This week, National Review published an article by Byron York with the simple headline “On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right.”
Too bad that’s not what York’s article proves.
You’ll recall that last week the McCain campaign, to much opprobrium, released an ad spotlighting a sex education bill that Obama supported while an Illinois state senator. Here’s the full script:
Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education”.
That he’s “elusive” on accountability.
A “staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly”.
Obama’s one accomplishment?
Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
Barack Obama.
Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.
There are a slew of problems with this—the ad’s tortured definition of the word “accomplishment,” for one. The bill didn’t pass, and Obama wasn’t a prime author, co-sponsor, or sponsor. Given that characterization of “accomplishment,” it’s even more absurd to believe that the failed bill could be described as his “one accomplishment.”
There have been several valuable fact checks on this point, and on the nitty gritty of what the bill, should it have passed, would have actually done. All have found, essentially, that the ad’s central, nasty claim—that Obama voted to “teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners”—is bunk.
But York, in brave defense of the ad, and in defiance of common sense, does his best to prove otherwise. He suggests that there’s something rotten about all this fact checking, and about the “’McCain-is-a-liar’ storyline” that came from this ad. “But before accepting the story at face value,” he writes,
it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair?
Agreed! The bottom line question is whether or not McCain’s description of the bill is fair. (Hint: It isn’t.) But reread the italicized sentence about “inappropriate advances.” By including that question, York, like a magician trying to distract his audience, introduces a side issue—namely, the validity of Obama and his campaign’s explanation for why he backed the bill. Perhaps that’s a worthy question, but not one that has anything to do with the truthfulness of McCain’s ad, ostensibly the subject of York’s piece.
Obama’s favorite retort, when confronted with this matter, is to note that the bill would have sanctioned warning young students about inappropriate sexual contact and rape. He mentioned this in 2004, when his GOP senatorial opponent, Alan Keyes, tried the attack in a debate. Here’s what Obama said in response:
We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.
His basic point—that the bill would have required sex ed to include age appropriate discussions of inappropriate touching—is sound. Was it the sole focus of the bill? No, but it’s still there, and its presence is hardly inconsistent with Obama’s 2004 statement describing the predator issues as “an example” of the “kind of stuff” to be found in the legislation.
This is not even close. The bill in question advocates, and I quote directly from the legislative language, "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." The only mention of "age appropriateness" in the legislation refers specifically to this topic of the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. This is clearly beyond the topic of inappropriate touching, and therefore Obama is clearly misrepresenting the bill. On the other hand, the McCain campaign has every right in the world to represent this bill using the language of the bill itself.
We can wonder about the appropriateness of calling this an "achievement," although, if it's not an achievement, then Obama arguably has no achievements at all in his legislative career. However, there can be no legitimate complaint about McCain's characterization of the bill. McCain is speaking the absolute, unimpeachable truth, and Obama is lying through his teeth about his own history, as we've come to expect him to do.
Posted by Philip Weingart on Sat 20 Sep 2008 at 04:08 PM
I agree with Philip Weingart 100%. But I also want to point out that McCain never said Obama co-sponsored the bill or authored it. McCain said that Obama voted for it. Whether or not the bill passed or not is irrelevant. Obama voted for it.
Posted by Mary on Mon 22 Sep 2008 at 02:11 AM
I agree with Philip Weingart 100%. But also want to point out that McCain never said Obama co-sponsored the bill or authored it. McCain said that Obama voted for it. Whether or not the bill passed or not is irrelevant. Obama voted for it.
Posted by Mary on Mon 22 Sep 2008 at 02:13 AM
Mr. Weingart is either mistaken or lying when he says that, quote, "The only mention of 'age appropriateness' in the legislation refers specifically to this topic of the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."
If you take a moment to look at SB 99, the bill in question (and trust me, it will literally only take a moment to settle this point), you'll see at least three references to how the instruction envisioned by the bill is only to be done in an age appropriate manner. For an example, you could look at the bill's second page, lines 12-13:
All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.You could also look at the bill's 6th page, lines 7-9. Or the bill's 10th page, lines 14-16. None of these references, as he claims, apply solely to HIV or STD instruction.
Weingart's quote is word for word accurate, but he seems to ignore what I spent hundreds of words demonstrating: that identical or nearly identical language on STDs and HIV education elsewhere in the bill is paired with an age appropriate disclaimer; that the section missing that language would have amended a weak portion of the school code that only applies to local districts already electing to provide sex ed courses in whatever grades they choose, and that that weak section would have, in effect, been superseded by changes to the state's mandatory health course that would have declared, in a crystal clear manner, that all sex ed, including AIDS and STD prevention instruction, be done in an age appropriate manner.
In other words, he's not even close.
Posted by Clint Hendler on Mon 22 Sep 2008 at 10:35 AM
Sex education could also be helpful to children, but age really matters regarding to this. Perhaps, the main goal of President Obama is to educate our children about this matter as early age as they are, and that’s a good idea. A chunk of change that will enhance sex education in the U.S and as well as providing aid to childcare on military bases, are the two parts of the stimulus. Granted, education is a valuable. However, this may not be the best time for this kind of expense. These are good measures, but they deserve their own bill. Read more about quick payday loans and the stimulus bill here.
Posted by Teagan D on Tue 3 Feb 2009 at 12:41 AM