Jay Bookman

By Goldie

September 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Decency? McBush? The guy who stated that he would not run a “negative” campaign because he’s supposed to be a “maverick” Repug?

HA — I’d say about 70% of America now knows that McBush has no decency politically, ever since he signed his Satan-pact with the likes of Karl Rover and the religious extremists of the RNC.

McBush is just another indecent political hack.

By Erik K

September 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

This is shameful. McCain has now made it painfully clear that he’s unfit for the office of President of the United States.

Obama needs to quit pussyfooting around and go into full-out attack mode. Now.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

Jay:

I will reserve opinion until I see a copy of the Illinois legislation in question.

We can probably argue about what might be age-appropriate. Likewise, some might argue that “comprehensive” is age-appropriate (I’d disagree.)

However, without having read the specific legislation and seeing the actual specifics of what were being taught, I do not know if this is a lie, mislead, or not.

-Swami Dave

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Erik K,

You don’t think calling Palin a pig and McCain a smelly old fish was attacking?

Jay,

Good idea! Please put up an ad calling Sarah Palin a child abuser for talking about a guy that tasered an 11 year old kid.

By the way, you’re two ads behind. The new one with the wolves is great.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

It mandated age-appropriate education, which in the case of kindergartners meant teaching them about inappropriate touching by strangers and family members, and what to do about it.

Uh-huh:

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Fake Temple Pilot and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they’d be comfortable having the story — called “King & King” — read to their children in school.

“The fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old I think are already aware that there are same-sex couples,” the Illinois senator told the debate.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Jay,

O boy, here comes the firestorm!

I’ll take this side for the moment. Did Sen Obama vote for comprehensive sex education in Illinois schools? Yes. Does comprehensive sex education include more than reproduction? You bet. Was a curriculum mandated? No. Did districts have the ability to teach age-appropriate topics? Yes. Was the content of ‘age appropriate’ mentioned? Apparently not. Did the program cover kindergarten through grade 12? Yes.

So the lie is… that Obama ‘championed’ the legislation? Because he didn’t sponsor it? Or is the ‘lie’ something else?

Obama said he was aiming at inappropriate touching. Fine. But did anything in the law restrict kindergartners to hearing only about inappropriate touching? Or could districts stretch that definition and go further that some parents would want? Unknown. Was there an opt-out for parents? Unknown. So could Obama have voted for a law, intending one result (inappropriate touching for five-year-olds), while the law contained no guarantees this would be the only outcome? Apparently not.

And that is a huge tactical mistake, given the angst many parents have over someone other than themselves discussing anything relating to sex with their toddlers.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Let’s see here, Mike Wooten tasered his child but we are excusing Sarah Palin of abuse.

And sticking up for Mike wooten.

Got it.

By Dmitriy

September 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

So Sarah Palin child abuser is the same as Obama wants sex ed in kindergarten? Are you joking me? Obamabots are threatened by Sarah Palin and that’s why they spew all these lies.

By Rob

September 10, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Palin is gonna win, Palin is gonna win. And it is KILLING you liberals. You thought the Obamasiah was untouchable, but McCain threw a hail mary and Palin caught it and is heading toward the end zone.

By Slick

September 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

I saw this ad last night and had the same reaction that Jay described. It surely represents a new LOW, even for the McCain campaign mud slingers! Swami Dave- if you have to further investigate in order to form an opinion on that ad - then you are obviously missing some vital pieces in your thought process - the ones about decency!

By Bud Wiser

September 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

I guess Goldie and Erik missed the part about Obama calling Palin a pig. Say what you will, watch the video and it is glaringly apparent that he was playing the intent of that to his audience, who laughed, rose and stood, some clapping, most oinking, behind him.

He meant it all right. If McCain used a phrase about “calling a spade a spade”( a similarly popular phrase used quite often about cutting through the crap and looking at the clear and unvarnished truth, for instance, but in this campaign its use would be assessed by the media and Obama and his supporters as a potentially racially charged connotation indeed), what kind of publicity do you think that would receive?

The leftists can never admit when they are flat out wrong, or caught in the total hypocrisy of a lie. Hell, all you have to do is watch Obama squirming and dancing around the questions O’Reilly has been asking him, which in my opinion are fluff. Fox should have had one of those women lawyers like Magan Kelly to grill him, particularly so now after the ‘lipstick’ remark by Obama.

What disappoints me the most is this….the obvious sexism from Obama and his underlings toward most, if not all, women, yet there are women that continually appear on TV and in ads supporting them. I will not call them traitors to their own gender. That much is obvious. What is truly disappointing is the complete and total lack of self respect among these women, the caving in of politics over principle. A person is defined by their principles and not their politics, I would think. If you just want to be known as a Democrat or a Republican, you are one sad sack indeed. But, I never realized that so many women could actually hate themselves so deeply and subconsciously to subjugate themselves to this kind of public ridicule, but there you go, men never do understand women I guess.

By Truth

September 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of the word “comprehensive”.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

What’s age appropriate for a four year old

Sorry, that’s sort of off topic.

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Wow, it looks like I missed out on a whole topic already. I wasn’t gone that long. Anyway, I jump in with the following:

1) Palin is a pig with lipstick — she’s pork barrel through and through but of the female variety. I think they’re called sows.

2) If it looks and smells fishy, what else can it be other than McCain, the reformed maverick (I took that one from Jon Stewart) and a true master of flip-flop.

3) Palin/McCain — two more of the same. Thanks, but no thanks.

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

1-Though he claims to be bringing something new to politics, John McCain is no different than 100 percent of other GOP candidates who would run an indecent, underhanded campaign. McCain’s ad is one of the vilest tricks in politics, the same one that worked in Florida 50 years ago when one candidate stirred up voters by accusing his opponent of having a sister who was a thespian. It’s past time for Obama to take the gloves off; maybe now he’ll see that for himself.

2-And Obama should accuse Palin of abusing her own children. It’s been apparent from the get-go that she is not above parading their problems before the public as a means of endorsing her own sanctimony.

By beingthere

September 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Hey Rob,

You don’t care about the truth at all, do you? What a pathetic way to live.

By Jose in AZ

September 10, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

I’m an AZ native and have been following politics since the day President Reagan was shot. I’ve met McCain in person (I was in 4th grade when he came to my school) - he was the rep for my district.

I would have preferred McCain to Bush in 2000. I voted for him in 2000. I would have preferred McCain over any of the final two choices in 2000 and 2004.

This ad nauseates me to the point of needing to vomit.

This is not the John McCain I know. That man really left after he hired the Karl Rove disciple.

John, you’re competetive these days. Why resort to cheap gimmick like this to try to win? It suggests that winning is more important than the people making their own choice. And that is very much like Bush.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

To Jay

1) You may have some ammunition on this one. This ad appears to be disingenuous at best if what you say is true.

2) Now I ask you again as I have so many times before. Will you make an effort to expose this kind of activity on both sides or will you continue to promote your bias (and the Democrat candidate) through the use of your blog ?

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

The official motto of the Republican Party should be: We don’t need no steenking facts.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

As a woman, who at age 4, was seriously and repeatedly molested….

I strongly support age appropriate sex education.

I did not know I could say NO. He was family and an adult.

My kids ALL got “Do not touch me here” coloring books….no kidding!

McCain is beneath contempt.

By Tom

September 10, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

3.8-total-hours-in-a-combat-zone-and professing-himself-to-be-a-“war hero”-for-35-years-now-McCain, and Pentecostal-Palin, that Moose-Munchin-tongue-speakin’ hockey-mom are quite a pair. Rejoice in thee Lord! Join me in a chorus of “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Thee best and thee brightest.

See thee Republicons. Hear thee Republicons. See thee Repug comments/posts herein. See thee bounty which the Murcun educational system has brought us. Vomit? Weep? Both??

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

It seems only the GOP and their apologists think that Obama was referring to Palin as a pig. Since he was talking about McCain in the sentence before his lipstick sentence, he might actually have been talking about McCain being the pig and Palin being a stinky fish.

And when McCain used the same phrase when talking about Hillary’s health care plan… that wasn’t sexist at all, right GOP lovers?

And it wasn’t sexist at all for the McCain camp to make the point-person for this feigned outrage a woman, right?

McCain strategy: Distract from the issues.

Obama challenge: stay on issue-of-the-day message while spinning back the distracting attacks.

We’ll see.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Gee Slick.

If the responses after my initial response are any indicator, apparently simply waiting until more than the partisan cursory defense of Obama comes along was the correct decision.

Still having not seen the legislation, I cannot say if it is a lie or not. Unable to decide that, the question of “decency” (from the perspective of a -political- ad) is pretty much moot too.

That said: Senator Obama and his supporters do not get to get to claim offense based on what he “intended” legislation he supported to do. He, like all elected officials, are judged according to its outcome.

….or was this one of those occasions where he voted “present”?

-Swami Dave (Truth, History, and Common Sense Refute Liberalism.)

By Erik K

September 10, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Obama did NOT call Palin a pig.

Sweet Jeebus on a stick, McCain supporters are dense. He’s talking about McCain’s false claim to represent change, NOT calling Palin a pig. Duh.

This is what Obama said: “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’ it’s still gonna stink after eight years.”

But just keep spreading McCain’s blatant lies.

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

I recall my daughter bringing home a kinds of consent forms over the years asking for permission to share specific information regarding sex, sex organs, sex education, etc. The schools would try to cover certain issues, as best they could, at certain ages. These types of topics are always hard to deal with but many people in this world find it necessary. Now, in the case of the cited legislation, what were the roles of the persons at the individual levels, i.e., were parents required to give consent, were schools given sufficient latitude, etc.

This is beginning to sound mighty fishy and we know how McCain and fishy smells go hand in hand. Why don’t we save some time here and just put the lipstick on the fish.

By Copyleft

September 10, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Corporal, your constant cries to Jay that he go after the Democrats, rather than McLame and BushCo, is dishonest unless you can show similar complaints to Jim Wooten for his relentless right-wing bias.

As it stands, you look like you’re either

A: Confused about what section of the AJC this is (hint: OPINION), or

B: Desperate to change the subject away from Jay’s all-too-accurate shots at McLame’s stupidity and hypocrisy.

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Personally, I can’t believe Palin is taking time away from the trough. Was she bribed with more bridges to join the ticket?

By Tom

September 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Obama assuredly did NOT call Ms. Palin a pig. That would be a direct insult to pigs EVERYWHERE!!!

By getalife "whiners"

September 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Joe Klein states it is the most disgusting ad he has ever seen.

CNN is running video of McCain calling Hillary’s health care plan “putting lipstick on a pig”.

Obama is fighting back and I am liking it.

I also like his betting on the intelligence of the American people while Andy’s candidate is betting on the ignorance of the American people. Go figure.

Enough is enough of the gop bs.

By Bill P.

September 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

John McCain is dishonoring his family and his country through his conduct in this campaign. He should be ashamed.

He has overwritten a 26 year record of service with smears, lies, cheap, despicable, cynical politics, and pathetic simplistic positions that shift with the wind.

Is this what the American people want in their leadership?

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Jose in AZ,

If the bill didn’t define and put some limitations on what age appropriate means then Obama was voting to let kindergarten students be taught whatever the teacher wanted.

That would show extremely poor judgment.

Jay B.,

I know this is your blog and that your purpose is more to be partisan than to be informative, but couldn’t we have a better discussion if you would also link to the bill?

Nice story in Newsweak by the way. After 11 paragraphs trashing the Palin family we finally get some very sketchy details about this Wooten character the left seems to have adopted as the new paragon of virtue.

By Lewis

September 10, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

What’s the difference between a pit bull and Sarah Palin? One of them has integrity (and it’s not the one wearing lipstick)

By GodHatesTrash

September 10, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Poor Corporal - his internets have only one blog, evidently.

Otherwise why can’t he find the thousands of blogs that will feed him up the crap and bullsh*t he so desperately craves?

By GodHatesTrash

September 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Of course, someone has the video of Obama saying “Governor Palin is a pig.” Or “Sarah Palin is a pig.” Or “The current governor of Alaska is a pig”. Or “Trig’s mama, grandmama whatever the hell she is, is a pig, that’s why they named him Trig, rhymes with pig.”

Since everything Obama says or does on the campaign trail is recorded from about 100 different angles, show us the video footage, or shut the hell up.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Okay, I listened to the ad again. It said Obama’s one accomplishment is legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barak Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

So the lie is where? Possibly his vote on the act was “Obama’s one accomplishment”? Is ‘learning about sex’ the same as learning about sexual intercourse. Or did the authors take a more expansive view of ‘sex’ as we see in many sex education programs?

It looks like the most devastating line is not “I’m John McCain” but “wrong for your family.”

I still have not been able to locate anything to support “It mandated age-appropriate education, which in the case of kindergartners meant teaching them about inappropriate touching by strangers and family members, and what to do about it.”

Obama had one accomplishment. True. He also had others. It implies that’s all he had but a lawyer could easily turn that. Obama voted for the legislation. True. Learning about sex? If the definition is other than reproduction, also true. Misleading? If some infer ‘sex’ means only reproduction.

So for me, the ‘lie’ threshold has not been met.

From McCain’s web site, the support for their claims:

Link: Sex ed claims

I saw some sites that claimed the law stated kindergarten instruction would include the prevention of sexually transmitted disease infections, including HIV. That language was struck from the final bill and was made applicable to grades 2-12. But, the Senate Bill Sen Obama voted for did contain that language.

So now we come to Sen Obama’s assertion that all he intended was ‘age appropriate touching.’

If the ‘lie’ standard is where you say it is (intent to deceive) then it appears Sen Obama may have a problem.

By TW

September 10, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

The ‘pig’ remark sending the GOP to its trembling knees explains greatly why we haven’t taken out bin laden.

Chickenhawks.

chickens…hawks…pigs…

losers.

By Bosch

September 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Paul@ 1:47,

Damn. For once could you just in plain English tell us how you feel about something?

By Paul

September 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Erik K 1:21

The audio Immediately before the lipstick comment dealt with economic and other policies and spoke of McCain’s role. Heard it on Bill O Reilly, though, so it must be a lie.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft and GodHatesTrash:

You guys really crack me up. That’s the only reason I stay on this blog vs. several others that I enjoy. But alas, I digress………

The purpose of a newspaper that is supposedly informing the community is to be fair, unbiased and accurate in all of its reporting - even opinions. It can be done!

One can offer an “opinion” and not be eaten up with bias. Many times (including on this subject) I have stated when Republicans were wrong (for example Bush on Iraq tactics and McCain on immigration).

I never hear “reasoned opinions” from you guys (or Jay) when your candidate or party have crossed the line. If you are claiming your candidate or party are perfect - well that’s for another day.

Basic fairness and integrity is the difference between you and I and I am very proud of that !

March on !

By Paul

September 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

clarification of previous post:

The final bill mandated instruction would include the prevention of sexually transmitted disease infections, including HIV for grades 6 - 12.

But Obama voted for the Senate version that included kindergarten. So he could have been technically correct in saying his intent was only for “touching” instruction. But his earlier vote makes it clear he wanted STD prevention instruction. How does one do that without teaching about sex practices?

Back to that ‘lie’ threshold…

By Paul

September 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Sorry. That was written while I was researching and thinking. Should’ve been edited better.

I think it misleading to imply from that vote Obama wants to teach reproduction and intercourse to kindergartners. But Obama’s earlier vote in the Senate version to teach how to prevent STDs and HIV to kindergartners makes his claim that all he ever intended was to teach kindergartners about inappropriate touching problematic. So that is misleading, also.

According to Jay’s state of mind criteria, if that’s all he meant when he voted on the final bill there is no lie. But as last night’s conversation showed, we cannot know his state of mind. That criteria strikes me as a bit of a cop-out when applied to political races.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Thank you Paul. There’s always another side to the story.

But all of this sex related stuff is above his “pay grade” anyway.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 10, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Paul

Basic education to prevent STD’d would be to teach kids not to touch other peoples bodily fluids.

As in

call the teacher if little Bobby is bleeding….

or if little Andy has wet himself

or if little Ricky has “dirtied” himself

add a

And that applies to adults too

(they could always use a favorite of my brothers from grade school - you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but never pick your friends nose!)

By mm

September 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

The continued support of McCain by the wingnuts on this blog and around the country just shows what uneducated, ingnorant morons republicans are.

McCain has gone over the line and yet these losers continue to defend him.

The republican party continues these tactics in political races at all levels of government around the country.

The republicans have no ideas, no message. They just try to destroy the credibility of their opponents.

I think Americans have seen enough of this crap and will put a stop to it in November.

Republicans think Americans are dumb as dirt. But it’s only the republicans that applies to. Just read the posts here defending McCain. They leave no doubt who’s dumb as dirt.

Keep it up McCain. You may just end up with just 34% of the vote in November. That would be the 34% of moron Americans that think Bush is a good president.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Wow….

In the span of two hours, an assertion becoming more and more questionable. So far, noone has actually posted a link to the actual bill (final) or the version on which Senator Obama voted (apparently, with some changes that may or may not be relevant). This, in and of itself, is telling.

To be honest, the only real discussion about the legislation sounds to be Senator Obama’s explanation of what he “intended” to vote for. Quite frankly, it sounds (from subsequent posts) as if he voted [apparently, no “present” vote on this one!] for a version of the bill that would have been farther outside of his “intent” than the final legislation allowed.

However, to the point of this entire thread, it is sounding more and more unlikely that the legislation only dealt with “age-appropriate issues like inappropriate touching and what to do about it”. Ergo, more and more likely that -at best- it is being characterized in the worst possible light, but far from a “lie”.

So, by this thread, are we to assume that the MSM are going to stop trying to manufacture a “TrooperGate”-type scandal by questioning Governor Palin’s firing of a law enforcement officer who used a taser on a 11 year old? Then, circumspect references to an Alaska judge who related attacks against this officer as somehow child abuse of his kids?

Should we wait for the apologies to her for the intial attacks and congratulations on removing a bad cop and protecting children in her state? I’ll sit back patiently and wait for it.

-Swami Dave

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

I’ve updated the post above to include a link to the original bill in its entirety, plus a brief discussion of what the bill contains.

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Psc Corporal,

There have been sightings of the black knight in your vicinity. Take cover, quick.

By professional skeptic

September 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

I smell a rat, and the rat I’m talking about is Karl Rove.

(OMG did I just refer to Karl Rove as a rat???)

Gov. Palin’s lipstick comment was supposedly an unscripted ad lib. Ha! Fat chance. Each word, each phrase, every utterance made during a prepared politcal oration is carefully crafted with the precision employed by a brain surgeon.

Step 1: Get Palin to incorporate the memorable “lipstick” line as part of her acceptance speech and stump speech.

Step 2: Wait for Obama to use the same old, time-worn phrase every politician (including McCain) has used since the beginning of time to denounce the opposing side’s plans and initiatives. (Ah, he’s just putting lipstick on a pig!)

Step 3: Pull the fire alarms and set up task forces and convene news conferences claiming Obama is sexist for calling a female opponent a pig.

Way to play the gender card, Karl. And now, you’re attempting to mind control the masses with fear and nonsense about kindergarteners and sex ed?? Very sorry if I choose not to drink any of your kool-aid today.

By GodHatesTrash

September 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Corporal, this is an opinion blog. Woo-tan Klan’s blog offers the moron opinion point of view 6 days a week. Click over there, even you can see.

My much higher intelligence is the difference between you and I, and I am very proud of that!

Dismissed!

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Jay:

Thanks.

-SD

By Paul

September 10, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla

But that would be inaccurate information. Urine is sterile. Leaving kindergartners with the impression that fluids transmit STD’ll have’em freaking out when someone sneezes. I think this a case where the explanation could well be forced into an area some wold consider age-innapropriate.

Oh, and you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose. But you can’t eat your friends.

By Bosch

September 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I was joking. I think the ad is misleading (see that’s not so tough). To the average American, sex education means teaching about sexual intercourse.

They don’t take the time to research and ponder things as thoroughly as you do.

By TW

September 10, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the info, Jay. I had thought the “child abuse” was a reference to the neglect of her sixteen yr old when she got pregnant. And then someone had told me it had to do with her dragging her Downs baby across the nation for political fodder. Thanks for the calrity.

By Midori

September 10, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

“Fairfax County Fire and Rescue responded to a call of several sick people at Wednesday’s McCain-Palin Rally. Emergency crews transported several patients to a local hospital after they suddenly became ill.

Over a dozen patients were evaluated at the scene. There is no word on symptoms or what may have caused the people to become ill at this time. “

yeah - listening to that stale, stupid, rote speech for the 500th time will make anybody ill.

By professional skeptic

September 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Midori:

It was the Kool-Aid.

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Jay, I think that McCain’s actions are those of a desperate man. He knows that this is his one shot at the White House and he has a lot of pent up feelings about losing to Bush when he was younger and more capable. He’s not going down without a fight and a clean fight is not his style once he gets fired up.

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

For pre-school kids, the level of discussion for STD transmission would be about biting and bleeding and not about something called “STDs”. Biting is a huge problem for some kids of that age and bleeding is — of course — ridiculously common.

It’s all about the discussion being age appropriate.

By GodHatesTrash

September 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Funny, yet sad if you think about it

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Laughable!!

“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on….”

Likewise, unless I missed it, there is nothing in the law about what Senator Obama says that he intended to vote for (namely: inappropriate touching and the like)! In a completely unrelated section from the above, it says that: “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate”. However, there was nothing to wit about what is age & developmentally appropriate.

Jay, is this the best that you guys have got?

-Swami Dave (Truth, History, and Common Sense Refute Liberalism!)

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jay,

I’m heading out and I’ll have a closer look when I get back, but a cursory scan seems to place the limitations and mandates on classes that “discuss sexual activity”, but I didn’t see where it says that doesn’t begin in kindergarten. Maybe it’s there and someone will find it before I get back.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 10, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Paul…

Actually while urine is sterile…do you want your kids playing with it?

And BTW fluids DO spread STD’s….HIV remember?

They should also not be playing with “sneeze” goo.

(I have a friend who lovingly calls her daughter a two year old petrie dish in a romper!)

But they should still be taught not to mess with other kids bodily fluids don’t ya’ think?

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

One other thing I’d like to see. If Obama was voting for an intention can anyone find the amendment he offered to give voice to that intention?

By GodHatesTrash

September 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

NOT allowing telling kids about reporting inappropriate touching would be “pedo-friendly”, or “chickenhawk-friendly” legislation, so it looks like the shoe’s on the other foot, Senator Hensley-McCain and Governor L-o-l-a.

Why is the Hensley-McCain/L-o-l-a ticket in favor of child molesters?

By Paul

September 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

BytMe 2:33

The law states ‘instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including… HIV.”

The fact you state an opinion on age-appropriate examples that may be too much, or not enough, for someone else illustrates the difficulty. Problems arise when left to a teacher’s discretion or how far to take a response with an inquisitive child.

But now we have the Senate Bill language Sen Obama voted for as well as the final bill (which I understand he was not present for). Plus his statement of what he intended. Which is okay, maybe, for the final bill but a problem when one reads the Senate Bill.

This is another one I think the Obama camp will want to let fade away.

By TC

September 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

To my fellow Republicans:

Please watch CNN today. They aired a piece on bloggers this morning stating that the liberal bloggers are starting these rumors on Gov. Palin that have the media reporting them in such a frenzy. Why are they starting this vicious rumors? Because they are so afraid that their liberal, socialist God will not be elected. Do you not hear the fear and hatred in their comments?

