Foul-mouthed man about the liberal blogosphere Lee Rosenberg (known in the comment threads here as "thehim") has take a conversation that began with a comment at this post to his own extended thoughts on the exchange at Horse's Ass.
I don't believe Lee/thehim actually read my response in the comments at my post before moving on to his own, but I'll repeat them here because they respond directly to his assertion that recent improvements in Obama's electoral hopes invalidate the idea that working class whites in the Rust Belt are hesitant to embrace the Audacity of Hope:
15. My dear and always unoffensive friend thehim @ 1 -Your point utterly excludes how the recent financial sector meltdown changed the race. Prior to that the race was a toss-up. McCain was ahead in OH, MO, & FL. CO & VA were toss-ups. And MI & PA were competitive.
Now, much has changed.
Not only did the dramatic escalation of the economy send some voters scurrying to the opposite party of that in the White House, McCain's unsteady response intensified the problem.
I do believe none of that was contained in our discourse on the issues in the spring you refer to above.
Meanwhile, even after the events I just described, Obama is still under-performing a generic Democrat. Prior to that such differentiation was even more dramatic.
If you would like to believe Obama does not have substantial electoral weaknesses (in addition to obvious strengths), then be my guest.
Meanwhile, you may recall from my coverage of the Republican primary season that I was gravely concerned about McCain's ability to carry a message on the economy. That fear has been more than realized.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 21, 2008 06:35 AM
Which gets me to a broader point that I make to the general readership, not to Lee since he has a less than charming habit of putting words in my mouth and thus arguing with a supposed conservative strawman of his own concoction that is most definitely not me:
Obama supporters would be very wise to be cautious and prudent should Obama win on November 4th. A Republican defeat in the Presidential election would no more be a rejection of conservatism writ large than were the results of 2006, which were rather an understandable rejection of Republican behavior in Congress (and general grumpiness about the then state of affairs in Iraq). Note that Democrats have not exactly fared well in their own turn at governance of that body. Similarly, 1994 was more of a rejection of the team of President Clinton and a Democratic Congress than it was an embrace of the Contract with America.
Simply put, parties tend to overreach. It's what they do. 1993 was one big over-reaching fumble. Congressional Republicans managed to match the feat in full in the following years. And very good arguments can be made the key elements of President Bush's agenda in 2005 fall into a similar category. The always interesting John Meacham at Newsweek has some extended thoughts on this broader topic that are worth considering and would serve as an appropriate further warning to zealous members of the left.
If Obama wins it will be because a dramatic economic crisis that sent voters reflexively scurrying to the party not in the White House. The GOP having a candidate who is damn near worthless in articulating a message on the economy sure doesn't help matters.
That should not be construed as the defeat of conservatism - especially since conservatives have many gripes with McCain and his campaign. Moreover, it does not mean key swing demographics are suddenly in love with Obama. It means under the circumstances they found him the more palatable option of the two.
And those circumstances are vastly more unique today than anyone expected back when Obama was limping to the finish against Hillary Clinton in late spring.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 21, 2008 07:35 PM | Email ThisThe One said "Call me if you need me." That's "cool as the other side of the pillow?"
Posted by: Al on October 21, 2008 07:39 PMGot it.
Posted by: Hinton on October 21, 2008 08:29 PMthehim/Lee is representative of the average fringe Obama supporter in their immaturity and banal hatred of anything that doesn't conform with their political ideology. Sometimes these Obamalemmings even attend a Sarah Palin rally to voice their political tolerance of a counter viewpoint or go so far as to even have their own profile donning a "Sarah Palin is a C&*T" t-shirt at Obama's own campaign website (in video link provided).
The left in this country should never be confused with tolerance, because historical accuracy is not on their side.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 21, 2008 08:38 PMYou are the LAMEST god damn RINO I have ever seen!
Posted by: Sheesh on October 21, 2008 08:52 PMAnyone who thinks Obama will have an easy time as president is naive. Fortunately, Obama clearly knows that.
Posted by: Bruce on October 21, 2008 08:55 PMThe problem with the Republicans this year is that they're pandering to a constituency that is both nativist and authoritarian, but still thinks it has something to do with actual conservatism. Because of this, both liberals and conservatives are lining up behind Obama in order to put the kind of divisive nonsense that has been the hallmark of Republican politics since the 90s behind us.
For all your talk of strawmen, you don't have a goddamn clue what I'm even arguing here. Just because I post with Goldy doesn't mean I'm your typical liberal. I strongly oppose gun control, affirmative action, smoking bans, and I'm annoyed at the slow creep of nanny state health care policy. My main motivation in politics is to have government stop trying to impose morality as a smokescreen against good governance.
All that aside, you made certain assumptions about Obama's chances in the rural parts of places like Michigan, Wisconson, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and across the upper midwest. And it's not just the economy that's turning these people against McCain. In fact, Obama numbers on foreign policy and terrorism have shifted in his favor. The problem with the McCain campaign is that they don't quite understand how out of touch their base is with what actual conservatism is supposed to be.
Posted by: thehim on October 21, 2008 10:06 PMAnd according to his latest remarks up here in Northwest San Francisco, even his own VP choice is scared sh**tless at the thought of Barry being President.
It was the financial crisis the drafted Barry past McCain. McCain was too afraid to lay fault at the feet of key Democrats, and allow Barry to pull out the generic "failed policies of Bush" as the source. Add to that, Barry deftly sat back and let McCain fumble the ball and he fell on it. Can't say he picked it up and ran with it, because I don't think Barry has a clue about what to do. The only budget he's ever managed is his own...and that we don't even know for sure. One look at "Weezie" and it's pretty certain who reigns in that family.
It indeed was the Democrat induced economic melt down that turned the tide for Barry. Perception is reality, and both the Barry disciples and uninformed voters (but I repeat myself) for some unknown reason believe Barry is experienced enough to have the answers. Neither one of these candidates have a friggin' clue. Where the hell is Romney now?
Posted by: Dave on October 21, 2008 10:38 PMObama is a fair weather candidate.
He's a fluff...a Ken. The kind of fair weather guy like Bill Clinton who can take office when things are smooth sailing and give the people something to laugh at. If things had gone smoothly Obama would have been a shoo-in.
Now it's different. People want a real leader...someone not just with ideas, but who actually was in the Great Depression (or close to it). McCain is the umbrella America needs.
It's why I'm an now an independent who just voted for Obama on the Federal line but Rossi, McCraw, and Beren down the ballot. (OK, I think Beren's got a nasty nativist & authoritarian streak himself, but when the alternative is Jim McDermott...)
Posted by: R party left me. on October 21, 2008 10:57 PMThe only good news is that in the next four years it will become obvious that O will make Dick Nixon look like an honest, open, and forthright President. Of course that assumes that the media will be able to understand what happened.
::Yawn:: More fear mongering nonsense from an Obamaphile. If any party is "authoritarian", it would be the Democrat/socialist party whom if they had their way, would be wiping your bottom for you from birth to death with rigid social conformity programs (Obama's support of teaching 'sex education' to kindergarteners comes to mind- Imbecilic).
In fact, a better term for "liberalism" would be "learned helplessness"- look it up and see.
...and if calling those that are against unfettered "illegal" entry into the United states 'nativists', then I guess I'm one; but only because I prefer to have those who've waited in line in order to do the "right thing" and have our National sovereignty and immigration laws respected over those who've chosen to cut in line and and turn, help denied the "american dream" to those who've been patiently waiting in the process for years.
I think most Americans would be classified as 'nativists' by that definition.
I am continually amazed at the way Obama supporters cite his coolness under pressure, and I fear that some form of mass hypnosis has been perpetrated.
For many people, Obama's supposed "coolness" appeared to be sitting back at the fire station when everyone else was trying to figure out how best to put out the fire. President Carter has always tried to sell that part of his character as being positive, that he would patiently collect his thoughts, weigh options, make decisions. In truth, passivity is often the resort of someone who doesn't have their own ideas. Like the shy boy who doesn't know how to dance, Obama leans against the wall and his calmness - quietness, really - is just a way to not be called on to contribute.
Put simply, Obama is a poser and I don't say that as a dig but as a genuine criticism. When asked to define himself or provide detail for his plan, his impressive vocabulary provides him the smokescreen to avoid giving those details. When the press (let's give Tom Brokaw a roudn of applause for trying) give him direct questions on serious topics he answers in obtuse vagaries.
These qualities make him a skilled politician. The last politician who possessed the same kind of charisma was Bill Clinton. The difference between President Clinton and Senator Obama is that Clinton was brilliant and he proved it every time he spoke. Facts, figures, combined with a detailed understanding of how governments and economies functioned. I say this as someone who voted against Clinton.
Bill Clinton wasn't going through life hoping that no one would find out he didn't know what he was talking about. I fear that is exactly what lies behind the curtain of Obama coolness.
Posted by: TheSenator2012 on October 22, 2008 06:38 AMYou're going to have to make your case that Republicans are a party of nativism and authoritarianism a little better than that before you chalk up this debate as a win. If you can't bullet point your argument, it doesn't hold together for me.
Do you have a comment about the Democrat-led intiative to bring back what used to be called the "Fairness Doctrine"? What about Obama's healthcare plan that will fine families and business owners - many of whom are already stretching dollars - for not providing the right kind of healthcare? What about Obama's rhetoric about building the next generation alternative energy vehicles here in America? All of his code-words are meant to appeal to good ol' American union labor. Keep the jobs here and keep them high-paying, even if doing so eventually forces the companies overseas.
You're just going to have to do a better job of selling your point.
Posted by: TheSenator2012 on October 22, 2008 06:50 AMI know you differ from Goldy and other liberal in many respects, with some notable libertarian tendencies. That has long been obvious. Speaking of which, I would note you have said you believe the followers of Ron Paul are a potential new foundation for the GOP. Not going to happen.
Your continued insistence on the GOP losing touch with conservatism has an abstract point of merit (that will surely be a source of Republican discussion after a potential Obama win). However, your belief that such a problem will only be corrected when the GOP goes down the path of Ron Paul and abandons the union of social, economic, and national security conservatives is not plausible.
Since Reagan, and indeed really since Goldwater, that triumvirate of interests has been the essence of the Republican coalition. While libertarian-leaning folks are welcomed into the GOP, more fully expressed libertarian views (as you espouse in some cases) are simply incompatible with it...not to mention with the Democratic party too.
My point remains that you're continuing to argue with a conservative strawman of your own creation. You have certain beliefs about what the Republican party does and does not stand for as an institution these days. That's fine, though I would argue you don't quite have as good a handle on that as you think. You telling actual conservatives what conservatism means is not going to pass muster, especially when your own hybrid of libertarian & liberal views so completely diverges from it.
Lastly, I don't believe I ever actually said you were saying this is the death of conservatism, I was saying that as a broader message to Obama supporters. Your major point I disagreed with, and continue to do so, has to do with Obama's strength among a key demographic in the rust belt. As I alluded to, the McCain's campaign's own massive errors have contributed much to the current state of affairs, and say more about McCain's weakness than Obama's strength. The post-mortem on that from both sides is going to be ugly.
But I'm guess since I "don't have a goddamn clue" I must not know what I'm talking about. Pity that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 22, 2008 07:00 AMOur economy is far from laissez-faire. As we've seen, one of the primary catalysts was the government distortion of the mortgage markets throught feddie and fanny, institutions that were set up as part of FDR's new deal. If anything, this is a failure of interventionist economics.
Rick D @5
I think by using my quote that you agreed with it. I couldn't quite tell. I will call the Obama supporters here to the table when they step over the bounds. To me, there is no place for the obscenities. It may be just a culture thing to me, but it makes one sound uneducated when they have to lace their words with obscenities. Where I used to work (Shipyard in Bremerton), it was common place among the waterfront, but not tolerated in the office buildings. Don't get me wrong, there are appropriate occasions where they are appropriate, but they are unnecessary here.
I can't remember if I have or not, but I also think David Matthews has stepped way over the line also. His bashing of religious people is intolerance, just as Bill Maher's new-atheist propaganda film is intolerance. The left wouldn't allow this if it was against the Jews. Now, I know the Right Fundamentalists have given Christians a bad name, but they don't speak for all Christians, nor all evangelicals. This is why it is good to see the new breed of evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren from Saddleback and Bill Hybels from Willow Creek, and even Dr. Wayne Cordeiro (New Hope Fellowship in Hawaii, whose doing church as a team conference is a great conference) step forward.
TheHim@9
You can make your point perfectly well absent the obscenity. Do you think that earns you any points?
Rick D@16
You are incorrect on the sex education part. Obama and others in the legislature have stated what was being targeted in regards to appropriate age-based education. The education in question was discussion about sexual predators, which is good. Children need to know that only doctors, nurses, and sometimes parents, should be the only ones that see or touch their private parts and then only for examination or medical purposes. They also need to know what to do when a stranger approaches them, to play with others and not leave kids off playing alone, and to immediately report any contacts with adults that are out of the ordinary (like someone approaching them and wanting them to go with them). Yes parents need to do this, but not all parents do. The schools can help reinforce these common values.
