Thursday, July 19, 2007

Mitt Romney Loves Pedophiles

Senator Obama recently spoke to a Planned Parenthood crowd about his view that children should be educated about good and bad touching to help avoid predatory sexual advances by pedophiles. Mitt seems to think this is a bad idea. A few years back he had a very similar view to Barack. But now he's pandering to the right instead of the rather moderate people of Mass. As he embraces the right he also embraces the hands off type of governing that encourages the style of hands on child care that NAMBLA supports.


Beth said...

My mother started telling us about sex when I was five years old. And, yes, the conversations were age-appropriate. She never talked over our heads, but in terms we could grasp. By the time we hit puberty, we didn't make the stupid mistakes our other friends did — because we were informed. I'm now 48, an active single woman — and I can honestly say I've never had a sexual experience I regretted, never got myself into sticky or dangerous situations — because I was informed. This so pisses me off.

I may need to steal this and write a post next week.

Michael K said...

You go ahead and steal what you need. The right's ignorance only sex ed policies are unbelievably destructive.

Beth said...

I guess they figure if we stay dumb and pregnant, we'll be too ill-informed to stand up and yell.

EricProffitt said...

Beth...don't you see the irony here? It was not a school or a teacher or a nurse that taught you about sex education, it was your MOTHER. That is what a parent is supposed to do. I am the one that teaches my kids where and where not Uncle Joe is supposed to touch. This is exactly why sex education SHOULD NOT be taught in schools, because it is the parents responsibility.

I hated the sex ed classes I was required to attend. I much preferred my learning at home, and now as a mother of a kindergarten age child I am so glad that I am the one to explain to her the wonderful and mysterious world of sex...
you should listen to this new song it's really great and about the upcoming elections you can listen here:

Michael K said...

Eric: It's great that you had such wonderful parenting but not all children do. To leave it to the parents to teach is irresponsible especially when you consider that most molested children are violated by a member of their family.

Beth said...

Michael K's right. A lot of parents aren't educating their children on sex. My sister-in-law refused to because it made her uncomfortable. My mom picked up a lot of that slack — but my niece was still left with some confusion. She would have been better off learning something at school. It's silly to keep sex behind closed doors.

Natalie said...

I agree that it is primarily the parents responsibility but there are a lot of parents who aren't comfortable with the subject or who simply aren't well informed. What about the parents who are abusing their children? Would you want the abuser being the only voice of authority when it comes to sex education? I wouldn't.

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Talk about a spin doctor.

The North Coast said...

Why is Obama discussing this particular issue in a presidential campaign?

Could it be that subject of child predation is an easy issue, one where it's easy to take the "right" position? I mean, nobody exactly favors child molestation.

Same thing with Hillary Clinton. Several months ago, she volunteered that she was opposed to child molestation. I mean, I sure as hell HOPE no politician is for it.

Clinton, Obama,and most other presidential hopefuls are clearly falling back on 'easy' issues and 'feel-goods' to deflect tough questions about messy problems.

Like why Hillary continued to support the offensive in Iraq until last year, and now claims that she was urging a withdrawal "for years."

Like why neither Obama nor Clinton have anything serious to contribute on the deepening energy crises, except for Obama's support of a "cure" that might be worse than the disease, which is biofuel and ethanol.

Like what we all do for a living out here when our oil supply is cut by 20% or more because A)oil exporters are cutting back the amount they export while B)worldwide production is now noticeably past peak.

Like how we will reconcile a growing shortage of energy and arrable land with a growing population?

Like how we will deal with the social and economic problems presented by the presence of 12 million illegal immigrants and the ongoing influx of many more as Mexico's oil fields decline further.

Michael K said...

I agree that there are tough questions yet to be asked and last night's debate was a debacle. This post was intended to show that political spin seems more important to Mitt than facts.

I am with you on a lot of environmental issues and think we might even agree on a lot of them. One of the points a lot of Dems avoid is nuclear energy. It is safe and dependable. The French have been using it for years but the left that supports alternative energies in the States has generally been like Chicken Little when it comes to nuclear energy. Fuel cells are way too expensive and wind and solar are too unreliable when we think of transportation. Simpler ideas using technologies that already exist such as telecommuting and better public transit are things we can do now. I ride my bike to work and consider myself a low emissions vehicle (except after taco night) and try to encourage others to do the same. If people like yourself got out and encouraged (not badgered) people to do the same, I think we could make a lot of progress.

I think that Obama and Clinton as well as Dodd and especially Kucininch are very concerned with these issues but with a war going on and deepening concernes with the Bush administration's foreign policy in Iran, they have their hands full.

Do I think that many talking points are driven by spin? Of course. I also think that talking points are driven by what the public demands. Perhaps if your voice was louder more candidates would address your questions.