Consider this: McCain has accused Obama of supporting “sex education” for kindergartners. (Read here and here and here for details.)
Consider this: it’s a lie.
What kind of an evil scumbag would deliberately introduce the idea of sex among kindergartners into a political campaign to smear an opponent? And does it help or hurt our country when presidential candidates make their campaigns all about stupid issues like sex ed for small children, instead of important issues like energy policy or national security?
John McCain claims to “put country first.” Apparently, “putting country first” means doing anything, no matter how evil and destructive and unjust, to win an election.
Patriotic Americans need to reject this sort of campaigning for the good of the country.
Perhaps a scumbag. He is also, as Obama’s campaign has put it, “perverse.” What sort of perverse politician would be against teaching kindergarteners how to avoid sexual predators? What sick political mind would oppose age-appropriate sex education?
If we were Republicans, adopting the hard-edged tactics of the Right, we might ask the following question of the Republican nominee for president:
“Is McCain objectively pro-sexual predator? Just a question, just wondering folks. Why does John McCain hate your six year old child?”
Comment by Lee — September 10, 2008 @ 3:29 am
Or we might come up with this slogan:
“McCain-Palin ‘08: Putting the Safety of Your Children Second.”
Comment by Lee — September 10, 2008 @ 3:33 am
My first sex ed lesson was in the second grade and was basically a ’safe touch’ lesson with an asexual doll (don’t know why I’m sharing this…)
I have to admit that I haven’t read your links yet but, really, considering Bristol Palin, shouldn’t they just shut up about sex education? I mean, considering that she’s, you know, kinda the poster-child of failed sex ed policy
And Lee, we should get cafepress shirts made!
Comment by aaron — September 10, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
[...] WordPress.org ← Is McCain a scumbag? [...]
Pingback by America and Lipstick — September 10, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
I’m not sure I would bother with Bristol Palin. Who knows her motivations and regardless of what it represents putting a 17 year old in a media trial just wrong. You can blame her mother for putting her in the spotlight but Bristol Palin doesn’t deserve this.
Comment by John — September 11, 2008 @ 9:29 am
I’m not talking about putting her in the media spotlight – I’m just pointing out an obvious hypocrisy.
Comment by aaron — September 11, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Hi all! Just chiming in for the first time….having been a very wild teenager I could never blame my parents for some of my actions during that time period. If I happened to be involved in a situation that placed me outside of their value system it certainly did not make them hypocrites.
Comment by Timmy — September 15, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
First, we’re not blaming Bristol’s parents for her pregnancy – it’s not like they encouraged her to have sex. Quite the opposite.
And that’s right, Timmy, your actions per se, would not make them hypocrites. But let’s say your parents are big preachers of abstinence-only sex ed and then you go out and get pregnant. And even after your pregnancy is public your parents still insisted that, not only does abstinence-only sex ed work but, that your family is a paragon of virtue when it comes to teen pregnancy.
Can you clarify for me how that fails definition (2) listed here?:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
It is hypocritical of them to preach ‘abstinence’ only when their own daughter is the poster child of that failed policy.
And just to re-iterate – I’m not saying that we should drag Bristol Palin into the national dialogue. It would be hurtful to her, and suicidal as a political strategy .
I’m just pointing out, here on our tiny little niche on the interwebs, what, I think, ought to be a fairly self-evident hypocrisy.
Does that make sense?
Comment by aaron — September 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
And by the way…
Welcome!
Comment by aaron — September 16, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I have this fantasy that someday soon the whole world will be visiting History is Happenning Now every week (every day?) to get their political analysis and ammunition.
It may sound far-fetched now, but many big things started small once. I just hope we don’t get too attached to the idea that this blog is “our tiny little niche on the interwebs” — although I acknowledge it’s an apt description for the moment.
In general, I try to take the attitude that everything I write on this blog is intended for the entire country, even if its only a small handful of (awesome) political geeks who participate now.
I join Aaron in saying: Welcome Timmy!
Comment by Ian — September 16, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Aaron,
Hypocrite:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
Are you saying that Sarah’s belief in abstinence is a fraud due to her childs pregnancy? That she pretended to have virtues and religious beliefs that were false all based upon the fact that her daughter is pregnant? That if her virtues, religious beliefs and principles had been true that she would have been to prevent such an occurence?
Comment by Timmy — September 16, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Actually, I was thinking more of this one:
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Perhaps I’m misreading the definition but, I don’t believe that pretending or feigning is requisite. I read a valid definition as:
“One whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.”
I assume pretending and feigning are requisite to your definition of ‘Hypocrite’? In which case, by that definition, I suppose the label of ‘hypocrite’ does become false.
I believe that she genuinely believes in the efficacy of abstinence only sex-ed. But her own daughter failed to employ this policy. While that is not Sarah Palin’s fault, it does seem to contradict the efficacy of the policy, no?
So what would this be:
While governor, she has staunchly advocated abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in Alaska’s school system while her unwed teen daughter ended up pregnant.
if not hypocrisy, irony? (and I mean this partly as a rhetorical question but, also as a genuine question) .
Comment by aaron — September 18, 2008 @ 12:57 am
It is certainly irony. But it is a tad distasteful to try to exploit that irony for political purposes, since it’s impossible to draw a clear link between Palin’s views on sex ed policies in schools and her daughter’s pregnancy. I agree with Obama that this issue should be off-limits.
Palin’s extremist views and her record of lying should be enough to take her down. (Did anybody know that when Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, the town’s policy was to charge women $50 to $100 for rape kits when they went to police to report a rape? I heard Jon Stewart went nuts on this recently, but I didn’t see the show.)
The thing that makes Palin’s daughter’s situation relevant — and the reason the media jumped all over it with such gusto — is that in the recent past, guys like Bill O’Reilly have pointed to the pregnancy of teenage celebrities as signs of the moral degradation of our society, and then they have blamed the parents.
But of course if Bill O’Reilly was consistent and treated Palin the same way he treats everybody else, he’d lose his wacko right-wing audience and would be out of a job.
Comment by Ian — September 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
I’m not interested in ‘taking her down’ – I’m interested in calling out hypocrisy where I see it.
Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of this forum – is the intention to be a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign? Are we only allowed to talk about those things politically expedient to the Obama campaign, in a fashion that they approve of? Or can we talk about things that we actually care about?
I think the relevance of her daughter’s situation goes beyond how the media presents it. Personally, I find her sanctimony objectionable. And what I find distasteful is how they advertise Bristol as an example of ‘living pro-life values’. If Palin is going to make her family a part of her resume, then, to me, they’re fair game. Let Obama be magnanimous – he’s good at.
Meanwhile, I’m going to call bullshit where I see it.
Here’s another forum where I think Palin’s hypocrisy is well articulated:
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/09/02/palin_obama/view/index17.html
by user ‘The Czarina’ in response to user ‘KStone’.
From the other side, here’s a link that’s critical of those of us who deign to call out their hypocrisy:
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/06/who-is-a-hypocrite/
notice that Limbaugh fails to address the fact that abstinence only sex ed is a failed policy that causes abortions and that this is, indeed, a hypocrisy. He simply concludes that this doesn’t make Palin unworthy of our support.
Ian: Nevertheless, good call on O’Reilly’s hypocrisy.
Comment by aaron — September 18, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
[...] So here’s a question: Is this ad more or less misleading than John McCain’s Kindergarten ad? [...]
Pingback by So What Do We Think of This? — September 18, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
I take issue with the suggestion above that somehow the Obama campaign is monitoring this blog and editing its comments. That’s not true. This blog is not a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, and the Obama campaign has no input whatsoever in what is posted on this site.
I just want to be clear: My assumption was that you wanted to talk about the pregnancy because you think it should be a bigger issue in the presidential campaign. I didn’t think so, because I don’t think discussing it will help Obama in any way, and will probably hurt him.
But I see now that you aren’t discussing the pregnancy because you think discussing it will help Obama win the campaign — you’re discussing it because you find it worthy of discussion in its own right.
But I believe trying to use the pregnancy as a way to attack Palin will actually hurt Obama’s chances of winning. So if you talk about the pregnancy on a public forum like this, you have to weigh the benefits of doing so against the potential costs.
That’s just my opinion, for what it’s worth. I really appreciate your comments, which I always read carefully and take seriously, even if I disagree.
Comment by Ian — September 18, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
I would not expect her pregnancy to be included in the National Dialogue and I agree, it would not be helpful to Obama there. I also hope that HIHN one day becomes part of that Dialogue.
But people are talking about it outside the National Dialogue and I think it is relavent. I’m reminded of Henry Hyde’s sanctimonious bloviating during the Lewinsky scandal and yet somehow, Senator Hyde’s affair wasn’t hypocrisy, it was simply a ‘youthful indiscretion’. Once again, I call BS.
Also, while Obama can remain above the fray and stay magnanimous, I’m inclined to call out hypocrisy where it may be politically inconvenient for him to do so. If that makes me a ‘hatchetman,’ so be it. It’s not like the Right are a morally upstanding, or even decent, bunch.
Comment by aaron — September 19, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Indeed.
I know the vast majority of Democrats would like this campaign to be about the economy, national security, health care, education, etc. But the Republican lie machine wants it to be about “small town values” and “family values” and “a culture of life” and even — Orwellian as it sounds — “patriotism.”
It could be that we would do well to call out every shred of hypocricy we see from the right-wingers — if only to stay clear in our own minds about the nature of the fight we’re in.
Comment by Ian — September 19, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
http://www.slate.com/id/2200814/pagenum/2
Quoth the article:
My assertion from the beginning of this thread, thank you very much.
Comment by aaron — September 29, 2008 @ 3:13 pm