BS: Lipstick on a Pig

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM

She promises not to blink in an emergency

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM

From: Donuel
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM

She promises not to blink in an emergency

Well. at least she can see an emergency!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM

That's why she wears those weirded-out glasses that everybody else is trying to buy up now.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 01:56 PM

NEW YORK (AFP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday denied his barrage of hardball negative advertisements against Democratic rival Barack Obama amounted to "lies."

The Arizona Senator defended his campaign's tactics against Obama, which claimed his opponent called Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children.

"Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on the ABC television chat show "The View."

The Obama campaign had argued that McCain's camp deliberately misinterpreted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig" as a sexist remark aimed at Palin.

"He shouldn't have said it. He chooses his words very carefully, this is a tough campaign," McCain said.

Earlier this week, the McCain campaign debuted an attack ad claiming that as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama backed a bill to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners."

"Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family," the narrator of the advertisement said.

In reality, the legislation allowed local schools to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching but not taught about sex.

The Obama camp hit back angrily at McCain over the advertisement.

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

"Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM

Ake,
Barack Obama seldom uses speech writers, especially for town halls and such. (It's Palin and McCain who read their speeches from teleprompters. Maybe Biden too, but Obama writes his own speeches - and is also not afraid to speak off the cuff.)

As for Obama not wanting to be too specific about what sort of CHANGE he wants," give me a break.   If you listen to his DNC acceptance speech and to his actual interviews and press conferences and town halls, you'll see he is quite specific about many aspects of his policies.   Those who disagree with his vision do criticize him for those specifics, but he's not hesitant to give them. This contrasts quite sharply with most of McCain's and Palin's promises of "reform" and "change" and standing up for America.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM

Who cares what politicians say about one another.
I'd rather read what YOU think Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,whatif
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM

Why don't the democrats just do a television ad with Palin's "pitbull in lipstick" comment and McCain's "bomb bomb bomb..bomb bomb Iran" song, along with the caption "Just What We Need, More Mad Dogs In The Whitehouse" and play it until election day. Talk about scare tactics!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM

This says it all.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:41 PM

This is a total distraction signifying nothing. Don't look at the man under the hood in the corner. We sure as hell are not in Kansas any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:42 PM

I'd like that T-shirt a lot more, John, if it had caricatures of McCain and Palin trying to MARKET a huge lipstick-sporting pig captioned "Change and Reform Policies."

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:49 PM

Sorry Genie...cross posted.

If Obama doesn't use a script writer, I think its well past time that he did.   His form of words on the "lipstick" issue, If accidental, were of the magnitude of a pile up on a motorway and have rebounded big time.

Either he was being deliberately offensive or he made a serious mistake in what he decided to say.

I have heard many of his speeches, and for someone challenging an incompetent, stumbling government, he seems reticent, vague, other-worldly. He does not appear to have the conviction to appeal to working class Americans with no political affiliations.
Remember we on Mudcat are mainly of the chattering classes, psuedo intellectuals who relate to the fairly tales spun by Mr Obama, but even genuine intellectuals DON'T WIN ELECTIONS....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM

Akenaton-
Do you suffer from a listening disability?

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:08 PM

Oh, hogwash-- it was a commonly use dmetaphor, used to describe a deep and fundamental flaw in the claims McCain wa smaking./

What is a disgusting pileup, and a pisspoor reflection on the mindsets of media and public, is that they McCain camp managed to avoid the ACTUAL issue by screaming about insults that never happened. This is the kind of demagoguery and rhetoric that is beneath contempt and contributes to the mass stupidity of the American people.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:30 PM

Mr. Favreau, or Favs, as everyone calls him, leads a team of two other young speechwriters: 26-year-old Adam Frankel, who worked with John F. Kennedy's adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen on his memoirs, and Ben Rhodes, who, at 30, calls himself the "elder statesman" of the group and who helped write the Iraq Study Group report as an assistant to Lee H. Hamilton.

Together they are working for a politician who is known for his speaking ability.

"Barack trusts him," said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's chief campaign strategist. "And Barack doesn't trust too many folks with that — the notion of surrendering that much authority over his own words."

Mr. Favreau had risen to a job as a speechwriter on the Kerry campaign, but by then was unemployed. He was, he said, "broke, taking advantage of all the happy-hour specials I could find in Washington."

Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama's communications director, had known Mr. Favreau during the Kerry campaign, and recommended him as a writer.