Come on guys!! There is a reason there is Election Day. It is for the purposes of electing (in Gregoire's case-selecting) a candidate.
It ain't over till it's over. There are plenty of surprises left, though with Obama dominating the airwaves with television ads, it will be hard to get through the noise.
Hopefully, the era of the Manhattan conservative is over and we can return to the common folk.
Posted by: swatter on October 22, 2008 07:40 AMEric, I think Lee has you beat on this one although I do disagree that the republicans are divisive and authoritarian...umm, social warfare, race politics, and the left's wonderful ability to turn violent when confronted with aposing viewpoints spring to mind.
The republicans are losing because they aren't the party of true conservatism anymore. I have heard nothing from McCain about smaller government, less taxes (refundable tax credits are not lower taxes) or letting states decide on social issues like they are supposed to.
Palin's support for the marriage amendment is a losing issue. It just shows how ignorant she is of how our federalist system works. Most conservatives gripe at liberals who want to force social issues onto the national stage and now the GOP is doing it. We used to be the party of liberty. States rights and federalism increase liberty.
The GOP will continue to lose until the ideas of true conservatism brought back by Ron Paul are once again embraced by the party at large. The GOP is no longer the much needed counter ballance against the collectivist left.
Eric, I think Lee has you beat on this one although I do disagree that the republicans are divisive and authoritarian...umm, social warfare, race politics, and the left's wonderful ability to turn violent when confronted with aposing viewpoints spring to mind.
The republicans are losing because they aren't the party of true conservatism anymore. I have heard nothing from McCain about smaller government, less taxes (refundable tax credits are not lower taxes) or letting states decide on social issues like they are supposed to.
Palin's support for the marriage amendment is a losing issue. It just shows how ignorant she is of how our federalist system works. Most conservatives gripe at liberals who want to force social issues onto the national stage and now the GOP is doing it. We used to be the party of liberty. States rights and federalism increase liberty.
The GOP will continue to lose until the ideas of true conservatism brought back by Ron Paul are once again embraced by the party at large. The GOP is no longer the much needed counter ballance against the collectivist left.
I think a lot of Conservatives use the terms Conservative and Republican synonomously. I have never been a Bush Fan because I do not consider him to be a Conservative...nor was his old man. I voted for Ross Perot TWICE and only voted for Bush because Gore & Kerry were so pathetic.
Conservatives must make sure the Republican Party stands strong for Conservative Principles in the future. This recession is a golden opportunity to rebuild a CONSERVATIVE Republican Party based on Conservative Principles. WHY?? Because people are finally feeling overtaxed...at all levels of government. If history shows us one thing very, very clear...it's that if 1/2 of the people feel overtaxed, they will elect Conservatives to fix the mess. People feel overtaxed when the work hard and see other's get Obama-promised handouts. Free stuff. Welfare disguised as Refundable Tax Credits. Free Health Care. All while not working.
I see a strong rebuilding of a Conservative Republican Party for 2012. Write it down. Obama is in for a very rough 4 years. His Socialistic bent will be clearly revealed and folks will reject him in 2012. And if he reneges on his campaign promises of "free stuff" to lazy asses and a brighter future with wonderful jobs & lives he has painted for our youth...he will be rejected by the Left.
We Conservatives MUST not hang our heads, but look at this as a golden opportunity to rebuild the Republican Party based on Conservative Principles!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 22, 2008 08:20 AMonce again, you are parroting what Obama is saying as he dances around his other quotes from previous statements made on the same subject. This is my problem with Obama in general, he won't man up and stand by his own statements and instead continues to nuance (read talk out of both sides of his mouth) his positions depending on the reaction it receives.
Obama speaking in front of Planned parenthood said :
"But it's the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."....Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, "You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you've got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence.Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I've got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."** article here-http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html **
Obama trying to turn this into "predator" training is weak and transparent. Even if it is about that, it's not the role of the school to do so, but a parental responsibility. Who wants their 5 year old coming home scared to death of the Pedo around the corner that wants to hurt them that Mrs. Crabtree told them about in the classroom? I certainly don't. Schools can't even do their jobs at basic education let alone doing the role of parent. Again, this just repudiates thehims assertion that Conservatives are the 'authoritarian' types while indicting liberals as the institutional 'controllers' when reality seeps into the conversation.
