John McCain, Friend of NAMBLA

Sen. John McCain is a sexual predator's best friend.

The so-called "Maverick" is proving himself as idiosyncratic as ever this week, launching a new campaign commercial that attacks efforts to teach children about appropriate and inappropriate touching. Such programs help children to understand and identify the difference between "good touching" and "bad touching," which plays an important role in protecting children from sexual predators.

The McCain ad notes that, as a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted in favor of such measures, which are regarded by parents' groups and child advocates as an essential means of keeping children safe. These programs are also favored by law enforcement agencies, making it much easier for them to identify and prosecute sexual predators and to get child molesters off the streets.

Obama's support for such efforts has drawn harsh criticism from the McCain campaign.

McCain is, apparently, vehemently opposed to children learning the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching.

The Republican standard-bearer firmly believes that children must remain unable to identify or avoid sexual predators. And when children do become the victims of sexual abuse, molestation and other forms of sexual predation, John McCain wants to make sure that those children are unable to report what happened.

For whatever reason, John McCain wants to make it harder -- much harder -- for police to apprehend and prosecute sexual predators who prey on children.

It's impossible not to wonder what McCain is thinking and why he would take such a seemingly risky political position. I know he likes to think of himself as a long-shot political gambler, but siding with NAMBLA and against families and the police? In addition to being horrifically immoral, that just seems like political suicide.

It seems as though there are only two possible reasons for John McCain to be taking this hardline pro-NAMBLA stance: Either he really dislikes children and wants them to suffer more sexual abuse, or else he really admires sexual molesters and wants to ensure that they remain free to carry on doing what they do.

Now, to be fair, it's possible that John McCain is not the driving force behind the decision for his campaign to embrace the sexual abuse of children. Perhaps it was his campaign manager, lobbyist Rick Davis, or his senior campaign adviser, lobbyist Steve Schmidt, who insisted -- perhaps for intensely personal reasons -- that the protection of sexual predators become a key part of John McCain's agenda.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that John McCain is opposed to teaching children about appropriate and inappropriate touching just because he is himself a sexual predator. I am sure he has other reasons for making children more vulnerable.

Nor am I suggesting that Rick Davis or Steve Schmidt is promoting such an agenda only because it would make it less likely that they will ever be indicted for touching small children inappropriately. I doubt either of them is scared of getting caught doing that.

It is strange, though, that all three of these men felt so strongly about this issue that they chose to inject it into the national campaign.

Now that the issue is out there, though, just remember what their ad says: John McCain promises to keep children vulnerable and to make life easier for sexual predators.

That, my friends, is change that NAMBLA can believe in.

Comments

[Geds]

It seems as though there are only two possible reasons for John McCain to be taking this hardline pro-NAMBLA stance: Either he really dislikes children and wants them to suffer more sexual abuse, or else he really admires sexual molesters and wants to ensure that they remain free to carry on doing what they do.

It's much, much simpler than that, Fred.

This is an ad that panders to the Fundamentalist Christian base. It's all about saying that Barack Obama is a bad man because he wants sex education for children. And won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN.

It has all the marks of a shortsighted, stupid decision to keep saying, "Hey, we're on your side," to the people who think sex is bad at all times in all ways that aren't part of Biblical marriage. And it's a much, much worse sign for our nation than the NAMBLA argument.

[J Neo Marvin]

It seems as though there are only two possible reasons for John McCain to be taking this hardline pro-NAMBLA stance: Either he really dislikes children and wants them to suffer more sexual abuse, or else he really admires sexual molesters and wants to ensure that they remain free to carry on doing what they do.

Or he wants to put the fear in his critical-thinking-impaired base that the law is actually endorsing teaching five-year-olds how to have sex, i.e. the usual cynical up-is-down manipulation the Rove Warriors do so well.

[J Neo Marvin]

Geds beat me to the same point, more or less. (Hat tip.)

[spencer]

Now, to be fair, it's possible that John McCain is not the driving force behind the decision for his campaign to embrace the sexual abuse of children.

It is so frustrating and embarrassing to watch all the Village talking heads spew out pretty much this exact line of thought - McCain's campaign has gotten so sleazy, but John McCain is so decent and honorable that it must be the case that he's not even in control of his own campaign.

I wonder if it's even possible for them to realize just how ridiculous that is, and how pathetic it makes them look for clinging to it.

[Steve]

I can't wait to read your McCain victory response thread. The schadenfreude will be glorious.

[Steve]

I can't wait to read your McCain victory response thread. The schadenfreude will be glorious.

[practicallyevil]

I like Obama's response to this

"A few months ago John McCain said he didn't know the meaning of the word honor, and now we know why."
-Obama spokesman

[Izzy]

So. Steve. How *do* you justify your candidate's decision to leave five-year-olds open to sexual predators?

[Geds]

How *do* you justify your candidate's decision to leave five-year-olds open to sexual predators?

Don't feed the troll, Izzy. Especially since we're all pretty sure that "Steve" is actually Scott...

[Jeff]

DNTTT

[rm]

I'm gonna repeat part of my comment from the thread below, because the way to overcome the "John McCain is a good man, so anything he does is either good or he didn't really do it" thing that the media have is to attack John McCain's HONOR, hard and mercilessly:

--------------------------------
The one good part of that ad is "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." Barack, take that sentence and stick it between McCain's ribs, please.

Also, will the entire Democratic establishment please repeat 100 gazillion times on TV that John McCain has abandoned his honor? Make sure to use the word "honor" and to be righteously indignant. Thank you.
--------------------------------

Also, it occurs to me that Obama, or Biden, should re-tell the story of Bush and McCain in SC during the 2000 primary, when they met at a debate and McCain confronted Bush on the "black child" smear. Bush said "It's just politics," and McCain said "Some things are beyond politics" or similar.

So, repeat that story and ask why McCain has abandoned the honor he showed in 2000. (Never mind arguing whether it was real --- whether it was real or not, he has abandoned it).

Then, CONFRONT McCain on stage, saying, "John, why have you attacked me with lies and smears? Why have you abandoned your honor? Why have you betrayed your values?" McCain has a temper, and maybe deep down he also knows he is wrong, and I'd like to see him struggle with that on live television.

[Jeff]

Ooops: DNFTT

he wants to put the fear in his critical-thinking-impaired base that the law is actually endorsing teaching five-year-olds how to have sex

That was my first thought after reading the post. I'm scared to click on the link for the ad, because I know that the ad will make me both furious at the manipulation and despondent that McCain will win.

[Lee Ratner]

Geds, I think you are right on with your interpretation of McCain's ad. Anybody who is remotely capable of common sense, knows that painting Obama as anti-children is ridiculous. After all, he did say that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the rape of children and I believe he was sincere when he made this statement.

The Republican campaign tactics sicken me to no end and I dispair for my country that so many people find these arguments enticing.

[Ryan]

"I can't wait to read your McCain victory response thread. The schadenfreude will be glorious."

How very petty and small of you.

[chaos_engineer]

I can't wait to read your McCain victory response thread. The schadenfreude will be glorious.

Oh, dear! I hate to be the one to break it to you, but---for all his faults---McCain isn't nearly as bad as Bush. No matter who wins the election, Americans will be somewhat less miserable than they are today. So you need to absorb all the schadenfreude you can right now, because you've got nowhere to go but down.

Actually, your best bet is to hope that Obama wins the election, and that his critics are right, and that his first act in office will be to kill everybody, make the corpses convert to Islam, and then force them into same-sex marriages. That should generate enough potential schadenfreude to satisfy even the most petty and spiteful of us.

[Tonio]

That was me at 12:54 p.m.

[SchrodingersDuck]

The worst part of this ad IMHO is that little (or no so little) word "comprehensive". Most of the commercial is just the typical mess of out-of-context quotations, scaremongering and subtle racial attacks, until they get to the phrase "comprehensive sex education". How, pray tell, is saying "tell a parent if someone touches you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable" 'comprehensively sexual' - children hear worse than that at the end of GI Joe. There is no possible way that it could be interpreted as comprehensive; it's nothing but a bald faced lie.

And not just one that smears Obama, but also tars every teacher, policeman and public servant working to protect children with the label "paedophile". The awful tagline "learning about sex before learning to read" (with the heavy emphasis on the word "sex") - with a picture of Obama looking leery - destroys any possibility that this was not intentional. I'm just hoping there's a large enough uproar in the teaching and policing professions to sink this ad before it spreads.

[Caravelle]

Fred, that post is awesome awesome awesome ! You should be invited on all talk shows to talk about this. Someone should do a youtube ad.

