A new low for McCain?

What drives me crazy is how after aaaallll this discussion, some still think either their "side" isn't guilty of this type of b.s., or that their "side" is less guilty of it. This is the way these 2 parties act. The worst part of it all is ... if it didn't work, they wouldn't act this way.

InfinityGoddess said:

I said it was poorly worded, but that it was not the intent of the original authors to force kids to learn about graphic sex, but to teach them how to protect themselves against child molesters. Obama himself said that was his intent, so all one can do is take him at his word that's what he meant.

Click to expand...

1.) How do you know the intent?

2.) If the intent of the original authors is to "teach [children] how to protect themselves against child molesters" then why didn't they word it that way?

Because intentions are not enough. Especially in something like legislation. If it is not worded correctly, than the law can be interpreted far differently than the intention of the authors of the law.

I can't watch a video at work, Bravo. What's the gist of it, if you will? Thanks.

If Obama didn't like the wording of the bill, he could have voted "present", just like he did so many other times.

And I agree that "swiftboating" is a straw default. The swiftboaters were right on the money. All JFK needed to do (still hasn't, despite his pledge to do so) was/is release the form to disclose his record. He can't do so.

"Swiftboating" is like "Red baiting". Same negative connotation, but both "culprits" were innocent, their targets guilty.

sassandgroove said:

1.) How do you know the intent?

Click to expand...

Because that is what Obama said. That's why.

2.) If the intent of the original authors is to "teach [children] how to protect themselves against child molesters" then why didn't they word it that way?

Click to expand...

I'm no legislator or lawyer, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. But it didn't pass, so it's a non-issue at this point.

robeiae said:

And I'd point out that the criticism of Obama in this ad is criticism of AN ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION, of a vote Obama actually made, of a real honest to goodness ISSUE.

Click to expand...

But it's not. It's an ad that implies that Obama wants to force kindergartners to be taught all about sexual matters. Which is a distortion, no matter how you look at it, and a distortion aimed at disturbing people. It's not at all about disagreeing with the legislation.

And your defense of the ad is sad indeed. By parsing the language carefully, you can show how technically it's not a lie. That's exactly what political admen do, so they can justify ads that avoid real issues and instead present the other candidate in the worst possible light. The fact that it's a distortion doesn't seem to bother you.

You can find poorly crafted legislation all over the place. Sometimes it's from lack of thought; often it's the result of compromise. And when a candidate votes for it, thinking it's better than nothing, or the best compromise that can get passed, you can then pick it apart and "prove" that candidate x is in favor of, or opposed to, just about anything.

This is precisely the type of ad that lowers the entire electoral process.

sassandgroove said:

1.) How do you know the intent?

2.) If the intent of the original authors is to "teach [children] how to protect themselves against child molesters" then why didn't they word it that way?

Because intentions are not enough. Especially in something like legislation. If it is not worded correctly, than the law can be interpreted far differently than the intention of the authors of the law.

Click to expand...

All bills and all laws rely on intent and interpretation. You cannot craft any piece of legislation that covers all contingencies and spells out everything exactly.

For example, a police officer can detain someone if he has "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed a crime, or is about to.

But what is "reasonable?" The law tries to define it, but it's not very good at that sort of thing. And how do you know if a person is about to commit a crime anyway, if no action has been taken? How can you establish their intent?

And that's a fairly simple and clear cut area of the law, one that's been tested and written about extensively.

rugcat said:

And your defense of the ad is sad indeed. By parsing the language carefully, you can show how technically it's not a lie. That's exactly what political admen do, so they can justify ads that avoid real issues and instead present the other candidate in the worst possible light. The fact that it's a distortion doesn't seem to bother you.

Click to expand...

It's not a lie. Right.

And Obama's ads that proclaims McCain is in line with Bush 90% of the time is also not a lie.

But both ads seek to place what is true in the worst possible way for the sake of the attack.

I've got no problem with either ad, really. It's what we get from every candidate, every election. Why is THIS ONE AD something special, in that regard? Explain it to me. That's my problem, here. The idea that this ad is somehow "below the belt," a "new low," or some such thing.

It's the same ol', same ol'.

This is precisely the type of ad that lowers the entire electoral process.

Click to expand...

Nah. It's precisely the type of ad that fuels the process. Because it's standard fare, nothing more.

Bravo said:

because it tries to make obama out to be a sex-obsessed radical who shouldnt be trusted anywhere near our children.

Click to expand...

Sex-obsessed? Uh-huh.

If that's the way the ad plays to you, I don't know what to tell you.

robeiae said:

It's not a lie. Right.

And Obama's ads that proclaims McCain is in line with Bush 90% of the time is also not a lie.

But both ads seek to place what is true in the worst possible way for the sake of the attack.

Click to expand...

But the Obama ad implies something that is basically true -- that McCain (like almost all republicans) basically supports the policies of Bush. In fact, if you're a fan of Bush, the ad gives you all the more reason to vote for McCain. It's a political statement, not an attack per se.

The McCain ad implies that Obama is trying to force inappropriate sex education on your kindergartner, and is thus someone far out of the mainstream. Unlike the Obama ad, the substance is basically untrue. It appeals not to policy differences, but to emotions and fear.

If you really think there is no difference between those two ads, we're a lot farther apart than I ever realized.

rugcat said:

But the Obama ad implies something that is basically true -- that McCain (like almost all republicans) basically supports the policies of Bush. In fact, if you're a fan of Bush, the ad gives you all the more reason to vote for McCain. It's a political statement, not an attack per se.

Click to expand...

Not true. The ad is arguing that McCain=Bush. That's an opinion, not a statement.

The McCain ad implies that Obama is trying to force inappropriate sex education on your kindergartner, and is thus someone far out of the mainstream. Unlike the Obama ad, the substance is basically untrue. It appeals not to policy differences, but to emotions and fear.

Click to expand...

I don't think the ad implies that, at all. I think it implies that Obama thinks sex education should start in Kindergarten. And given that the bill he voted for says that, I think it's a fair conclusion to make. Again, the defense from Obama is along the lines of "look, I assumed that sex education for younger children would be severly and not about sex, per se," or some such thing. Fair enough.

Does it appeal to emotion? Of course. But so does the Obama ad about McCain: the FEAR of another four years of Bush. That's obvious.

If you really think there is no difference between those two ads, we're a lot farther apart than I ever realized.

Click to expand...

They are different in subject matter, of course. But fundamentally, both ads are using facts selectively. If you can't see that...

InfinityGoddess said:

Because that is what Obama said. That's why.



I'm no legislator or lawyer, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. But it didn't pass, so it's a non-issue at this point.

Click to expand...

It IS NOT a NON ISSUE if Obama voted IN FAVOR of it. ANd when did Obama state his intent? After he rec'd citicism for it? HE's just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected.