McCain’s Gross Lie About Obama’s Sex Education Bill
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, McCain, Media, Sexuality, VideoAnd I use the term “gross” specifically because the following ad actually suggests that Obama wants kindergartner aged children to learn comprehensive sexual education…which is a very “gross” lie.
Obama has been attacked on this before, but anybody who looks at the legislation knows that the kindergarten portion of the bill was meant only to educate young children on what the difference was between appropriate and inappropriate touching. You know, so they wouldn’t fall victim to sexual predators.
Now, I suppose Obama could put out an ad in response suggesting that McCain is in favor of sexual predators, but something tells me he won’t do that.
Ugh.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 9th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, McCain, Media, Sexuality, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Yeah. They don’t need Palin to screw this up.
The McCain campaign can do it all by themselves.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Not surprising, this and the whining about the pig comment shows how desperate McCain is, his internal polling probably shows what i’ve been saying, even with the convention his bounce is fading and will be gone in a week at most, and even during his bounce Obama has a firm grip on 270+ EVs, not to mention most polls are undersampling democrats, as a lot of new voters are bring added by the Obama campaign, McCain and Plain know they are in trouble so they are trying anything at this point
September 10th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Don’t worry Avinash. Now that Obama is quietly encouraging 527’s after he publicly said he would restrain them (to complement his refusing to be bound by public financing after he promised to take it). I am sure his MoveOn “General Betrayus” surrogates will soon be broadcasting something equally despicable.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:37 am
If you want to take the outrage of this ad even further, the actual legislation wouldn’t really increase the number of sex education classes or expose true children any more than they already are. If I understand the wording correctly, the legislation just broadens the required sex education curriculum for any sex education class in Illinois from grades K-12.
Seriously, McCain. I actually respected you in 2000. What happened?
September 10th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Even if they did Obama’s hands would be clean, as its not his campaign directly, McCain is doing it directly, he’s scared, he can feel the change train bearing down on him
September 10th, 2008 at 12:39 am
@ Andrew,
He sold his soul for a chance at the white house
September 10th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Right. Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe what you write here.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:55 am
they would be clean, he isn’t in charge of MoveOn, he isn’t their mama
September 10th, 2008 at 2:05 am
I thought John McCain would have made a great President in 2000 … and our country would have been much better off for it.
I have no clue who the hell this guy is now.
John McCain might not be willing to lose a war to win an election, but is sure doesn’t look like he has any problem selling his soul.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Since when is Obama encouraging 527s? Proof please. And don’t point me to whispers on a blog you’d otherwise hammer me for.
And no Avinash, his hands wouldn’t be clean if he were quietly encouraging them by not publicly denouncing them. He shut them down before and if he doesn’t speak out if they pop up again, it’ll be a major flip flop.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Hey Justin,
(Full disclosure I’m supporting Obama.)
Do you have a link to the text of the legislation you talked about in this post? I’d like to read through it and find the exact text. Silly attacks like this will work until people actually see the actual legislation highlighted.
-Paul
September 10th, 2008 at 5:58 am
I’m not sure how much of a flip-flop it would be. I think it would depend on the content of the 527’s ads.
If Liberals started running patently false attack ads, then yes that would directly contradict Obama’s earlier statements.
However, the kind of help the Obama campaign could really use is an independent “fact check” type response to some the more outlandish ads.
These charges can’t just be left hanging out there. But at the same time, the Obama campaign should be wasting entire days talking about stuff that just doesn’t matter.
On thing that is kind of interesting …
These attacks that are coming directly from the McCain campaign are really more of the type that most people would have imagined the 527s running.
Does it surprise anybody else that McCain at the end saying “I approve this ad” ?
September 10th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I don’t know why anyone things McCain is this paragon of virtue that would never stoop to lying orbeing a crumb. Where did we get this impression?
Because he told us so time and time again?
The guy has proven he can be a mean sunuvabitch on more than one ocassion, and now when he is so close he can almost taste his life ambition, he has been lying his head off.
Big surprise
September 10th, 2008 at 6:25 am
JG,
When it comes to Obama encouraging the 527, the Huffington Report reported that last week and the Atlantic reported it yesterday.
Not sure if you call those reliable or not, but MW didn’t make that up out of thin air
September 10th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Wow, mw.
Seems to me to be an admission that your guy has no honor or morality. Just win, baby.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Sex education in the early primary years sets a foundation for later more indepth education. It includes lessons on taking good care of your body, family roles, treating people with respect, the names of body parts, and sex abuse prevention. It helps children feel good about their bodies, their gender, their families, and gives them age appropriate information. It teaches them “no, go, tell” about sexual abuse — say no, get away, and tell an adult you trust what happened. It supports parent/child communication about these issues.
It DOES NOT include discussions of sexual behaviors or contraceptive methods or other information that would not be age appropriate for five or six year olds. The ad referenced in the article is supposed to scare viewers by conjuring up images of sexually explicit material being presented to five year olds — nothing could be further from the truth.
Rev. Debra Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com
September 10th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The question isn’t whether the characterization is true (it isn’t) - the question is whether this (libelous) ad will result in a net positive for the McCain campaign. It’s a calculated risk. Certainly the McCain camp feels that it will and that they are inocculated against the press or bloggers or anyone calling them out. They have middle America snookered into believing that all media is pro-Obama, and any attacks against them, or even the media attempting to “set the record striaght” is paritisan. Those of you who have warned Obama supporters that mud-slinging plays into the McCain playbook are absolutely right. (I’ve been guilty, FYI) This ad is an example of the McCain campaign taking advantage of the mistrust that their target audience has in us and the media.
The question for Obama is how to respond. It’s a tough corner to be in, because just about every kind of response has a down-side. It is exactly the problem that Kerry faced with the swift boat campaign. Obviously Kerry’s resonse was the wrong one - silence. I suggest the Obama camp come out strong against this one. Some emotion and outrage is justified, and will help his image by making him appear “human”, which he needs. The risk is sounding shrill and defensive. We’ll see.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
JG - I read the story in The Atlantic:
Interesting about the Obama campaign skirting campaign law to communicate through the public indirectly to get the 527’s ramped up.
I was going to post about it here, but I’ve been working on some housekeeping on my blog. Here is the post I did not write: Photoshopping Obama as Henry II shouting “Will no one rid me of this priest” then after the 527’s run off and murder Beckett, saying - “that is not what I meant - my hands are clean”.
We’ll have time to comment on this additional Obama hypocrisy when the ads show up.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am
At least we know that we can count on mw to stay quiet about any McCain hypocrisy. He’s fallen too deeply in love with the R’s this campaign season.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The John McCain attack ad purporting that Barack Obama advocates age-appropriate and science-based sex education in schools has again exposed the general lack of understanding that the public has about sex education. Most of the negative comments about Obama on internet blogs seem to make the assumption that the intention of age-appropriate and science-based sex education is to teach very young children about intercourse and other adult sexual activities. That is not what Obama meant and it is not something that young children even have the capacity to grasp.
What Obama was talking about was warning young children about sexual predators and explaining concepts like “good touch and bad touch.” A specific example would be teaching young children that it is inappropriate to touch ANYONE else without their permission, including other children. This is a very important lesson and one that should be reinforced by teaching the children how to comfortably ask for permission to touch someone and how to say “NO” when they are asked and do not wish to be physically touched in any way. In addition to the problem of sexual predators, children can be very disrespectful to other children and their early experiences, particularly in the public schools, often leave scars that last a lifetime.
Other industrialized countries that teach age-appropriate and science-based sex education in the public schools have much lower rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy, abortion and STDs. Also, many studies have shown that the more age-appropriate and science-based sex education a person has, ,on average, the longer they will delay the age of initial intercourse.
It is vital that we all understand the issues involved with this discussion (the very safety of very young as well as older children) and how important they are to all of us, our society and, especially our children.
—-
Gary Schubach, Ed.D., A.C.S.
http://www.DoctorG.com
September 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
From the text of the bill supported by Obama (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee): line 13
Notice how it used to be 6-12, but they changed it to K-12. Its probably just an oversight, and they didn’t intend this to be interpreted as teaching about STDs to 5-year-olds, but knowing “progressive” teachers agendas, this surely gives authority to them if they want to give a puppet show on how Elmo got AIDS. Technically, McCain didn’t lie, but its a reach.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Jimmy, what’s even better is in the next paragraph:
“19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual
21 activity or behavior intercourse shall emphasize that
22 abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is
23 the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse
24 is the only protection that is 100% effective against
25 unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
26 and HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when
27 transmitted sexually.”
Another goal of the bill was to begin to teach abstinence (not abstinence-only) to kids. Not necessarily a bad thing. Read the whole thing, it’s a shame the bill didn’t become law.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Jimmy linked the actual text of the bill, can you point me to where specifically excludes kindergarten-6 when it talks about specific requirements? K-12 seems to be lumped all together, with no exclusions for particular age groups. There’s one place that mentions “age appropriate instruction in grades K through 12 on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV”. Ok, I see “age appropriate”, but it’s a stretch to say that talking about “inappropriate touching” would meet the requirement for talking about “prevention of HIV”. I don’t see how you can talk about prevention of HIV without talking to some degree about sex. Are you going to tell them, “Don’t let strangers touch you. You might get HIV”?
Still, it’s probably true that the bill intended to only require talking about inappropriate touching, but that’s not what it says. So, your basically making this argument: “The text of the bill is so liberal, it must not mean what is says, therefore it’s not liberal.” Seems like kind of a hard argument to make to me. By this logic every bill is moderate.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Yeah, let’s look at the real issue underneath it all… Did abstinence work for Palin’s daughter? So then why should we have someone in power that can’t even hold their own children to what we preach. I may be the only one that considers the ticket runners to be equal, since you can’t have one and not the other… Maybe it’s time for something different and a little education?
And FYI, to all the christian moralists and the right wingers that think your kids are perfect little abstainers: black-cherry popping and BJs are still sex.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sebastian,
Notably, much of the language you quoted regarded abstinence was removed from the final bill. It mentioned abstinence as “an effective method,” which is true, but I find it odd that the rest of the description of it being the most effective, and 100% effective, was for some reason crossed out.
Still, the point here is not whether we should teach abstinence only or not. It is whether teaching methods for “prevention of STD, including HIV” should include kindergarten. Yes, it’s probably true that Obama only supports teaching about inappropriate touching, but the fact is that that’s not what this bill says (regardless of what was intended), and Obama voted for it.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Yes. She never got pregnant while she was abstinent. She only got pregnant after she fucked somebody.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Jimmy, please keep it under control. You know the rules.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am
After reading the bill myself, I conclude that it’s lousy legislation. Irrespective of Obama’s “intent” in voting for the bill; nowhere does it mention inappropriate touching or anything like that. What it does mention, are a lot of things that has nothing to do with what a 5-8 year old needs to know about inappropriate touching. STD’s specifically.
It’s politics. (A)nd I believe Obama when he says he intended inappropriate touching to be taught… but that doesn’t change the language of the proposed (and amended) bill which is very much more comprehensive than that; from grades K through 12.
This is what happens to politicians when they vote for (clearly imo) bad legislation.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ok sorry. Admit it JG, my comment made you chuckle. =)
September 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
People, seriously…(emphasis mine)
7 All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
8 behavior shall satisfy the following criteria:
9 (1) Factual information presented in course
10 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
11 objective.
12 (2) All course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
.
And this…
30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy,
31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate
32 instruction in grades K through 12 on the prevention of
33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,
.
What does “age and developmentally” appropriate mean to you?
The guidelines were going to be defined in subsequent materials, but the bill didn’t pass.
What’s more, parents were going to be made aware of the specific materials taught in the class before anything was taught and could take their kids out of the class if they wanted.
Hardly bad legislation.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Justin,
I would agree with you if you can reasonably explain how you can teach prevention of STDs to a 5-year old in an age-appropriate manner. Like I said, I don’t think teaching about inappropriate touching satisfies that criteria.
But I agree that this is more a matter of a sloppy bill rather than reflective of Obama’s philosophy. Still, Obama should not have voted for such a badly worded bill.