[rm]

And the lie, repeated elsewhere, that Obama never passed a law or worked across the aisle.

But I think the very worst part is the visual argument, which says "vote against the black man who wants to rape your children."

McCain is supposedly "not personally comfortable" with this kind of slime -- and the press forgives him when he does it because they like him being ironic about it. So, assuming that there's some truth to that characterization, I really want to see him put on the spot defending it.

I really need to go do some stress-relieving thing, like getting back to work.

[Praline]

I think it's pretty simple: McCain doesn't expect voters to look up the law he's talking about.

He's relying on them to take him at face value, assume Obama's advocating a how-to guide, rather than a how-not-to-be-done-to guide, and go to 'Extreme Liberal' mode.

Though frankly, if somebody wants to give five-year-olds education about the mechanics of sex, I see no problem there either.

[Jim]

Wow. This is brilliant. Best post ever, Fred.

[Praline]

I have to say, it's interesting to see you putting on the mock-innocent hat, Fred. It's a trick the Republicans mastered years ago, and you do it very well. It's great rhetoric. :-)

[Crazy F]

This whole thing has gotten so out of hand that even Bill O Reilly has criticised McCain. I think the "pigs and lipstick" incident was a bit of a wake-up call for the media. I don't expect them to let him get away with this ad at all, I give it a day.

[Steve]

Geds and others: Its sarcasm. I love it when Fred gets sarcastic and snarky and people say "no, Fred, I think you're missing the point."

I've been guilty of this myself.

[LL]

RE "I have to say, it's interesting to see you putting on the mock-innocent hat, Fred. It's a trick the Republicans mastered years ago, and you do it very well. It's great rhetoric."

Well, we have been listening to it for the last 15-20 years, at least. We can all be Karl Rove now.

[Jim]

Geds, I don't think it's an attempt to pander to the base. They wouldn't have had to be misleading to do that. Fundamentalist Christians oppose any form of sex ed other than abstinence because they think that this (along with popular culture) is what causes sex.

This seems more of a misfired attempt at a Willie Horton ad, designed to present Obama as an out-of-touch liberal. I don't think this will work though. For that type of ad to work, the facts presented have to be technically true, but essentially misleading in a way that takes some time to explain. It's an old saw in politics that when you're explaining, you're losing.

[Jim]

Sorry for the double post, but I should have added at the end of that: This ad is just misleading in an easily demonstrable way.

[schism]

This ad is just misleading in an easily demonstrable way.

Makes you wonder what century McCain is really stuck in. Yeah, we laugh at how he doesn't get computers or the internet, but, he seems to think people don't have access to any information. Is he pre-television? Pre-radio? Pre-written word?

Maybe he just thinks everyone is stupid. Of course, since general ignorance seems to be the point of pro-family education policies, I suppose Occam's Razor would lean that direction...

[damnedyankee]

Geds, I don't think it's an attempt to pander to the base. They wouldn't have had to be misleading to do that. Fundamentalist Christians oppose any form of sex ed other than abstinence because they think that this (along with popular culture) is what causes sex.

Which, of course, leads to dancing.

[Froborr]

Which, of course, leads to dancing.

Which leads to increased heart rate, which leads to increased blood flow to the brain, which leads to conscious thought.

And we all know where that leads.

[Hellsau]

Which, of course, leads to dancing.

This is all because they let the coloreds vote.

[hapax]

This is all because they let the coloreds vote.

Curse you, reds and blues!

[JPL]

This whole thing has gotten so out of hand that even Bill O Reilly has criticised McCain

Youtube or it didn't happen.

[Jeff]

McCain isn't nearly as bad as Bush

Don't be so sure. He's more belligerant, more callous, is more corrupt (who'd have thunk it would be possible). This is a man with no honor. None whatsoever.

[Daniel Martin]

Fred, anxiously awaiting "Part 2" of the false witnesses post.

I think this ad speaks a bit to that; no one intelligent enough to make their way into a voting booth could believe that Obama was sponsoring some sort of brave-new-world-type public shool sex initiation class for kindergartners. (Unless under the influence of some serious reality distortion) However, I'm relatively certain I'll here some variant on that smear repeated after church this Sunday. Fortunately, "Good Touch/Bad Touch" is so widely known and universally approved of that it makes an easy rebuttal, but I would like you to share your thoughts on why obviously false smears are repeated.

[RALovett]

About a dozen people beat me to this one, Fred, but I think you missed it this time -- which, incidentally, you rarely do. This was just someone latching onto a hot-button bit of sloganeering. There's plenty of shame here for McCain here, but it has to do with not checking his facts. Or -- the likely real shame for someone, probably one of his handlers: not caring, if they can pry something out of context and make an ad out of it that they think might sway those with the attention span of gnats.

[Jeff]

So. I just registered http://www.pedophilesformccain.com. Any thoughts on what should go there?

[Froborr]

Daniel Martin: When Burger King runs an ad saying that people preferred Whoppers to Big Macs in blind taste tests, McDonald's doesn't rebut the ad or object to the use of their trademark. Why? Because they know that all people will remember a week after the campaign ad that there was a Burger King-McDonald's taste test, if that much. People who prefer McDonald's (i.e., those with no sense of taste) will assume McDonald's won.

Likewise, come election day most people will remember the opposing camp smearing their candidate (but likely be unable to remember what any of the smears were), while remembering smears made against the opposing candidate as facts. It's just the way memory works -- we have an easier time remembering things that are consistent with our worldview.

[Froborr]

edit: a week after the campaign ends, not campaign ad

[Froborr]

Arrrrgh!

I've really got to quit checking here from work.

So many things I could say if it weren't for the Hatch Act...

[Jeff]

I think this ad speaks a bit to that; no one intelligent enough to make their way into a voting booth could believe that Obama was sponsoring some sort of brave-new-world-type public shool sex initiation class for kindergartners. (Unless under the influence of some serious reality distortion)

Just out of curiosity, have you spent time in a church recently? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. Brave New World style compulsory sex education for kindergarteners may sound silly to you, but it is actually what many of the Christians I knew felt The Liberals Were Planning. It was in the newlsetters, it was discussed in the meetings, it was warned of via the phone tree.

The irony, of course, is that the leader of the small church my family attended at the time turned out to be a pedophile who'd been molesting children for over a decade. Good thing the liberals didn't get to those kids!

[Lauren]

Jeff: Oh, that is wicked. A link to the ad, obviously. Probably some creepy-looking photos of McCain with young children. And some quotes from Foley saying nice things about McCain shouldn't be hard to come up with.

Not that I condone such things, oh no.

[Crazy F]

JPL- Vid here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/bill-oreilly-defends-obam_n_125548.html. Its still fairly half-assed, but still remarkable. I didn't believe it when I saw it, but dozens of media outlets have released similar statements.

[hapax]

Froborr: Likewise, come election day most people will remember the opposing camp smearing their candidate (but likely be unable to remember what any of the smears were), while remembering smears made against the opposing candidate as facts.

Just heard a piece on NPR about race and voting, in which a woman said that "in her gut" she knew that Obama was a Muslim, and that "once you're a Muslim you're a Muslim until you're dead," and nothing that he or anybody else said could persuade her otherwise. But his race had NOTHING to do with it, nope, not at all.

Regardless as to whether it should matter whether Obama were a Muslim, how do you fight something like that?

[J Neo Marvin]

This is a man with no honor.

I'd like to see an ad with a voiceover from Michael Dorn saying this in his best Worf voice.

[Caravelle]

Likewise, come election day most people will remember the opposing camp smearing their candidate (but likely be unable to remember what any of the smears were), while remembering smears made against the opposing candidate as facts. It's just the way memory works -- we have an easier time remembering things that are consistent with our worldview.

The problem with this argument, and many others of its type, is that it assumes people already have a clear preference for one candidate over the other. But incredible as it may seem, there are tons of people who are genuinely undecided between the two candidates. (well, I don't actually know this, but I remember being shocked at the number of undecided voters right up to the election between Kerry and Bush, no reason to believe there would be none in this election)

That said, I don't remember where but I saw a long list of politicians and the proportion of people who had made up their mind, for good or for ill, about them. Obama was among the highest, above 80% of "very favorable" or "very unfavorable" opinions, second only to Bill Clinton.
The person who'd posted the list said this is what made Clinton a "teflon candidate", and that it also applied to Obama.

[Lauren]

Jeff: Also,
http://www.amazon.com/My-Dad-John-McCain-Meghan/dp/1416975284

I'm done now, really.

[Josh]

Does anyone have a link to a summary of the original bill this ad is referring to?

Thanks in advance.

[Geds]

I think the law in question is this one.