John McCain's ad denouncing Barack Obama for supporting sex education for kindergartners when he was in the Illinois Senate hit a nerve. Today, in a posting titled "Does the Truth Matter Anymore?," Columnist E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post expresses outrage on the newspaper's Web site:
And now comes a truly vile McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting legislation to offer "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer declares: "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."The subject of Obama's support has come up before. In July of last year, MSNBC's "First Read" reported:
Margaret Talev of McClatchy newspapers called the ad a “deliberate low blow.” Here’s what she wrote in an excellent fact check: “This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12. But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach ‘age-appropriate’ sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.”
Is McCain against teaching little kids to beware of sexual predators?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." 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 has curriculum for those in kindergarten.An examination of Oregon's guidelines shows they 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
The Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) curriculum for those ages 5 through 8 lists the following "Developmental Messages:"
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.All this doesn't equate to, as Obama partisans claim, simply teaching children about inappropriate touching.
The state Senate bill in question, SB0099, had changes made to it. Interestingly, one part that was deleted provided, "Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage."
As I wrote in an earlier NewsBusters item on the subject:
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?Dionne's rabid attempt to challenge McCain's accurate assertion in the ad might provide him with necessary psychological relief, but that's about all. To many voters, it's just another day with the mainstream media. They are getting desperate, aren't they?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I agree, the ad was idiotic
September 10, 2008 - 09:41 ET by smartestmaninamericaAlong with all of McCain's other sophomoric "gotcha" negative ads.
I am a McCain supporter, but his ads are an embarrassment. They literally make me wince. His ad team should be fired immediately.
Embarrassing McCain
September 10, 2008 - 09:45 ET by Mike BatesI am a McCain supporter, but his ads are an embarrassment.
Seems to me BO is the one who should be embarrassed.
I agree
September 10, 2008 - 11:13 ET by mbuelShouldn't Obama be embarrased that he supported teaching Kindergarteners sexual education?
My god, why would you be embarrased of McCain for bringing up the truth?
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
"My god, why would you be
September 10, 2008 - 13:38 ET by ckc1227"My god, why would you be embarrased of McCain for bringing up the truth?"
Because he's lying. He's not a McCain supporter at all. Either that or he's a few fries short of a Happy Meal. You'd have to be one or the other to complain about pointing out the things your opponent supports.
Happy meals
September 10, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Mike BatesBecause he's lying. He's not a McCain supporter at all. Either that or he's a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Or, as they say in Chicago these days, one taco short of a combination plate.
I dunno
September 10, 2008 - 13:52 ET by mbuelI think the people should know that BO, supports kindergarten sex ed.
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
Kindergarten sex ed
September 10, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Mike BatesI think the people should know that BO, supports kindergarten sex ed.
A problem is so does the MSM.
Right...
September 10, 2008 - 21:25 ET by UnsaneYet another Leftist who simply is too embarrassed and ashamed to admit to his Leftism.
Whoever casts a vote for Obama-Biden is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against them is nothing more than a moral coward.
Good Heavens!!!
September 10, 2008 - 09:48 ET by Secret ConservativeWhat is going on in the schools today? I remember when "sex ed" was taking same-sex groups of kids into the assembly hall at around 5th grade and showing them these films put out by Kimberly Clark on "becoming a woman." The girls got the girl movie and the boys got the boy movie. Now they want to teach LITTLE KIDS about bodily fluids and STD's?????
I know I sound like my mother now, but I think it was better when all of this was left to the parents. My parents did a perfectly good job of explaining the birds and bees and where babies came from. They did not, however, think it appropriate to teach us how to put a condom on a banana.
I'm with you!
September 10, 2008 - 09:52 ET by MeanderingThis is the downfall of our society when parents would rather some random sex ed teacher explaining the birds and the bees to our kids without a foundation of morals and beliefs. Not to say they aren't nice people, but they can't explain religious meanings for having sex. When will they get it?
Sex ed
September 10, 2008 - 09:53 ET by Mike BatesNow they want to teach LITTLE KIDS about bodily fluids and STD's?????
It's all part of hope and change, hope and change, hope and change. . . .
Not only that, but "age
September 10, 2008 - 10:19 ET by motherbeltNot only that, but "age appropriate" sex education also includes teaching that some kids have two Moms or two Dads instead of one of each, and that that's just fine.
All the better to indoctrinate you, my dear!!
Age appropriate, mb
September 10, 2008 - 10:25 ET by Mike BatesThe SIECUS guidelines for 12 to 15 year olds includes:
• For most people, biological sex and gender identity are the same.
• Some people’s gender identity differs from their biological sex.
• The origin of people’s gender identity is not known.
• Gender identity is different from sexual orientation.