I only started looking and writing on these things a week ago and I have so much anger and hatred in my heart for people that I don’t even know. It is really not worth our time to visit these sites as it is always a “he said, she said” event with nothing productive coming out of it. I know that you are only wanting to defend McCain and Palin which is why I started writing but you can’t convince these people to see the truth. They have their minds made up to vote for Obama just as we do McCain.

If we keep staying on these blogs, we bring ourselves down to their level and we are above that. If we don’t respond to them, they have nothing to do but write to themselves like children passing notes in school.

If you want to be productive, boycott all the liberal news media. They are already in a terrible situation this election for being so bias. Their viewers and readership are down. Let it be known that we will not support this type of media.

Donate to the McCain/Palin campaign now.

Stay off these blogs and don’t give these liberals the time of day they think they deserve.

Liberals, no need to respond to me as I won’t be reading it. You will not get my attention any longer as I really don’t care about your opinions, beliefs or smears.

By rightytighty

September 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Oooooh boy! Here comes the wolf pack!! That grey one in the back there.., the skinny one with boney knees, is that Jay?

> The Obama campaign says that today it will launch “Alaska Mythbusters.” According to the campaign, that team, which includes former governor Tony Knowles, “will set the record straight”. Knowles was governor from 1994-2002…, losing in 2006 to Palin.

Ha Ha!!

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

The McCain ad claims the bill requires “comprehensive sex education” — which we all understand to be, ahem, “comprehensive,” right down to where who puts what — for children in kindergarten.

Does it? No.

Case closed.

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

any HONOR that John McCain garnered while spending 5 1/2 years under inhanced interogation techniques has no been squandered

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Management

*Please allow 7 to 10 business days for delivery. We are extremely sorry for the delay the response to the McCain/Palin merchandise has been outstanding and we are having an extremely hard time keeping up with the orders. We have extended our operation hours to 7 days a week. *

Just give me the damn bumper sticker, please.

By pete

September 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

unless obama “throws down the gloves”, mcliar will be elected. we saw the slander and lying approach work successfully for jr bush over the last two elections. pull out all the stops barak, don’t let palin or mcliar sucker punch america. the gun toters and the religious fantics are already lost to the republicans, let barbak focus on the level headed people, the people that made america strong. i see little difference between the religious fanatics in the mid east countries and the insanly fanatical people (?)we have in our own country.

By sam

September 10, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

please keep your comments to 100 words or less…no novels please. are y’all suprised at this stuff coming from McCain camp? same guys that destroyed him 8 yrs ago are now being paid by his campaign…he called them evil and unscrupulous 8 yrs ago now they work for him..what does that say about McCain? he’s as much a hypocrite as the rest pf them

By Paul

September 10, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Jay 2:50

Actually, when I heard ‘comprehensive’ I thought ‘encompassing all grades’ not ‘encompassing all sexual practices.

Mrs Godzilla – Midori – Bosch – Copyleft (and interested Republicans, Independents and assorted ne’er-do-wells):

Camille Paglia’s latest column in Salon is well worth a read. It’s four pages, goes quick. Addresses much of what has occurred, is occurring and will likely occur in this campaign. Plus her hope for what Democrats can once again stand for.

Link: Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin’s Debut

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 2:47: does the law also not give control over what’s taught to the local school boards?

And in my reading of the bill, I don’t see where teaching these things is required in pre-school, but that IF the school board decides to teach it, then certain information about STDs needs to be included. What pre-school class teaches this anyway? By including “K”, they are just making sure that the law covers all classes under school board control, yes? Or am I missing something?

By N-GA

September 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Sometimes you just have to look at a campaign ad and understand “why” the ad was run…for what purpose. For example, in the ad Jay discusses, the intent is to suggest that Obama supports teaching pre-schoolers about sex.

The same thing is true of the ad accusing Obama of being a “celebrity” while showing pictures of Paris Hilton & Britney Spears. They want to suggest that Obama is no different than these (much criticized) celebs. The GOP could have also chosen to show popular & respected celebs.

You attempt to justify the ad by parsing the legislation. I’m surprised at your position…and disappointed.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

To: GodHatesTrash

I choose SAT scores at 20 paces.

Isn’t it great to live in a free country?

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

I agree with you, Jay. This is just another open and shut case of disgusting behavior by the Republican party and their candidates.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

So now we are arguing about what “shall” and “require” mean. Should we return to what the meaning of “is” is.

This is too funny!

Anyway, Jay, I’m glad that in the span of two hours you “closed the case” on this one. It took a total of two hours to show that it was a complete overblown non-issue devoid of foundation.

For the record, I will credit you for actually posting a link to the actual legislation (even if it did pretty much show your claim and spin to be vacant if one simply chose to read it), but thanks for playing!

P.S. Don’t worry Obama will send you another talking point tomorrow. Next time, just include a link to his “intended” interpretation of the legislation that he might have shown up to vote for or against.

-Swami Dave (Truth, History, and Common Sense Refute Liberalism.)

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Looking forward to tomorrow….we’ll be discussing the new scandal breaking at Dept of Interior…..

By getalife "whiners"

September 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Breaking:

Interior Dept. Sex Scandal with oil employees.

Drill, drill, drill.

Also, Palin’s staff is full of bushies.

By Amy

September 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

A John McCain campaign head or advisor (someone running his campaign) said today when asked why John McCain and Sarah Palin keep repeating lines in their stump speech that has been discredited said “The American people does not care about these little facts”.

That should tell you that John McCain is going to try and lie himself to the Presidency. I guess this is what is meant as a debate on issues that John McCain promised. This sounds like the kitchen sink strategy at work in the McCain camp.

It’s a lie and John McCain knows it’s a lie but still goes forward because he does not care about the truth. He picks Sarah Palin because he thinks she will help him win an election. He does not care about the country. John McCain would rather Win an election than put his country first.

I guess John McCain realizes he may not live for very much longer so he dosen’t care about what happens after he is gone. That is the only reason to pick Sarah Palin to win. He dosen’t care about the American People. John McCain lost his honor.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

ByteMe

Sorry, I am not familiar with Georgia law in that regard. I didn’t see anything regarding preschool, either.

N-GA

Oh yeah, it sure does. That’s one of those hot-button issues. What I found interesting about this was the underlying theme it appealed to (teaching kindergartners about sex), what it really said (he had a scant legislative record which included comprehensive (all grades) sex ed) and the furor over not just what it implied but the difficulties that surfaced for Obama (I wanted to teach only kindergartners about age-appropriate touching while my vote for the Senate Bill showed I wanted to provide kids age-appropriate information on how to prevent STDs and HIV.

The Hilton ad – I think they were trying to go for the ‘empty suit – famous for who they are, not for anything they’ve done’ route.

Sorry you see it as an attempt to justify the ad. As I said in my first paragraph, I found it a fascinating case to analyze. I tried to address the ad on its face, then go point by point in the supporting areas (parsing?). Showing that something can be technically true but create a different impression - then lead to unintended difficulties for the recipient. My position – that was stated in my response to Bosch:

[[I think it misleading to imply from that vote Obama wants to teach reproduction and intercourse to kindergartners. But Obama’s earlier vote in the Senate version to teach how to prevent STDs and HIV to kindergartners makes his claim that all he ever intended was to teach kindergartners about inappropriate touching problematic. So that is misleading, also.]]

I felt rather the same way about Obama’s references to McCain’s “Hundred Years’ War” ads. Or other ads by McCain. And Obama. So far, this campaign is better that many. But still not honest enough.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla

The Dept of Interior is a scandal. Has been for years. Possibly the new Pres will give marching orders to the new Secretary to provide the $$$ due to various Native American tribes. I assume Pelosi and Reid will pony up the funds? I notice they’ve pretty much ignored this issue.

getalife

‘sex’ and ‘drill’ - just couldn’t leave well enough alone, could ya?

By Bud Wiser

September 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

I’m thinking of putting a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on this old beat up wreck I saw the other day sitting up on blocks in some yahoo’s front yard.

With no windows to smash, no tires to slash, a burned out interior and rust for paint, there isn’t a lot left to be done to it by the hatemongers that routinely patrol the streets at night looking for vehicles to vandalize with same sticker.

An ingenious idea.

Obama/Biden ‘08 - making it easy to be stupid

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

N-GA:

The ad references kindergarten students, not preschoolers. I’m sure that was a typo on your part; not an intent at deceptive hyperbole.

If Senator Obama believes as he states about what is appropriate and inappropriate to be taught to children as young as kindergarten age, then he should have voted in that manner & voted against his legislation. As written and passed, it does not require what he says he intended to vote for.

Unless he was tricked into voting for this, lied to about what it said, or simply didnt take the time to read what he was voting for, we can only assume that he supported what he voted for.

If not (and it was one of the subsequent cases), then, by all means, come out & say that you were misled & would have voted against it if you had not been.

Note to self - that won’t happen: a) He would have to admit that he was wrong (we’d have to add that to the list of other things we are waiting on that admission [iraq surge, etc]). b) He would have to deal with Planned Parenthood, the Gay Lobby, and a whole host of other liberal groups within the Democratic base who would attack him for it (and cut off his already dwindling funding).

-Swami Dave

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

Amy @ 3:25: you gotta link for that?

Paul @ 3:29: Amen, brother. Amen.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Alright Swami, you answer the question:

Does the bill require comprehensive sex education — as we all understand the term and as McCain wants us to understand the term — for kindergartners?

Yes or no.

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Oh, and Swami Dave who thinks he’s always right, you said “… (and cut off his already dwindling funding).” Whose dwindling funding? Obama raised $55 million in August alone and over $10 million just on the day after Palin’s convention speech (in September). So I ask again “What dwindling funding?” or are you just making stuff up for the future that you can’t stand behind?

By Truth

September 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

It isnt the governments job to teach our kids about strangers and private areas… that is the job of parents.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

If they just would’ve called it the ” Protection from Predators, Dying from Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Encouragement of Abstinence for All Grades” Act…

By The banditry of punditry.

September 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

The SnowWitch. Part Five.

“IMNRA”.

The SnowWitch held aloft her wolf hunting rifle. She didn’t leave the podium without a word like B4. She stood there holding her rifle high above her head.

“IMNRA”.

THe crowd went berserk. They all pulled out their concealed weapons and held them over their pointy heads. THey began to chant in lockstep, “WeRNRA…WeRNRA”

The Black Night’s spies, who still wore the “Dont trust yellow SnowWitches” T-shirts made a break for it.

Some folks say the spies got as far as the refreshment stands, but there are those who claim they made it as far as the porto-johns near the parking lot where they were ambushed by some incumbents who just so happened to be loitering there……

2B continued.

By T

September 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

By Truth

What if it is the parents doing the touching?

By Copyleft

September 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the link, Paul. I apologize for overlooking your post yesterday when I said “no one” had answered Jay’s question about the differences between McCain and Bush.

ONE person answered it.

By The banditry of punditry.

September 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

The SnowWitch. Part Six.

The Black Knight sat at a meeting, surrounded by what was left of his inner circle, his campaign at a new low. He had regained his mandate only to lose it again to the SnowWitch and her short speeches, which she totally stole from him, yet, she seemed to make it her own. She was once again the clear front runner in the race to be chief of the pointy heads in the land of the pundits.

“Her and her confounded words and anagrams and acronyms….” the Black Knight moaned.

One of his advisers suggested they work on the next speech.

“No”, the Black Knight retorted, ” We have to deal with this SnowWitch. She uses only one word in her speeches, so, if we can get her to say the wrong word, then the pointy heads will be turned off, and I’ll be the chief.”

“And just how do you propose to get her to gaff?”, asked his campaign chairman.

“Okay, I have a plan. I want you to make miniature pointy headed delegates in bright colors to hand out as campaign souvenirs at the next SnowWitch Rally.”

“How miniature?”

“A quarter inch tall. Really cute small little pointy headed delagate miniature dolls. Then just pass them out at the Rally. And dont wear those stupid t-shirts anymore.

On the day of the rally, the SnowWitch once again appeared as if out of thin air. The Black Knight’s spies had handed out thousands of the miniature little pointy headed delegate souvenir dolls, and had boxes and boxes of them left, stacked up near the stage where the SnowWitch was about to speak.

To loud applause and vigorous cheers, the SnowWitch walked toward the podium. When she was nearly at the mic, several Black Knight spies threw dozens of the pointy headed souvenier dolls on the stage floor in front of the podium. The SnowWitch, who was always barefoot, stepped on these tiny dolls, and, taken completely by surprise, and totally in pain, yelled into the mic, “Tacks!”.

The SnowWitch quickly cupped her mouth with both hands as she realized her gaff.

“Tax? Tax?” the astonished crowd repeated. “She said Tax. She said Tax.”

Soon the entire assemblage was chanting, “No Tax, No Tax, No Tax”, and many of them turned to leave.

The SnowWitch tried to recover and say the word she came to say, but one of the Black Knight’s spies had pulled the plug on the amp and the SnowWitch could only retreat.

The Black Knight had regained his momentum, and nobody would ever consider voting for the SnowWitch again.

“Of course he realizes this means war….” the SnowWitch intoned.

2Bcontinued

By @@

September 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Jay: When I saw McCain’s ad, I did a little checking. What I found was that allowances within the legislation were awfully broad. Too broad to insure that kindergartners won’t be exposed to sex ed that is NOT age appropriate.

How does OBlahMa address the “broad” issue? He refers to them as pigs in lipstick.

Your guy OBlahMa is done……..finished…….KAPUT!!!!!!!

Better luck next time.

By Simon

September 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

By their actions and decisions, McCain and Palin, have shown that they have no conscience (defined as: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives). McCain and Palin - they lie, cheat and do anything just so they can have more power. We don’t need these kinds of people in any public office - much less the highest offices in our land. Anyone with a shred of decency must denounce their actions. And if anyone votes for them then they should be ashamed of themselves.

By Darren

September 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

I appreciate your wisdom with regards to politics. The Cherokee Ledger-News today reported some specifics about Obama’s proposed tax plan and I was hoping you could either substantiate their claims or rebuke them. This is what they printed:

They suggest that under the Obama plan, a single person making $30k will see their federal income taxes rise from $4500 to $9800 a year. They also say that a family making $60k will see their taxes rise from $9000 to $16,800.

Are these numbers correct?

Thanks, Darren

By Truth

September 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

T… we can play the what if game all day. The bottom line is that it isnt the governments decision when and how children learn about anything sexual.

By RealityKing

September 10, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

The rules of decency went out the window when the Clintons were elected the second time. This is their new, progressive style of indecent politics. Funny how liberals loved it, until they fell behind..

By AmVet

September 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Lipstick on a pig?

Calling a spade a spade?

What a hoot.

This is what passes for intellectual discourse in American politics today?

After Newt the Nut’s reign of terror in the 90s, things will never be same as regards common human decency and respect for others in Washington. Or most other places anymore.

Sad but true.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty how about that goofball, flip-flopping Mitt’s assertion that the answer to all of our problems is to throw the libs out of Washington.

Poor ignorant Lurch. Someone best explain to him that the GOP has controlled the Congress 12 out of 13 years since 1994.

And that seven of the nine US Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.

And that Dumb and Dumber have been stinking up the West Wing for nearly eight years.

What a typical neo-con liar…

By Bud Wiser

September 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

From what I’ve seen about out of wedlock birth statistics and std’s in this country, it would appear that some sort of sex education could be in order.

However, Dr Phil had a great comeback to Letterman the other night when Dave ranted on and on about Palin’s pregnant daughter.

I paraphrase here: The last thing your son or daughter is going to be thinking when they’re peeling off their clothes in the back seat of some car is, ‘‘what would Mom or Dad think about this?’

I’m glad my daughters are grown and married with families of their own.

By T

September 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

By Truth

Fair enough. Good parents do make the right choices for their children most of the time. However, I believe this is an attempt to reduce the rising of STD, AIDS, and unwanted teen pregnancy. It could possibly alleviate the possible and current drain of tax dollars that go to welfare and medicare.

Besides, this law also leaves the right to the parent to allow his or her child to attend without punishment.

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

RealityKing, you show your youth. Anyone older would have nominated “Nixon’s 1972 Re-election campaign” for the sleaziest.

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

No, Darren, those figures are not correct. Numerous analysts have stated for public consumption that Obama’s tax plans would not affect 95 percent of the American people. What makes you think some small town newspaper in Georgia knows anything more about it?

Inherent in Darren’s comment — and many of those attacking the sex education bill — is a false belief that their decisions are better than anyone else’s, that teachers don’t know what the hell they’re doing and can’t wait to pollute 5-year-old minds with ugly words and that the people of Illinois have sat silent about this for several years now. But at the heart of Swami Dave’s contention that the bill does not mention appropriate touching is simple ignorance. There are so many references to that topic that they are like the chorus of a song, coming along every few sentences. Dave, you got a monkey loose on your keyboard? You don’t need no steenking facts? And for the true troublemakers among you, the first sentence of the bill states that parents may opt their children out of any and all sex education.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

N-GA

Y’know, it strikes me an effective counter-ad by Obama would be:

“Barak Obama. As a state senator, he voted to keep our children safe from sexual predators. How to guarantee freedom from sexually transmitted disease through abstinence. And he made sure parents are involved.

Barak Obama. Keeping our children safe.”

Could even finish with “What’s John McCain done for your kids?”

‘Course, it has some misleading elements, but that’s the nature of sound bites and slogans.

By Darren

September 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

mike hussein smith,

I care because this misinformation can cause people to make an uninformed decision. I called the Cherokee Ledger-News and they told me they fact check. Try it. 770-928-0706.

Thanks, Darren

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Darren, those numbers are a complete and utter fabrication. I was just on the Ledger-News website and couldn’t find the source for those numbers. Can you post a link?

By T

September 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

By Truth

Sorry about that.

Besides, this law also leaves the right to the parent to or not to allow his or her child to attend without punishment.

Besides, this law also leaves the right to the parent to allow his or her child not

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

I hate to change the subject, but Little “Corporal,” I have a strong opinion about you and now you’ve given me the ammo to prove it. Your statement that opinions published in newspapers should be objective totally ignores the meaning of the word “opinion” and totally ignores the history of newspapers, or at least those in nations with a free press. Freedom, remember that word? It is in the Constitution. You hold a radical minority opinion — and by that I mean, there aren’t too many other people in the US of A who are stupid enough to agree with you on that one.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Jay:

Ah, the crux of the question!

The law (for which he voted yes) requires that “comprehensive” (their word, not mine) for K - 12 (again, the language of the law, not mine).

To your real question, do I honestly believe that Senator Obama wants graphic education of kindergarten kids in the specific details? Most assuredly not. Do I think that is the real insinuation of the ad? Maybe. Is it equally plausible that the real insinuation to the ad is to insinuate that Senator Obama supports education to 5-6 year olds that includes such things as “Heather has two mommies” or “King and King”? Yep.

Nothing like raising the specter of the Gay lobby against Democratic candidates. However, it is Democrats who choose to align themselves with that lobby and accept their support.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama does not get to claim what he “intended” to think that the law meant when he supported it when it clearly says something completely different. If he believes as he claims to intend, then he should have voted against the law; not for it because it doesnt legislate what he says he wants.

As I said in a previous post, -I- suppose that he was truly in a quandary stuck between the extreme liberal partisans that makeup the Gay & Planned Parenthood lobbies and a vote that would ultimately come back to haunt him. He chose to vote (instead of declaring “present” like he seemed to do on most of the other landmine issues) & it’s going to cost him some votes because you can’t spin what he says he thought he supported against what the legislation actually says (and doesnt say).

I would caution you to avoid the self-righteous indignation about the “decency” of the ad though. It has not been long since ads were run against George W Bush associating him tacitly with the murder of James Byrd.

You won’t find chains or rope in connection to Bush, but Obama did vote yes for a law that is out of the mainstream of American political culture.

-Swami Dave

P.S. And for Byte, dont shoot the messenger. Retractions of staff, harried calls for contributions, pulling of ads from supposed “in play” markets trying to shore up support in “held” markets are the marks of a campaign on defense, not winning. It’s not my fault you guys backed a horse that is pulling up lame on the stretch run! -SD

By Truth

September 10, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

T…. agreed and it may be warranted but I just see this whole thing as just more government…. inch by inch until we have no freedom left. Ill admit. I dont have kids… yet. One day soon I will and I certianly dont want some teacher or whatever teaching my young children anything of the sort.

By Darren

September 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman,

They have not loaded the latest edition onto the site. I get the paper delivered. It is a letter written by Bob DelGiudice. I called the paper and asked if they fact checked the letters to the editor and they said they did. 770-928-0706. The numbers I mentioned above are verbatim.

Thanks, Darren

By ByteMe

September 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Swami: right up until Palin was picked, GA was definitely in play. Now, even I think it’s not and I was hopeful it might be, just so we could see the candidates at least once or twice in public settings. Now they’ll both just come here to collect money if they come at all. Not sure NC is in play either, so claiming that the move there was about lack of money is your opinion, but not based on any facts. As for the rest of your statements, got any links to real news sources to back them up? Or are you just projecting your own wants and needs on Obama’s campaign actions?

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

All of those words, Swami, when just one word would have sufficed:

Yes, or no.

In fact, with all of those words, I still don’t know your answer, which is exactly the goal you intended I suspect.

“Does the bill require comprehensive sex education — as we all understand the term and as McCain wants us to understand the term — for kindergartners?”

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Darren. I was wrong to accuse you without all the facts in. But this strange Republican feeling just gripped me and I couldn’t stop myself.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this

Darren:

Just my .02.

I am usually wary of any set of tax-related specifics that associate tax “savings” or “increases” based on a specific candidate or another.

a) Usually most “tax plans” from candidates are so devoid of detail that it is almost impossible to say with certainty how much (specific dollars) one plan goes up or down over another. It is almost as asinine as trying to build a house based on the picture on the brochure instead of using the actual plans.
b) Tax increase / savings models produce outcomes based on how they are built (which amazingly tend to produce outcomes that match the initial presumptions of the developer of the model). Not surprisingly, “climate change” models have the same limitation in that lack of enough historical data & knowledge of inate details / constraints, the models (not surprisingly) produce outcomes that match the presumptions of their creator.

On this case, I would agree with Jay and tell you to be wary until someone publishes how they produced the numbers. Sadly, this is highlighting that you have to be as wary about things you see in historically objective medias as you are about some of the more questionable sources (emails, blog sites, etc.).

-Swami Dave

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

Aha! I say Aha! I found the word “comprehensive. Aha, I say. Now, just try to top that one Jay. Aha!

I’m sorry, Jay, but how do you manage to keep your cool with some of these people.

By Political Foreskin.

September 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

Georgia was never in play. Dont sacrifice your credibility for bravado.

You’re all lucky there’s nothing happening in the campaign right now. The roundtables and the op eds are scraping the bottom of the barrel, (like I just did with that metaphor) for anything to say.

The debates, Watson, the debates.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Darren

Here is a link containing many of the myths, falsehoods and misperceptions about each candidate’s plan. Also a comparison of changes by income level (towards the bottom). Bottom line: If you make less than a hundred grand there’s not a lot of difference.

Link: tax changes

If you’d like a really comprehensive read, go here:

Link: Analysis of Tax Plans

Just click on “PDF” or “Printer-Friendly Version”

But things are in flux. Obama recently said if you make a gazillion dollars a year he might not call for the Bush tax cuts to expire. Not matter what they say, one way or another, everyone still has a chance of getting hosed. But at least you can see the different philosophies.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

Well I just poured through that entire bill and if anything it seems they went out of their way to move back from 6th grade to kindergarten and to be as non specific as possible about what “age appropriate” means.

Jay, it would seem that once again you start from a position of outrage over incredible lies and at the end of the day you have a potential disagreement over the parsing of a word or two.

