Which Is The Bigger Smear?

[bsnyder]

The ad is wrong in one respect - the bill never passed, so it's wrong to call it one of Obama's accomplishments.

McCain should change the ad to reflect this as an example of one of Obama's more liberal ideas that ultimately failed.

 

[Amirah95]

This thread is funny!!!!

 

[bsnyder]

You mean the bill that Obama followed party lines by voting on but never passed.

No, I haven't read it. But I will. Let me go out to the shed where I keep all state bills that reach a vote but don't pass. Give me the state and year again. I got to know where to start looking.

Factcheck provides the link. You read their analysis, they told you want you wanted to hear, so that was that, huh?

Let me go out to the shed where I keep all state bills that reach a vote but don't pass.

Okay, that made me laugh.

 

[famofsix]

aren't they all funny ?

 

[bsnyder]

One of the bill's original sponsors must have gotten cold feet about changing the bill to include K-5.

Shortly after it was approved by the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee with the support of… Barack Obama, State Sen. Carol Ronen apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6. But the revised bill never came up for a vote in the full chamber.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...TypeId=SB&LegID=734&DocNum=99&GAID=3&Session=

 

[rentayenta]

I find them equally disturbing but what I find most disturbing is that some Reps are buying this load of manure and then some I have some land if anyone is interested................

 

[MossMan]

OK, I've just finished an exhaustive survey of every Republican who lives within a 90 mile radius of me. I wanted to get an idea of how Republicans really felt about these smears.

Here's the question I asked:

Come on. You're only talking to me now, so give it to me straight. Did you think really think Obama called Palin a pig and that Obama wants to teach kids about sex in kindergarten.​

I thought Republicans were remarkably united on this issue when it was phrased this way and when no other Republicans listening.

87% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: I hate it when liberals assume conservatives are morons. Of course we don't believe the smears, we just like watching liberal get all riled up
11% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: It is physically unable for a Rebupblican to smear another human being. Even if you bring me proof that a Repblican is smearing another, I must reject the the proof because no Republican has ever lied.
2% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: Being so cool and good-looking, you must get tired of politics.

 

[bsnyder]

OK, I've just finished an exhaustive survey of every Republican who lives within a 90 mile radius of me. I wanted to get an idea of how Republicans really felt about these smears.

Here's the question I asked:

Come on. You're only talking to me now, so give it to me straight. Did you think really think Obama called Palin a pig and that Obama wants to teach kids about sex in kindergarten.​

I thought Republicans were remarkably united on this issue when it was phrased this way and when no other Republicans listening.

87% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: I hate it when liberals assume conservatives are morons. Of course we don't believe the smears, we just like watching liberal get all riled up
11% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: It is physically unable for a Rebupblican to smear another human being. Even if you bring me proof that a Repblican is smearing another, I must reject the the proof because no Republican has ever lied.
2% of respondents replied with the following sentiment: Being so cool and good-looking, you must get tired of politics.

I'm sure you appreciated that 2% answer.

So Mr. Cool and Good Looking, did you get a chance to read that bill yet?
And do you still think McCain's ad was a lie?

 

[MossMan]

I'm sure you appreciated that 2% answer.

So Mr. Cool and Good Looking, did you get a chance to read that bill yet?
And do you still think McCain's ad was a lie?

I'm reading a Bill. I'm just not reading the Bill your are referring to.

Saturday is my Bill reading day. I work all week and then sit back on Saturdays with cool beverage and a stack of Bills that never passed State Legislatures. I had already decided to go with South Dakota this week, so I'm going to stay with that decision.

Trust me, Illinois is always a great read and I'm tempted to take you up on your suggestion. But I've been meaning to get to South Dakota for a while. I can always use factcheck or other sources to get to get more info about the Obama thing.

But hey, this has never been about what I believe. It's about whether Republicans are willing to acknowledge truths they know themself to be true. Are Republicans really willing to make this kind of smear to get elected? And are they really willing to pretend that a lie is the truth?

 

[profdsny]

I'm a Republican and have been all my life and I'll vote for McCain - that doesn't mean I'm blind. Both sides are doing this.

