Video: Romney rips Obama over kindergarten sex ed

posted at 2:52 pm on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit

“I must say that Romney’s comments suggesting that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergarteners is a little misleading,” writes David Brody. Agreed, which is why I didn’t blog this yesterday when I first saw it. Mitt’s feasting on red meat here but Obama’s definition of “age-appropriate” sex ed for kiddies seems to go no further than explaining where babies come from and where it’s not okay for Uncle Joe to touch you. And, per Brody, his plan includes an opt out in case you don’t trust public school teachers to handle those lessons with the requisite sensitivity (and who would blame you?). Romney’s high dudgeon here makes it sound like Obama had something more lurid in mind, which is both unfair and irritating insofar as it’s a transparent set-up for his new catchphrase about the sea that our kids swim in. Note to Mitt: the culture warrior niche is well and good but soundbites in volume about America being an “ocean of filth” tend to be off-putting.

So, rest easy. Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What’s a golden shower? I flunked out in 6th grade.

Mark V. on July 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM

I was hoping that he was going to break into a Patton imitation.

Drew on July 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Yeah…where’s the chrome helmet?

PBoilermaker on July 19, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I think you may be missing a point here. How do you tell a five year old that babies don’t come from storks and are a product of mommy and daddy having intercourse without the deluge of followup questions that come with that?

How do you explain that a baby comes out of mommies vagina without getting into what a vagina is?

Anyone with children will tell you, they are perseptive, inquisitive little buggers.

Don’t start the conversation unless you are prepared for the consequences.

Kindergarten is just too young.

That being said, I am for attempting to let kids know from day 1 not to let “uncle joe” touch them or not to talk to strangers etc… Safety is a whole nother issue.

proudinfidel on July 19, 2007 at 2:59 PM

I was hoping that he was going to break into a Patton imitation.

Drew on July 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM

I would’ve. Are you the same Drew as the one at Ace’s?

Yeah, I think Mitt’s overplaying his hand here.

Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Good point, proudinfidel.

PBoilermaker on July 19, 2007 at 3:00 PM

So, rest easy. Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.

Or, they catch you watching TEAM AMERICA :)

jcrue on July 19, 2007 at 3:03 PM

When do they introduce them to a Dirty Sanchez and show them “who’s the boss”?

phineas g. on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Isn’t he jumping the gun a bit to be focusing on Obama right now anyway?

frankj on July 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM

America is an “ocean of filth”, Mitt?

No. But Massachusetts politics might be.

Zach on July 19, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Isn’t he jumping the gun a bit to be focusing on Obama right now anyway?

frankj on July 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The Special Olympics are starting early this year.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Pulling at the time boundaries when children lose their innocence. Keep them safe, but allow them to be children.

captivated_dem on July 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Most of the folks who want to teach sex ed to kindergartners want to talk about how it feels good when you touch yourself in certain places. As if they didn’t already know that.

proudinfidel, I’ve had three kids, the youngest now 15, and believe me, when you tell a small kid that Mommy’s going to have a baby, you don’t get more than one follow-up question. They’re not freakin’ Helen Thomas.

True story. My oldest was 3 when his sister was born. When we told him that Mom had a baby inside her and was going to the hospital, he asked, “How’s it going to get out?” I said, “The doctor is going to take it out.” That satisfied him. No follow-up questions.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM

I agree with Mitt. What is the matter with these liberals that they want to teach sex ed to kindergartners? Are they all a bunch of pedophiles and queers?

cjs1943 on July 19, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Mormon vs Moron

Popcorn is popping, should be good.

Hening on July 19, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.

Not coincidentally, Planned Parenthood is a Democrat constituency group.

Good Lt on July 19, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Attilla, my 6-year old had a huge string of detailed questions. Every kid is different.

But knowing public schools, no discussion of babies or families would be complete without extensive indoctrination about “alternative family structures,” and how they should all be equally valued.

Clark1 on July 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Come to MA where Mitt is from. We’ll show you what this means in practice. Here, as David Parker what it means. It’s About time you start giving our side the benefit of the doubt there AP.

Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son’s kindergarten class.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Readin’, ‘ritin’, ‘rithmetic and rectal intercourse – what an education for the chillins. There’s a reason that college graduates can’t find the United States on a map of North America. It all started in elementary school – the parental abdication of their childrens’ education to the State. And that is exactly what the Socialists have intended.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 19, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Where is the Patton Music?