During a week in which the Republican ticket is trying to highlight its connection to the working class -- and, by extension, promoting its newest campaign tool, Joe the Plumber -- it was revealed that Palin's fashion budget for several weeks was more than four times the median salary of an American plumber ($37,514). To put it another way: Palin received more valuable clothes in one month than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. A Democrat put it in even blunter terms: her clothes were the cost of health care for 15 or so people.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 22, 2008 10:02 AMIf the math provided by the blunt Democrat is carried out, that would be 80 people "or so" denied healthcare by the Obama camp for the cost of donating 800K to a corrupt ACORN offshoot and lying to the FEC in their filing (lighting & sound stage), which the FEC made them amend.
Out of touch enough for you?
The fact is that none of this will make any difference to the Kool Aid drinking left. Anyone willing to support a waste of skin like OhDrama, even after his OWN VP candidate has stated he isn't ready for the presidency has a screw loose.
Posted by: Hinton on October 22, 2008 11:43 AMHonestly, the talent working on Palin's image have earned every penny they've been paid and then some, they have done absolutely remarkable work for her (and by extension all women leaders) that will be studied closely for years to come.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 22, 2008 12:33 PMI'm starting to wonder if Rousseau had it right, that when we are too far removed from the state of nature, in which we are never protected from the consequences of our behavior, society suffers. Never thought I would agree with Rousseau, but there it is.
Posted by: TheSenator2012 on October 22, 2008 01:25 PMThe RNC made clear that the outfits will go to charitable donations, and one might imagine that they could generate some hefty bids if placed for auction after the election.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 22, 2008 02:29 PM
You state that sex education (or at least predator education) should be left to parents. Yes, this would be ideal, but it doesn't happen. So, wiseguy, should all those children who don't have good parents just be left to the predators? Is this what you are saying? The schools shouldn't have to make up for poor parenting, but unfortunately they are put in that place by society, and the society as a whole suffers the neglect of these parents. It is important that kids know what is appropriate and what is not, for their own safety, and as they grow older to know the consequences. I remember acts performed by classmates and older teenagers (especially towards girls), that today are sex crimes (such as child molestation, such as boys grabbing girls breasts). You may teach your kids proper behavior, but that doesn't mean all the other kids in the school know what is right and wrong. It is a fundamental question of safety in the schools. Some of the bullying and hazing that goes on, especially at middle-schools and junior highs, is borderline criminal. In middle school, 6th graders may be under 12 years old. Any touching of sexual parts or in sexual nature by a ninth grader fits the definition of 1st Degree Child Molestation. If that middle-school (usually boy) carries out those actions on an elementary kid, it is criminal. The sexual offenders are more than just the adult pedophile/predator.
Hinton@30
Rick D did not skewer my post. I pointed out above how the quote he used didn't even contradict what I wrote. The only skewering going on is in your mind.
...Each class or course in comprehensive sexhttp://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
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 AIDS...
Unless you want to quibble over what the "K" in K-12 means or what the meaning of "SHALL INCLUDE" is, I'm not sure how you can get around the reality that this "Sex education" was not, by the bills own wording, limited to "predator education". Unfortunately for Mr. Obama and his acolytes, sometimes facts are inconvenient things.
Like I said in my post above, the educator's today are incapable of teaching even the basic educational subjects effectively in their time allotted. Have you seen the test scores in this country across the board in all areas of curricula? Hint: It ain't pretty.
More parental participation and responsibility would go a long way, but the left (liberalism) has decided that "personal blame" can never be assigned and judgments shall not be made. Sometimes you reap what you sow and we are seeing the effects of that in our society today. Having educators filling the role of Parent is not the solution to this problem, it is holding parents accountable.
Where does it all end if all you've got are excuses?
The facts, as best can be determined by the Illinois web site on the bill status are as follows:
1. Obama did not sponsor the bill. He got involved when it was referred on 2/6/2003 to the Human Resources committee, which he was chair.
2. The Action Record states that it passed out of committe on 3/6/2003. As far as I can tell, this is the supposed vote that Obama cast. Note: There is no indication of amendments at this point. I am not sure of the Illinois legislatures rules of procedure on whether committees can amend bills themselves, or if the Senate has to do this.
3. The bill was amended on 3/18/2003 to change the K to 6 (see here). There isn't information as to who proposed the amendment (e.g., committee or other Senator on the floor).
4. The bill went back and forth another round and then died at the end of the session.
Obama stated in 2004 that his view on the specific kindergarten age-appropriate education was related to what is noted in Factcheck's write-up. He reiterated it last year when Romney brought up the issue.
Therefore, believe what you want. I see nothing in the record to dispute Obama's explanation. Maybe if those who are making a big deal about it had further evidence to fill in the gaps, then they may have a case. Right now, what I can't determine from the record is: (a) actual committee discussions on the bill, (b) what the process was at the time regarding amendments (e.g., whether the committee was free to revise the text, or those had to be voted on the floor), (c) who introduced Amendment 1 and for what reason, and (d) what the additional discussion on the bill was in the committee in the follow-on processing of the proposed bill.
What we do know is that if it was such a big deal, then Obama as chair of the committee, could have definitely pushed the bill through to at least get a final vote from the Senate. What makes Obama's opponents weak on this bill is the fact that it did die, and the fact that Obama's name was never added to the bill. If Obama was really gun-ho for it, why didn't he have his name added? Being committee chair, you would think he would want some of the glory. If he was really gun-ho, why did he let it die in the back and forth between the committee and Senate?
Posted by: tc on October 22, 2008 06:13 PMI never said he did. His colleague Sen. Carol Ronen-D did with 4 other co-sponsors..oddly enough, all Democrats.
"3. The bill was amended on 3/18/2003 to change the K to 6 (see here). There isn't information as to who proposed the amendment..."
actually there is..it was the sponsor Carol Ronen as the site points out:
3/18/2003 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Carol Ronen
Nevermind the fact that Obama supported the bill which factcheck.org agreed he did; nevermind that he didn't go 'balls to the wall" to have it become legislation (most likely because he had his sights set on the next rung of public office and knew this would come back to haunt him upon reflection).
If you'll just allow me :25 seconds of your time, I'll let Barack Obama tell you in his own words that sex education in kindergarten is the "right thing to do". If you want to get angry with someone, don't blame "the right wing whackjobs" for this, blame your own candidate who seems to nuance his positions depending on the audience he's engaging at that particular moment.
Now, if you'll excuse me I've got to go cling to my religion and guns.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 22, 2008 07:14 PMIn regards to the amendment, I did notice, after I had posted that Ronen's name was attached in the action log. I also noticed that the four Democratic sponsors where all from the committee, but the Democratic vice-chair and Obama didn't join them in sponsoring the legislation.
You most likely are right on the issue surrounding his run for Senate. Wikipedia (not that it is reliable) reports that he announced his intention to run for the Senate in January 2003.
His statements from 2004, 2007, and 2008 regarding the bill have consistently stated that what he does believe is that Kindergartner's should have preliminary education in regards to inappropriate touching. I understand you disagree with this. That is fine with me. I can see both sides of the issue and do agree that parents have the first responsibility on this matter. I do think the issue, however, is a society issue that should be debated (i.e., what role should schools play and who picks up the ball when parents fail in their responsibilities).
Regardless of the issue specifically, McCain's ad in September was false from the standpoint of calling it Obama's only legislative accomplishment. The bill didn't even get passed, so that fact in and of itself makes the ad false.
Posted by: tc on October 22, 2008 07:58 PMWhat are your thoughts on why the language of the bill was changed from 6 through 12 to K through 12 by Ronen? I have my own opinion and it only reinforces why I would oppose this kind of legislation.
The "boiled frog" theory comes to mind.
McCain's ad in September was false from the standpoint of calling it Obama's only legislative accomplishment. The bill didn't even get passed, so that fact in and of itself makes the ad false.
Which means his ACTUAL legislative accomplishments are - ZERO.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 22, 2008 09:33 PMI did find it strange on the bill that the sponsor would amend there own bill. This is why I get back to wondering what the process was in the Illinois legislature. To me, I am wondering if the process noted on the status page deals with committee proceedings and not the general legislature. If this is the case, then the first vote may simply have been a vote to have the committee consider the bill (e.g., procedural vote required prior to any amendments). In this case, I could see why the originator would then amend their bill for further committee discussion (i.e., the bill couldn't be changed without the first vote). It is all speculation. Your boiled frog theory may be just as valid.
Posted by: tc on October 23, 2008 01:56 PM...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 AIDS...
No wiggle room left, tc. Obama can't tap dance out of this one, and Gregory Hines isn't around to teach him.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 24, 2008 06:04 AM