Romney’s Hypocrisy: ‘The Only Sex Education That’s Appropriate In Kindergarten Is No Sex Education’
Romney’s Hypocrisy: ‘The Only Sex Education That’s Appropriate In Kindergarten Is No Sex Education’
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney defended Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) attack ad against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) that claims Obama wanted kindergarteners to be “learning about sex before learning to read.” The ad has been denounced by non-partisan fact-checking organizations as “simply false” and a “Pants on Fire” lie.
“The specific bill that Barack Obama voted for calls for sex education beginning as low as the kindergarten,” claimed Romney. Romney then declared that he and McCain both believe that “the only sex education that’s appropriate in kindergarten is no sex education”:
ROMNEY: Well, the specific bill that he, the specific bill that Barack Obama voted for calls for sex education beginning as low as the kindergarten and it includes in that bill language which says that each class is to learn about sexually transmitted diseases. And in my opinion, and John McCain and I share the same view, the only sex education that’s appropriate in kindergarten is no sex education.
Watch it:
But Romney’s claims don’t match his own record on K-12 sex education. As ABC News pointed out recently, Massachusetts established a set of K-12 goals for the teaching of sex education prior to Romney’s term as governor. “Those standards remained in place” during his tenure and “he did not challenge them.”
Romney has also previously stated his support for “responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate” sex education:
Planned Parenthood: Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?
Romney: Yes.
The bill cited by McCain, which Obama voted for in the Illinois State Senate, mandated that all sex education “be age and developmentally appropriate.” Additionally, as MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Romney, under the legislation, “what kindergarteners would have been learning is how to protect themselves from predators.”
Transcript:
SCARBOROUGH: That ad he ran against you wasn’t true, right?ROMNEY: Well, I think it was not accurate for him to continue to say that I was in favor of a specific date for troop withdrawal.
SCARBOROUGH: And it’s not really accurate to say Barack Obama wants five-year olds to learn about sex before reading. That’s not true either, is it?
ROMNEY: Well, the specific bill that he, the specific bill that Barack Obama voted for calls for sex education beginning as low as the kindergarten and it includes in that bill language which says that each class is to learn about sexually transmitted diseases. And in my opinion, and John McCain and I share the same view, the only sex education that’s appropriate in Kindergarten is no sex education.
BRZEZINSKI: Ok, well, and I also think that the implication of the words were not used correctly because I think what kindergarteners would have been learning is how to protect themselves from predators. But we’ll leave it there.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This sickens me. Are all Republican politians liars and cheats?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:43 amWhy doesn’t Romney want children to learn how to protect themselves from sexual predators?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:52 amThe one thing about telling a lie, the more that you try and parse it to fit what you’re saying, the more likely that people see it for what it is.
You have to just keep bald face lying and the truth be damned.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:52 amSeems yes, for the most part.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:52 amWhen I first enrolled my child in preschool, I had to sit down with him to talk about “private parts” and who should and should not touch them. It made me SICK to do it, and I was very casual about it, but it had to be done. I wanted to make sure that he understood how to say “no” and how to tell an adult if something made him uncomfortable.
It’s the world we live in, and I see nothing wrong with having that same discussion in a classroom.
Mittens is a hypocritical liar, but that’s no news flash.
PEACE
September 17th, 2008 at 11:54 amTruth be told, them Mormons sometimes like their 6th or 7th wive to be young…
September 17th, 2008 at 11:55 amI can’t get the video to work. Does anybody call him on his lies or does Romney slide right through untouched.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:55 amThey are really getting desperate, if this is what they’re hanging their hopes on. Their internals must be showing a rapid deterioration for Sarahcuda’s favorables, and a precipitous drop in their candidate’s trustworthiness rating.
Plus they have a rash of stupid statements from their own campaign staff to deal with, not to mention McCain’s growing reputation for not knowing WTF he’s talking about when it comes to the economy, so they’ll try to go to the “sexual fear” well one more time.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:56 amIt sure looks as though Republicans are afraid of small children being able to identify inappropriate contact. It’s almost as if they are afraid they may be reported on.
I’m just saying…….
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 amRepukians only want the “Larry Craig” Closeted Sex Ed taught.
Ask Jeff Gannon about his grades in it.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 amThank you Mika Brzezinski for at least trying to set the record straight…
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 amMika at the last possible second clarifies the Obama position, but just barely, and only after Mittens had his opportunity to slander Obama.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 amWhat is wrong with telling children where babies come from ?
They don’t need to know or hear specifics at that age , like how a child is created …………..
BTW Mittens of the Magic Underpants
Someone whose political party’s VP choice is in favor of abstinence only programs for ALL AGES , really has no credibility ……..
September 17th, 2008 at 11:58 amBTW, Right-wing/christian style sexual repression is the reason we have so many child molesters and serial rapists in this country.
When you tell a boy that his naturally occurring erection is the work of Satan and make him believe he is evil for having perfectly natural sexual urges, you do severe damage to that child’s self-image.
It can be stated reasonably that bringing a child up with religious beliefs is tantamount to child abuse, emotional abuse at very minimum.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pmRUCerious Says
September 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Why doesn’t Romney want children to learn how to protect themselves from sexual predators?
___________________________________________________________
Because it’s more politically expedient to try to spin a scandal where there isn’t one.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pmMCMetal Says:
Someone whose political party’s VP choice is in favor of abstinence only programs for ALL AGES , really has no credibility ……..
Especially when said Veep has a pregnant teen.
Just saying…
PEACE
September 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pmI’m just saying…….
What I was just thinking, too, tommy.
It all makes perfect sense in the Republiscum world: keep everyone – regardless of age – as dumb, as ignorant of the world around them, as possible.
Kind of like why Palin wants inbred fetuses (that gow into mongoloids)to be born: future GOP voting stock.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pmRepublicans are on the side of child molesters.
Why do Republicans want children to be more vulnerable to being molested?
Why are Republicans anti-children?
Why do Republicans want to rape children?
Let’s play the game like they do!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pmPsst….Republicans support child molestation
Pass it on….
September 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pmi coulda swore this guy was the VP pick…
guess pappy and babbs don’t have the pull they once did…
i’ve been wrong before…
September 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pmHis group of religious nutballs isn’t as big as Palin’s group of religious nutballs.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pmReich-wing lies and propaganda is wearing me out. For the young kids, this bill is to teach them to be safe from predators. Why do Republicans want to make it easier for pediphiles?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pmWell, on the one hand, you’ve got Republicans publicly opposing teaching kids how to protect themselves from child molesters.
But on the other hand, it might just be the prototypical republican reaction against education in general.
But either way, you’ve got Mittens as your spokesperson — this is a guy who didn’t even measure up to Sarah Palin in terms of qualifications. So that says a lot.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pmBecause Republicans are the party of child molesters.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pmRepublicans support child molestation
Absolutlely!
And Palin is pro-rapist, protecting their rights over that of the victims by not allowing the victim to end a potential pregnancy as a result of rape.
GOP: Pro child molestation. Pro rape.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pmSo McCain, Palin, & Romney don’t want children to learn how to protect themselves from sexual/physical abusers. They should hang their heads in shame for not only attacking legislation to protect children, but also lying about what that legislation is. More pathetic lies from the McCain campaign, and in this case, they are failing to protect children.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pmRepublicans are coming for your children!
If they don’t get to send them to die in wars for profit, they’ll molest them here at home.
I guess their new motto will be: “Get them killed over there so we don’t molest them here”
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
But either way, you’ve got Mittens as your spokesperson — this is a guy who didn’t even measure up to Sarah Palin in terms of qualifications. So that says a lot.
Well, Ralph, Mittens can’t see Russia from his house!
I’m guessing there are a lot of pissed off ‘pubs right now, including Droopy Dog who we haven’t seen at all lately.
PEACE
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmI think the problem here is calling it “sex education” in the first place. I can’t imagine anybody (except those who are into political spin) opposing the idea of educating five-year-olds on what kind of touching is appropriate, and what they should do if they are being touched in a way that creeps them out. However, this cannot be compared to sex education in the way that most people think of that term (and certainly not “comprehensive sex education”, as charged in McCain’s ad).
However, if Obama had withheld his support for “age-appropriate sex education” until the name of the bill was changed, he would have looked ridiculous (and that would only have resulted in him getting skewered for “failing to support” education that would protect young children, and he would have been accused of supporting pedophilia).
Sadly, there are kool-aid drinkers out there who will imagine that Obama advocates distributing condoms to kindergarteners as a result of this flap.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pmlokidog Says
September 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
And Palin is pro-rapist, protecting their rights over that of the victims by not allowing the victim to end a potential pregnancy as a result of rape.
_________________________________________________________
Um…don’t forget rape victims having to pay for their own rape kits…
September 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pmMissMolly, all we have to do is look at the learing image that McStain included in the ad to understand exactly what they were implying.
That ad had nothing to do with the bill Barack voted for and everything to do with “Look! Scary Black Man! Kiddy Sex!”
PEACE
September 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pmDistraction! Distraction! Distraction! Focus on the economy! Economy! Economy! Focus on what Bush has wrought and how McCain will repeat his horrible mistakes! FOCUS!!!!!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pmlokidog – over the top and ugly… flagged, fyi…
September 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pmMy father was a schoolteacher (now retired) who taught elementary school. When he was teaching third grade back in the 90’s, he was required to educate his students on condoms (this was a Seattle Public Schools policy).
Shocking? It shouldn’t be. He didn’t teach them what condoms were generally used for. But he had to show them pictures of what an unrolled condom looked like, and tell them that if they EVER saw anything like that lying around, they were NOT to pick it up or even touch it, but to tell an adult (he told them the same thing about hypodermic syringes).
This was mandated in order to protect children from unwittingly exposing themselves to AIDS. The children learned nothing about sex itself from this, but they did learn something where ignorance could have been harmful.
I can just imagine that if my father decided to run for office, the GOP would make wild accusations about how he “taught third-graders about condoms!” What McCain’s campaign is attempting to do is just as false and misleading.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Sadly, there are kool-aid drinkers out there who will imagine that Obama advocates distributing condoms to kindergarteners as a result of this flap.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
_______
True, but anyone that stupid and/or brainwashed wouldn’t have been voting for Obama anyway.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pmMorning Joke is such a loser show.
How and why in the hell is Mittens relevant and given any air time whatsoever ?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pmHow old do Mormon children have to be before they’re taught about “Magic Underwear”?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
Gov. Sarah Palin’s family is a shining example of abstinence only education at work.
.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pmThis is so embarrassing, I can’t believe the McCain campaign isn’t just trying to let it dissipate.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pmWhy doesn’t Romney want to protect kids from sexual preditors? Could HE be a sexual preditor???
September 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pmchiefeditor Says
September 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
This is so embarrassing, I can’t believe the McCain campaign isn’t just trying to let it dissipate.
____________________________________________________
In the first place, they don’t have much in their toolbox, so they have to go with the ridiculous.
And in the second place, they haven’t learned the First Rule of Holes (when you’re in one, stop digging). This would explain Fiorina’s performance yesterday, among other missteps.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pmThis is what happens when people try to insert their ignorance into politics, they don’t fact check for themselves and get foot-in-mouth disease because they just spout off whatever nonsense they can think of to make a point. Most of the time it’s to defend some religious viewpoint. The McCain campaign is just sad and pathetic this way.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pmMcMetal-Romney is still important because he has a lot of disposable income to give to the GOP yet.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pmMitt and his Mormon buddies prefer waiting until the kids reach 12 or 13 and then giving them “on the job training” in sex.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pmRepublicans are pro-child molester and want to deny your children the tools to protect themselves from sexual predators.
They must be some seriously sicko mofos
September 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pmOK, TP the moderation thing is getting really ridiculous. And I do not have time to repost multiple times to figure out which part of a word triggered your f_cked up filter.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWow, what is going on with Mika. How long is Joe going to allow her to show this independent streak?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pmtombaker Says:
Mitt and his Mormon buddies prefer waiting until the kids reach 12 or 13 and then giving them “on the job training” in sex.
And this is usually with a man two to three times their ages.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pmAh, yes, I’d been waiting for someone to say it– the “Ignorance is Strength” line!
September 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
“Wow, what is going on with Mika. How long is Joe going to allow her to show this independent streak?”
Maybe Joe’s been a little intimidated after her dad was on the other day… of course they still seem to be turning her mic down/off when they can get away with it.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pmThe bill cited by McCain, which Obama voted for in the Illinois State Senate, mandated that all sex education “be age and developmentally appropriate.” Additionally, as MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Romney, under the legislation, “what kindergarteners would have been learning is how to protect themselves from predators.”
The predators-related issue was only part of what was a rather broad bill. And, kindergarteners could have been taught much more than that; it was left up to the individual districts.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pmSo Romney thinks that schools should not instruct children that a guy who claims he is seeking a lost dog, or a driver who says he’s got candy for them, or an uncle who likes to play “doctor” should be avoided and reported because keeping kids uninformed about sex is best — maybe their magic underwear will protect them.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:54 pmlokidog – over the top and ugly… flagged, fyi…
Katy,
I certainly don’t wish to offend you. I apologize, as I obviously have.
I do wish to offend the rightwing/GOP as much as humanly possible, however. If that means getting uglier than they do, going more over the top than they do, count me in.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm“it was left up to the individual districts.”
That sounds like local control which around these parts is thought to be the shits…
September 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pmSpensers Mom said it well.
I was going to point out that kids in kindergarten engage in sex ed. They play “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” they notice each other in the bathroom. They’re curious about the body. So why not nourish this curiosity to teach them age-appropriate information ?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm______
misshusseinmolly Says:
I think the problem here is calling it “sex education” in the first place. I can’t imagine anybody (except those who are into political spin) opposing the idea of educating five-year-olds on what kind of touching is appropriate, and what they should do if they are being touched in a way that creeps them out. However, this cannot be compared to sex education in the way that most people think of that term (and certainly not “comprehensive sex education”, as charged in McCain’s ad).
September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
______
Well said.
Here is the problem:
MapleStreet Says:
I was going to point out that kids in kindergarten engage in sex ed. They play “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” they notice each other in the bathroom. They’re curious about the body. So why not nourish this curiosity to teach them age-appropriate information ?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
______
Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pmYet another instance of an uptight righty deciding that doing nothing is better than risking the hypothetical overstep that someone, somewhere, might commit.
But all of this obscures the disgusting anti-information spin and outright lies that the Right decides to lay on an insignificant state bill in a desperate attempt to reverse the slide of their own ticket.
Pathetic.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pmEverytime I see this snake oil salesman I wish someone would muss up his hair! He looks so phony.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pmupright left Says:
Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view
—
September 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pmWho are these people you are afraid of and just what exactly do you think they will teach which will be too far?
______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
upright left Says:
Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view
Yet another instance of an uptight righty deciding that doing nothing is better than risking the hypothetical overstep that someone, somewhere, might commit.
But all of this obscures the disgusting anti-information spin and outright lies that the Right decides to lay on an insignificant state bill in a desperate attempt to reverse the slide of their own ticket.
Pathetic.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
______
Who said do nothing? I agreed with misshusseinmolly regarding the teaching of appropriate touch and that the use of the term “sex education” to describe that isn’t accurate. It’s easy enough to separate that language in the bill from the language authorizing sex education for the children for whom it is appropriate.
The McCain campaign’s use of this issue is dishonest. That doesn’t preclude discussion of related issues.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm______
dbadass Says:
upright left Says:
Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view
—
Who are these people you are afraid of and just what exactly do you think they will teach which will be too far?
September 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
______
I’m sorry my post gave you the impression that I’m afraid of anyone. I thought I had used the word disagree. I’m fairly confident that the educators in my local district are aware that most parents prefer to be the source of information for their young children regarding questions about their bodies and where babies come from. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have that assurance. What I’m concerned that some educators might teach that is too far, is anything beyond what the parents want taught. The easiest way to prevent that is not to teach “sex education” to very young children. Teach them what is appropriate touch and what isn’t and move on.
For those who will surely misconstrue that response to be support for McCain’s dishonest ad, it isn’t.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pmSo you are sure that your local educators are not a concern but some nebulous others are not? What gives with that. What assures you of yours but simulataneously assures you that others can not be assured? I think this is tripe
September 17th, 2008 at 7:08 pm______
dbadass Says:
So you are sure that your local educators are not a concern but some nebulous others are not? What gives with that. What assures you of yours but simulataneously assures you that others can not be assured? I think this is tripe
September 17th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
______
I live in a small and very conservative school district. The administration shares the views of the community. Friends in a large neighboring district have encountered teachers who share details of their lives that cause some concern as to what they might share in an actual discussion of sensitive subjects. I’m terribly sorry if that doesn’t fit your view of the way things are.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:08 pmBut forced marriages with a large number of 14-year-old girls is okay?
September 18th, 2008 at 2:13 am