McCain camp revs up the lies

[symbiosis 0]

Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record

On the Web | More election coverage from McClatchy's Washington Bureau

By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.

Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.

What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

But 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.

Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "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."

Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_...tory/52169.html

[desert_fox 32]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

[Nearly Done 8]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

Well said!!

[HAL 9000 96]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

Really?

Less than $3/gal about a year ago? What planet are you from? The other BS on that "list" is really beyond reality so we'll just leave it at that. Well said indeed.

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now? Its not as easy as blaming the reaction many American voters had to the damage done to them on the change factor itself...

Yet another knee-jerk.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The McCain camp should probably issue a retraction / clarification if they haven't already.

Unfortunately there's an element of "if the $hit sticks..." with these things - and just saying it is enough for people to repeat it as true.

The Straight Talk Express should live up to its name and do the ethical thing here.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

What does this have to do with political campaigns floating false claims?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

charles approves this message

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

McSame and his buddies wrecked this country. He can't run on record so he runs on fear, lies and deception just as his idol W did. There's fairly clear evidence that the Bushies have - as has been reported - taken over McSame's campaign management.

I just hope that the majority of America is smarter this time around than they were in 2004 when they gave the already failed W another shot at finishing the wreck he had well in the making.

[rin and john 71]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

Really?

Less than $3/gal about a year ago? What planet are you from? The other BS on that "list" is really beyond reality so we'll just leave it at that. Well said indeed.

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now? Its not as easy as blaming the reaction many American voters had to the damage done to them on the change factor itself...

Yet another knee-jerk.

The national average for 2007 was $2.76/gal ($2.63 for the first six months; $2.90 for the last six months). So, yes, it was less than $3.00/gal a year ago, but not $2.19/gal. Would have to go back to 2005 for that. In 2006 the average was $2.53/gal, nationally. In 2008, it has averaged $3.53/gal. Data from Department of Energy website.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/d...as_history.html

The unemployment data is accurate. It was 4.4% the last quarter of 2006. Since the dems took control of congress, it has grown to 5.3% in Q2, 2008 and was 6.1% in August.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseed1.pdf

The Dow hit 14,000 in Q2, 2007. It had gained roughly 4% in 2005, 10% in 2006, 8% (16% annuallized) the first half of 2007. It lost about 1% (2% annuallized) the second half of 2007, and is down 15% the first eight months of 2008 (25% annuallized).

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

Stay on topic. All this election threads end up being the same convoluted argument if we all keep veering off the specific topic at hand.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now?

not that i'm 100% satisfied with the work of the Dem Congress up-to-date...

[rin and john 71]

Agree with the OP, that the facts are skewed (gee, imagine that in a political campaign). From:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Oba..._+_Children.htm

"Q: [to Obama]: Mitt Romney has accused you this week of saying that 5-year-old children should be getting sex education. Was he right?

OBAMA: Ironically, this was actually a proposal that he himself said he supported when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. Apparently, he forgot. And it makes the exact point that John made. I want my daughters, aged 6 & 9, to know if somebody is doing something wrong to them, encroaching on their privacy, that they should come talk to me or my wife. And we've had that conversation, and I think it's important that every child does, to make sure that they're not subject to the sexual predators.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

FactCheck: 'Sex Ed for Kindergarten' means 'age-appropriate'

Romney had accused Obama of supporting sex education for 5-year-olds. But both are twisting each other's words.

For several days now, Obama has been dealing with a flap over comments he made to a Planned Parenthood gathering last week. He said that he had once been attacked for advocating "teaching sex education to kindergarteners" as a state senator. And he added, "It's the right thing to do...to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

Although video of that statement shows Obama stressed the term "age-appropriate," a news headline read, "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama." Romney seized on the headline and slammed Obama, saying, "Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten."

The Obama campaign later pointed to a 2004 story in which Obama said he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten."

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate Jul 23, 2007"

As for me, any sex education should be optional. Parents should have the choice; my wife and I are fully capable of deciding what is age appropriate sex education for our children without having the government legislate what they believe is best for my child.

Edited September 10, 2008 by rin and john

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

[rclouse 0]

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now?

not that i'm 100% satisfied with the work of the Dem Congress up-to-date...

Give us a veto-proof Democrat Congress and then you can properly judge it. Until then the Republicans can easily filibuster and block anything they want.

[HAL 9000 96]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six years the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) The DOW JONES hit a record high -- 14,000+

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep -- we got 'CHANGE' all right!

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $3.75 a gallon & climbing;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) THE DOW is probing another low ~11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.

Now the Democrats' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man' -- claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand?

Have a very nice day.

Really?

Less than $3/gal about a year ago? What planet are you from? The other BS on that "list" is really beyond reality so we'll just leave it at that. Well said indeed.

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now? Its not as easy as blaming the reaction many American voters had to the damage done to them on the change factor itself...

Yet another knee-jerk.

The national average for 2007 was $2.76/gal ($2.63 for the first six months; $2.90 for the last six months). So, yes, it was less than $3.00/gal a year ago, but not $2.19/gal. Would have to go back to 2005 for that. In 2006 the average was $2.53/gal, nationally. In 2008, it has averaged $3.53/gal. Data from Department of Energy website.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/d...as_history.html

The unemployment data is accurate. It was 4.4% the last quarter of 2006. Since the dems took control of congress, it has grown to 5.3% in Q2, 2008 and was 6.1% in August.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseed1.pdf

The Dow hit 14,000 in Q2, 2007. It had gained roughly 4% in 2005, 10% in 2006, 8% (16% annuallized) the first half of 2007. It lost about 1% (2% annuallized) the second half of 2007, and is down 15% the first eight months of 2008 (25% annuallized).

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

Yes, I see. National averages. Now if we were to look at actual numbers, by population densities... the story changes quite a lot. Up.

Again... as for blaming one particular party for the failed policies of the President and the previous Do-Nothing Congress... well... its like sticking your head in the sand. Kind of like what the McCain campaign is hoping and counting on with voters this time around.

But back to those averages for the nation:

(same website).

You can't claim it is a linear relationship like you can't claim the Democrats are solely to blame. Again... Bush has his veto power.

Besides... how many vetos has Bush pushed onto Congress from 2006 until now?

not that i'm 100% satisfied with the work of the Dem Congress up-to-date...

I am not either. I think this tends to happen when the urge of voters in 2006 was to have part of the government check and balance the mistake it made in electing Bush in 2004. Less significant work gets done due to excessive bickering.

[rin and john 71]

Based on the data (including looking at GDP, foreign exchange rates, and other economic indicators), the economy has suffered more the past 12 to 18 months than it did the previous 6 1/2 years. That does coincide with the democratic party regaining control of congress.

That coincidence is just that; coincidence. Unless you can point to the specific piece(s) of legislation the Democrats in Congress pushed through which caused the economy to tank starting in late 2006. Not sure you'll find it.

Agreed. Look for the past 20 years and you will be hard-pressed to find anything that the dems or reps did singlehandedly to either improve or worsen the economy. Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid". Great campaign, and it worked. The first year he was in office, the economy improved. But go back and look at the data and it started recovering in early 1992, several months before he was inaugurated. But in 1991 the economic data was so bad, that he was able to use that to get elected. Same for W. The economy was stalling in 2000 before the election. Continued to decline in 2001, then 9/11 happened and it tanked. But from 2002 to 2005/6, all the national numbers improved. It probably overheated in 2004/5 so the downturn the past year and a half is cyclical. Without any significant legislation from our government, the economy (which will always cycle up and down) has a high probability of improving in 2009 to 2011, insuring that whoever wins this election will be able to say "see, you elected me and I fixed the economy. Give me four more years!".

Edited September 10, 2008 by rin and john