improvements. That is what we should be talking about. Not this story. It diminishes our real argument against him.
That is my point.
Actually, CentFla, I’m not surprised that every once in awhile we agree. Hang, most of us in the nation are such a potpourri of policy opines that it’s not unusual to find areas of agreement. And you are far from the most “left” of posters here.
I don’t agree with Obama’s education, energy or general domestic policies. On foreign policy? It’s possible he may do the right thing in the end, but his instincts on things… a dogged stubborness to fixate on a position and never vary… strike me as flawed and wrong. I look back at what he takes pride in, and can’t help but see that the “broken clock, right twice a day” syndrome applies. And unfortunately, being wrong in foreign policy nowadays, can lead to extreme vunerability in national security and deaths.
I also agree that McCain is also flawed, and doesn’t strike my fancy all that much either. But I do like Palin. I think she offers a good example of a new and more vitalized GOP. I have to say that researching Palin has sucked up much of my time as of late. Perhaps I was hoping for “hope”, so to speak, to redeem a vote for McCain that is really just “no Obama please, thank you”. There are things they say about Palin that have a half truth to them in moments in time. i.e. yes, at one time early in her campaign, she was for the Gravina Bridge. But by the end of the campaign, she had significant doubts as to it’s wisdom.
I’ve found that to get a better handle on the actions of a pol, you really have to go thru the timeline of events. Unfortunately, we live with a media and politically charged electorate blogosphere (yes, including us here at FA) that sometimes doesn’t spend enough time and research necessary to go thru that timeline.
I’m here to tell you, that research is very time consuming. But it’s also very revealing.
This election, IMHO, is going to come down to something very simple: those who desire to push the nation towards a more socialist government, and those that don’t. Along the way, the economic repercussions of that thrust come into play… from welfare/health/education to energy.
Obama may very well get elected if enough are ready to be government supported throughout their lives. But I suspect buyer’s remorse many not be far behind. If Obama gets elected, the DNC will lose at least one house in Congress in midterms to compensate. For tho socialism sounds inviting, that charm wears when your paycheck shinks after serious personal endeavor. Most of us don’t like to work our tush’s off, only to have it sucked up by overzealous spending Congress… BOTH parties.
But we all takes the lumps as delivered, right? And on this 911 anniversary, I can say I’m really reticient to be very combatant with anyone but to the most overt of current events challenged that post here. For I do believe that as Americans, we have a bond that should overshadow our enemies.
Unfortunately, sometimes it takes an overt act by that enemy to remind us of our familia bonds.
That is one of the best things I have read here in a long time.
I, as you may remember, have been a McCain fan for years. When I was roasted for supporting his position on McC-Feingold I held firm. When I was nearly banished for believing like McCain that the Bush tax cuts were the right idea, but wrongly apportioned at the top I was still a McCainiac. During the primaries when I was absolutely the only person commenting here that was a McCain fan I never faltered.
I believe that the party and the country have leaned too far in one direction. But we are basically headed in the right direction.
I am a moderate Republican, but a staunch conservative. It just used to mean things like fiscal responsibility and reduced spending and not state-building and asking Americans to sacrifice when needed, not to go shopping. Today I am told by others that because I still hold to the same things Ronald Reagan believed in I am the one that is not conservative.
But you are right. We are all on the same line politically, it is just a matter of where you sit on that line and as you said, the things that put you there on that spot. My upbringing in a poor Alabama home and time in the Marine Corps and marrying my HS sweetheart from Cleveland, OH shaped most of who I am. Who you are and why you are there is good enough for me.
But as a moderate, more than anything else, I am sick of the outrage and the fear. I am not voting for Barack Obama. But I do not think he is a muslim, a communist or even a bad guy. I just think he is wrong on the essential topics of the day. Where I disagree with him 75% of the time, I disagree with John 25% of the time (though lately I am more often in agreement with the British Magazine the Economist on bringing back the old McCain).
I enjoy reading your research. I was not a fan of the Palin pick as I am sure you read. But I do think she is an honest woman who is a skilled politician. I would simply have liked to have maintained the experience edge in the race and chosen someone with much more time working with matters of foreign policy. But I have enjoyed getting to know her through your posts and other on line sources. I am confident that she will make a fine VP.
Until then, you keep digging and I will keep reading your posts and as always scolding those in our party that lean to far to my right, and surely they will continue to punch right back.
Aye Chi… so that I can catch up on the apparent IL bill in dispute. Frankly, I’m confused on the specifics.
Scofflaw’s link leads to a IL Senate bill SB0009. However it appears that bill was in the IL Senate, if the link is correct, in the 1993 era (i.e. 093 SB00099).
Obama wasn’t in the IL Senate then…. so rather moot, eh?
Or perhaps we’re all discussing an IL Senate bill and voting record that I cannot find online. perhaps someone will provide a link to a Senate session when Obama was actually a member??
Gracious, and very much appreciated, CentFla. And most especially today, where I still find I tear up more often than I care to admit.
Mata,
The “93” denotes the 93rd session (2004-2005). This current session is #95 (2007-2008).
The link in scofflaw’s post is correct. It goes directly to a pdf file of the bill. Here is a link to the legislation on the General Assembly site.
Now, back to you CentFla.
You claimed that the ad is false.
I say that it’s not.
You made some statement about child molestation when that is not the point of the ad at all. Nor was that the point of the bill. That is simply a convenient excuse that the Left is tossing out there to see if anyone will run with the bait.
The ad says that Obama was in favor of sex ed for Kindergarten.
The legislation that he passed out of his committee did just that.
Yes, the legislation PASSED his committee. The committee that he was Chairman of.
He reaffirmed his desire for sex ed for Kindergarten students in his speech before Planned Parenthood.
So, is it your position that Obama OPPOSED sex ed for Kindergarten students?
Tell me what, PRECISELY, is false about the ad.
Comment in the SPAM filter.
AAAaarrrrrgghhhh…..Thanks for the link, Aye Chi… and clarification of session via year.
I don’t see a vote record via member via site as it says:
So I can’t assess whether a first year IL Senator Obama voted pro, con or his infamous “present”.
The fact remains… this is not an Obama sponsored bill. We’ll be lucky if a first year Obama showed up to vote. In fact, when it comes to Obama, he has zip, nada, nothing to show for education except two things…
1: campaign talks
2: Chicago Annenberg Challengenge
It’s really a dead issue, Aye. Frankly, let the boy go down this road. Can you say piece’o’cake?? Otherwise, concentrate on what we can prove to the national audience.
Again, I say to you… CAC. I’ll say it again louder.
CAC!
Mata,
I agree with your assessment of the CAC.
Unfortunately, the insiders were tipped that there were those preparing to sniff around the records.
Remember the delay in getting the records opened up and released?
I’m afraid that much of the incriminating stuff has been scrubbed/purged/shredded.
I’m not sure why Centfla insists that the ad is wrong. It’s just a recitation of the headlines that define Obama’s total ineptitude when it comes to the education.
Cent always latches onto whatever weak point he can find in an argument to undermine the central thesis.
P.S. Mata has another fan! You go girl! He’s all yours!
Hold on, Aye..
We still have the same problem. Obama didn’t assume IL Senate seat (federal) until Jan 2005.
He was in the IL legislature from January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
UPDATE… mea culpa correction…. you mean his last IL Senate days? duh…. It’s a 911 type of day, and I’m distracted…
Still a session problem in facts, guy…. no matter whether federal or state.And you KNOW I don’t want to defend Obama!
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/137df2ef-785f-4172-b9ee-91dc78a715a9.htm
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
Although the second link is included in the first – well – you will see when you read it.
Mike I did not say that the ad did not reflect the newspaper headlines. I said the ad did not reflect the truth.
Ever non partisan fact checking organization has said that it is dishonest because it is dishonest and that is my problem. We are not focusing on the real issues because this lie is sexy. Eventually that will come back to bite JM on the butt if we do not focus on the real issues.
He did not author the legislation even though the ad calls it an accomplishment – FALSE
It did not pass the senate even though it is described as an accomplishment – FALSE
It propsed to teach what inappropriate touching was as I posted above but the ad says “comprehensive sex education” – FALSE
This is not about weak points. It is about producing an ad that is false.
