Posted on 09/16/2008 11:42:39 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”
Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. (snip)
Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.”
The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair? (snip
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
While ads about lipstick and sex-ed don't equate with violations of the Logan Act, they all point to how much of an audacious liar Barack Obama is.
Well, the ad is not honest because the kindergarden program was about avoiding bad touching.
But after what they did Sarah Palin’s kids, it just doesn’t bother me as much.
Direct link to the bill:
Read the article.
Did you read the article?????? It disputes your claim.
I am so sick of the DBM lying for Obama!
"Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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.
This was sex ed, not "avoiding bad touching". The only bill sponsor who would speak with York was Sen. Iris Martinez. Their exchange - "I (York) told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said."
Byron York's closing paragraph:
Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.
I have a problem with the ad, only in that it uses the word “accomplishment.” That denotes that the bill actually was passed and has the force of law - clearly, that isn’t so. There are better ways to phrase it that get the point across without getting into the grey areas of what constitutes an “accomplishment.”
From the article:
According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.Also from the article:
Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:Also from the article:Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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.
The proposed bill eliminated all those passages ("value-based" statements emphasizing abstinence as the most effective means of avoiding pregnancy and STD's) and replaced them with wording like this:Also from the article:Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”So, according to the only sponsor of the bill that the reporter could get to talk about the bill, it was not primarily about "inappropriate touching". The bill DID expand the sex education program to include kindergarten, and did eliminate the emphasis on abstinence as the most effective means of avoiding pregnancy or STD's, and (also mentioned in the interview with the bill's sponsor) was influenced by input from Planned Parenthood.So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
“Absolutely not.”
Sounds to me as if the McCain ad is more honest than the Obama camp response to it.
Tell that to that retard Bill O’Reilly - he keeps describing this ad as “false”, I’ve stopped watching his show because of this.
BFD, Barack Hussein Obama said “age appropriate”. He endorsed comprehensive sex ed for children as young as five and struck out language in the bill to put it off to sixth grade and up.
The media have well and truely jumped the shark.
McCain defended it today on MSNBC by saying “read the bill on my web site”. That won't cut it. Unless his campaign was prepared with detailed specifics, he should have never wasted money on the ad. There is tons of other material to go after Obambi on that can be driven home with smart soundbites.
Why should the state mandate that local districts have any sex ed at all in their curricula? Why can’t parents decide locally?
BTW, I think someone should also point out that the bill seems to eliminate all reference of marriage from sex education curricula.
Agreed, there is also a simple and smart soundbite to cover this issue. Simply put, this bill changed the original wording from grades 6-12 to K-12 and provided specifically for comprehensive sex ed throughout all grade levels therein.
That is simple enough to understand and directly refutes what Obummer’s handlers are stating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.