ArchPundit

Mitt Romney backed age appropriate sex education in 2002.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney attacked Sen. Barack Obama yesterday for purportedly wanting sex education in kindergarten.

It turns out, Romney himself once indicated support for the same sort of sex-ed approach — “age-appropriate” — that Obama backs.

In a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he filled out during his 2002 gubernatorial run, Romney checked ‘yes’ to a question asking, “Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?”

The answer, pointed out by a rival campaign, was resurrected in 2005 when Romney was criticized by Massachusetts pro-choice groups when he began to push an abstinence-heavy focus on sex education. Still, his spokesman said then that he still backed a “comprehensive” approach on teaching public school kids about sex.

The dude is a walking, talking contradiction.

Sound: The call him Flipper…. 

The only way to solve this is for Congress to enforce it’s own subpoenas. 
This is truly a stunning level of arrogance and overreach.That said, expect to see the a very busy Sergeant at Arms frogmarching people before Congress for a trial.   The founders had one other tool for when the Executive tried to evade the law: Impeachment.

Wingnuts squeal 

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Patrick Fitzgerald won the convictions of four Osama bin Laden associates in May 2001. In March, he got Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Last week, he nailed Conrad Black.

Fitzgerald, 46, isn’t saying what he’ll do next in his career. Friends and colleagues say he probably will remain a prosecutor rather than join a law firm. One colleague says Fitzgerald’s destiny may include the top law-enforcement job in the country: U.S. attorney general.

“I think he would make a spectacular attorney general,” said former Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Comey, now general counsel at Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense contractor. “He certainly is one of the very best federal prosecutors in America.”

While most of the George Ryan indictments were not terribly surprising, one of the areas Ryan excelled in was prison reform. Remember that Richard Speck videotape?  Remember how the Lege lost interest real quick?

The prisons were a complete mess before Snyder with gangs essentially running much of the inside of the prisons.  Snyder, though never considered perfect, cleaned that up.

 Snyder was indicted yesterday.  There shouldn’t be much that surprises you in Illinois, but this case in particular demonstrates how deep the corruption runs.

It’s like groundhog day

Of all people, CBN’s Brody File 

At first the headline was shocking. ABC News ran a story with the headline “Sex Ed for Kindergarteners ‘Right Thing to Do,’ Says Obama.” You can read the story here and watch his comments here. The key excerpt is below:

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is ‘age-appropriate,’ is ‘the right thing to do.’ ‘But it’s the right thing to do,’ Obama continued, ‘to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.’”

Here’s what Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki is telling The Brody File this morning:

“Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child’s knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.”

So, at this point at least, what Obama is referring to is teaching five year olds about inappropriate touching. The Obama campaign also tells The Brody File that parents would be able to opt out. As for further details, the touching aspect seems to be the main idea here. Obama doesn’t want to hand out condoms to five year olds. He doesn’t want cucumber demonstrations as part of show and tell. The legitimate reasonable discussion here is whether the federal government and/or local school boards should get involved in providing these five year olds information about inappropriate touching or should it be left up to families only.

Still, The Romney campaign is already ripping Barack Obama. The campaign is sending out this You Tube video where Mitt Romney spoke about this last night in a Colorado Springs speech. Watch it here.

I must say that Romney’s comments suggesting that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners is a little misleading. Because he didn’t put in the proper context, many in the audience probably left thinking that Obama is ok with the condoms and cucumber approach.

The Brody File found a Chicago Daily Herald article from October of 2004 that shads some light on this latest episode. Read below:

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama, addressing college students Tuesday in Lisle, moved to clarify that he does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.

The sex-education question, from a student who identified herself as being part of an anti-abortion group at Benedictine University, mirrors a charge Republican candidate Alan Keyes has leveled at Obama.

The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with “medically accurate” information. At one point, the legislation included a provision to allow students from kindergarten through fifth grade to be added to the middle and high school students receiving sex education.

Obama was chairman of the Senate committee that voted along party lines to move along the measure, which ultimately went nowhere.

“Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,” Obama said. “If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.”

Also, in October of 2004 during a debate with Alan Keyes, below is the exchange they had with regards to this topic:

KEYES: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be “age-appropriate” sex education.

But then on another vote, when they wanted to put internet filters on computers for the schools and in the libraries, you voted to oppose that, which made me wonder just exactly what you think is “age-appropriate.”

For instance, do you think that, in the first and second grade, we ought to be teaching from books like Heather Has Two Mommies, where we will be presenting, whether or not parents agree with it, a lifestyle that many folks in the state of Illinois believe is not advisable? Is that the kind of sex education you mean?

OBAMA: Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind.

We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate.

Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean.

And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

I’m curious where Brody File readers come down on this.

I talked about the original Keyes claim back in 2004

Via Rich

I’ve never fully understood Madigan’s reluctance to doing media.  He’s actually pretty good at making his case.

The mistake was trying to force these all or nothing solutions in one session. You have to pull legislators along to get them to understand, and their constituents to understand, the wisdom of the policy. The Governor’s introduction of the GRT was a bad political move made worse by demonizing those who disagreed.  The way to pass it would have been to introduce it, sell it, and then campaign on it throughout the year to build up support from voters.

There are plenty of things to criticize Madigan for, but one thing that’s often overstated is how he runs everything.  He certainly is strong and does crack down when he feels it’s necessary.  However, his role is often more like a watchful parent who guides decisions within the caucus instead of forcing discipline.  Part of the reason he’s so effective is he listens to the concerns of the Members and reflects their collected position.  I might agree with a GRT, but it was never sold to the public and it spooked the Lege.  The Chamber killed it very quickly and instead of working to build that consensus, the Governor went on the attack which is the certain way not to win.
The continuing attacks only look to divide Senate Dems against anything the Governor wants and could well lead to a brokered solution that will all, but cut out the Governor.

Diane Sawyer

ROBIN ROBERTS (co-host): It’s going to be a long day on Capitol Hill.

SAWYER: It certainly is. Senators facing an all-nighter now as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.

ROBERTS: And of course, as they continue to talk there in Washington, our brave troops con — they forge on. And this morning, we have a brand new, inside look at their daily lives and what really happens there on the front lines.

You flunk at least one quiz in Polisci 101 with this kind of stupidity.  Filibusters are held by people who do not want to vote on the bill.  Over time that has meant that even the threat of filibuster means a bill dies, but those wanting to vote up or down on the bill do not have to just walk away.  In fact, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed because the Senate stayed in session waiting out Byrd’s filibuster and it was the first time cloture had been used successfully in a civil rights bill and the second time since 1927 that it had been invoked.

Before the passage of a cloture rule in 1917, there was no way to force a vote on a bill.  The Senate has long held that it’s members can debate a bill for as long as they like. Given the 1917 filibuster of enabling legislation for WWI created such a problem for the nation, the Senate limited that right of members.

The only thing Reid is doing is forcing the Republicans to do more than just threaten a filibuster and carry it out–and carry on about how bad redeployment would be for hours while the country supports the idea.

One cannot understand the role of the U.S. Senate in the history of the United States if one does not understand the filibuster and at least some of the central bills it was used for to attempt to stop bills.

Charles Franklin asks if Guiliani is the next McCain.  I wouldn’t bet against Charles, except perhaps on forecasting the baseball season.

The level of utter vapidness concerning several issues over the last week is staggering. First, a private citizen of the United States refuses to appear before the House of Representatives after being subpoenaed. Some seem to be buying some story that asserting a privilege doesn’t mean you don’t have to have your ass in the hearing chair. It does not. You must appear and we have someone who can arrest you and frogmarch you into the House to be tried for inherent contempt. We call that person the Sergeant at Arms and in the U.S. House that is Bill Livingood.

And tonight we get this gem from the Corner

This is a really, really stupid stunt, and I’ll tell you why: It can all be over in 15 minutes, unless the anti-war Republicans decide to cooperate — and why should they?

Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn’t cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don’t include Joe Lieberman (who I hear isn’t really up for this sleepover, whether you want to count him as a Dem or not).

You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call — which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can’t come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech.

Any parliamentarians out there can correct me, but I’ve checked with two Senate sources and I’m pretty sure I’m right about this. I can’t even imagine what Reid is thinking.

We can assume those Senate sources are Dumb and Dumber. Talking Points Memo disappoints me and brings in the very bright and very authoritative Sarah Binder to answer the question that they, above all, should know. It’s not that for hard questions they shouldn’t go to Binder, it’s that this isn’t a hard question. We have faced a very similar situation recently when the Texas House Dems fled to Ardmore, Oklahoma. The Texas Speaker ordered Texas law enforcement to track them down

Attempting to break a quorum is nothing new as Lincoln tried it as well–Rich Miller provided the details during the Texas standoff.

LINCOLN BROKE A QUORUM Back in 1839, the Illinois House was meeting in special session and hatched a plan to vote on a Democratic bill to require the state’s central bank to make payments in gold or silver, rather than paper money. The Whig Party strongly opposed the idea, and, led by Rep. Abraham Lincoln, decided on the spot that the best way to kill the proposal was to deny the majority Democrats a quorum. So, they left the building, the

Second Presbyterian Church in Springfield. But two members were required under law back then to demand that a quorum call be made. Lincoln and another House Whig, Joseph Gillespie, walked into the chambers and made the motion. No quorum was present and a vote couldn’t be taken. The next day, though, Lincoln and the Whigs made the same attempt, but the House Speaker ordered the doors locked behind them and summoned some members who had previously been too ill to attend the session. A quorum was now present.

Lincoln realized the problem and he and the other Whigs jumped out of a window to try to halt the vote, but the quorum was already certified and the Whigs lost. According to Lincoln friend William Herndon, the window jumping had no effect “other than to provide the Democrats with capital material for ridicule.”

I don’t mind that the average person walking down the street doesn’t know much about quorums and how members can be compelled to attend, but people writing for the NRO with supposed sources should. It’s very basic to Congressional procedure and has changed very little over the years.

And of course, the Senate Sergeant at Arms is

Terry Gainer, former head of the Illinois State Police

In gentlemanly terms

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

And he’s right.

I had a quick discussion with Jay Footlik on the phone today and he clarified his position fairly well. I’ll take it from the letter to the editor he sent to the Daily Herald:

Footlik: I’ve been misquoted on Iraq

I am writing to correct the record. A July 11 article, “Kirk gives surge credit,” printed a partial quote of mine out of context and, as a result, misrepresented my view on the Iraq war. The author repeated this error in his blog on the Daily Herald’s Web site on July 12.

In speeches and interviews throughout the district, my position on this war has been clear: It’s time to bring our soldiers home — safely and responsibly. Firm deadlines are usually not the preferred option for warfare, but this war is like no other.

This president has demonstrated such a cavalier attitude toward the new Congress and such a disregard for the overwhelming desire of the American people that a firm deadline for withdrawal is simply the only way to force him to change this disastrous policy.

Jay K. Footlik, candidate

10th Congressional District

The only criticism I’d make of the statement is that Democratic voters are so frustrated many don’t get past the point of firm deadlines not being preferred.  Putting that after the second paragraph might be better in terms of communications.

As is my usual attempt in cases with more than one decent Democratic candidate I try to be fair to both, but I always reserve the right to take a side.  You never know who you will end up getting the nomination and unless there is something truly unacceptable in a person, I’d rather keep it fair and friendly.

All that said, I have enormous respect for what Dan did last cycle and I’ll be supporting him. I do hope to bring good coverage of the race for both candidates though. Inevitably that means people supporting the same guy I do think I’m not supporting them enough and the people I’m not supporting tend to think I’m overly critical.  I cannot really answer that, only the reader can.

Not very honest

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

The original video:

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Iraq summer deserves credit for their video and they don’t support any particular candidate.  Incorporating it into the Footlik supporter video is obnoxious. Doing it without attribution is doubly wrong.

