Doesn't that make Palin the lipstick?
"John McCain says he's about change too, 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 going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said."That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."
I get that this is faux-outrage and that it is simply a pathetic attempt to capture a news cycle, but these jokers can't even get the analogy right.
BTW: in case you're interested, you can read the 3 dozen or so examples of Dick Cheney using "lipstick on a pig" in 2004 here. You can read how McCain used the phrase with Hillary Clinton here.
Folks, this entire escapade is about a dishonorable man (McCain) with nothing to run on forcing his opponent to explicitly respond to implicit charges of sexism. The McCain folks did this with race and they are doing it again with sex. Once the Obama campaign responds, the McCain folks will accuse Obama of playing the gender card. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Personally, I've had enough. Between this and the perverted sex ad, I've lost any respect I had for the man. He knows Barack Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig. He knows that Obama's support of a program that lets children know when adults exhibit inappropriate behavior around them is not teaching kids about sex before they can read. He knows these things. John McCain is not an American hero. He is a disgraceful liar and coward and he is not fit for the highest office in the land.
UPDATE: It should be noted that McCain's lack of integrity goes much deeper than pigs and fishes; here is a list of the issues on which the man has sold himself out on (here's a second list to fact check). Of special note is McCain's sell-out on the issue of torture. This is a symbolic issue for McCain, a former POW. With the position Mr. McCain now holds on the issue, by way of the Military Commissions Act which he gave in to, he condones the very actions which were used against him in Vietnam. He doesn't even consider these actions torture. Nope, by way of the CIA techniques which he now condones, he was simply subjected to sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, and long-time standing/beating. Also of note is his use of the "nasty side of politics" which were used against him in the 2000 campaign. In June of 2000, McCain gave an interview with some harsh words for the man who accused him of having a black baby in the South Carolina primary:
Dadmag: During your campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination Bridget became something of an issue in South Carolina didn't she?He has since hired the man with a special place in hell as a campaign adviser. Do you see a pattern here? McCain was given the beating of his political life and he rolled over and joined the attackers. As a victim of torture he now condones it if it means it increases his political support. As a victim of the nasty side of politics he now condones it if it means it increases his political support. As a victim of race baiting he now condones it if it means it increases his political support. The list goes on and on. The man is unfit for command.
McCain: Yeah. There were some pretty vile and hurtful things said during the South Carolina primary. It's a really nasty side of politics. We tried to ignore it and I think we shielded her from it. It's just unfortunate that that sort of thing still exists As you know she's Bengali, and very dark skinned. A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin. Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying "You know the McCains have a black baby" I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.
UPDATE ii: I'm not the only one to make the case that McCain's recent actions make him morally unfit for office. Read Andrew Sullivan's take here and Josh Marshall's post here. Sullivan puts it about as well as it can be written:
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.
John McCain: Country Second.
UPDATE iii: Here's a blast from the past--McCain urging John Kerry not to use his Vietnam service in the 2004 campaign (highlights are mine):
Later, asked why he is not willing to use his leverage with the Bush campaign to force a condemnation of the anti-Kerry ad, McCain said, "I'm just not sure that in the grand scheme of things that should determine whether I support the president's reelection or not. If I threatened him with some kind of retaliation, that obviously would have some impact on his reelectability."
McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was among the first to condemn the veterans group for challenging Kerry's combat record and spoke out against the ad throughout his 90-minute luncheon interview. But he also said Kerry had invited scrutiny of his record by putting so much emphasis on Vietnam at the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month.
"His critics are saying, 'Look, you made it fair game,' " McCain said. "I mean, that's very legitimate, and I think there's a risk that he took when he made it such a centerpiece. He may be paying a very heavy price."
McCain said that he urged Kerry sometime ago not to talk about Vietnam during his campaign. "I did advise John. I said, 'Look, you shouldn't talk about Vietnam because everybody else will. Let everybody else do it.' His advisers figured that was probably not enough, that he had to emphasize that in his campaign. In my campaign, as you know, I didn't talk about it because I didn't need to."