The trick of speechwriting, if you will, is making the client say your brilliant words while somehow managing to make it sound as though they issued straight from their own soul," said the writer Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush. "Imagine putting the words 'Ask not what your country can do for you' into the mouth of Ron Paul, and you can see the problem."

Many Democratic candidates have attempted to evoke both John and Robert Kennedy, but Senator Obama seems to have had more success than most. It helps that Mr. Obama seems to have the élan that John Kennedy had, not to mention a photogenic family.

For his inspiration, Mr. Favreau said, "I actually read a lot of Bobby" Kennedy.

"I see shades of J.F.K., R.F.K.," he said, and then added, "King."

from the New York Times 'Fashion and Style' article January 20, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:46 PM

Ake, it's not like McCain, Palin, Bush, and others don't from time to time use a word or phrase that can be taken the wrong way, especially out of context.   I don't think Obama's use of that phrase was that much of a faux pas -- as long as he doesn't back down and "apologize" to someone who wasn't even the object of his point. He needs to stick to his guns and ridicule McCain and some in the media for ASSUMING that when he said "lipstick on a pig" he was talking about the Governor of Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 06:50 PM

Emma, I didn't say Obama never uses the service of any speechwriters. I believe he does run things by some, as advisors.   But he did write nearly all of his acceptance speech and other major speeches he's given, and he does not routinely memorize or read speeches written for him, the way Reagan, Bush, and most other politicians have done (including Palin's speech at the RNC).

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 07:27 PM

Genie, maybe you should read the rest of that article

Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter..........

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 07:36 PM

Amazing how long people can keep arguing about something as unimportant as a throw-away remark that was unrelated but tied away to a throw-away joke. Freudian slip, not a Freudian slip, let it go. There's important stuff going on and you're wasting all of your energy on this.

"It's the Economy, Stupid!" needs to come back into use.

Art, sorry to take so long to come back to this--the line I typed in was actually printed on a card from PPNT that came in the mail. That's how I got to the web site.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:17 AM

Here's an article from MediaMatters.org that explains one way Barack's words words were cut, spliced, and twisted.

===========
Thu, Sep 11, 2008 5:30pm ETS
...

Summary: In a New England Cable News video posted on the Boston Globe website, two comments by Sen. Barack Obama are spliced together, falsely suggesting that his comment that "[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig" immediately followed a reference to Gov. Sarah Palin. In fact, the "lipstick" comment immediately followed Obama's comments about Sen. John McCain's policies and political tactics.

In a New England Cable News (NECN) video posted on the Boston Globe website, two comments by Sen. Barack Obama at a September 9 campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia, are spliced together, falsely suggesting that his comment that "[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig" immediately followed a reference to Gov. Sarah Palin. The NECN video shows Obama remarking that the "[t]he only [state] I haven't been to [during his presidential campaign] now is Alaska, and I realize now -- maybe I should have been up there." The video then cuts directly to a clip of Obama saying, "But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." But the "lipstick" comment did not immediately follow a reference to Alaska or Palin; the "lipstick" comment immediately followed remarks Obama made about Sen. John McCain's policies and political tactics. The video posted on the Globe site omits entirely the comments criticizing McCain's policies and tactics, which consist of at least 65 words.

The NECN video, as posted on the Globe website, includes the following remarks by Obama at the September 9 campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia:

OBAMA: Now, Lebanon, I've been running for president for about 19 months now. That's a long time. That means that there are babies who've been born and are now walking and talking since I started running for president. And so, as I travel around the country, people always ask me, "What have you learned from, you know, all these travels and meeting so many different people?" And I tell them, "Well, first of all, I've learned that the United States, it's big. I mean, I've been to 49 states now. The only one I haven't been to is Alaska, and I realize now -- maybe I should have gone up there. [splice] But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

A video clip posted on YouTube contains Obama's comments directly preceding his use of the term "lipstick on a pig." The NECN video includes only the bolded remarks: [posted here in all caps]

OBAMA: "Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing, something different. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT LIPSTICK ON A PIG; IT'S STILL A PIG."

PolitiFact.com wrote of Obama's lipstick on a pig comments ...

"It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he's making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it's hard to see how one could interpret Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either. We think it's very clear that Obama was saying McCain's effort to call himself the "candidate of change" is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama's point, but his remark wasn't the smear that McCain's people have tried to make it.

If anyone's doing any smearing, it's the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.

