PDA

View Full Version : Elections Campaigns at War over new McCain ad that portrays Obama as a child predator


dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:31 PM
I don't know what to think about the ad other than to say it is kind of sad that McCain has to lie to try to win

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uVLQhRiEXZs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

Obama's camp hits back hard at a new McCain ad criticizing his support, in the Illinois State Legislature, for sex ed beginning in kindergarten:
“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” says Obama spokesman Bill Burton in an emailed statement.

Mecca
09-09-2008, 08:31 PM
Cue the selected ones to tell you how this is perfectly fine.

DeezNutz
09-09-2008, 08:32 PM
Bad choice, there.

Donger
09-09-2008, 08:33 PM
Child predator? How'd you get that?

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:36 PM
Child predator? How'd you get that?

The images and using the word sex with pictures of children and also having that pic of Obama smiling at that.

Donger
09-09-2008, 08:37 PM
The images and using the word sex with pictures of children and also having that pic of Obama smiling at that.

Weird. I didn't get that impression at all.

DeezNutz
09-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Child predator? How'd you get that?

Maybe just the "funny Uncle."

Mecca
09-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Weird. I didn't get that impression at all.

That's real surprising.

Mecca
09-09-2008, 08:39 PM
The only thing this ad was missing was Chris Hansen saying "have a seat over there"

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:41 PM
http://thepage.time.com/2008/09/09/going-nuclear/


FIGHT OVER MCCAIN’S HONOR LEADS TO ANGRIEST, MOST PERSONAL STATEMENTS SO FAR.

NEW MCCAIN AD ON EDUCATION PRODUCES ANGRY BACK-AND-FORTH STATEMENTS.


Read Obama campaign’s original response here (http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-mccain-ad-education/) and McCain camp’s comeback here. (http://thepage.time.com/mccain-camp-statement-responding-to-obama-camp-response-to-ad/)

(http://thepage.time.com/mccain-camp-statement-responding-to-obama-camp-response-to-ad/)
Obama strategist Anita Dunn calls McCain’s effort an “increasingly dishonorable campaign.” Statement here. (http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-attacks-over-lipstick-on-a-pig-remark/)

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:41 PM
Maybe just the "funny Uncle."

Yep same thing IMO.

Donger
09-09-2008, 08:42 PM
Promoting sex education for kindies is equivalent to being a child predator now?

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:44 PM
Promoting sex education for kindies is equivalent to being a child predator now?

Well first the whole ad was a lie. Obama has passed alot of educational bills in the state senate.

Second like I said before the images and the mentioning of sex and sex education with pictures of children IMO is pushing the limits of decency.

Baby Lee
09-09-2008, 08:45 PM
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Full text, with additions and deletions marked. Dunno who authored the admendment, but I can see that 6-12 was amended to K-12. Obama['s camp] says it was to allow for presentment of information regarding predators, and until someone comes up with minutes and texts of floor speeches, I'll have to take his/their word for it. But it was amended from 6-12 to K-12.

Those with more time, feel free to investigate further.

RJ
09-09-2008, 08:46 PM
Weird. I didn't get that impression at all.



For real? Why do you think they had all,the head shots of Obama looking down and smiling? I believe that's what they were going for.

Guru
09-09-2008, 08:47 PM
Well first the whole ad was a lie. Obama has passed alot of educational bills in the state senate.

Second like I said before the images and the mentioning of sex and sex education with pictures of children IMO is pushing the limits of decency.
Not that I am supporting it but when does any political ad tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:49 PM
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Full text, with additions and deletions marked. Dunno who authored the admendment, but I can see that 6-12 was amended to K-12. Obama['s camp] says it was to allow for presentment of information regarding predators, and until someone comes up with minutes and texts of floor speeches, I'll have to take his/their word for it. But it was amended from 6-12 to K-12.

Those with more time, feel free to investigate further.

Thanks BL.

Also according to the first sentence in the bill this is NOT REQUIRED


No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's <s>his</s> parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.</pre>

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 08:50 PM
Not that I am supporting it but when does any political ad tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

That is a fair point

wazu
09-09-2008, 08:53 PM
This ad sounds like a Michael Savage conspiracy theory.

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:05 PM
You guys are way too in touch with the child molester vote, apparently. It's basically an attack upon Barack Hussein's (and the left's) apparent desire to teach sexual education at the kindie level.

I'm not quite sure how that equates to "child predator."

J Diddy
09-09-2008, 09:06 PM
You guys are way too in touch with the child molester vote, apparently. It's basically an attack upon Barack Hussein's (and the left's) apparent desire to teach sexual education at the kindie level.

I'm not quite sure how that equates to "child predator."

I'm just curious as to when Obama is gonna get into the vicious lie attack ad business myself

RJ
09-09-2008, 09:15 PM
I'm just curious as to when Obama is gonna get into the vicious lie attack ad business myself



He'd better do it soon cause it seems to be working for the other side.

I wonder if Obama has any pictures of himself with a dead moose?