• “Transgender” describes people whose internal sense of gender (gender identity) doesn’t match what
society expects of them based on their genitals and chromosomes (biological sex).
• Transgender is also used as a general term to describe many different identities that exist such as
“transsexual,” “drag king,” “drag queen,” “crossdresser,” “genderqueer,” “shapeshifter,”
“bigendered,” and “androgyne.”
Ain't "education" great?
Isn't it amazing,
September 10, 2008 - 11:21 ET by IamTinmanThat somehow without any sex ed at all in schools, mankind managed to get to a population of some 6 billion people.
Maybe some statistical whiz out there will be able to quantify if the number of teen pregnancies has decreased to any great degree since sex ed was introduced. This has to include abortions since obviously the mother to be had to be pregnant.
All for Education, but ...
September 10, 2008 - 09:50 ET by MeanderingAre you kidding me? Obama wants to teach 5 yr olds abotu sex? I understand to protect them from predators, but they don't need to know what body parts feel good when touched. Just teaching them that they have "private parts" that no one should touch is sufficent. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with society. I don't need the liberal school system telling my kid about sex. I can have "the talk" with my kids without the aid of the schools. Unbelieveable. Obama is losing his MIND! (that is to say he had one to begin with)
Goin' out of my head
September 10, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Mike BatesObama is losing his MIND!
He needs to stay on teleprompter and hope no one notices what he's been up to for the last 20 years.
What did he say?
September 10, 2008 - 10:05 ET by MeanderingI've heard him off prompter. He makes no sense whatsoever. Even the now infamous "lipstick" line. The sentence before that was totally incoherent. "That's not change. That's, that's just calling something ... the same ... thing ... um ... something different." What in the world does that mean????? He is not the great speaker everything thinks he is.
Right. Simply teaching
September 10, 2008 - 10:22 ET by motherbeltRight. Simply teaching kids that no one should touch them, anywhere that their clothes cover up should work just fine. In fact, teaching them that they shouldnt' let anyone they don't know touch them at all is OK in my book.
When my daughter was 3-4, I always taught her that if we were in a store and someone put their hands on her she should yell loudly "DON"T TOUCH ME!" to attract lots of attention. Didnt' need sex education classes to do that.
Teaching 5 y-os the names
September 10, 2008 - 09:57 ET by Indiana JoeTeaching 5 y-os the names of all the sexual parts of the body, primary and secondary?
Teaching that we all have places that "feel good to touch?"
"Sharing body fluids?"
Seems to me all that is quite a bit more than teaching "good-touch, bad-touch." And why would we need a law to teach kids to run from "the candy man?"
Sound like the McCain ad was merely telling the truth, which, apparently, is anathema to the Obama campaign.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Anathema
September 10, 2008 - 09:59 ET by Mike BatesSound like the McCain ad was merely telling the truth, which, apparently, is anathema to the Obama campaign.
Sorta like holding a Crucifix up to Count Dracula.
This is allpart of the liberal plan
September 10, 2008 - 10:03 ET by c5thenTeach the kids about sex as early as possible and then make sure abortion is available for the inevitable consequenses.
Young children can be taught to be carefull around strangers and with care givers without having to learn about sex and sexual organs and what they are for. Exposing young inquisitive minds to concepts before they are anywhere near able to psychologically deal with them is harmful to their mental and social develpoment.
Does the truth matter anymore? Absolutely! But don't look to the main stream media to tell you about it or even give it equal time. The only thing that matters to the MSM is parroting the liberal party line, consequenses be damned.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I remember(I'm 36) when I
September 10, 2008 - 10:09 ET by oldArmyI remember(I'm 36) when I was in school. I remember that note that was sent home with me...that my parents had to sign to allow me to watch a film on puberty and sexual reproduction. I was 12 and in the 6th grade...What the hell is wrong with that?.....and why is it up to the school to make your kids aware of predators?...
Where are the PARENTS.....?
Again....STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!!
Being a Parent = THE BIGGEST RESPOSIBILITY YOU'LL EVER HAVE!!!!
if thats too much.....DON'T HAVE CHILDREN!!!
I don't want my 5 year old talking about body fluids and Aids.....
Like I want a bunch of Libs teaching my young child anything outside of Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. Leave the rest for my wife and myself..thank you.
I remember(I'm 36)
September 10, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Mike BatesHeck, I wish I could remember when I was 36.
Teach the educators, not the little kids
September 10, 2008 - 10:36 ET by CobraMan"Is McCain against teaching little kids to beware of sexual predators?"
You teach that to the educators as they are supposed to PROTECT those little kids. You don’t teach that to the little kids because those kids will not understand the difference between a sexual embrace and a normal loving embrace no matter how much "education" they receive.