Tim Burton on July 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM

I agree with Mitt. What is the matter with these liberals that they want to teach sex ed to kindergartners? Are they all a bunch of pedophiles and queers?

cjs1943 on July 19, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Judging by what’s happening in California right now, I would say, yes.

Zaire67 on July 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Isn’t he jumping the gun a bit to be focusing on Obama right now anyway?

frankj on July 19, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Au contraire, mon ami. It is very wise for Republicans to attack Democrats in their primary rather than attack each other, which has been the order of the day previous to this from the McCain, Giuliani, and Romney camps (‘specially here in SC). Hitting Obama, Edwards, and Hill-de-beast should be the standard operating procedure right now.

JDinSC on July 19, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Clark1 on July 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Bingo! We have Bingo! Mitt’s seen it first hand. He knows

EXACTLY

what Obama is talking about.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 3:30 PM

School districts and public educators are always wringing their hands for not having enough TIME to teach academic curriculum. It’s no wonder, wasting precious classroom time “discussing issues” with little kids. Little children should be left innocent and not dragged into adult feel-good propoganda. Kindergarteners learn best through game play. There should be absolutely no “sex education” required at public schools. Do require physical education exercize drills while chanting math tables. We want our money’s worth spent on grammar/math/science/music/PE instead of indulging teachers’ pet projects. That bunch of bassoonists can’t force their tastes on other people’s children. Parents, demand vouchers or prepare yourselves to homeschool your babies. They’ll still be forced to swallow that crud at college via required curriculum and texts. Public education has become the most vile racket of society.

maverick muse on July 19, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Personally, I don’t think children, especially 5 year olds, need a sex education class. They are just starting to learn their colors and such.

Overheard in kindergarten class:

That’s a nice picture of a bunny Lisa. Can you draw a blue ribbon on him? Lisa, did your mommy ever tell you where you came from? She didn’t? Shame on her! Let me show you some soft porn pictures so you can understand. Did you know that it’s perfectly alright for two men to poke each other in the ***? Never mind what your mommy said. You parents don’t know what’s best for you dear. I DO!

Yet another reason why both my children were educated at home.

Guardian on July 19, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Good for Mitt Romney!

MarkB on July 19, 2007 at 4:03 PM

We need education but not about sex.

Check this out::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

BEST 20/20 EVER!!!!!

The Gunslinger on July 19, 2007 at 4:05 PM

I have fought this sex ed fight in schools. Trust me, as you might imagine, “the enlightened” want to teach our children what THEY think they need to know and to hell with what you want. The “opt out” provision is a joke too. If you take it your kid is teased and you are looked at as a religious freak.

Obama said that schools should “provide age-appropriate sex education” Yeah, well who decides what is “age-appropriate?” They do, of course. Not the parents. I remember a teacher telling one parent who was a friend of mine that she was sheltering her kid too much and he needed this information. She KNEW better, don’t you see?

Explaining where babies come from to a five year old is ridiculous. They are too young to understand the logistics of it. My God, can we not keep our children innocent before 2nd grade????

Romney sure has my attention on this.

Rightwingsparkle on July 19, 2007 at 4:10 PM

My God, can we not keep our children innocent before 2nd grade????

You parents are SOOOOO obsessed with your children’s perceived innocence. If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.

If you do have kids, couldn’t you just come to terms with the fact that they’re going to have sex eventually? Better that they learn about the risks early. Or are you worried that if they learn about sex “too” early, then they might be inclined to have sex outside of the Jesus-approved bonds of marriage some day? Do you really think that, with this nearly infinite universe of millions of planets and solar systems, that God and Jesus give a damn about YOUR PRIVATE PARTS?

Christ, just tell them where babies come from and what an awful pain in the ass babies are and your kids won’t have sex.

She KNEW better, don’t you see?

She might very well have known better. Being a teacher requires more qualifications than being a parent.

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Remove Mitt from that podium and replace him with George S Patton. Fast forward to 2007. Allahpundit, disillusioned republican, is in the audience.

Now, I want you to remember. . .

. . .that no bastard ever won an election. . .

. . .by declaring in a timely fashion.

He won it. . .

. . .by making the other poor dumb
bastard look like a bigger bastard.

Men. . .

. . .all this stuff you’ve heard
about America not wanting to vote. . .

. . .wanting to stay out of the election. . .

. . .is a lot of horse dung.

Americans. . .

. . .traditionally love to vote.

All real Americans love
the sting of the ballot box.

When you were kids. . .

. . .you all admired
the New York Islanders. . .

. . .the Dallas Cowboys, The Chicago Bulls.

Americans love a winner. . .

. . .and will not tolerate a loser.

Americans play to win all the time.

I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell
for a man who lost and laughed. . .

Or lost and became an eco-freak

That’s why conservatives have never boycotted
and will never boycott an election. . .

. . .because the very thought
of not voting. . .

. . .is hateful to conservatives.

Now. . .

. . .we here at HOTAIR are a team.

We live, eat, sleep,
fight as a team.

This individuality stuff
is a bunch of crap.

The bilious bastards who wrote
that stuff about individuality. . .

. . .for the Saturday Evening Post…
or the New York Times…

. . .don’t know anything more about democracy than they do about islam, war, economics, or fornicating.

Now we have the finest computers
and equipment. . .

. . .the best spirit. . .

. . .and the best men in the world.

You know. . .

. . .by God, I actually pity those poor
Democrats we’re going up against.

By God, I do.

We’re not just going to defeat
the bastards. . .

. . .we’re going to cut out
their living guts. . .

. . .and use them to grease
the treads of our SUVs.

We’re going to out-vote those lousy
Kos bastards by the bushel.

Now. . .

. . .some of you boys. . .

. . .I know are wondering. . .

. . .whether or not you’ll chicken out
on Super Tuesday. Don’t worry about it.

I can assure you. . .

. . .that you will all do your duty.

The Democrats, the Leftists, the nutroots. . .

. . .are the enemy.

Wade into them!

Spill their votes!
Hang their chad!

When you put yourself. . .

. . .into that voting booth. . .

. . .that a moment before took the vote of
a marxist, socialist coward trying to destroy America from within. . .

. . .you’ll know what to do.

There’s another thing
I want you to remember.

I don’t want to get any messages
saying “We’re holding on to the Republican party.”

We’re not holding on to anything.
Let the Democrats do that.

We’re blogging and petitioning constantly. We’re not
interested in holding on to anything. . .

. . .except the border, and the enemy.

We’re going to hold on to him
by the nose and kick him in the ass.

We’re going to kick the hell
out of him all the time. . .

. . .and we’re going to go through him
like crap through a goose!

Now. . .

. . .there’s one thing. . .

. . .that you men will be able to say
when you get back home after voting.

And you may thank God for it.

Thirty years from now when you’re
sitting around your fireside. . .

. . .with your grandson on your knee. . .

. . .and he asks you:

“What did you do in the great
election of 2008?”

You won’t have to say:

“Well. . .

. . .I shovelled shit in Louisiana. ”

All right, now, you sons of b1tches. . .

. . .you know how I feel.

I will be proud. . .

. . .to lead you wonderful guys
into voting anytime. . .

. . .anywhere.

That’s all.

jihadwatcher on July 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Just curious. How many kids do you have?

Guardian on July 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM

I didn’t want public schools teaching my kids anything about sex and this is just a veiled attempt to open the door to the propagation of the homosexual agenda as “normal”.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 4:29 PM

They are too young to understand the logistics of it.

No doubt… keep it simple. “Sally, the trapeze in mommy and daddy’s bedroom is left over from when the circus owned this house.”

krakatoa on July 19, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Good for Romney. Schools should not give sex education to babies.
Enrigue, you sound very thoughtful. What a lunatic !

SIJ6141 on July 19, 2007 at 4:35 PM

Go Mitt!

What possible reason is there to teach Kindergarten kids where babies REALLY come from? Are little children getting lost searching under cabbages for babies or raiding storks nests, perhaps endangering a species?

As the mother of a boy, I have strenuously objected to early sex ed classes which are just pointless at that age. Among my many objections is the unnecessary loss of innocence – as I have often said, I wanted my child to look at little girls as little girls, not “vaginas”

Indeed, I’m surprised that little boys who might want a baby sibling don’t try to impregnate little girls, what with all the information they are handed that they are incapable of assimilating properly.

I do think that “Oceans of filth” is not the best campaign phrase. Perhaps “the flotsam and jetsam of sex education” has a better ring to it, if we are compelled to use an ocean theme at all.

Buy Danish on July 19, 2007 at 4:39 PM

I like the oceans of filth bit. It is accurate and if he takes the lead and America responds, he will be the next POTUS. What good does it do us to send our soldiers to fight overseas to defend an ocean of filth?

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 5:04 PM

You parents are SOOOOO obsessed with your children’s perceived innocence. If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.
Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I take it you don’t have kids. Your “painful loss” explains your painful posts.
Not exposing (not a pun) your kids to the foolishness of the left is a full time job for parents. Just what we want our kindergartners to learn, family values from a government run school.

right2bright on July 19, 2007 at 5:05 PM

right2bright,

I missed Enrique’s jaw-dropping comments.

Why do you think that Enrique is SOOOOOOO obsessed with robbing our children of their innocence A.S.A.P.?

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Enrique has “issues” and is very angry that everyone can’t have a miserable childhood like he did so they can grow up to be miserable adults like him. It’s not fair!

Buy Danish on July 19, 2007 at 5:18 PM

She might very well have known better. Being a teacher requires more qualifications than being a parent.

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

As a father of two kids I take exception to this asinine comment. It’s time to go to the bathroom and dump that load of crap you’ve been carrying. Or is that your head up your butt.

Zaire67 on July 19, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son’s kindergarten class.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Wow! Thanks for that link, I read the whole thing, amazing that happened in the USA. And the libs care so much about our freedoms and rights, just not if you’re a parent.

4shoes on July 19, 2007 at 5:25 PM

He’s beating a straw man.

Stupid.

congsan on July 19, 2007 at 5:26 PM

She might very well have known better. Being a teacher requires more qualifications than being a parent.

Enrique on July 19, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I’m not a parent, so please don’t think that I’m taking this personally.

However my friend’s sister-in-law (as well as many of her idiot friends) are teachers. I wouldn’t trust these fools to teach a rock how to stand still.

There are certainly some great teachers out there. I had the pleasure of having many of them at the head of my classrooms as I grew up.

However, just because they’ve proven their ability to navigate through all the bureaucratic red tape to get their credentials doesn’t mean they actually have any wisdom/knowledge to impart.

Are there stupid people that become parents? Certainly. Are there stupid people that become teachers? Absolutely!

JadeNYU on July 19, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Enrique,

You, sir, are a turd.

Nolamom67 on July 19, 2007 at 5:43 PM

If you don’t want your kids to go through the same painful loss of innocence that we all go through, then don’t have kids.

Enrique, I don’t know what you were unfortunate enough to go through, personally, my childhood wasn’t the best either, but as a parent I do know I want my children to be children and as innocent as possible, for as long as is possible. They are my kids I think I have that right at least in this country, not to expose them to some adults screwed up propagandist agenda because they think they know what’s best! If they really want to do that to a kid they should have their own!!! Though I’m not recommending it at all.

4shoes on July 19, 2007 at 5:45 PM

So, rest easy. Your children won’t be finding out what a “golden shower” is until they’re at least 13, when Planned Parenthood will happily inform them.

You know, I laughed out loud when I read that. But then it made me kind of sad … because it’s close to the truth.

I spent some time with a young male relative recently, a newly minted college freshman who I’m 99.9% sure is still a virgin at 18. He may have never kissed a girl. Never had a real girlfriend, even though he’s a good looking kid. Just kind of shy.

But you know what? Even though he may never have loved a girl, I know for a fact he’s already seen every sex act imaginable, and a lot that I don’t prefer to imagine. I’m sure he knows exactly what a “golden shower” is.

Isn’t that sad? Kind of brutally sad?

I’m not exactly a prude – but it’s just not fair to our children. They deserve a chance to grow up on their own terms.

Hell, I wish I could erase some of the things I’ve seen. I can’t imagine how it affects 11-year-olds.

When parents have “the talk” with their kids these days … do the kids already know it all – and more? At least the technical side of it?

Just sad. And I have no idea how to fix it.

Professor Blather on July 19, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Brilliant-

One of Mitt’s three legs of his campaign is strong families and cleanning up the the environment kids live in today.

He finds the perfect foil in a Democratic candidate who says he supports having teachers give “age appropriate” sex education to kids as young as 5 years old and takes him to task for it.

Fred is spending time trying to explain his mistatements and pro-choice past, Rudy is talking about no litmus tests for judges and Mitt is staying on message and hammering the messiah. Yea, hard to figure out who the better day.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Fred is spending time trying to explain his mistatements and pro-choice past, Rudy is talking about no litmus tests for judges and Mitt is staying on message and hammering the messiah. Yea, hard to figure out who the better day.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Translation: After a record of being a social “moderate”, Mitt is now pandering to the social con / moral majority crowd with the old “what about the children” ploy. Yawn.

Perhaps he should instead just pointed out how the federal government has no place dictating curriculum… or for that matter providing health insurance, or deciding what kind of rifle I can buy.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 6:37 PM

I’m telling you it’s like catnip. You are as predictable as the sun rising.

Small point that may have eluded you, Hollowpoint, Mitt has been married to the same woman for over 30 years. He has 5 grown sons and a dozen grand kids. As you so eloquently pointed out, its the record, not the record.

Romney has a great record on education and every time I challenge you to prove otherwise you got nothing. His healthcare plan, as I have pointed out to you numerous times, was designed in conjunction with the Heritage foundation and isn’t a gov’t plan or a single payer and actually saves taxpayers money. But you don’t really care about those issues or facts, you care about guns. Be honest and we can save time.

As to the type of rifle you can buy, which I have also pointed out to you, as has Ronald Reagan and the heads of every law enforcement agency in the country, yea, the voters do have a right to tell you what kind of assault weapon you can’t have.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM

ts the record, not the record.

its the record, not the rhetoric.

my bad.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Just sad. And I have no idea how to fix it.

I’m with you Professor Blather.

Those who think graphic sexual images don’t affect our children are just fools. And it is almost to a point where you simply cannot protect your kids from them no matter how hard you try.

Rightwingsparkle on July 19, 2007 at 7:07 PM

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM

I’m not sure I ever even brought up education; in any case it’s a state issue- the federal government has no role in education. Just as Bush has let us down by expanding the federal government’s role in education (despite lack of Constitutional mandate), so would Mitt likely do.

While his MA health care plan isn’t as bad as Hillarycare, to suggest it’s not costing taxpayers money is false- it’s a mandatory program, with fines for not participating fully. Even then I don’t have a big issue with it being a PRM (People’s Republik of Massachussets) matter… but he want’s to bring it to the federal government too. Just what we need- another entitlement program. You’re already on medication if you think it wouldn’t grow into another massive entitlement program as is always the case.

As for the gun issue- remind me which of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights that elected officials get to declare void? And before you say it- yes, Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold and I disagree with that vote. However he’s admitted it went too far and pledged to fix it. In contrast, after the evidence showed that the Clinton assault weapon ban had no significant impact on crime after being in place for 10 years, Mitt wants to bring it back. Not if my vote has anything to say about it.

Mitt is not a conservative.
Mitt is unlikely to win the nomination.
Mitt is even unlikely win the general election if he did.
Mitt isn’t the right man for the Republican nomination.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Hollowpoint, would you prefer Mitt! leave that issue for a different candidate, or non-candidate to address? As far as family values goes, Mitt! has some issues to defend, but family values is not one of them. He can, does, and should be taking the lead on it. Are you so offended by it? Is it not important?

If his message resonates with Americans, it will show Mitt! as a visionary who is willing to lead on a issue that the other candidates take for granted. Ala Ronald Reagan.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Mitt is not a conservative.

He’s more of a conservative than Fred “I do not remember lobbying for that abortion group and I regret supporting campaign finance reform” Thompson.

Mitt is unlikely to win the nomination.

And yet he is still called a front runner, leads in the early primary states, and has many supporters here at Hot Air. Fancy That.

Mitt is even unlikely win the general election if he did.

Despite the fact he has proven he can attract Democratic voters by say, getting elected with 50% of the vote in Massachusetts while still remaining conservative? If he doesn’t win it will be people like Hollowpoint on the Fred bandwagon who think our presidential priority list should be Fred 1st and Hillary 2nd because no one else deserves it.

Mitt isn’t the right man for the Republican nomination.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I believe that is for the people electing the Republican nominee, not hollow points Hollowpoint to decide.

BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Hollowpoints fears about the 2nd amendment are legit. Gun owners have to fight for them or the libs will take them all. They don’t want to admit that there has to be limits on the types of weapons. The only question is…where is the line? I guarantee you that had the founding fathers had nuclear weapons, the second amendment would be very specific. The problem is the liberals have become so bat$hit crazy that you cannot reason with them.

I believe any citizen should be allowed to own a machine gun. I don’t think a .50 cal is reasonable, although I would LOVE to own two or three. But that’s my sacrifice to the others sides concerns.

Mitt! is by no stretch of the imagination a gun grabber. But he certainly has espoused limits that are further than I want to go. What is his position now? I don’t know, but it isn’t a hot button issue for me this election cycle.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM

BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Nice.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 7:27 PM

I’m not sure I ever even brought up education; in any case it’s a state issue- the federal government has no role in education. Just as Bush has let us down by expanding the federal government’s role in education (despite lack of Constitutional mandate), so would Mitt likely do.

Perhaps he should instead just pointed out how the federal government has no place dictating curriculum

Well you did. It was only a couple posts up, you could have scrolled.

Be that as it may, you are constantly saying things you have no idea about. What in Romney’s record or rhetoric would lead you to believe he will be anything like Bush? Let me answer that for you. Nothing. Yet you say it. Why? Bush is from Texas, he’s not an east coast RINO. He’s one of yours.

While his MA health care plan isn’t as bad as Hillarycare, to suggest it’s not costing taxpayers money is false- it’s a mandatory program, with fines for not participating fully. Even then I don’t have a big issue with it being a PRM (People’s Republik of Massachussets) matter… but he want’s to bring it to the federal government too. Just what we need- another entitlement program. You’re already on medication if you think it wouldn’t grow into another massive entitlement program as is always the case

.

Once again, you just don’t know what you are talking about. You bet it’s mandatory. It says you have to have health care or you forfeit tax write-offs. He, for now the 80th time, wrote this in conjuction with the very conservative Heritage Foundation. The net benefit is that it has reduced the role of uninsured people who drive the cost of insurance and health care up for taxpayers, not created a single payer system and kept private insurance and choice available for everyone. Its too long and involved to put in a post but if you are really serious about learning the truth go the the Heritage Foundation, not a Romney or other candidate site.

Ah but back to the biggie, the 2nd Amendment.

As for the gun issue- remind me which of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights that elected officials get to declare void?

The herring that is red. Nobody has said the snd Amendment is void and you know it. What you really mean is you don’t like restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. But, as you well know, it happens all the time.

The 1st Amendment, the single most sacred right we as Americans have, has in fact been limited many times. The most obvious example that everyone knows is you don’t have the right to scream FIRE! in a crowded theater.

The restrictions you talk about have been through the court system and yes, were found to be consitutional, unlike the McCain/Feingold law, which, in a supreme example of irony, was most opposed by two interest groups. One is the National Right To Life group. The other, the National RIfle Association.

By the way, any clarification from Fred yet?

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I heard Obama’s comments in full and like most of his positions his statement was vague, arrogant and obtuse. What’s with the shot at Romney, Allah? How about you explain to me why a kindergarten teacher should be explaning to a 5 year old where babies come from? And how exactly will parents opt out? Tell the 5 year old their Mommy doesn’t want them involved with the other kids so they have to sit in the hall by themselves?
I have yet to hear the wonderful Obama say anything half way intelligent or original, he seems to be nothing by cliches. Yet you seem very eager to use him to throw Romney under the bus. Hmm

peacenprosperity on July 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Let me see, running for president the democrats have plagiarists, unindicted coconspirators, failed mayors who drove his city into the ground, Truthers, Ted Kennedy’s waterboy, an ambulance chaser who lies about his upbringing any chance he gets. A plethora of seedy characters. But lets make snide remarks about our own candidates before the primary season has even began.

peacenprosperity on July 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Just curious. How many kids do you have?

Guardian on July 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM

He doesn’t have any kids but he does have a poodle and a special friend named John Edwards.

peacenprosperity on July 19, 2007 at 7:49 PM

BKennedy on July 19, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Mitt is tied with McCain in the polls, and in matchups between Hillary or Obama he fares poorly, losing by double digits. He won in MA by running away from Reagan and the Republican party and as a “moderate” (read: RINO).

He bought Iowa for now, but that’ll change. In any case he certainly won’t win SC and NH is questionable at best.