===========================

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:29 AM

Interesting article, Emma.   But if you take it to mean Obama merely rehearses and reads speeches written for him by a professional speech writer, that contradicts information I've found from other pretty reliable sources.   Of course, it doesn't say that. It sounds like Barack collaborates with this guy on his speeches, providing his own ideas and even some of his own words but getting help honing the wording -- something I agree the very reflective, analytical and rather professorial Obama would need to work to counter.

I'm thinking back to the DNC of 2004, when Obama wowed and inspired millions with his keynote speech.   If he had a speechwriter helping him write that one, it would seem it wasn't the same one he has now.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 04:30 AM

Genie...and any others who might be interested.
The giveaway, was the audiance reaction to the word "lipstick".
Did Obama seem a little startled by that reaction?.....Or is he just a very good actor?

To those who think this episode is unimportant, think again. How many US elections are won or lost on the publicity generated by such "unimportant episodes".

The appointment of Mrs Palin was a masterstroke by the Repubs, Obama must be so careful not to patronise or insult her, yet Mrs Palin can do or say what she pleases, short of outright personal abuse.
Mrs Palin seems to understand what the heart, (not the mind) of America wants to hear!

At the end of the day you get the government that you deserve....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 05:28 AM

Of course it was a stroke of genius. Of evil genius that puts winning an election above the welfare of the US citizens, the nation's survival, and even the interests of the world at large.

But this ruse only works to the extent that the corporate infotainment "news" media let them get by with it.

Regardless of underlying motive, what Barack Obama actually said was in no way a reference to anyone as a "pig." It was a reference to McCain's -- or the McCain/Palin ticket's -- charade of standing for "reforming" Washington as "putting lipstick on a pig." The actual speech is out there for people to read or watch. Instead, too many in on TV and radio persist in twisting and distorting it and making an unwarranted BFD (big f*cking distraction).

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 06:09 AM

Genie, the 2004 keynote speech was, it is agreed, 'largely' Obamas and took several months to write.

'As for what the speakers say — well that's also careful stagecraft.
The main task for most speakers is to offer a simple biographical introduction to a large national audience. The introduction is as much about introducing viewers to the party as it is to any one speaker.
According to political historian Costas Panagopoulos, "For the 10 to 15 percent of Americans who casually pay attention to politics, this is when you put your best foot forward and your best argument."

The national convention committees review the speeches of all selected speakers, big names and small.

Leading up to the 2004 DNC, some 200 separate speeches were vetted in the speechwriting "boiler room," A similar process exists for the GOP. The speechwriters are looking for consistency with the overall message and a lack of repetition or overlap with other speakers or the nominee. Depending on the quality of the original text, speechwriters can edit liberally, adding rhetorical touches or specific information about the convention nominee, or (as with Obama's 2004 speech) they may leave the speeches largely untouched'

Dayo Olopade writing on keynote speeches last month

This time around however Obama hasn't had the luxury of time

As his top strategist David Axelrod stated "The difference here is, you know, he's got a few other things going,"

His notes have therefore been "circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau — a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith."

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM

At the end of the day you get the government that you deserve....Ake

True..but we love it that way....until, the noose tightens, then we get offered another pre-planned remedy!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM

"How many US elections are won or lost on the publicity generated by such "unimportant episodes"

Well, Republican Senator George Allen said the word "macaca" which he thought was another term for "BS". The press destroyed him and handed a relatively safe GOP seat to the Dems, gaving them the complete control of Congress.

So, from now on it should be Barack "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama. The partisan new media would do that to their boogiemen the hated Re-pubbies, so why not do it to the Dem.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:25 AM

pdq, I think you are pretty small minded, judging from your post!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:33 AM

Actually, I thing pdq is right. Look at the last several American elections. What turned votes for the winner. Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry windsurfing, Dan Quayle not spelling potato, Al Gore sighing, Ronald Reagan lip-synching "There you go again" off his tele-prompter, Howard Dean's scream...


             People seem to be persuaded by these kinds of things. Maybe "Lipstick on a Pig" will be Obama's "potatoe".

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM

"Lipstick on a Pig" Obama

"Potatoe Dan" Quayle

"Broccoli George" Bush

"Peanuthead" Carter

George "Macaca" Allen

Blah! Blah! Blah"

Our eneies are laughing at us.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:43 PM

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin's performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls "the mission" that they won't even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News's Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don't want "somebody's big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state."

We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.

The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin's thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush's "doctrine" and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.

But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain's views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.

Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? "You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission," she said, that "you can't blink."

Fighting terrorism? "We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target."

Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush's failed policy in Iraq was "God's plan" did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.

This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn't pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today's profound economic crisis.

