If you follow the news, I'm sure you're aware of the whole lipstick on a pig brouhaha. First of all, I don't think the remark is sexist, but c'mon now, it's obviously a dig on Palin. The most memorable quote from the RNC involved Palin, lipstick, and animals, and we're supposed to think that another lipstick-animal combo is purely incidental? Nearly everything politicians say in public is carefully scripted, and I'm sure this remark was planned. And since when is "putting lipstick on a pig" a common phrase? Since never. Or maybe since John McCain said it in reference to a Clinton health plan. I kinda wish Obama had been all "Yeah, I meant it. Oink, oink, Palin!"
Anyways, if you're looking for real dirty politics, take a gander at this ad from McCain-Palin:
A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Turns out that bill mandated age-appropriate education, and here's what the Obama camp had to say about it: “Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child’s knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.” So the legislation wasn't about showing five year olds how to put a condom on a banana, it was about trying to protect kids from sexual abuse.
Barack Obama, wrong for your family? I don't think so. Trying to paint Obama as some sort of deviant trying to sex up kindergartners is both a ridiculous accusation and an obvious scare tactic. And way more offensive than a comment about makeup and our barnyard friends.
Anyways, if you're looking for real dirty politics, take a gander at this ad from McCain-Palin:
A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Turns out that bill mandated age-appropriate education, and here's what the Obama camp had to say about it: “Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child’s knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.” So the legislation wasn't about showing five year olds how to put a condom on a banana, it was about trying to protect kids from sexual abuse.
Barack Obama, wrong for your family? I don't think so. Trying to paint Obama as some sort of deviant trying to sex up kindergartners is both a ridiculous accusation and an obvious scare tactic. And way more offensive than a comment about makeup and our barnyard friends.
9 comments:
Someone give Obama a quarter to have a rat chew off that mole on his nose. How disgusting... If Palin had that growth they'd flip...
More political posts please! I love the comments -- who are these people?
Ry- I know, right? The political stuff really brings 'em out of the woodwork. I kinda like the drama.
McCain-Palin '08
It is easy for the simpletons to like Obama. He's promising the world but not giving the details of how he'll do anything. Of course people will be enthusiastic after like his speeches. Man, this guy is going to solve the energy crisis, reform education, balance the budget, fix the poor housing market all while cutting taxes for 95% of the American population.
C'mon folks. It's not going to happen.
I'll vote for McCain.
I like McCain, and he'd definitely be an improvement over Bush, but the GOP is not the same "small government, low taxes" party that they used to be. They hopped into bed with the whole moral values squad and it seems like they've made a shift away from their fiscal principals and prefer to focus on disive social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Look at how the Bush administration has run things- government spending increases, economic troubles, and the whole mess of a situation in Iraq! No way I'd support four more years of a Republican administration after the last eight. McCain has demonstrated again and again (most recently with his Palin pick) that he caves to the wishes of the far right of his party. And that's why I'd never vote for him.
Sure, Obama makes big talk, and maybe not all of the changes he voices are feasible, but I think that investing money in energy research is essential to the future well-being of our nation. I'm voting for Obama because I see it as a remarkable opportunity for this country to move forward, and yeah, I'd also like to keep my civil liberties intact. Plus, I'm really uncomfortable with all the gay and immigrant hating that goes on with the far right.
It's also purely in my own self-interest: let's see- I went to college largely via government subsidies and student loans, I joined the Peace Corps, and I'm currently funded by the NIH. All three are programs that are heavily supported by Democratic administrations.
I know we vote for Presidents, and not VPs, but I'd be way, way more comfortable with Joe Biden running the show than Sarah Palin if it ever came down to that. Which hopefully it wouldn't, no matter who wins.
I haven't followed the whole story, but I really don't think using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" is that bad. The last time Wall Street was in trouble during the tech bubble, their own language for hyping crap tech stocks was "putting lipstick on a pig", so it's definitely a phrase that was put into use in the recent past.
I won't get into the politics of 2008, but I will say that whoever is the next prez is absolutely screwed, as it will take at least 2 years to dig out of all the various potholes the US is in now and then he won't have any time or energy or political will left to actually do what he wants to do. So does it really matter if neither candidate has any solid ideas, because the next few years is all about putting out fires rather than implementing the next big thing.
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1755
regarding the buzzflash article posted right before me. just another example how a liberal with say or do anything. propaganda like this is exactly why the dem. party is heading down the tube. when things get desparate, liberals get nasty. obama is the king of this and whenever he slips in the polls he attacks personally. he did it to hillary and now he's doing it again. why can't he just campaign on the politics.
so let me ask you. are you going to cast your vote because you can't stand palin, she's inexperienced or are you actually going to go on the issues.
let me tell you. obama is just as inexperienced and i'd rather have an inexperienced VP over an inexperieced Pres. any time. McCain may be old but he isn't going to die.
while obama is a smoker, will smoke harder with the stress of the job. that's a good example for the youth of america. when was the last time the US had an admitted cig. smoker in the oval office.
Wow. Quite a nasty tone for someone criticizing "nasty" liberals. Here is a new link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipocrisy
Post a Comment