Today's Chicago Sun-Times includes,"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," by columnist Lynn Sweet.
She writes:
"GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, in a bid to highlight his support of abstinence education and appeal to his base vote, is going after Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
"Romney is twisting benign comments Obama made about sex education to a Planned Parenthood Action Fund conference to bolster his credentials among, apparently, the GOP voters who see themselves as sole proprietors of 'faith and values.'"
Ms Sweet notes that Obama emphasized that sex education needs to be "age appropriate." Left unstated is what exactly that means.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton told MSNBC's First Read that his boss is talking about protecting children from predators. "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). . . "
Yes, it does. But if Oregon is the model on which Senator Obama is basing his recommendation, other questions develop.
Oregon's guidelines include:
Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic growth process
Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
That doesn't sound like merely helping children understand the difference between good touching and bad touching.
Do parents want government schools providing proper anatomical names to their 5-year-olds? Does discussion of communicable diseases include talking about HIV if one of the students brings it up? And suppose children want a detailed explanation of precisely what body fluids are? What about parents who don't want schools teaching these concepts? How easy would it be for them to opt out and would their children be stigmatized if they did?
Ms Sweet is wrong about how benign all this is. And Governor Romney is right on target in challenging the Obama proposal.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Funny, the MSM doesn't
July 20, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Chris NormanFunny, the MSM doesn't bother to defend Republicans when their benign comments are twisted (hello, Trent Lott). Heck, they're the ones usually doing the twisting ("macaca", anyone?)...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Benign comments
July 20, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Mike BatesFunny, the MSM doesn't bother to defend Republicans when their benign comments are twisted. . .
That's because when GOPers speak, they're always (get ready here) mean spirited.
Michael,I know, I was
July 20, 2007 - 12:25 ET by Chris NormanMichael,
I know, I was just being sarcastic. The twisted version is probably what they meant anyway, they're so mean spirited. :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Barking dogs
July 20, 2007 - 12:29 ET by Mike BatesThe dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
The reason they're barking, Chris, is because mean-spirited Republicans like me are kicking them. When we're not too busy kicking old folks out into the snow. I know this because the MSM has told me so.
You laugh maniacally while
July 20, 2007 - 16:26 ET by Chris NormanYou laugh maniacally while you force those old people into the snow, right? If you don't, you're not doing your job correctly. :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Laughing maniacally
July 20, 2007 - 17:30 ET by Mike BatesYou laugh maniacally while you force those old people into the snow, right?
Right. It's the only way I know how.
Lynn Sweet has done nothing
July 20, 2007 - 11:41 ET by bigtimerLynn Sweet has done nothing but carry water for Obama from day one...
I would expect nothing less from her in her la-la land leftist world she lives in.
Romney is correct no matter how the leftists try to spin it, the real people in this country know this that have children or grandchildren in public schools.
Sweet Water
July 20, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Mike BatesLynn Sweet has done nothing but carry water for Obama from day one...
I wonder if she's still miffed that she can't follow him into a locker room.
M. Bates... So-called
July 20, 2007 - 12:29 ET by bigtimerM. Bates...
So-called that posted on the link tht you inserted here said it all as far as I am concerned.
I have watched her from day one of his announcement from his campaign stops to her appearances on Hardball and CNN I think, she is hopeless, let alone shameless as far as I am concerned.
As an aside I have watched/listened/read Lynn Sweet for over twenty five years now and she has sunk to school girl tactics...leftists ones at that...
I would be ashamed if I were her, but leftists have no shame, do not even know what the meaning of the word is as far as I have ever seen.
LMAO!
Shameless, hopeless, etc.
July 20, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Mike BatesI have watched her from day one of his announcement from his campaign stops to her appearances on Hardball and CNN I think, she is hopeless, let alone shameless as far as I am concerned.
Shameless? Hopeless? Unable to embarrass? Yep. Sounds like a typical 'Rat to me.
"...the GOP voters who see
July 20, 2007 - 12:06 ET by HelenS"...the GOP voters who see themselves as sole proprietors of 'faith and values.' "
So they're upset that we see ourselves as the sole proprietors of "faith and values". Yet, when we voice our outrage at their hypocricy for not condemning one of their own for philandering, they explain (so that even us dimwits can understand) that it's because we claim to stand for "faith and values".
In other words, they don't.
So do they or don't they? It really sounds like they're miffed that we wouldn't credit them with morals (...a moment while I gag...) and yet when we expect them to act moral, they get offended that we'd hold them to our standards!
Either I'm confused or they're about as consistent as a weather-vane.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
"...the GOP voters who
July 20, 2007 - 12:12 ET by Chris Norman"...the GOP voters who see themselves as sole proprietors of 'faith and values.' "
So they're upset that we see ourselves as the sole proprietors of "faith and values".
Helen,
Having cornered the market on "compassion and sympathy", they resent not owning "faith and values", also.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Faith and values
July 20, 2007 - 12:21 ET by Mike BatesEither I'm confused or they're about as consistent as a weather-vane.
You are not confused, friend.
Faith & Values = Votes
July 20, 2007 - 15:13 ET by exLibLibs/Dems are "miffed" because after 2004 they realized that Faith and Values = Votes.
So some liberals who are "Christians" came up with a "Plan" to "speak in terms that faith and values voters 'understand'".
The people who constantly complain and freak out that our President talks about Jesus and his conversion and tries to pass legislation favorable to a vast majority of US Citizens, still think we are a bunch of dopes who are going to vote for them based on what they say.
While I think the majority of non-Christian people are swayed by speeches and things, most Christians are attracted by the right words but want to see a life that validates the words, they also can spot a phony a mile away (see Edwards and Hillary).
What's more infuriating is the fact that Libs still continue to hammer at those who espouse values and hold them to the highest of standards while holding themselves to none.
Obama the educator?
July 20, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Dave R"Planned Parenthood." Now, there is a contradiction in terms.
I have no children of my own, but if I did, I think the last people on the entire planet that I would want "teaching" them about any of this stuff would be government agents in a government school. I'm sorry, but that is what the majority of teachers in our government schools actually are-agents of the government. And liberal agents, at that.
I find it incredible that otherwise responsible parents continue to pack off the most precious things in their lives and turn them over to the government five days a week. Our government-run educational system is a colossal failure, and no amount of money is ever going to change that.
What will go a long way towards fixing this mess is doing away entirely with the hideous teacher's unions. The same teachers unions that liberals like Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the lefty cabal of presidential hopefuls are going to be shamelessly pandering to between now and the election. Disgusting, if you ask me.
If Obama really wants to get children away from child predators, he should be advocating getting them away, far away, from the clutches of government "educators."
Help Fred defeat everybody.