In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation. (NYT Editorial)

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:44 PM

From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM

"Lipstick on a Pig" Obama

"Potatoe Dan" Quayle

"Broccoli George" Bush

"Peanuthead" Carter

George "Macaca" Allen

Blah! Blah! Blah"

Our eneies are laughing at us.
Its 'enemies', for what its worth.......

Just like what I said. I gave you some important stuff, and you took it to here....see how it works???

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:49 PM

Hey, Bill Clinton was an obscur governor from a largely disregarded state, and he was elevated to 'President'(and a shitty one at that), so why knock Palin??..Sorta hypocritical, don't you think? But thinking isn't part of your program, re-acting by posting bullshit 'news' articles is...whatever 'is means'.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:51 PM

typo...'obscure'....sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:54 PM

It's 'obcure'
for what it's worth........:)

but who really needs to be THAT nit picking?

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 12:57 PM

"...and a shitty one at that"

A pretty shitty family man, perhaps, but as President, Clinton presided over eight years of properity and relative peace, and left a large surplus in the US Treasury ~ in stark contrast to his successor.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

Yeah, it's ironic. You have similarly scummy and opportunistic name-calling behaviour occurring among both sets of partisan idealogues and they complain that the other guy is doing it...!

And if any politician tries to take the high road and not behave that way, he gets accused of being a "wimp" or of being "boring" and he loses public support...

It's not just your enemies that are laughing, pdq, it's the whole world laughing at you with your endless and ridiculous election circus. Mind you, it's nervous laughter. We know how dangerous America can be with its oversized military machine and some unstable criminals in command of the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM

he he typos 'r us :)

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:16 PM

I posted this on another thread, but my blue clicky thing doesn't work right
Yeah, Gator, he was a shitty president!

Jeeezuz, Peezuz.....You all act like you are shocked to imagine that your favorite, pet politician has been caught telling a 'lie'!!
what is so dumbfounding is you don't seem to realize, is, that most politicians these days are LAWYERS!!...of course they lie! They are all liars that just chose politics!! The problem isn't even all of their views, (which seem to disappear after they are elected, btw)..the problem here, is the never ending corruption of the process, and the concealment of the string pullers, who, in a real world of integrity, would be brought to trial, for treason, among other things. While everybody is worried about Palin vs Obama, nobody is asking, or even talking about the deliberate efforts to dissolve and change our borders, uninspected trucks coming 'across' with God only knows what, inside, and the deliberate, calculated drive to wedge Americans against each other, leading to an attempt, to cause major civil uprisings, so your pals in government can 'step in', (read: move toward fulfilling their agenda) by force, here is what used to be America!
You think, (because you were supposed to, btw) that their is a big gap between the Bush's and the Clintons,..like there is a big difference between the Clintons and Obama!..Get fucking serious!!! The Clintons and Bush's go back, decades, as partners in crime, treason for one, and violation of American neutrality, and drugs and arms dealing, and other things, that actually made the news! And for all of you trigger happy arguers, all you have to do is look up Mena, Arkansas, when Bush 41, was VP, (and former head of the CIA, and Billy Boy Clinton was Governor of Arkansas). Even in this 'election' it has been brought out how between Bush and McCain, there is little difference, so I don't need to go on about that, (I hope), and its also been brought out, how very little difference there is between Obama, and Hillarity, WAKE UP!!!!!!! AND WHO IS IT THAT DOESN'T KNOW THIS STUFF??..The Russians? The Chinese??(to whom Clinton sold us out to, both in technology, and in trade, after grand pappa Bush opened up the way) The Iraqis??, The Iranians?(remember Iran-Contra?? read above!), and btw, the present, leader of Iran, was one of the hostage taker organizers, back in the Carter years...You think these people, don't know us in a different light, than we think of ourselves??? We have been lied to for so long, we've just gotten used to it, and quite frankly, enjoy the entertainment of it....and why is it we are lied to??..because, it is the American people who these liars fear!!!!~ This has gotten so obvious, that we have become the laughing stock of the international community,who they also fear, because it is quite clear, that our power has been and still is, in the hands of some very corrupt and evil people....And the notion that this race isn't about race and gender, (now being used to divide us further), is just another example of exploiting shit that everyone is so damned 'political correct' to admit!! Oh yeah, the term 'politically correct' is another term from the Clinton term, that is just used to water down the truth, and to in effect police our very speach...which all of you musicians and writers should be outraged at...but you're not...you're too far duped!!!!!WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:31 PM

"Clinton presided over eight years of properity and relative peace, and left a large surplus in the US Treasury..."