Again, example please.

 

[MossMan]

Again, example please.

Do you really require a specific example that liberals are capable of the same things conservatives are? Of course both sides are doing this. Both sides are using almost no information to construct elaborate lies about the other side.

The question is what Obama and McCain are doing - not what everyone else is doing. If that is what you want an example of (something from the campaign itself, then I join you in your request.

Normally these negative ads become tit for tat after a while.

But an outright smear is different. If Obama's campaign is smearing McCain at this level, I'd like to see the ad.

 

[bsnyder]

But hey, this has never been about what I believe. It's about whether Republicans are willing to acknowledge truths they know themself to be true. Are Republicans really willing to make this kind of smear to get elected? And are they really willing to pretend that a lie is the truth?

I'll have to mark your first sentence in this paragraph false, since you clearly stated in post #2 what you believe.

The ad's claim is that Obama voted for a bill that would expand existing comprehensive sex education to K-5 grades. The fact on record is that Obama did vote for that bill. So why are you pretending this is a lie?

This Republican is more than willing to call attention to Obama's extremely liberal legislative record. Obama supporters are uncomfortable with this not because they disagree with his liberal stance, but because they know that it will cost him votes in the general election. Probably would have been a good idea to think of this before nominating him.

 

[MossMan]

This Republican is more than willing to call attention to Obama's extremely liberal legislative record. Obama supporters are uncomfortable with this not because they disagree with his liberal stance, but because they know that it will cost him votes in the general election. Probably would have been a good idea to think of this before nominating him.

Hey, this Republican agrees. Obama's legislative record needs to be examined in detail. We need to compare the things he says with the things he has voted for and against.

But what we Republicans don't do is make up lies about Obama and substitute lies for what Obama actually believes. John McCain in 2000 was adamant that he would never do such a thing. And to his credit, he didn't. Even though people were making up lies about him, he refused to lie in return.

You see, if we Republicans make up lies about our opponents instead of actually dealing with the issues, people will eventually come to assume that Republicans lie. Once that happens, we are sunk. By the way, that is something John McCain said to a bunch of us campaign workers in a 2000 pep rally.

 

[bsnyder]

Hey, this Republican agrees. Obama's legislative record needs to be examined in detail. We need to compare the things he says with the things he has voted for and against.

This particular ad did examine his legislative record. On this particular bill. He voted for a bill to expand comprehensive sex education to K-5 grade.

Are you claiming he didn't vote for it?

 

[basas]

Hey, this Republican agrees. Obama's legislative record needs to be examined in detail. We need to compare the things he says with the things he has voted for and against.

But what we Republicans don't do is make up lies about Obama and substitute lies for what Obama actually believes. John McCain in 2000 was adamant that he would never do such a thing. And to his credit, he didn't. Even though people were making up lies about him, he refused to lie in return.

You see, if we Republicans make up lies about our opponents instead of actually dealing with the issues, people will eventually come to assume that Republicans lie. Once that happens, we are sunk. By the way, that is something John McCain said to a bunch of us campaign workers in a 2000 pep rally.

Again, where are the lies?

 

[mickey2000]

I voted for the lipstick !

 

[MossMan]

This particular ad did examine his legislative record. On this particular bill. He voted for a bill to expand comprehensive sex education to K-5 grade.

Are you claiming he didn't vote for it?

Are you still trying to prove the people who made the ad didn't know they were purposefully smearing another person in a very despicable manner? I'm not exactly why you are so determined to justify this smear. Partisan politics can't be that important. So I assume you are doing this for a rhetorical exercise. OK then,

Gretchen McDowell, was the President of the Illinois PTA and was charged will looking over the bill. She knows more about this bill than you or me or Senator McCain. She points out that this bill was intended to make some adjustments to what was already happening in schools.

For kindergardeners, sex education only meant learning that children lived in families with mommies and daddies. This wasn't supposed to change. The only specific parts of the bill that had to do with young children that could affect kindergartners was new curriculum about protection from sexual predators.