He’s not a reliable conservative, he’s a pandering chameleon. I see no reason to trust him, but I understand there are some MA residents and Mormons pulling for their guy. Maybe if he throws another $9 million of his own money in the race he can finally break 15%.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM

Once again, you just don’t know what you are talking about. You bet it’s mandatory. It says you have to have health care or you forfeit tax write-offs. He, for now the 80th time, wrote this in conjuction with the very conservative Heritage Foundation.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I don’t care who helped him write it- I’d rather not have Big Brother tell me at gunpoint what kind of health insurance I have to carry, thankyouverymuch. I’d also not like to see yet another entitlement program that will inevitably balloon to cost hundreds of billions as Mitt’s would.

And what allowed the Clinton Gun Ban (to be renamed the Romney Gun Ban if he has his way) to pass court muster? Liberal judges. I’m to believe Romney would appoint constructionist judges who would overturn his own gun ban and health care mandatates? I don’t think so.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 8:42 PM

I don’t care who helped him write it- I’d rather not have Big Brother tell me at gunpoint what kind of health insurance I have to carry, thankyouverymuch. I’d also not like to see yet another entitlement program that will inevitably balloon to cost hundreds of billions as Mitt’s would.

You’re a perfect Fred voter. You have no idea what any of the candidates acutally represent. You don’t even want to know. You learn and speak in sound bites. And you’ll be shocked, SHOCKED, when your candidate turns out to not be the guy who represents what you think he does.

Go Fred!

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 9:01 PM

4shoes on July 19, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Don’t tell Allahpundit because in his eyes, Mitt’s tilting at windmills. The difference is, Mitt lived it. He knows exactly what Obama is talking about. And so does David Parker who wound up in jail over it.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Don’t tell Allahpundit because in his eyes, Mitt’s tilting at windmills. The difference is, Mitt lived it.
TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Mitt lived it, flipped then flopped on it… he was for “age appropriate” sex ed before he was against it: link.

Don’t worry though, JackStraw will be along shortly to explain that this really wasn’t yet another flip-flop.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Go Fred!

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 9:01 PM

I win.

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Has Mitt been watching “Nashville” too much?

Or “Patton”?

profitsbeard on July 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I see no reason to trust him

The problem with your arguments against Romney are that they all look into the future to assume things Romney would do or what the effects of his policies would be (according to you) instead of just looking at his actual record.

he was for “age appropriate” sex ed before he was against it: link.

Read the article in full and it is clear that Obama was definately talking about small children while Romney was asked if there should be sex ed at all.

He won in MA by running away from Reagan and the Republican party and as a “moderate” (read: RINO).

How come opponents amunition seems to come from campaigns, or edited soundbytes? It seems opponents hope a general ignorance of his actual term as govenor, persists.

Resolute on July 19, 2007 at 10:03 PM

I guess you don’t read your links:

Hollowpoint on July 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Romney was criticized by Massachusetts pro-choice groups when he began to push an abstinence-heavy focus on sex education

You people better wake up and stop doing the Dems jobs for them. Support your candidate to the hilt but avoid bashing the others and let the best man win. That way, you can back the eventual nominee with a clear conscience. I for won will do nothing, no matter how small, that may result in the disaster of Billary.

I support all the candidates (except Ron Paul) and will back the eventual winner. To do otherwise at this point in history, is unthinkable to me.

TheBigOldDog on July 19, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Romney was criticized by Massachusetts pro-choice groups when he began to push an abstinence-heavy focus on sex education

Guys, really not worth the effort. Anyone who has paid attention to Hollowpoint (and yes the name is a give away) knows he only has one issue. Guns.

He doesn’t care that even Reagan disagrees with his position. He doesn’t care about facts or honesty. He doesn’t even understand the Constitution. Guns.

Go Fred!

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Allah, I’m lerning something about you: you’re the kind of guy who doesn’t mind allowing the camels head into the tent.

auspatriotman on July 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM

So, back to Mitt!….what do you think of this 2002 questionaire he filled out where he was for age appropriate sex ed in public schools?

In his defense, it did not nuance the question to kindergarten, so he does have some coverage on it. I’d like to see some other quotes from him expanding on this to get some context for just what grades he thought sex ed was acceptable for. My guess is that since he was pushing an abstinence only sex ed program, it must have started some where around 6th grade or later?