This is one of the greatest hoaxes in US history. The closest Clinton came to spending less than the government took in was in 2000 and we still added 22 billion to the National Debt that fiscal year. The National Debt has not gone down for at least 40 years. Had it not been for a conservative shift in Congress in 1994, Clinton would have run debts in the 235 billion range since that is what his first budget propoasls called for.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 01:55 PM

I have been trying to check facts, but I believe that the US National Debt has not gone down since 1957. That is not a partisan statement, just an attempt to bring a few facts into the mythological world that the mass media have created. A true surplus, as represented to the US people, would bring the National Debt down. Clinton's claim involves at least two major accounting gimmicks on top of a pile of new media BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 02:02 PM

Amos, that's a great blog! Do you have a link to it?

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 02:44 PM

[[From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM

"Lipstick on a Pig" Obama

"Potatoe Dan" Quayle

"Broccoli George" Bush

"Peanuthead" Carter

George "Macaca" Allen

Blah! Blah! Blah"

Our enemies are laughing at us. ]]

Not just our enemies -- our friends too.   To the extent that our media focus on red herrings, trivialities, and, in some cases, totally bum raps.   Yes, too many of our "low-information voters" buy into this stuff, but that's often because they don't have time to do a lot of real fact-finding (newspapers, magazines, blogs, internet searches) and the only "information" they have access to is 1) TV "news" channels, 2) talk radio, with 90% to 100% being right-wing ideologues in most locations, and 3) campaign advertising, which is mostly drivel, empty images, or even lies.

But let's look at the examples you gave, pdq.


a. "Potatoe Dan" Quayle: Most analysts seem to pin Bush 41's defeat mostly on his broken "read my lips: no new taxes" promise -- with a little help from Ross Perot siphoning off more votes from him than from Clinton. I seriously doubt Dan Quayle had much to do with it. (We had already written Quayle off as an airhead pretty boy, especially after Lloyd Bentsen's "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy" quip in the debates, but G H B Bush won in 1988 anyway.)

b. "Broccoli George" Bush: see "a."

c. "Peanuthead" Carter: Jimmy Carter was way ahead in the polls in 1980 in the early fall, despite the gas lines, his
too-colorful kin, and the "charisma" of his challenger. What really killed Carter's re-election chances was the behind the scenes machinations of Republican operatives to get Khomeini (sp?) to hold the American hostages until after the election (actually releasing them as Reagan was being sworn in), in exchange for weapons. Carter's reelection chances were killed by the "hostage crisis."

d. "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama: It is not too late to dispel the myth that Obama was referring, even obliquely, to Palin (or McCain) as a "pig." Clearly, he was referring to the same old Republican neocon policies of the past 8 years masquerading as "change" and "reform" under the banner of McCain (and/or McCain/Palin).   And if Obama loses, I seriously doubt this will be the reason. Not only are there much more serious lies being told about him and his voting record, but there are well-orchestrated election fraud strategies being implemented by the Republicans in swing states as we speak (many involving systematic disenfranchisement of voters in largely Democratic-leaning areas).

By the way, those election-rigging schemes were largely responsible for the narrow "defeats" of both Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom had been targets of these petty and/or deceitful image-damaging media blitzes (Kerry shown wind surfing or duck hunting in camouflage gear; Al Gore being falsely accused of saying he invented the internet; the media replaying Gore sighing and rolling his eyes, even when he had pretty clearly "won" the actual debate or at least held his own; etc.). Gore officially won the popular vote and, as published in the NY Times in 2001, when all the votes in Florida were eventually counted, he actually got more votes in that state than Bush -- despite losing a couple thousand to "Buchanan" because of the "butterfly ballot" -- no matter which standard for counting was used. And it's still not clear that Kerry really lost in Ohio (despite the lack of voting machines in several key precincts and cities), since most of the provisional ballots there have never been counted and many ballots have (illegally) been destroyed, preventing any true recount.   The 2000 and 2004 elections were not the clear, solid defeats for the Dems that the 1988 and 1984 elections were.

e. George "Macaca" Allen: Allen wasn't brought down by a single word, much less one taken out of context. I actually thought the more telling part of his comments about and to the young man he called "macaca" was his "Welcome to America, macaca" remark. He revealed an obvious bias and ignorance by assuming that since the young man was dark skinned, he must be a new immigrant (maybe even on a temporary visa?). The young man was a US citizen, who, IIRC, spoke flawless English and may have even been born here.    This was a lot more than just using a non PC word.
I agree that this was Allen's undoing, but his attitudes and views were not unfairly characterized by the media attention to his totally un-called-for "macaca" comments to a young man in the audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Alice
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:04 PM

"Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama."
above quoted from this article, link here:
McCain Barbs Stirring Outrages as Distortion

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:08 PM

My point was that all of our top politicians should be given a chance to lead and not be brought down by cheap jokes, dirty dticks or an occasional personal public gaffe.

We have heard about the regional (Southern) pronunciation of "nuclear" and endless jokes about pretzels. We are told that George W. Bush has a "smirk" on his face and looks like a chimpanzee.

One of Clinton's operatives organised a group of people who threw broccoli at george Bush when he was giving campaign speeches.

The same people who pull this stuff are demanding that we talk more about policy. Perhaps it is a little too late for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM

Big deal1..but we like it that way......(idiots)

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:16 PM

Guest from Sanity,
There is one big difference between the Bush/Cheney administration and the would-be McCain/Palin administration, on the one hand, and the Clinton/Gore administration and the Obama/Biden administration, on the other:

SCOTUS -- and the other Federal Courts.

Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Ronald Reagan appointed both Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor, Herbert Walker Bush appointed David Souter and Clarence Thomas, and Bill Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. (Not sure GHWB knew just how reactionary Thomas was going to be, since Thomas refused to talk about his views, even during his Senate confirmation hearings.) Bush 43 appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- both of whom have shown themselves to be further to the extreme Right than even Rehnquist and Scalia on some decisions.
McCain has explicitly stated that he would not appoint Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, OR Souter or Justices like them if he becomes President.   He has said that he would appoint people like Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.
There is no way that Obama would select Justices like those. In fact, he has said Clarence Thomas is the Justice he would most like to not have on the SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court and other lifetime Federal Court appointments are going to have a much longer-lasting impact on all aspects of our domestic and international policy and on our economy than any legislation from Congress or Presidential executive order will have.

And I think if the Democrats fail to hit that point home to the "undecided" voters and the persuadable, teachable Republican voters, it may be their downfall.   They need to spell out exactly how the composition of the courts are likely to affect things like reproductive choice rights, bankruptcy laws, people's right to sue for just compensation when wronged, freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Genie
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:21 PM

pdq: "The same people who pull this stuff are demanding that we talk more about policy. Perhaps it is a little too late for that."

Actually, I think Obama HAS been talking about policy -- at least when he's not forced to comment on the lies being told about him by his opponents (or let them stick). Even his DNC acceptance speech was pretty "workmanlike," dealing with a lot of policy stances and proposals and not being just an inspirational speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: pdq
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:49 PM

In my humble opinion, I really believe that Barack Obama is being treated very kindly by both the mass media and the politicos. He has also been very good at acting like he is "above the fray" when it comes to the nasty political bickering. He deserves credit for that.

Danger here is that his popularity will collapse if he gets desperate and goes into full attack mode.

McCain, on the other hand, has a long history of bipartisan cooperation. He has "walked the walk" not just "talked the talk". He is, without doubt, the most visible member of Congress who is truely willing to work accross the isle.

BTW, abortion will be around for decades and decades to come. Reagan said at the beginning of his presidency that he was personally opposed to abortion but that nothing would change during his tenure and he simple avoided the subject for eight years. McCain will do the same. This is not a proper issue on which to decide who becomes president.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM

Abortion will always be around. It's been around since time immemorial. What else will always be around is the $ySStem's cynical use of the abortion debate to get people all het up and manipulate them in one respect or another.

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM

I respectfully suggest to some of the lunatic right here (not to mention "refugee from sanity") that the international consensus would probably list Carter and Clinton as among if not the best recent US presidents (counting Jack "gonads" Kennedy as not recent).

Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig
From: Alice
Date: 13 Sep 08 - 04:13 PM

Obama has "walked the walk" of bipartisan co-operation, too, back to the beginning of is career as an elected representative up to his time in the Senate. There are plenty of examples that google will bring up if anyone really wants the facts.

If you google "Republicans who worked with Obama", one of the most interesting sites is this one:

Republicans for Obama

"...Collectively, we have campaigned, worked for, and voted Republican all our lives, but recognize that our Country needs a new kind of leader at this time. While there will always be important issues on which thoughtful Americans will disagree, there are others that cannot be up for debate— our economic prosperity and our standing in the world.

Senator Obama has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While we as Republicans will not always see eye to eye with a President Obama, we know that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America."