The ad probably stretches things a bit, but without an amendment from Obama saying what his intent was it’s hard for him to justify his yes vote with the excuse of what his intent was.

I did find the following article while I was searching around and it seems he’s given this excuse before but added to it somewhat.

Obama qualified his support for sex education by calling for it to be “age appropriate” which for 6-year old children might be as simple as pointing out that there is such thing as “inappropriate touching” or that “babies do not come from the stork”. While I would make every effort to ensure that such life lessons reach my children via good parenting rather than Big Nanny schooling and while the suggestion for this sort of education represents yet another example of Democrats’ belief that it takes a village rather than it takes a parent, it is at least not patently unconstitutional or dangerous to our Republic’s foundation as a nation of laws.

That stork part could start a pretty slippery slope if anybody even uses that anymore. And I don’t mean the kid is going to then wonder where Vlasic pickles come from.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Obama’s two other deep thoughts on Tuesday were in fact unconstitutional and dangerous.

By Swami Dave

September 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Oh goody! I’ve officially earned a spot as a hostile witness. Dad would be so proud.

No, the legislation does not require kindergarten kids be taught the “dirty” details (pictures, graphs, words, & all).

…and I would hope that you will agree that does not limit instruction for those kindergarten kids to only “age-appropriate issues like touching by strangers and how to report it”.

The -truth- to this is somewhere in the middle, but (as Paul said) still an exposure for Obama in that his views (or those of a segment of his support) are definitely outside the mainstream and a liability.

I guess that he should have just voted “present” like the other times when he encountered issues “above his pay grade”. smile

-Swami Dave

By Don't McLest me!!!

September 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Enough of all the political nonsense! The point is very simple: MCCAIN SUPPORTS CHILD MOLESTERS.

This man wants to protect america and he cannot even protect our children. No more McLester!!!!

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

What a dimwit:

Obama Supports Sex Education for Kindergarten

Yeesh.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

You guys put Bill Clinton and his definition of “is” all too shame.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

Jay B,

Although the bill in question didn’t become law, the answer to the question you keep asking Swami Dave is yes

Think of a comprehensive math education program for K-12.

By Taxpayer

September 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

McCain’s mind is still quite obviously stuck in the gutter. He just can’t stop thinking about trollops and others such things and we know where his mind was when he approved the use of the word “comprehensive” while talking about kids and sex. It all makes perfect sense now that we have it all in context.

By AmVet

September 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

Rush Limberger’s favorite comedian goes up against the liberal Republican Coleman next.

Can’t you just picture that pompous larda$$ blowing a gasket should Al win?!

*Al Franken grabbed the Democratic nomination Tuesday for U.S. Senate in Minnesota, setting up a showdown with Republican Sen. Norm Coleman that had been years in the making. *

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Is it any wonder that the children graduating from the public education system can barely read their diplomas?

Maybe the moron liberals that have eaten up our public education system do not know how to read either and can only teach about the things they know, like how to get knocked up?

Is it any wonder that some moron liberal would think that you are too stupid to teach your children the things in life that you want them to know?

Does anyone really think that Japan or any other advanced country that is currently tearing our as-ses up in technology, spends much time telling it’s five year olds about the two Kings that married each other.

What sort of freak would think of such a thing, besides Oblahma, that is?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

Very good analogy, RW. So if someone demands a comprehensive math curriculum for K-12, are you demanding — or even allowing — instruction in calculus in kindergarten?

Or as McCain might put it, “learning quadratic equations before they can learn to count?”

By Bush go away?

September 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

What’s next, “Obama supports lesbian marriages for six year olds”? “Obama eats aborted fetuses for breakfast”?

Is McCain that desparate for the job?

By sunshine and thunder

September 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

—

JAY:

So you were very wrong about the “bridge to nowhere” thread you started yesterday according to a lot of articles posted on the internet today.

Why are your comments about Palin not “despicable”?

Now you may not have read the link you posted for the legislation at the top of the thread here but I did.

It looks like to me that the bill would teach STD and HIV protection and sexual hygene to kindergartners UNLESS a parent specifies in writing that their child is not to be exposed to such.

Seems to me the bill authorizes the teaching of birth control to kindergartners.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

You know, Management, we were sitting here hashing this out in a fairly civil and respectful manner, and then you come in here spouting “moron liberals” and the rest of your extremely limited vocabulary.

Even people who might agree with you have to be sick of it.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Oblahma could not name one conservative friend.

Huh.

So he really doesn’t know anyone smart enough to teach their children about the birds and the bees.

I retract my previous ridicule.

By mike hussein smith

September 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

RW, the Tuesday referred to in your prompt to that lame nutcase column seems to have occurred in July 2007. Quit the spin!!

Management, like the afore-mentioned nutcase column, you are raving in an empty theater. The Illinois Legislature — not just Obama — approved the sex education bill and the governor signed it and the people of that state have not risen up in arms and there have been no scandals alleging that 6-year-olds are being taught the L word or how to wear condoms. Reasonable people would surmise that sex education is working there for the vast majority.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Link to this

Sorry sunshine. You’re gonna have to do better than cite “articles on the Internet” to prove me wrong.

Besides, aren’t you the raving genius who yesterday described Barack and Michelle Obama as “affirmative action food stamp hustlers?”

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this

Notice who it was that got scolded?

By AmVet September 10, 2008 5:40 PM Can’t you just picture that pompous larda$$ blowing a gasket should Al win?!

Not, uh, him.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

Jay B,

Of course I’m not, but the difference is there is a written curriculum saying what part of the comprehensive math program is introduced when.

In this case there is just a guideline saying that once you talk about sex you have to introduce this laundry list of other topics and there’s no guideline as when to start the sex part. It seems like they thought they didn’t need to because the bill started out saying 6-12, but was switched to K-12. At that point I think you needed something stronger that your unwritten intent to justify a yes vote.

By @@

September 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

Loved the article at “The Global Politician”. Ross Kaminsky, eh. I’ll have to look for his writings more often.

It never ceases to amaze me how eager leftists are to “embrace” The Constitution as a “living document” but……………well you know — babies in the womb?

Not so much.

The latest from the campaign trail.

Now, the controversy for Obama gets worse: The South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman, Carol Fowler, said to Politico “Sarah Palin’s primary qualification for office is that she hasn’t had an abortion.” Carol Fowler is the wife of Don Fowler, the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who was caught on video laughing about Hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans during the RNC Convention.

I’ll take that to mean that if you qualify to be a female candidate on the dem ticket, you MUST first have an abortion.

Alrighty then!!!! That’s like……..so kewl.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

mike hussein smith,

Obviously you were able to click the link, so how is you can’t figure out the blue text was an excerpt from the 2007 article? Another clue may have been when I was still in my own words saying he had used this intent thing before. Before, as in the past. Think before you scold, little one.

Oh and that that bill never became law.

By AmVet

September 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

True, andy, but take heart.

At least he took pity and didn’t call you what you really are - an habitual liar…

From the Republican - other than McCain - the GOP Rovebots to hate:

Libertarian-leaning Congressman Ron Paul is urging voters to reject John McCain and Barack Obama and support one of the third-party candidates for president.

Paul, a Republican who abandoned his White House bid this year, planned to gather some of the candidates, independent Ralph Nader among them, on Wednesday to make his plea.

“The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system,” Paul said in prepared remarks AP obtained. “This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.”

By @@

September 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

Sorry sunshine. You’re gonna have to do better than cite “articles on the Internet” to prove me wrong.

Jay? Are you sure you didn’t video yours and Cynthia’s written account of what happened with Fox? It would certainly help in removing any doubt that what you AND she wrote was true.

By wrq7iop

September 10, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this

McCain will not get my vote. No way am I voting for a guy that wants to coddle sex offenders.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

We still have a live topic that’s still being hashed out. Do you mind running along to a dead thread, please?

Thank you in advance.

By Paul

September 10, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this

AmVet

Just walked in, was listening to NPR in the car, was about Ron Paul’s gala. Includes Cynthia McKinney - blech. Platforms all call for getting out of Iraq - they’re a day late and a dollar short. Bob Barr won’t be there, said something to the effect that parties don’t interest him, it’s all about how many votes he can get.

Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him?

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

DimWet: Careful, I might decide to use you as a demonstration of how easy it is to make a lib angry.

Remember, homey, we got a bet.

By wrq7iop

September 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

I’ll give you the plain and simple truth: McCain would rather win an election then to see children protected from child molesters. What kind of maverick hero is this supposed to be?

By AmVet

September 10, 2008 7:24 PM | Link to this

RW, aka the new and improved blog nanny,

Give it up girlfriend. Your pretenses at being rational and reasonable is good comedy but pathetically disingenuous.

Shirley you have more interesting comments to add in defense of the paranoid dufus? You know of course, most people simply laugh at you for even trying to give ANY credence to that pathological liar’s claim that I’m the one who subverted the realms of norm by attempting to install keystroke bloggers on the “conservative’s” PCs so as to threaten them and their families?

Did you see that Mr. Bookman had to explain to the twerp that his twisted imagination does not coincide with reality.

Of course, you did.

You two are right out of some demented Nancy Drew book. But without the comedy or interesting elements.

The neoliths on Fox and that embarrassment Glenn “Dried Out” Beck are practically drooling over themselves about the lipstick comment.

Yet the sensationalist maroons wail about the “liberal” mainstream media.

They could use their position to actually improve this country, but ratings come first I suppose. And when you have an ocean of empty-headed neo-cons…

They all belong on Entertainment Tonight.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this

DimWet: I hate to break the news to you, Sunshine, but he never denied that you were the Krazy KeyStroke Rekorder, he simply offered the far fetched claim that the AJC “database” cleared you from your days as “GoldStarMom.”

But whatever, eh?

Uh, you lost the bet, by the way.

How much was it?

By Eileen

September 10, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this

Wait until Senator McCain visits Europe and finds out that they start sex education in kindergarten.

He might be interested in comparing those countries’ teen pregnancy rates to ours, too.

By Hate McCain

September 10, 2008 8:13 PM | Link to this

I totally agree. McCain is a disgusting person for the lack of class he and Palin are showing. They are disrespectful, lying creeps. This country should be ashamed to support such phony, racists, hate mongering extremists.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this

I have never read so much drivel on both sides in my life.

Life and death in Iraq and Afghanistan and we’re spending time on this ?

By Marston

September 10, 2008 8:35 PM | Link to this

Sarah Palin and her daughter are proof positive that the teaching of abstinence instead of real sex education, Does Not Work.

Palin’s been caught in lie after lie. Open your eyes and ears, people, and step away from Fox.

By the way, there are so many dumb folks out there, I had one come in my office today and tell me how much she loves Palin. She said when McCain dies, Palin will become President and she will send anyone who doesn’t believe in the Baptist religion packing. She said Palin will put God back in everything, that He never should have been taken out to begin with. I told her the President could not do that, she told me the President can do anything he or she wants.

See what I mean by dumb? People like this woman, and there are many, many of them, will be voting. Scary, isn’t it?

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 8:49 PM | Link to this

Where do you suppose Marston has been hiding for the last 7 1/2 years while President Bush has been single handedly blamed for any problem or perceived problem in the galaxy?

AmVet,

I’m an entirely decent person and have always been willing to debate you or anyone else respectfully. The blogs here tend to fill up with people like you that only want to show their blog muscles since they tremble in fear out among the people and make that civil debate impossible if the blog isn’t run and monitored properly. When that’s the case I’m more than happy to mix it up on any level and beat you on them all. I prefer an honest exchange of ideas though and so far this forum tends to allow that more often than not.

I suspect Jay B will soon tire of your shtick.

Have a pleasant evening.

By "The Corporal"

September 10, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this

Ooops !

Biden: Hillary a Better Pick Than Me September 10, 2008 5:17 PM

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports: Barack Obama’s vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, might have been a better pick for the position than him.

By Marston

September 10, 2008 8:57 PM | Link to this

Haven’t been hiding, just been working hard trying to keep my One home. The last I heard Bill Clinton was still being blamed for all problems.

Maybe when Palin outlives the old man and becomes President there will be no more problems.

By KD

September 10, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this

Marston,

I completely agree with you about Palin and her daughter. That abstinence crap is just that, crap. Palin eloped and had her baby less than 8 months later. Now her daughter is expecting a baby in a few months, I heard she’s going to marry the boy, Levi Johnston. I looked on his My Space page before it was changed, he used the F word over and over, and he also said he does not want kids. Sounds like a train wreck.

By RW-(the original)

September 10, 2008 9:11 PM | Link to this

Marston,

I would agree that Clinton got too much blame for some things as well as far too much credit for others. It’s like a QB in a football game. Now maybe your coworker/employee really is stupid or maybe s/he’s young enough to think that after 16 of hearing all the blame or glory going solely to the President that the President really can do whatever they want.

By Marston

September 10, 2008 9:21 PM | Link to this

No, she’s not young, unless you call 55 young. There are a lot of them just like her, men and women. Like I said, scary. Religious fanatics, I call them. Until they decide they want to get liquored up. I guess they make up their own rules.

By Marston

September 10, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this

I had some friends tell me they saw that my space page too. I looked for it but it had already been changed. I don’t mean to sound crude, but where I come from the Palins would be called “white trash”. Before anyone gets started about race, I’m white.

By AJC/DNC Management

September 10, 2008 9:52 PM | Link to this

Gee, I wonder what the odds in Vegas are now?

By sunshine and thunder

September 10, 2008 10:06 PM | Link to this

—-

JAY

You want to compare pork? You want to hear the real story about Sarah Palin and the “bridge to nowhere”? Try this

When you are through let’s talk about who out porks who.

And as for Obama being a food stamp hustler; maybe that was the wrong word. The comparison was being made between Obama and a woman who shoots and dresses her own food. Maybe a Saul Alinsky food stamp pimp is the right term. (apologies to Pat Buchanan.)

By KD

September 10, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this

Marston,

I was taught that if you have sex before marriage, you use birth control. The Palin family doesn’t believe in that, they only believe in abstinence. It’s working real well for them, isn’t it? And this woman could end up being a heartbeat away from the presidency. Strange days!

By Marston

September 10, 2008 10:32 PM | Link to this

Yes indeed, strange days. I’m turning in for the night, got to get up early and go to work. Goodnight.

By JAY BOOKMAN

September 10, 2008 10:34 PM | Link to this

AmVet, this blog does not exist for you to abuse people and call names. Those posts are pulled — clean it up, or you will be as well.

By KD

September 10, 2008 10:39 PM | Link to this

Marston,

I’m calling it a night too. We’ve had so many layoffs at my work that I have to get there by 5 a.m. to get things going. Good night.

By sunshine and thunder

September 10, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this

—-

JAY

Another take on the “bridge to nowhere”.

By Peter

September 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Hypocracy from Republican mouths, every time they speak. No wonder McSame wants to run on personality and not address issues.

By Peter

September 12, 2008 7:12 AM | Link to this

Clearly; McCain’s pig can wear lipstick and Obama’s can’t.

By james

September 13, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Wow,

I just read the bill in question. If you’re OK with your 5-6 year old child being taught about sex by a government employee, sign ahead them up. Talk to my 5-6 year old about those things and you had better be bigger than me, ‘cause I will pummel you.

By james

September 13, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Wow,

I just read the bill in question. If you’re OK with your 5-6 year old child being taught about sex by a government employee, go ahead and sign them up. Talk to my 5-6 year old about those things and you had better be bigger than me, ‘cause I will pummel you.

By GodHatesTrash

September 13, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Why people don’t want their kids to learn about how to report child molestation -

They want their kiddies all to their perv selves.

By kd

September 13, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

Jay,

Why don’t you drop the pretentious title “journalist,” and just go with “Barack Obama’s Water Boy?” That would be more accurate, since you’re so worried about the truth.