Also, if he felt sex ed at any younger age was unthinkable, he may have assumed the age-appropriate program would be in that general area and not all the way down to K to 3rd or 4th. Maybe.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:18 PM

I read up on Mitts! thinking on sex ed in public schools. He wanted to teach abstinence to age appropriate kids, not vagina’s and penis’s to kindergartener’s.

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:39 PM

csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:18 PM

You know what I think is odd? Dumb ass questions that people like you should know better than to ask. You are btter than that.

On the one hand, Romney is branded a freak, a cultist, because of his Mormon religion. A religion that preaches abstinence and morality.

On the other hand, there is Rudy. And Fred.

The question was a general one, should sex education be given to age appropriate kids in school. There’s no nuance needed. Don’t try to spin this into Mitt wanted sex education for kindergarteners. You can’t have it both ways. He is either a Mormon freak or Obama. He is also the first Gov in MA to roll out a huge abstinence program. Look it up.

I hope that this election will come down to the actual conservative lives and policies of not only the Republicans but the Democrats. That includes Fred, Rudy, Hillary and Obama.

President Romney works for me.

JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Mitt is right on the money on this.
He was a Republican Governor in the bluest of the blue states and knows exactly how liberal teachers would interpret “age appropriate” sex ed.

imshocked on July 20, 2007 at 12:12 AM

This is democrat as usual.
Remember Ms.Joycelyn Elders brilliant idea,
teaching children to be in touch with their
intimate parts.
Obama and sex taught in Kindergarten,only one
word needs to be implied,that is NUTS.

Now on to that great and brilliant KICK-ASS PATTON SPEECH.
This speech is a must read,no I’m not kidding,don,t you
dare laugh.This speech to me isn’t a AMERICAN GUNG-HO.
Rather the exact thing thats going on now.
Read what he has to say about cowards,especially if they
were allowed to get back to the States.

Here’s The Famous Patton Speech website.
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html.

canopfor on July 20, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Guys, really not worth the effort. Anyone who has paid attention to Hollowpoint (and yes the name is a give away) knows he only has one issue. Guns.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Yes, his desire to ban certain guns based largely on cosmetic appearances is a part of my problem with him. Let’s see, I’ve had quite a bit of bourbon at this point, but let me see if there’s anything else… nope- can’t think of anything.

Well, except for Romney’s Big Government, forced-at-gunpoint health care plan for the US that will add yet another entitlement program to the tax rolls.

And his Big Government education position; an area in which the federal government should have no role.

And his being for abortion and against Roe v Wade before he decided to follow in Daddy’s footsteps and run for the nomination.

And raising taxes and fees, refusing to pledge not to raise taxes until- you guessed it- he planned on running for President.

And distancing himself from Reagan and the Republican party before he named Reagan a hero and portrayed himself a conservative… just in time!

And being for “age appropriate” sex ed before he was against it (guess when that change came about?).

And his claim that he’d appoint constructionist judges while simultaneously supporting unconstitutional positions (oops, I at least partially alluded to guns again; sorry).

And spending money on “global warming” research before he was against it at a rather opportune time (wink, wink).

And his lack of electability, being very similar to Bush in his Big Government “compassionate conservatism” and politically connected, weathly upbringing (which he would be attacked on). Plus his failure to gain popularity in six months despite spending 9 million of his own money, his too-slick, pandering style, and (unfair though it might be) his religion, which will turn many off. And of course he blew a lead over Ted Kennedy to lose the Senate election.

But yeah, it’s just about guns. And I know- he campaigned one way to get elected in liberal MA, but supposedly governed another. Makes me feel so much better about him.

But talking to you is pointless, since he’s your local boy, and nothing he says, has done or will do is going to change your mind because you’re going to back the MA candidate no matter what. Don’t talk to me about backers of other candidates being uncritical of those they support.

Hollowpoint on July 20, 2007 at 2:27 AM

Holy crap did I just type all of that? Sorry folks, didn’t realize it was so long.

Hollowpoint on July 20, 2007 at 2:28 AM

I am behind Hollowpoint on this one.

Well behind.

seejanemom on July 20, 2007 at 8:20 AM

You know what I think is odd? Dumb ass questions that people like you should know better than to ask. You are btter than that.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Yeah, yeah, I know. But I’m vacuous ya know?

bwaahahahaha

csdeven on July 20, 2007 at 8:30 AM