Liberals love to treat children as adults, and I have never understood why. The liberals seem to think that kids are fully developed right after birth, but experience teaches us that this assumption is incorrect. My kids, when they were that age, couldn't understand the difference between a pet and a wild animal (how many times has a child tried to pet a squirrel, only to get bit?). How are they suppose to understand the difference between a "sexual predator" and an affectionate aunt or uncle? This type of "education" is guaranteed to cause children to bring false accusations against innocent people, simply because those children do not yet have the cognitive abilities to differentiate between similar yet distinct behaviors.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Oregon guidelines
September 10, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Wonder95This is a large part of the reason I send my kids to private Christian school here in Oregon.
Teaching little kids how to
September 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by wiwfTeaching little kids how to put condoms on bananas is necessary to spot a sexual predator? I fail to see the logic. This whole thing reminds of that South Park episode regarding sex-ed.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Banana diplomacy
September 10, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Cool ArrowYou never know when a banana is gonna puke.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
Liberals Out Of The Class Room
September 10, 2008 - 11:30 ET by doctorfixitBee Blogger
Ten Reforms That Will Save America
Look it's bad enough having classroom teachers all female where the chances of them being liberal are so much higher, but I certainly do not want liberal fascists discussing ANY social isues in the classroom. Stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Sex is for parents to teach their children. This child molestation hysteria is another liberal fascist propaganda ploy: BE AFRAID!!! Oh,but the government will save you!!!! Meanwhile they don't lock up real child molesters (many of whom are in the classroom teaching or at liberal programs designed to keep kids away from their parents. )(If they solved the problem, we would be less afraid & less dependent on government). No, what this is really about is training little children to rat their own parents so child "protective" services can split up the family.
It takes a village
September 10, 2008 - 12:09 ET by NonanonLiberals love to say it takes a village to raise a child but when those in the village oppose the harmful crap they want to teach, the opposition are immediately trashed and ignored.
What they really mean is that it takes a liberal village to raise a child (to be another liberal).
These people will stop at nothing to destroy this country or even the world. We must defeat them since they will not give up nor will they compromise and try to get along.
Sex "education"
September 10, 2008 - 13:12 ET by iveseenitallThey will deny it, but modern "liberals" have been quite sucessful in making sex the defining isuue of our time. We now have the sex-drenched society about which many thinkers have warned. A preponderance of sexual images and sexual references keeps the masses in check and often lowers the dignity of human beings. Public sex education for 5 yr. olds is simply a part of the secularist's plan to denigrate sacred instituions such as marriage, family, and religion. Our public schools, unfortunately, are infested with those who wish to destroy tradition and leave America with the nothingness in which these relativists believe. Try to learn more about it, understand it, and fight it for the sake of your children and the future of our nation.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Let's end all sex training
September 10, 2008 - 15:38 ET by robert108Let's end all sex training classes in govt schools, regardless of age!
What Is It With This Nonsense About Sexual Predators?
September 10, 2008 - 23:26 ET by The7SticksI have been convinced for a long time that the so-called "sexual predator epedemic" is nothing more than an invention of the media to milk all the ratings they can get. I'm now even more convinced since I decided to check out one of these sex-offender registries on the internet. I looked around the map of my neighborhood, and the numbers in my area are no where near as populated as the media would make it out to be. As far as I could tell, at worst, there were about nine or ten offenders of various degrees within a square mile of my home. I hardly see how that is the epidemic that is threatening everyone and their children.
I do understand that pedophiles need to be punished, and by that, you put them in prison for a very, very long time for their first offense. (A very, very long time would at least be more than ten years.) But the media is trying to use scare tactics against us all, because to them the bottom line is not children's safety, but the ratings. It's always about the ratings.
What are you nuts?
September 10, 2008 - 23:45 ET by BlondeI looked around the map of my neighborhood, and the numbers in my area are no where near as populated as the media would make it out to be. As far as I could tell, at worst, there were about nine or ten offenders of various degrees within a square mile of my home. I hardly see how that is the epidemic that is threatening everyone and their children.
I'd not want that many pervs within three hundred square miles of my home.
Alcatraz sounds about right....or maybe some other large island of Dr. Moreaux.....drop the suckers off and leave them there.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Think Alaska B...plenty of
September 10, 2008 - 23:54 ET by bigtimerThink Alaska B...plenty of places to put these pervs forever and never to be found again.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Right on, BT
September 10, 2008 - 23:59 ET by BlondeOr maybe Antarctica.
Can you imagine 10 pervs per square mile is acceptable? Just reading that made my skin crawl!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Acceptable pervs per mile, Blonde
September 11, 2008 - 08:42 ET by Mike BatesCan you imagine 10 pervs per square mile is acceptable?
In parts of Chicago, getting the number down to 10 per square mile could be challenging.