Romney going hardline on sex ed

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Hyrum is right. Romney has been running an ad in South Carolina and Iowa where he refers to a Peggy Noonan article about how children are swimming in an ocean of filth and he wants that to change. His quote was referencing that analogy.

You don't say? Now where would I, living in the People's Republic of Monsanto, have seen that ad?

1) Romney takes a shot at science-based sex ed.

2) He references his filthy water ad--the one I've seen on my own TV--which is an analogy for the smut that's coming at kids from everywhere.

3) The usual dissembling begins.

[BarbaraGordon]

Here is the excerpt from Mitt's speech:




Here is the video of Obama's original comment, courtesy ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Originally Posted by TooBlue

I understand that Romney's quote was clumsy (out of context) and that Obama jumped all over with sanctimonious zeal.

Sorry, TB, it's the other way around. Obama made a comment and Mitt jumped on the chance to use it to his own political advantage.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Here is the excerpt from Mitt's speech:




Here is the video of Obama's original comment, courtesy ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492


Sorry, TB, it's the other way around. Obama made a comment and Mitt jumped on the chance to use it to his own political advantage.

Let's not condemn a politician for jumping on another politician's comment, twisting words, and manipulating for a political advantage.

Isn't that what politicians do?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Here is the excerpt from Mitt's speech:




Here is the video of Obama's original comment, courtesy ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492


Sorry, TB, it's the other way around. Obama made a comment and Mitt jumped on the chance to use it to his own political advantage.

I was referring to the way in which the article slanted the go between when I wrote about Romney quoted out of context and Obama's zeal.

Living in Canada I have not seen any political ads. SEQ's comment went directly over my head and I was sincerely interested in understanding it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Living in Canada I have not seen any political ads. SEQ's comment went directly over my head and I was sincerely interested in understanding it.

I don't live in Canada, and I still haven't seen any political ads. And I'm still in the dark about what SIEQ's comments mean.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

I think he is talking about influences from the media, schools, and society in general, as Hyrum suggested. IN fact, it seemed so clear to me that I am surprised that anyone thought otherwise. If I am wildly wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Outside of heading to the on-line sports sections of the Trib and DNews I read Canadian newspapers, watch little television and listen to Canadian sports radio. Sometimes I read Time online and I will visit CNN.com

I truly did not understand SEQ's comment.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Let's not condemn a politician for jumping on another politician's comment, twisting words, and manipulating for a political advantage.

Isn't that what politicians do?

I didn't intend to condemn anyone. As a librarian, I wanted to post the original sources, so you guys didn't have to rely on the journalists making mincemeat of the actual comments; and also I was attempting to correct what I took to be tooblue's misconception of the chronology.

Tex, I have yet to see any political ads here, either. I think it must depend on how important the state is.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Outside of heading to the on-line sports sections of the Trib and DNews I read Canadian newspapers, watch little television and listen to Canadian sports radio. Sometimes I read Time online and I will visit CNN.com

I truly did not understand SEQ's comment.

I believe you, and I didn't mean to suggest that you were being untruthful or dense (although it proably sounded that way). I just meant this menaign hit me immediately and I really didnt' see the other possible meanings until later. I guess this shows the importance of context and of being clear in use of imagery.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I didn't intend to condemn anyone. As a librarian, I wanted to post the original sources, so you guys didn't have to rely on the journalists making mincemeat of the actual comments; and also I was attempting to correct what I took to be tooblue's misconception of the chronology.

Tex, I have yet to see any political ads here, either. I think it must depend on how important the state is.

Comment was mainly for tooblue and anyone who wanted to make a point out of him having it wrong and that it was Romney being the guilty party.

This is my biggest beef with politics (and discussion of politics) is that there is so little substance and so much bickering for the sake of bickering.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Romney will say or do anything to do be elected. He is the GOP Clinton.

"While governor of Massachusetts, Romney funded abstinence education over family planning and abortion services. But in 2002, he also checked "yes" in a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that asked: "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?"

So he says he supports abstinence education, but is also in favor of age-appropriate health and sexuality education, including contraception.

Is this something that you disagree with? I'm not seeing how this is to be interpreted as a political Mitt-flip. It sounds pretty responsible to me.