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:16 PM
The only thing this ad was missing was Chris Hansen saying "have a seat over there"

This post makes the thread worth the price of admission. ROFL ROFL ROFL

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 09:19 PM
You guys are way too in touch with the child molester vote, apparently. It's basically an attack upon Barack Hussein's (and the left's) apparent desire to teach sexual education at the kindie level.

I'm not quite sure how that equates to "child predator."

Trust me it is...:)

Donger
09-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Trust me it is...:)

FWIW, I do trust you for the most part. I just don't see the connection. It's just a simple ad about how liberals promote earlier and earlier sex education.

At least to me.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:22 PM
I'm just curious as to when Obama is gonna get into the vicious lie attack ad business myself

Don't know but I hope he does. The Obama campaign is quickly becoming one of the worst run campaigns I've ever been around. Dude is running scared for no reason at all. Right now Axelrod is so reactionary to every event that he's lost track of what his message should be and how it should be delivered.

I understand the need to cut down the GOP strengths, but don't send Obama out to do the low-road attacks. Pick a few key issues that play into change and economic issues and hammer him with them. And don't be afraid to rally your most fervent supporters because the crosstabs show Obama still has the most support clicking the top box.

Remember what got you there.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:23 PM
FWIW, I do trust you for the most part. I just don't see the connection. It's just a simple ad about how liberals promote earlier and earlier sex education.

At least to me.


This particular ad I don't see the hidden message either. Of course I'm sure that won't stop the media from kicking off another round of subliminal accusations...lol.

Guru
09-09-2008, 09:28 PM
Thanks BL.

Also according to the first sentence in the bill this is NOT REQUIRED



I don't want sex ed in the school system at all but unfortunately, there are way to many dead beats out there that don't give a crap that make this all but a requirement.

I don't know about this whole kindergarten thing but as a parent, I would have serious issues with this being a subject in any classroom before 6th grade.

beer bacon
09-09-2008, 09:31 PM
FWIW, I do trust you for the most part. I just don't see the connection. It's just a simple ad about how liberals promote earlier and earlier sex education.

At least to me.

Incorrect. Your answer must be phrased in the form of a question.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:40 PM
I don't want sex ed in the school system at all but unfortunately, there are way to many dead beats out there that don't give a crap that make this all but a requirement.

I don't know about this whole kindergarten thing but as a parent, I would have serious issues with this being a subject in any classroom before 6th grade.

Politically, it's a great ad.

Undercuts his ability, themes of change, and hits at another core issue.

This is the kind of ad that, if not true, is going to really snap back in McCain's face. Which makes me believe it's true.

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 09:44 PM
I don't want sex ed in the school system at all but unfortunately, there are way to many dead beats out there that don't give a crap that make this all but a requirement.

I don't know about this whole kindergarten thing but as a parent, I would have serious issues with this being a subject in any classroom before 6th grade.

Yep it is unfortunate that we have shitty parents that don't do their job.

The kindergarten part was only to educate them on how to avoid predators nothing more

dirk digler
09-09-2008, 09:45 PM
Politically, it's a great ad.

Undercuts his ability, themes of change, and hits at another core issue.

This is the kind of ad that, if not true, is going to really snap back in McCain's face. Which makes me believe it's true.

Ummm...the whole ad is a complete lie

Chiefs_Mike_Topeka
09-09-2008, 09:51 PM
Yep it is unfortunate that we have shitty parents that don't do their job.

The kindergarten part was only to educate them on how to avoid predators nothing more


Don't try and convolute the arguments with facts.

Chiefs_Mike_Topeka
09-09-2008, 09:54 PM
I don't want sex ed in the school system at all but unfortunately, there are way to many dead beats out there that don't give a crap that make this all but a requirement.

I don't know about this whole kindergarten thing but as a parent, I would have serious issues with this being a subject in any classroom before 6th grade.


You don't have any interest in your children being educated about predators and how to avoid and seek help if approached by one?

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 09:59 PM
Well first the whole ad was a lie. Obama has passed alot of educational bills in the state senate.

Second like I said before the images and the mentioning of sex and sex education with pictures of children IMO is pushing the limits of decency.

What were these bills "Obama Passed"?

HolmeZz
09-09-2008, 10:03 PM
This election's officially gotten disgusting. This is why people hate politics.

dirk digler
09-10-2008, 08:57 AM
No, he voted for it... he should be held accountable.

:rolleyes:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

Now then -- the McCain campaign insists that, unlike other provocative "ads" they've run, their newest dilly of pickle is going to run in several states for a while.

Basically, the ad links Barack Obama with sex-ed for kindergartners. It implies that Obama favors teaching these kids dirrrty, explicity, sexual things. The bill in question -- never passed, by the way -- was intended to sanction the teaching of basic boundary lessons to young children, as in: if someone touches you or makes you uncomfortable, tell an adult. Those who oppose this believe that parents ought to be the ones imparting those lessons, so it's not entirely a non-issue.

