They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning…

ArchPundit July 20, 2007 5 Comments

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…. 

Romney’s Playing from the Keyes Playbook

ArchPundit July 19, 2007 16 Comments

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

Usually

ArchPundit July 2, 2007 No Comments

Campaigns with lots of small donors brag about it to cover up disappointing results.

 Obama’s campaign isn’t usual.

Plouffe brings up the the basic points about polling this far out.  He forgot one example though from 2004.

September 2003–5 1/2 months from election day
Hynes 10
Hull 9
Obama 8
Chico 7
Pappas not included

January 2004 2 months out
Hynes 14
Obama 14
Pappas 14
Hull 10

Survey USA January
Hynes 20
Obama 19
Hull 19
Pappas 18

Survey USA February
Hull 29
Hynes 19
Obama 19
Pappas 14

I was wrong on two counts during that race. First, I thought it would be a turnout race on election day. It wasn’t.  Obama blew the field away.  Second, I argued that Hull would be in a close race with Hynes and Obama at the end.  With the shape of this primary season, money is going to be vital for Florida and then February 5th–more than in any other year. The ability to ramp up fundraising for those without a lot of money early on is going to be a real problem for those contests.  Obama and Clinton clearly will have the resources, but not only will Edwards or any other candidate have to do well, they’ll have to run the table to get the free media they will need to compete while getting their fundraising in gear.

Few are paying attention right now. As we get into the fall and October and November, Obama will need to be increasing his numbers then, but for now, the fight is over organization and dollars–something he has put together before.

Obama: Supreme Court ruling an obstacle to opportunity

ArchPundit June 28, 2007 No Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s diversity ruling.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling has placed a serious obstacle in the way of achieving the vision of America first outlined in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, where we see racially integrated education as the best way to reflect our great diversity, unite our nation, and make real our promise of equal opportunity for all.

“Though we have come a long way in those fifty years since Brown, our schools remain segregated by race, as well as resources and opportunities.  Three-quarters of black and Latino school children attend predominantly minority schools and white children are even more likely to attend racially isolated schools.  And yet, hundreds of school districts across the country have taken noble, yet modest, steps to address this problem, while still accommodating parental and student choice.  They have done so because they too believe that our nation’s prosperity depends on our children learning to understand each other better, work together, and solve problems together

“This wrong-headed ruling underscores the critical importance of a President’s appointments to the Supreme Court and a Justice Department’s commitment to civil rights enforcement.  It is the but the latest in a string of decisions by this conservative bloc of Justices that turn back the clock on decades of advancement and progress in the struggle for equality.  Chief Justice Robert’s opinion reflects a disturbing view of the Constitution that equates voluntary integration with Jim Crow segregation – a view that is both legally and morally wrong.  The policies that led to racially diverse schools in Seattle and Louisville are a far cry from the policies of racial subordination that led to blacks-only and whites-only schools in the pre-Brown era.  To equate the two is to turn a blind eye to our nation’s history.  

Sirota Jumps the Gun on Obama

ArchPundit June 25, 2007 10 Comments

The Progressive States Network co-founded by David Sirota jumps on Obama to decline or reject an invitation to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council.  In PSN’s defense, ALEC had Obama on their frontpage (removed already) and it is an odious organization. The thing is the campaign confirmed it was not attending within minutes of having seen the press release and could have confirmed that with a quick call.

I don’t mind pressuring Democratic candidates to do the right thing, but we also ought to check to see if ALEC wasn’t just using Obama before jumping on him. They were and a quick phone call or e-mail would have answered the question.

There is a point here about how we interact within Democratic constituencies.  If we want to build up relationships and trust, the way to do that is to communicate.  That didn’t happen hear and it puts everyone in a pissy mood instead of working together to target ALEC’s dishonest use of Obama and their general odiousness.

The Dumber Obama Complaints

ArchPundit June 19, 2007 11 Comments

The Trib piece on Obama was a silly piece that could have reported facts and instead decided to frame the discussion to pick at Obama not being pure enough.

One of the criticisms of Obama is that he is an institutionalist. I’m baffled by the complaint when we see what happens when a President treats democratic institutions as speed bumps.

I’ll go back to my favorite example–that of Hubert Humprey who was utterly useless as the firebrand speaking truth to power in the Senate until he became an institutionalist and abided by the norms of the Senate. He became far more effective and passed several civil rights bills.

Arguing Obama should have shouted louder says nothing about whether such a strategy would be effective. Given others were shouting loudly, I’m not sure how this would have been effective. Confusing loud for effective is a common mistake amongst many activists.

Steve at Beachwood Reporter responded to AM with a post that makes some good posts, but also makes serious mistakes.

