McCain takes offense at the same lipstick-on-a-pig remark he used himself
September 9th, 2008 at 09:52pm Pat Cunningham
We geezers sometimes have memory lapses, and John McCain just had a doozy.
The McCain campaign is complaining that Barack Obama slurred Sarah Palin with these comments made today on the campaign trail:
“John McCain says he’s about change, too – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”
Clearly, Obama was talking about the Bush administration’s policies, not Palin. But the McCain people apparently think they can embarrass Obama by making a fuss over this thing.
Aha, but McCain seems not to remember certain remarks he made last year, reported by the Chicago Tribune as follows:
“McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan, he said it was ‘eerily reminiscent’ of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.
“‘I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,’ he said of her proposal.”
Of course, this context won’t stop the right-wing blogosphere from waxing apoplectic over Obama’s alleged rudeness and sexism.
UPDATE (Wednesday a.m.): Blowback against the McCain camp’s phony umbrage HERE and HERE and HERE.
UPDATE II: I’ve found a second instance in which McCain referred to “lipstick on a big” while mentioning Hillary Clinton. The occasion cited above in the Tribune story occurred on Oct. 11, 2007, in Des Moines, Iowa. About two weeks earlier, on Sept. 29, he used the same line at a gathering in Rye, N.H., as we see HERE.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
20 Comments Add your own
1. David Johnson | September 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Come on Pat…you know that Obama meant it as a direct insult to Sarah Palin. Your such a hypocrite you didn’t even mention her name in your post. Face it Pat…the whole liberal house of cards has fallen with the selection of a qualified candidate for vice president who happens to be a woman and a Republican. What a joy it is to see you and your minions go postal over your inability to erase the fact that our vice president candidate is more qualified than your President candidate. Hahahahahahaha
2. Roger | September 10th, 2008 at 12:16 am
The above comment could not have been said better. Well said David.
3. Pat Cunningham | September 10th, 2008 at 6:52 am
David and Roger can’t even read, let alone think clearly. David said I never mentioned Sarah Palin in my post, and Roger said David’s comment could not have been said better. But, of course, Sarah Palin actually is mentioned in the second and fourth paragraphs of my post. Nor do David and Roger have anything to say about McCain having referred to “lipstick on a pig” in remarks he made about certain proposals made by Hillary Clinton. We’ve got an education problem in this country, folks, and David and Roger are evidence of it.
4. SNuss | September 10th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Whether McCain used the same analogy last year is irrelevant. Obama has once again proved that he is either obtuse, or uncaring, in his comments. His audience knew full well what he was insinuating, as shown by their reaction to the “lipstick” comment.
5. Pat Cunningham | September 10th, 2008 at 8:01 am
SNuss claims to know what was in the minds of Obama’s audience. But what about McCain’s audience when he used the same expression in mentioning Hillary? Oh, right. I forgot. That’s irrelevant. After all, McCain was a POW. He gets to say whatever he damn well pleases, and if you criticize him, you’re out of bounds.
6. Milton Waddams | September 10th, 2008 at 8:22 am
If he was refering to Sarah Palin, he would have said lipstick on a pitbull.
Come on, enough with the feigned outrage. Obama used a VERY common idiom. And you call the Democrats the victim society…extremely hypocritical on the part of Republicans… then again, that’s VERY common, too.
7. swamprat | September 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Typical Republican strategy. Brag and bash seems to be all they have for a campaign strategy.
I think Karl Rove is slithering nearby.
8. Billybeermonicagar | September 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Right next to David Axelrod and Eliot Spitzer.
9. swamprat | September 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Comparing David Axelrod to Karl Rove is a huge stretch. More than huge.
Eliot Spitzer was a womanizer. So was John McCain. Spitzer was targeted because the wall street pigmen wanted to continue to pick your pocket. He was interfering. The pigmen even cheered on the NYSE floor the day he was taken down.
If you want to compare the snake in the grass Rove to someone, take a look at the present administration.
10. Pat Cunningham | September 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
swamprat: You’re new here, and I hope you’ll return often. Our regulars include a few other voices of progressivism whose contributions are invaluable. Still, I sometimes feel a little lonely amid all the caterwauling by McCainiacs. Y’all come back, hear?
P.S.: OK! OK! You right-wingers are welcome, too. (Whew! That wasn’t as painful to say as I thought it would be.)
11. Roger | September 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Pat thanks for using a picture of your wife as a example. You must be a proud boar.
12. Roger | September 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
SNuss claims to know what was in the minds of Obama’s audience. But what about McCain’s audience when he used the same expression in mentioning Hillary? Oh, right. I forgot. That’s irrelevant. After all, McCain was a POW. He gets to say whatever he damn well pleases, and if you criticize him, you’re out of bounds. And if you criticize Obama your a Racist…..
13. Pat Cunningham | September 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Roger: I have no wife, you pinhead. Besides, comments like that are not welcome here. How would you like it if someone ridiculed your wife, or mother, or sister, or daughter for her looks? There’ll be no more of that, do you understand?
14. Billybeermonicagar | September 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Off the subject, but Spitzer was targeted? Oh boy.
15. Roger | September 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Your correct. I should not have said that. I apologize. I got wrapped up in all the rhetoric. Again sorry for the personal comment. We all have a right to our opinions with out be personally attacked. Not to say this was correct but your personal attack of being uneducated earlier was uncalled for also. I agreed with some one and you got personal too. But I still do apologize for the personal attack.
16. Pat Cunningham | September 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Roger: Your humble apology is accepted. But let’s be clear. I have no problem with attacks on my or anybody else’s intelligence. Physical charms, or lack of them, however, are out of bounds — mainly because they’re irrelevant. Let’s not forget that our greatest president, Lincoln, was perhaps our ugliest as well. (Oops! I just violated my own rule.)
17. swamprat | September 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Billybeer. So then you agree with the rest of my post, but object to the word targeted? OK, change that to attacked.
18. Billybeermonicagar | September 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Swamp, How does James Carville sound?
19. swamprat | September 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Billybeer. Ah yes, James Carville- US Marine, very smart, witty, campaign manager of the year in 1992. I think he’s great. A bulldog without lipstick. I like the guy!!!
What else would you like to know about him?
20. Billybeermonicagar | September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
What rock do you have hiding under?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed