McCain Opposes the Prevention of Child Molestation

[jsteele]

The McCain campaign has just launched what may be the sleaziest ad in campaign history. The ad states that Obama's sole legislative accomplishment was a bill supporting "'comprehensive sex education' for kindergartners.

This is an outright lie.

First, Obama voted for, but did not sponsor the bill. The bill did not pass. Therefore, this was not an accomplishment and it would not have been Obama's accomplishment.

More importantly, the bill is completely mischaracterized. As McClatchy's fact check says, "the legislation allowed local school boards to teach 'age-appropriate' sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators."

Obama and the bill's other supporters wanted kindergartners to be given information that would allow them to protect themselves from child molesters. McCain thinks that's a bad thing. The only interpretation is that McCain is not in favor of teaching children to protect themselves from sexual predators.

McCain and Palin's lies, combined with this sort of sleazy advertising, while all the while whining about pigs and lipstick, shows just how low the Palin/McCain ticket has dropped.

[Anonymous]

Yes, yes, but here's the big problem: the media and intelligent folks keep explaining how these are lies or, at best, half-truths. But the bottom line is that they keep repeating their lies, over and over and over again. And they become the truth.

It's frightening, but nobody cares that Palin requested per diem for days when she was not on travel. NO AVERAGE AMERICAN CARES.

No average American is interested in the specifics of the bridge, or the library, or how much she cut funds for pregnant teens. We can write and talk about it all we want and it won't change a damn thing.

The only thing that will help is if Obama strikes back, hard and fast.

It's nice to say that you're above it all and that being the better person always wins in the end.

I almost had a kiniption fit when I saw Obama last night state, "Yes, it is certainly true that Governor Palin has energized the Republican party . . . ." and on. As though he was some bystander with no dog in this fight.

Going negative works. That's the reality. Obama is risking looking like Dukakis at this point (when asked what he would do if someone raped his wife). If you want to be above it all, fine. But being "above" it also means that you're not IN IT.

Negative campaigning works. It appeals to the darker side that we all have within us, and it makes us less uncomfortable when confronting that component which lies in all of us.

It's like Bill Clinton says: When someone is repeatedly hammering you over the head with a hammer, you don't just sit there. You pick up a meat cleaver and cut off their hands. You can apologize later.

I really miss him.

I really would like to see a change in Obama's strategy. I've become quite depressed as I become convinced that we are going to lose. Being the nice guy did not work for Kerry, it didn't work for Gore, it didn't work for Dukakis. IT DOESN'T WORK. Period.

[jsteele]

I think this ad gives Obama the perfect opportunity to take your advice. A clever wording of "John McCain Supports Child Molestation" will get people's attention (note: I said "clever wording" my wording sucks).

I was a bit surprised yesterday that every major news program that I watched (which just about all except ABC which I'm boycotting) reported on the Palin/McCain lies.

One slogan that I think would be good is "McCain/Palin -- No truth, No honor, No way".

[Anonymous]

Totally agree with PP. I'm scared out of my mind that the Dems are being such pussies.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think this ad gives Obama the perfect opportunity to take your advice. A clever wording of "John McCain Supports Child Molestation" will get people's attention (note: I said "clever wording" my wording sucks).

I was a bit surprised yesterday that every major news program that I watched (which just about all except ABC which I'm boycotting) reported on the Palin/McCain lies.

One slogan that I think would be good is "McCain/Palin -- No truth, No honor, No way".

Yes, your wording does suck because you can't possibly believe it's true. You can't have it both ways. You can't rail on McCain (or his campaign) for making a statement that Obama's accomplishment was a bill supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners (which you claim--likely correctly--is false) and then say that McCain Opposes Prevention of Child Molestation (which is also false). Just because McCain didn't support that bill (which we have no idea what the entire bill said or allowed), does not logically lead to the conclusion that he opposes the prevention of child molestation. Given the fact that the bill doesn't pass, you'd have to say that about everyone who didn't vote for it.

I think it is in everyone's interest to call candidates out on false statements. But the way to do that is NOT to make up new false statements.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think this ad gives Obama the perfect opportunity to take your advice. A clever wording of "John McCain Supports Child Molestation" will get people's attention (note: I said "clever wording" my wording sucks).

I was a bit surprised yesterday that every major news program that I watched (which just about all except ABC which I'm boycotting) reported on the Palin/McCain lies.

One slogan that I think would be good is "McCain/Palin -- No truth, No honor, No way".

You should e-mail that to the Obama campaign. Seriously.

The Post stated today much more eloquently what I have tried to articulate above. Truth can become a construct. Say something over and over again and it becomes true. The fact that some intellectuals are digging around and discussing it on the news will not change a thing. We're just talking to each other.

The average American does not read the paper, nor are they interested in the political analyses provided by experts. They respond to sound bites. The meaner, the better.

[Anonymous]

PP here: I should add that I'm not opposed to negative campaigning on the issues. I of course would hope that the negative comments are accurate (as they apparently were NOT here). But I'm all for Obama digging into McCain's voting record and pulling out unpopular decisions and waving them around. My only point is that it needs to be truthful. I suspect he can find plenty of truthful but negative things to point out to the American public.

[Anonymous]

It's a terrible ad. Very misleading and just plain tacky. McCain should never have approved it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here: I should add that I'm not opposed to negative campaigning on the issues. I of course would hope that the negative comments are accurate (as they apparently were NOT here). But I'm all for Obama digging into McCain's voting record and pulling out unpopular decisions and waving them around. My only point is that it needs to be truthful. I suspect he can find plenty of truthful but negative things to point out to the American public.

Sorry-- I was PP 11:02, not 11:06.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I think this ad gives Obama the perfect opportunity to take your advice. A clever wording of "John McCain Supports Child Molestation" will get people's attention (note: I said "clever wording" my wording sucks).

I was a bit surprised yesterday that every major news program that I watched (which just about all except ABC which I'm boycotting) reported on the Palin/McCain lies.

One slogan that I think would be good is "McCain/Palin -- No truth, No honor, No way".

Yes, your wording does suck because you can't possibly believe it's true. You can't have it both ways. You can't rail on McCain (or his campaign) for making a statement that Obama's accomplishment was a bill supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners (which you claim--likely correctly--is false) and then say that McCain Opposes Prevention of Child Molestation (which is also false). Just because McCain didn't support that bill (which we have no idea what the entire bill said or allowed), does not logically lead to the conclusion that he opposes the prevention of child molestation. Given the fact that the bill doesn't pass, you'd have to say that about everyone who didn't vote for it.

I think it is in everyone's interest to call candidates out on false statements. But the way to do that is NOT to make up new false statements.

Exactly. The McCain ad is stupid and I think it will not live long. If Obama were to take this sage advice and run with an even more ridiculous take on the bill, by suggesting that opposition to a particular failed piece of legislation = opposition to preventing child molestation, that lie will be far more egregious and patently absurd.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I think the "problem" with the Democratic party (and I am one of them) is that we accept different thoughts, ideas, and people and so we are more prone to be labeled as "nice" because to attack anything pretty much alienates someone in the big tent we call "Being a Democrat." We walk such a line in our own party sometimes that we just don't throw people under the bus like the Republicans in general (and I say in general) do. If you aren't one of them, you are ostracized, beaten down and they lie about you until people start thinking it's the truth. If you are one of them though, they beat up anyone that says or believes anything even remotely different. It's how their base gets energized. They can lie and it doesn't matter.

Here's something I'd also like to know -- and this is a bit off topic -- but why in the world does it matter that some COMEDIAN said the President is a retarded cowboy? I'd love a rolling list of everything the Republicans called Bill Clinton on TV but no one on the Dem side acted like the R's have reacted to that statement. Or why does it matter that he talked about Palin's daughter's baby daddy? She put the kid on stage at the RNC but his comments (hilarious I might add) are suddenly horrible? Again, random I know but somewhat relevant.

[Anonymous]

Because that COMEDIAN happens to have excellent political insight and a great way of making a point.

Here's another comedian that is very good at it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hZ4WNcLns
[/youtube]

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:McCain and Palin's lies, combined with this sort of sleazy advertising, while all the while whining about pigs and lipstick, shows just how low the Palin/McCain ticket has dropped.

I know what you mean by "dropped", and there certainly has been a drop in my respect for him. Unfortunately, there has been this simultaneous rise in the polls.

Is there any chance that focusing the McCain = Bush argument on the fact that he is using the same people Bush used, and the same tactics that sunk his own campaign in SC, to awaken people to the fact that truth is totally irrelevant to McCain advertising? Or is the only effective response to come up with better lies of their own? Is it all Mad Ave -- who sells the most attractive lies?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I'm just learning this you tube thing:

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Obama and the bill's other supporters wanted kindergartners to be given information that would allow them to protect themselves from child molesters. McCain thinks that's a bad thing. The only interpretation is that McCain is not in favor of teaching children to protect themselves from sexual predators.

Another interpretation is that McCain prefers that parents/guardians be the ones to teach/instruct/protect their 5 year old from sexual predators.