McCain Goes Dirty

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:58:58 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Washington Post reports on the smear campaign on multiple fronts Sen. John McCain has launched against Sen. Barack Obama. Most are clearly swift-boating.

Take this one. In the Illinois Senate, Obama voted for a bill that allowed school boards to determine appropriate sex education courses. It didn't specify what kind of program or what ages would receive it.

Kindergarten teachers were given the approval to teach about appropriate and inappropriate touching to combat molestation.

The McCain advertisement calls it "Obama's one accomplishment" in education: "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education, wrong for your family," the ad concludes.

So, John McCain opposes teaching kindergartners how to recognize molestation. John McCain doesn't care about preventing sex assaults of children? If I were a parent of a kindergartner, he wouldn't get my vote based on that alone.

Let's face it. These attacks only matter in the swing states. McCain already has the evangelicals, the radical right and Republicans.

More...

Obama may fight for the independents by staying above the fray. Politically, that may be what he needs to do. But I'm not a politician or a strategist. I'm a voter, a citizen and a Democrat. I want competent leadership. I don't want to have to worry that an unqualified VP, chosen for political expediency over the good of the nation, is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I'm not trying to reach independents or republicans. I'm not trying to reach women who still feel bruised that Hillary is not the nominee.

My goal is to reach as many Democrats as possible to get the message out that McCain/Palin is a disaster for our values and our democracy and they must not stay home in November.

Voter turnout among Democrats in the swing states could decide the election. It's really whether there are more of them or more of us. They are now energized, due to Palin.

If you are pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, want universal health care and to preserve your social security benefits, want your child to be able to afford college, don't want your child to be at risk of having to go to some foreign land and die in an ill-advised war, if you care about new jobs and the housing crisis, about the high cost of gas and groceries, about the preservation of your constitutional rights, about reducing our over-reliance on incarceration for non-violent crimes, and have any sense of environmentalism, you can't stay home. And you should be spreading the message.

< Big Ten Country Will (Mostly) Go Blue | Late Night: Matt Damon on President Palin >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain Goes Dirty | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

100% right Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST

Did you see Matt Damon's interview where he discusses Sarah Palin?

When the Hollywood types can see it, it's pretty obvious.

Yes, I think it's what got me going on this (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:02:51 PM EST

tonight. In fact, I'll add the clip to a late night post.


: Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by G Davis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:46:33 PM EST

I have to say you hit the nail on the head here Jeralyn: It's really whether there are more of them or more of us. They are now energized, due to Palin.
Everywhere I go on the blogs I tell people I pray there are more thinking people that can see how desperately we need serious leadership.
However one feels about Obama, people must open their eyes to what a disaster McCain would be, let alone when combined with Palin.
Thank you for your reason.

Follow up on suppression of AA vote... (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST

LINK from Steve M dealing with GOP tactics to disenfranchise AA voters:

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan...is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.
The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. (emphasis added)

The 2000 election was rife with suppression of Democratic voters, particularly AAs. I've been wondering, for some time, what 'new and improved' tactics the GOP will use to suppress the black vote in this '08 election: where the black vote is more critical to the Dems than it's ever been.

The GOP's use of the home foreclosure crisis for political profit is unimaginably heinous. This needs to light up the blogosphere, big-time and ASAP.


By the way (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST

There is little doubt that minorities will be among those affected most flagrantly by the GOP plan, I think it is a political mistake to make race into the focus. This is not "just" the GOP pulling their typical shenanigans in an inner-city neighborhood, the sort of thing that ought to outrage everyone but somehow gets ignored. This is the GOP going into an ordinary middle-class suburb and indiscriminately challenging the votes of people of all races who had the misfortune to receive a foreclosure notice. By downplaying the racial issue, it becomes a personal affront to everyone.


Except (none / 0) (#52)
by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:32:30 AM EST

Macomb County is almost 92% white, so if they are targeting AA's whose houses have been forclosed there, that will not be very many people.

I don't think anyone said (none / 0) (#56)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM EST

that they were targeting African-Americans.


: I was reading this (none / 0) (#60)
by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST

The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African-Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. (emphasis added)

I did. He was great! (none / 0) (#4)
by coigue on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM EST

Too bad his words will be minimized because he is a celeb.


wrong link, I'm looking now (none / 0) (#6)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST

: Correct link is (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:08:36 PM EST

here and I jut put up a new thread on it.

Matt Damon's interview. (none / 0) (#53)
by nancywest25 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:38:26 AM EST

He Is Sooo..RIGHT! Unfortunately there are many people in this world, THAT JUST DO NOT GET IT.
No, I myself am scared about any McCain ticket.
I could say a lot on this subject, for many things come to mind. My Bigest complaint is, I do not trust him. I do not trust Palin either.


NAMBLA John? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM EST

Seriously, its amazing that John McCain doesn't think children should report sex abuse, you really have to wonder what someone with such odd views truly believes in.

: heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST

NAMBLA John.
Now that is an ad.
Closes with..
"John McCain, right for pedophiles, wrong for America".
Run it two hours before the debate and hope his cork pops.

Does this REALLY shock ANY of you? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST

Gasp! The republicans are playing "dirty" politics! NEWS AT ELEVEN.

This from the party that had "terra alerts" during the 2004 elections, had republicans jamming phone lines with GOTV efforts in NH, not to mention the letters being sent out to voters in rural states that John Kerry was going to have the bible banned.

There is NO shame in the republicans' tactics to win an election. They know how to win, they just don't know how to govern.

hm (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:09:31 PM EST

Andrea Mitchell noted that over the past 36 hourse things were getting mean. But we all knew it was coming. Republicans run on this stuff every time, not issues.

IMO, Every day this week Obama should rope the media with a killer attack line while he talks policy. The media won't pay attention without the drama, you look tough, and you get a policy point across. You need to pound the medicine down.

Obama response ad could be... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by KVFinn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:12:41 PM EST

So John McCain is attacking Obama for a bill to protect kindergarters from child predators.

Obama response ad: "John McCain defends child predators!"

Too dirty? Or fair play in this case because it's a direct response to an attack?

And it could end with (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:17:19 PM EST

Obama reminding everyone he supports the death penalty for child predators.(Wrongly, in my view, but since he believes it, he might as well own it.)


: An Obama response ad would (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:54:15 PM EST

need to take a purely SOMBER tone. i.e.

"Perhaps John McCain was 'mistaken'...Senator Obama cares about children. Senator Obama knows that every year in this country x number of children are molested and murdered. That's why Senator Obama passed legislation to protect children; by giving children tools that they can use to help protect themselves from sexual predators. Make no mistake about it, Senator Obama also wants to make the world safe for children through his firm support of the death penalty for child predators...etc."
No digs at McCain here: the issue is too serious for political stunts. That's the right tone and message.

Sorry to say (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by Miserere mei on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:46:23 PM EST

that you don't have all the facts. The bill was not just about child molestation as Obama is trying to make it seem. The bill was going to teach sex ed that was for 6-12 graders to 5 year olds.

In Obama's own words he 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."

Well I disagree. It is up to the parent if they want the child to know where babies come from at 5 years old and when and how to tell them.

There are articles all over the news sites or on google. Try reading a few to get a balanced look at what McCain said which again sorry to say was correct and the spin Obama came back with - again the bill was not just about molestation.

Personally I don't think it is the schools place to talk about such things to 5 year olds. It's the parents place. If the school wants to send parents information on how the parent might to talk to their child about such matters then fine, but for a virtual stranger, not a family member, to do so is wrong in my opinion.

BTW the bill never passed but Obama voted for it in committee.

Here is the link to an ABC News Article

The spin coming from both sides is sickening and there is a place for objective truth about what is being said imo.


Forget Something (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by WillieB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:01:21 AM EST

Of course you conveniently forgot to add the next sentence. Local communities and school boards will determine the program.

And unless you are home schooling your children to protect them from the evil godless world your kids will more than likely know that babies don't come from storks before you tell them.

"'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.'"


I forgot nothing (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by Miserere mei on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:08:43 AM EST

I provided the link so you and others could read it. And I pointed out and suggested that there were a lot of other articles available if people would google so they could get a balance view. What more do you want?


: Teachers Are Professionals (none / 0) (#54)
by liberalone on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM EST

Telling children that babies do not come from storks is not a dangerous thing. Kindergarten teachers would use language their students can understand. Something to the effect of "Babies come from mommies." Rarely will kindergarten students continue to press further than that response. If they do, teachers can say something to the effect of "Those are lessons for the future. Let's concentrate on learning today's lessons."
Most teachers genuinely care about their students and most know how to provide information that is factual and appropriate.

I was shocked (none / 0) (#29)
by G Davis on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST

When my daughter was in middle school years ago, I was shocked to learn there were sexually active kids in her school of about 300 in a very moderate, middl