He is campaigning as a change agent with no record of being one; as an anti-war candidate who kept his mouth shut when he had a national stage

And then a reference to Lieberman.  The problem here is that there is no argument as to what shouting louder would accomplish.  With less than a year in the US Senate he offered up a fairly detailed plan regarding reducing US troops and said the Iraq mission had failed.  That’s significant. He also was the guy who opposed the war when everyone said it was a bad idea to oppose it.  That’s not keeping one’s mouth shut, that’s people who weren’t paying attention claiming their lack of attention means he kept his mouth shut.  He’s one of the few US Senators to attend an anti-Iraq war rally for that matter.

It’s beyond me how anyone can honestly look at Obama and see his fictionalized memoir,

Which was written when no one was likely to read it and clearly states that people are fictionalized. Again, what’s the scandal other than adding a laundry list to convince people he’s done horrible things?

phone call to Tony Rezko to help him buy that house

Which is factually incorrect.  Every newspaper that has researched it has found that the properties were separately listed and that Obama had the highest bid on the house.  The facts suggest that the sale itself was very clean–the questions arise on the buying of the strip of land–even if Obama paid above market value.

not putting his stock in a blind trust while posing as the champion of ethics legislation,

It’s unclear what the complaint here is.  Is it that he created an ineffective blind trust in trying to create a new way of doing it or that he isn’t using a blind trust?  There is no requirement for a blind trust for the US Senate.  He ended the attempt at a different type of blind trust after it failed. What’s the scandal?

his mentors being Emil Jones, Rezko, and Joe Lieberman,

And Paul Simon asked for the elder Daley’s blessing.  Lieberman is overblown as there appears to be no affect on Obama’s policies and it was an institutional mentor.  I know it’s popular to jump on Jones for being a patronage pol–which he is–but he’s also a black man who is President of the Illinois Senate and on policy he’s progressive.  Rezko was a funder, not a mentor.  It’s simply throwing his name in again.

his embrace of Dorothy Tillman and Todd Stroger,

And you get this upset when Durbin backs Jerry Costello? Yeah. Thought not.

his reputation in Springfield for being lazy and aloof,

Aloof early on, yes. Lazy no.  He was considered uppity by many because he did try to much.  And he introduced key bills on the minimum wage, EITC, and public funding of judicial elections.

his lackluster record as a U.S. senator

This is just stupid:

One

Two

 Three

Such a lightweight taking on Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

, including keeping his mouth shut about the war,

Which Obama didn’t do.

voting for the Mexican fence

The fence is dumb, but less dumb than corn based ethanol.

and against the credit card interest cap,

Which was introduced by one of the laziest Senators in the last quarter century who never gathered any information about what the bill would impact.  Obama would vote for a bill that was actually researched.

I like Steve and I think he’s one of the better critics of Obama, but as I may not see all the faults, Steve tends to see more than there are.

I Got You Babe Again

ArchPundit June 19, 2007 No Comments

Rezko crap keeps streaming in.

My advice in December was to get it all out and be more than forthcoming beyond what the press expects.  Apparently someone thought that wasn’t a good idea and they keep getting to talk about Rezko.

Something New

ArchPundit June 19, 2007 2 Comments

Obama’s Campaign has a major fuck-up.  The key to understanding the Senator from Punjab line is in Rich’s comments and posts:

First 

Whoever ordered this racist/xenophobic hit on Clinton needs to be fired. Right away. And I don’t mean the person who wrote it. From what I understand, the first draft was much more acceptable, but it was rejected and sent back with a demand that it be infinitely tougher. If the author is fired and the person who ordered the rewrite is not, then Obama is a huge hypocrite. The full memo is here.

Two 

There is certainly no record of over-the-top racial or xenophobic smears by Obama himself, but there is with at least one guy on his staff, who my sources say was the one who rejected the original Punjab piece and then ordered it massively toughened up.

More here, here and here. That ought to take care of your Macaca qualms. If they had called her “Hillary (D-Harlem)” or “Hillary (D-Chinatown)” it would have been no different, regardless of any mild throwaway joke she might have made about herself. The fact that Punjab has been used as an ethnic/racial slur just makes it worse, regardless of the intent.

Rich seems to be saying it was Robert Gibbs.  I hope not. I like Robert and he’s generally a good guy, though he does get a bit too harsh in races.  However, assuming Rich has his reporting correct, and he usually does, the piece was sent back to toughen it up and Rich seems to be pointing that it was Gibbs who ordered that. Regardless of who did, the person who did needs to be fired.  It’s not what the Obama campaign is supposed to be about.