But the gap between the implication (Obama has liberal, radical views about sexuality) and the reality in this ad is pretty big and fairly consequential.

The question now is whether cable news outlets will help the McCain campaign by running the ad -- or, if the ad crosses the line of taste, help Obama by running the ad.

penchief
09-10-2008, 09:22 AM
You guys are way too in touch with the child molester vote, apparently. It's basically an attack upon Barack Hussein's (and the left's) apparent desire to teach sexual education at the kindie level.

I'm not quite sure how that equates to "child predator."

Ah, and there it is. We're in touch with the "child molester vote." You just did what this ad is supposed to do.

It seems like even republicans would grow weary of this kind of sleaze.

And by the way, who is Barack Hussein?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 09:52 AM
This election's officially gotten disgusting. This is why people hate politics.

QFT


By the way, I don't really see the hidden message here. If you can't show kids while talking about sex education, I'm going to have to wonder who the target audience of sex education is. 18+?

HolmeZz
09-10-2008, 01:11 PM
QFT


By the way, I don't really see the hidden message here. If you can't show kids while talking about sex education, I'm going to have to wonder who the target audience of sex education is. 18+?

There's an intentional creepy undertone with the picture of the kids coming into focus and the music in the background.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 01:28 PM
There's an intentional creepy undertone with the picture of the kids coming into focus and the music in the background.

I just didn't get that feeling and I was LOOKING for it per the thread title.

I definitely can see how people reach that conclusion.

However, my post was really referring to Dirk's point that any time sex education is advertised, kids should not be shown.

banyon
09-10-2008, 04:51 PM
So, all the Republicans are now pro-child molester?

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:19 PM
Ummm...the whole ad is a complete lie

Which part? Certainly not the part saying Obama supported a bill which would allow comprehensive sexual education in Kindergarten.

The bill did include this: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

You can try to argue about what Obama INTENDED to do, but the ad doesnt guess at what his intentions are, only that he supported this bill. If he intended it to say something else, he should have demanded an amendment to clarify, or voted against it.

Direckshun
09-10-2008, 06:22 PM
the ad doesnt guess at what his intentions are, only that he supported this bill.

I'm sorry, but this is absolute bull.

If you do not think this ad included a serious implication that Obama wants kindergardeners to perform handjobs in the bathroom, then you're not wanting to see it.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:23 PM
So, all the Republicans are now pro-child molester?

Obviously not, but apparently Obama's actions would indicate that he is in support of a bill that allows teaching 5-6 year olds some of the finer details of exchanging bodily fluids.

If he didnt intend to support that, then apparently he was very careless with his legislative responsibilities on that day.

alnorth
09-10-2008, 06:25 PM
I'm sorry, but this is absolute bull.

If you do not think this ad included a serious implication that Obama wants kindergardeners to perform handjobs in the bathroom, then you're not wanting to see it.

ROFL

Programmer
09-10-2008, 06:34 PM
You guys are way too in touch with the child molester vote, apparently. It's basically an attack upon Barack Hussein's (and the left's) apparent desire to teach sexual education at the kindie level.

I'm not quite sure how that equates to "child predator."

It doesn't.

I do have a concern about teaching kindergarten level children about sex, that goes beyond normalcy.

orange
09-10-2008, 06:48 PM
Which part? Certainly not the part saying Obama supported a bill which would allow comprehensive sexual education in Kindergarten.

The bill did include this: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

You can try to argue about what Obama INTENDED to do, but the ad doesnt guess at what his intentions are, only that he supported this bill. If he intended it to say something else, he should have demanded an amendment to clarify, or voted against it.

...

If he didnt intend to support that, then apparently he was very careless with his legislative responsibilities on that day.

He wouldn't even have had to go as far as offering an amendment or vote against it.

This was the Illinois state legislature.

Obama could have voted "Present" to express his misgivings.

Didn't he know he had that option?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 09:23 PM
Looking at it once more, the only thing that really indicated anything in the line of thinking that spurred this thread was Obama's smile at the end. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with any of the imagery or sound.

I do think it is factually wrong, but I haven't checked far enough into it.

banyon
09-10-2008, 09:36 PM
Obviously not, but apparently Obama's actions would indicate that he is in support of a bill that allows teaching 5-6 year olds some of the finer details of exchanging bodily fluids.

If he didnt intend to support that, then apparently he was very careless with his legislative responsibilities on that day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html
___________________________________
In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.

The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.
_________________________________

Teaching kids about predators? How careless.

Chiefnj2
09-10-2008, 10:43 PM
Why does John McCain not want to protect children from pedophiles?

Why does John McCain want children to keep quiet when they are touched inappropriately?

J Diddy
09-10-2008, 10:49 PM
Why does John McCain not want to protect children from pedophiles?

Why does John McCain want children to keep quiet when they are touched inappropriately?

maybe john mccain is really herbert the pervert

Otter
09-11-2008, 09:12 AM
maybe john mccain is really herbert the pervert

Any of you boys want to come inside for a pop sickle and some nyquil pm?

MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm