Ed. (Banescu) Slowly but surely we’re getting a clearer picture of the candidates.
ABC News | Teddy Davis & Lindsey Ellerson | July 18, 2007
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”
“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”
Watch the video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492
. . . more
Greetings,
That headline is NOT WHAT SENATOR OBAMA said.
This is:
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/07/obamas-right-age-appropriate-sex.html
Zennie
What is it about these Democratic candidates that they have to swear fealty to Planned Parenthood? Who is it for? The hardcore left?
Zennie, Your perspective is not accurate and the wording of the Illinois Bill that funded and promoted “age-appropriate sex education programs” fully supports Alan Keyes’ interpretation of its sections.
If you actually look at the video, you will see that Obama quoted what Alan Keyes said about him and did not contradict it or deny it at all. Obama simply waited for the laughing to subside and continued by saying “I didn’t know what to tell him.” Then he waited for more laughter to end, and followed up with “But it’s the right thing to do…. to provide age-appropriate sex education, science based sex education in schools.”
Given my research into the actual language of the Illinois Senate Bill 457, the same one Alan Keyes was referring to, I now understand why Obama did not deny or contradict Keyes’ statements and simply used it for an emotional appeal with the audience. Had Obama done so, he would have been lying!
Here’s the link to the actual wording of the Illinois Senate Bill 457:
Link here
I’ll reproduce the relevant sections here for quick reference.
Notice, the bill states only “young people” not teenagers or young adults, and does not place any age restrictions whatsoever on the beneficiaries of this education.
Even worse, if you look carefully at Section 15 (b), which starts out with this wording:
right below (9), you will find the following wording:
I bolded the key qualifications there: “may” determine only “certain components” as optional for “grades kindergarten through 5.” In order words they stay until the state removes them.
It turns out Alan Keyes was 100% correct and was indeed speaking the truth. On the other hand, it seems Obama is intentionally dancing around the truth and purposely avoiding any denials of what Keyes stated precisely because Obama would be caught in another bold faced lie.
Father: Perhaps, “inside-the-beltway" insularity? It sounds like the advice the Democrats are getting on matters of faith is extremely superficial, or somehow so watered down and compromised by consulants as to be meaningless.
On the abortion issue, the very least a Christian audience wants to hear a candidate say is this: “While I understand that a woman with an unintended pregnancy is in a difficult position, and we want to help her, an unborn child is a human being whose life we have a moral duty to protect.” By that standard all of the Democrats still fall short of the standards of Christian morality.
This fealty to special interests like Planned Parenthood reminds me of Newt Gingrich’s observations on the election of Nicholas Sarkozy in France. Newt observed that Sarkozy won by running against the current President from his own Gaulist party, Jacque Chirac. Likewise Newt said, for a Republican candidate to win in the 2008 US election he would have to simultaneously run against Bush and paint the Democrat as more likely to be like Bush than himself.
Using generally unpopular Democratic fealty to Planned Parenthood as an opening a Republican canddate could say, “Yes the Bush administration was incompetent, cynically political, fiscally wasteful and beholden to political special interests. But look at my Democratic opponent catering to the Unions, special interests and advocacy groups. This tells us they will be just as cynically political, fiscally wasteful and beholden to political special interests as Bush was. I on the other hand will …”
Note 4. Dean writes:
Yes, I am sure that is part of it. Also is the Democratic dearth of ideas. The leadership still does not understand that they won in the last round because of the collapse of Rebublican leadership, and not because of any resurgent confidence in the party. That’s why the approval rating for Congress is even lower than Pres. Bush’s (19% to 30%).
Having said that, imagine the traction a Democratic candidate would get if he criticized Planned Parenthood. Now that would turn heads. He’d have to jettison the hard core left that is calling the shots, but an internal cleansing is what the party sorely needs. (So do the Repub’s btw, but for different reasons.)