Now, the other thing is I’m getting a lot of feedback on Footlik’s position on the war and the line regarding Footlik’s position is that he’s for getting out, but not a public timetable.  Whatever that means—the problem being that if you have a Republican President after this term is up and you set up a situation like that, there is nothing to force withdrawal.  So either you have a timetable in law or you don’t get out.

Beyond that, many are describing Footlik’s early comments as being that he didn’t want a  firm timeline and he described himself as a Lieberman Democrat.  On top of that, Eric Krol has a different version of what was said to him earlier.

Seals has built up a lot of credibility in the District and did a good job according to nearly everyone who observed the race with DCCC and the grassroots on the same page, it takes a lot to demonstrate a strong reason to back another candidate.  In this case, the hair splitting on the war and such doesn’t seem to provide much of a reason for Footlik’s candidacy and looks like he’s simply running on ambition.

 Mark Kirk

“I think we should look to winding up the mission.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/19/07]

“If the report comes back bad we need to make changes, we need to adjust the strategy, absolutely.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 7/11/07]

You see, Concerned Kirk is concerned, but not enough to actually do something to stop this war.  He voted against the proposal to redeploy troops by April 8th.

The Trib editorializes that there hasn’t been enough progress citing some military progress that is actually quite dubious.

Iraqi leaders were supposed to seize this moment of reduced violence to forge a united Iraq. Instead they’re as divided as ever. Judging from this report and political conditions on the ground in Iraq, American soldiers are buying time for Iraqi leaders to do absolutely nothing.There was a flicker of progress a few days ago, for instance, a potential deal on divvying up oil profits, one of the most important benchmarks demanded of the Iraqis by Congress and the president.

Then it fell apart. On Wednesday, just a day before the release of the White House report, Kurdish leaders, who had earlier backed the law, gave it a shove over the cliff. So much for political reconciliation.

That’s not the only political failure, just the most publicized. The government has also failed to pass a vital law easing restrictions on some former Baath party members. And it has failed to establish a provincial elections law so that local elections can be held.

This is a civil war.  The solution is that someone wins by force or a political solution is created.  For a political solution to work everyone has to get something they want.  The question no one seems to want to ask this administration is what is it that we have that the Shiites want in Iraq that they cannot get through winning a civil war?

Nothing and we are arming them.  The solution will happen with us there or not there and we don’t have a political solution we can offer that gives the Shiites anything they want.  We are useless other than to speed along the Shiite victory with American troops.  The President is horribly confused if he thinks the problem is that another Afghanistan  Pakistan. The Shiites and the traditional Sunnis don’t like Al Qaeda in Iraq and they will kill them There is no Mullah Omar there.

He’s busy anyway.  In Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is regrouping.   How about a surge there?

Jay Footlik

Didn’t take long for 10th Congressional District Democrat Jay Footlik to alter his position on the Iraq war.

Last month, as he got into the race, I asked Footlik a couple questions about his position on the Iraq war, sure to be a key issue in the primary against Democrat Dan Seals. Here’s what I wrote:

On Iraq, Footlik said he doesn’t necessarily support a “hard and fast deadline” for withdrawal, but thinks Congress has to force President Bush to come up with “something close to a deadline.”

To say Footlik was elusive on the war topic is a fair characterization.

So I was somewhat surprised to see this news release just arrive in the ol’ inbox:

“It’s time to end our involvement in Iraq,” Footlik is quoted as saying in the release.

More from the release: Jay Footlik supports the proposals in Congress that call for American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of April 2008. Military leaders on the ground know what they need to do and how to get to that point — safely and responsibly. “The process of redeployment should, in my view, begin no later than 90 days from today,” declared Footlik.

Looks like Footlik handed Seals his first ready-made issue, and candidates aren’t even circulating nominating petitions yet.

Haven’t we had enough of Concerned Kirk’s bloviations about being concerned about the war and then not voting like it.  Why do we need a Democratic candidate pulling the same routine?