McDowell points outs “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.” That's the language of the bill

Does sound like the thing that a man who goes to church with a daughter would support? Even if you think Obama is a horrible liberal, I'm thinking yes.

Lets look at this from another perspective. This bill was undeniably meant to help children protect themselves from sexual predators.

Does that make it fair for Liberals to now run ads that claim McCain's opposition to this bill proves he is in favor of the sexual predation of kindergartners.

Cause I think that would be a smear too. And if Obama were to run such a smear, I hope Democrats don't try to justify it to everyone else. Somethings are even more important that politics.

 

[bsnyder]

I'm the one looking at the facts. You are the one making a rhetorical argument.

A few things that a critical thinker (as opposed to a reflexive partisan supporter of Obama) would ponder:

1. Why does Jake Tapper rely on those two particular sources in writing his fact check?

2. Did he speak to anyone in the Illinios legislature who opposed the bill to get their opinion of the the bill?

2. Is the Chicago Department of Public Health the agency that would be involved in developing curriculum to teach children about sexual predators?

3. A section of the bill also talks about alcohol and drug use education instruction in grades 5 through 12. So the legislation clearly recognized that some topics are best held until later years, but deemed that instruction on sexually-transmitted diseases - not merely "good touch, bad touch" - wasn’t one of them. Why not?

4. One of the specific changes in the law was to change existing standards for sex education from starting in grade six to starting in kindergarten. One of the bill’s original sponsors changed her mind and introduced an amendment to change it back to the sixth grade after it was approved by the committee. Why would that happen?

Originally posted by MossMan:
For kindergardeners, sex education only meant learning that children lived in families with mommies and daddies. This wasn't supposed to change. The only specific parts of the bill that had to do with young children that could affect kindergartners was new curriculum about protection from sexual predators.

This is all conjecture on your part. Not based on any facts that have been presented.

I am not arguing, and neither is the ad, that Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners the same curriculum that teenagers would be given. Or that it would be "explicit". Or that it wouldn't be age-appropriate. Or that it wouldn't also include information about protection from sexual predators.

The bill, as written, would have expanded comprehensive sex education to K-5. And I have no doubt that Barack Obama sincerely thought that was a worthy idea. I also have no doubt that a huge majority of voters in the general election would disagree with him, and would think this is a very bad idea. And that is why instead of quoting the actual legislation, the ad's critics are reduced to arguing that it wasn't really intended to do what it clearly says it.

 

[MossMan]

I am not arguing, and neither is the ad, that Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners the same curriculum that teenagers would be given. Or that it would be "explicit". Or that it wouldn't be age-appropriate. Or that it wouldn't also include information about protection from sexual predators.

Really? You mean the ad wasn't trying to suggest Obama is a crazed liberal who supports teaching a high-school sexual curriculum to 5 year olds.

Watching the ad again I see the nuance now. The ad is arguing that Obama wanted to use age-appropriate means to teach young children to stay safe from sexual predators.

But I'm still not clear. Was McCain for or against a bill that was designed to protect children from sexual predators. What if McCain was presented with another bill that protected children from sexual predators. Would he ridicule that people that supported that bill too?

 

[bsnyder]

Really? You mean the ad wasn't trying to suggest Obama is a crazed liberal who supports teaching a high-school sexual curriculum to 5 year olds.

Watching the ad again I see the nuance now. The ad is arguing that Obama wanted to use age-appropriate means to teach young children to stay safe from sexual predators.

But I'm still not clear. Was McCain for or against a bill that was designed to protect children from sexual predators. What if McCain was presented with another bill that protected children from sexual predators. Would he ridicule that people that supported that bill too?

The ad made a statement of fact. And I completely understand why you don't like this particular fact, about Obama.

You seem particularly nostalgic for John McCain's 2000 Presidential campaign. I'd suggest that you to read this:

HEADING THE LIST of a long, long, exceedingly long--we did say long, didn't we?--list of pundits, reporters, bloggers, and publications who have been suddenly been struck by a wave of nostalgia for the "old" John McCain, or the "real" John McCain, or the John McCain of 2000, Time's Joe Klein has been anticipating the apology McCain will make to him, once it is over, for the unworthy, nasty, disreputable, and really mean campaign he has run. Klein says he won't accept it, but he needn't worry. McCain, win or lose, will not make it, and there is no reason that he should.

First is the fact that given the built-in media bias, complaints by the press about "mean" campaigning are a reliable sign to Republicans that their tactics are working. Democratic slurs of conservatives as liars, bigots, and warmongers, cruelly indifferent to the needs of the poor, are described as "spirited," "red-blooded," and proof that the speakers are tough enough to be leading the country. Republican attacks on liberals as arrogant, out-of-it, and too weak to be leading the country are--well, you know, mean. Not to mention that most of these "savage" attacks consist of drawing attention to things said and done by the Democrats that the media would rather ignore: Michael Dukakis defending an insane furlough program for prisoners, John Kerry testifying to Congress that his own former shipmates were criminals, Dukakis looking goofy in a tank, that he climbed into of his own free volition, Kerry saying of himself that he had voted for Iraq war funding before voting against it, Obama condescending to Pennsylvania voters who supposedly cling to guns and God out of bitterness, Kerry windsurfing in shorts . . .. Embarrassing a Democrat with his own words and actions is just--sleazy. How low can you go?

Second is the fact that the press loved "the old McCain" of 2000 for only two reasons: He ran against George W. Bush, and he lost. The best Republican of all is one who nobly loses, which is what McCain looked like he was doing until he picked Sarah Palin, at which point most of the media exploded in fury. How dare he pick someone who might help him win? How dare he excite the public, when he was supposed to be boring? How dare he raise up a rival to The One? Face it: The reason they loved McCain in 2000 was that his zingers were aimed at Republicans and social conservatives who were not then his constituents. But had he made it into the general, and been aiming his fire at Al Gore and at the pro-choice extremists, the press's ardor for him would have died eight years earlier, and they would have denounced him as . . . mean. McCain hasn't changed: He was always a maverick, but a center-right maverick, a Republican maverick, an American exceptionalist, a security hawk, and a social traditionalist. Against George W. Bush and others, his digressions from dogma stood out more in contrast, but against a Democrat such as Barack Obama, he stands out as the center-right hawk that he is. The press wanted him to fight against other Republicans and to lose, or, barring that, to lose to a Democrat. He isn't complying. That's their problem, not his.

Third, McCain owes the press nothing, as its treatment of him has verged on sadistic or worse. In late July in the first flush of Obama's Grand Tour of the Near East and Europe, (when it still looked like a master stroke, instead of a misstep), McCain's old admirers in the media depicted him as a loser, so old, so befuddled, so hapless and helpless, compared to the luck, poise, and grace of The Star. "You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake," Klein wrote on July 23. McCain "has appeared brittle and inflexible, slow to adapt to changes . . . slow to grasp the full implications not only of the improving situation in Iraq but also of the worsening situation in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan. . . . McCain seems panicked, and in deep trouble now."

Howard Fineman in Newsweek sounded an even more ominous note. "You can't make up how bad things are going for McCain," he intoned on July 22. "As Barack Obama embarks on his global coronation tour, it's hard to imagine things looking bleaker for his Republican rival. . . . He forgets there's a country named Iran between Iraq and Pakistan. . . . Maybe nothing he says really matters right now." Clarence Page, who styled himself one of McCain's "longtime defenders," kvelled over Obama's world conquest. "And where were you, Senator? While Obama spoke to hundreds
of thousands in Berlin, you were doing a meet-and-greet with a few dozen in a German restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. Whose bright idea was that?"

"McCain better watch out," Fineman said soberly. "The only thing worse than the media ignoring you and lionizing your opponent is the media pitying you and painting you as pathetic," he warned. And who might do such a thing? Well, maybe Joe Klein. "Some will say this behavior raises questions about his age," he said of McCain's imagined eclipse by Obama's junior year abroad trip to Berlin. "I'll leave those to gerontologists." Gerontologists? You stay classy, Joe. And for that apology, don't hold your breath.

Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.