If Dick Cheney trusts factcheck.org – why won’t you?
Centfla: You are challenging the ENTIRE ad on the basis of ONE POINT.
So let’s review the ad with the text from the link Buker provided and then you can ad your acerbic assessment:
ANNCR: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education”.
•Education Week: “In His Eight Years In The State Senate And Two Years In The U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama Hasn’t Made A Significant Mark On Education Policy.” (“Obama’s Annenberg Stint Informs White House Bid,” Education Week, 3/7/07)
ANNCR: That he’s “elusive” on accountability.
•The Washington Post: Barack Obama “Elusive” On School Accountability. “Mr. Obama, as the New York Times’ David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability.” (Editorial, “Focus On School Reform,” The Washington Post, 7/7/08)
ANNCR: A “staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly”.
•Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman: “Obama Is The Staunch Defender Of The Existing Public School Monopoly.” “On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he’s allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.” (Steve Chapman, Op-Ed, “Change: A Matter Of Convenience,” Chicago Tribune, 7/20/08)
ANNCR: Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.
JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.
•”Before His Election To The U.S. Senate, Obama Was A State Senator And Chairman Of A Committee That Approved Legislation That Would Have Altered Illinois’ Sex Education Standards To Include Instruction In Any Grade From Kindergarten Through 12th, Rather Than Grades 6-12.” (Jim Davenport, “Romney Tries To Build SC Support With Appeal To Conservatives,” The Associated Press, 7/19/07)
•In Committee, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of Legislation (S.B. 99) That Would Amend Requirements For Sex Education Classes. “Amends the School Code and the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act. Changes and adds criteria that sex education classes and comprehensive health education programs must satisfy.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
•The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten. “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
•”ABC News’ Teddy Davis And Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Told Planned Parenthood … That Sex Education For Kindergarteners, As Long As It Is ‘Age-Appropriate,’ Is ‘The Right Thing To Do.'” (“Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•The Obama Campaign Tells First Read: “You Can Teach A Kid About What’s Appropriate And Not Appropriate To Protect Them From Predators Out There.” (“Obama And Sex Ed For Kids,” NBC News’ “First Read,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•The Obama Campaign Issues Document Citing Sex-Education Curriculum For Kindergarteners From The SIECUS And Oregon Department Of Education. “In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States [SIECUS] has curriculum for those in kindergarten.” (“Obama And Sex Ed For Kids,” NBC News’ “First Read,” firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Accessed 7/19/07)
•Click Here To Read The SEICUS Guidelines For Children Between The Ages Of 5 And 8: http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
•The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten. “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)
Mata,
Here is an interesting article about the CAC.
It’s becoming more and more obvious that this may be the Achilles Heel.
Mike I appreciate you trying to understand my point, but I feel like I made it three times. I meant to bitterness in any reply if you saw it somewhere I did not intend.
I have three problems with the ad, it was not his accomplishment, it did not pass and it did not promote explict sex ed for kindergarteners. I linked to fact check a site that Dick Cheney himself called fair and that is the end of my argument.
In the meantime the issues that Mata and now AYECHI bring up are the real reasons for a commercial.
Why can’t you and I simply agree to disagree on this one? I am sure there will be plenty to fight about in the future.
Centfla: You still want to throw out the entire ad based on one point where you think Obama’s support of sex ed for kindergartners is not an accurate statement.
Just for the benefit of our readers I’ll reprint the SIECUS.ORG guidelines for sex education for Kindergartners which formed the basis of the Illinois Bill Obama voted for:
Struck from the bill were the following:
And it’s undeniable that Obama voted FOR the bill in Committee.
I guess you can’t call it one of his accomplishments since the bill failed to pass. But Obama certainly supported it. If that’s your excuse to trash the entire ad, which you have done, then your claim is weak.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can fill me in on the effort you have made to get the lefties to stop saying McCain would fight the war in Iraq for one hundred years? Or, if you can’t do that, can you show me where you have expressed your disagreement with lefties on ANYTHING?
Mike in this very comment section (28) I posted seven fallacies of the left against McCain. There have been many other threads where I do so as well. You just choose not to see them when I post them for some reason.