Alaskans on Obama’s “Lipstick on Pig” Comment:
“Just plain rude”
“Just plain rude”
On the phone earlier with a gay Alaskan from the Kenai Pennisula, I learned how people in the Last Frontier reacted to Barack Obama’s comment about Republicans adopting the mantle of change: Â ”You can put lipstick on a pig,” the Illinois Senator said, “It’s still a pig.”
Some thought he was smearing Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin who ad libbed at the Republican National Convention “What’s the difference between a hockey Mom and a pit bill? Â Lipstick.“
While there is some controversy as to whether the Democratic nominee meant to refer to Palin, Alaskans were convinced that he meant to insult their popular governor. Â This is not playing well in a place where people call her by her first name.
At a local watering hole, learning about this on TV, my correspondent, along with other locals, including many Democrats, thought the comment was “just plain rude” and “rather low class.”
UPDATE: Â I hadn’t intended to blog on this, not seeing it as much of an issue until I was interviewing the gay Alaskan mentioned above for another piece I’m writing. Â Without prompting from me, he mentioned that Alaskans of all political stripes were upset about the comment. Â It appears to be more newsworthy than I initially thought.
As to my advice, I’ll just echo what Jonah Goldberg said on the Corner:
Palin shouldn’t complain or ask for an apology about the pig thing. She should blow it off, or make a joke about Obama losing his cool.
102 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
They’re so far off track in handling her nomination I almost feel sorry for them. Was this a big bad insult the GOP should go on and on about? No. Was it foolish on Obama’s part? Hell yes, regardless of how it was intended.
Comment by KevinQC — September 10, 2008 @ 2:05 am - September 10, 2008
His comment was from the folks who brought you the formal “baby’s daddy” intro.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2008 @ 2:08 am - September 10, 2008
Wow, Palin’s a pig and McCain’s an old fish, I don’t know which group should be more offended — hot working women or honorable seniors!
David
Comment by LifeTrek — September 10, 2008 @ 3:08 am - September 10, 2008
#3
First the libs trashed blacks when they went after Obama. You just KNOW he had to have been a drug pusher.
Then they go after McCain because he’s so OLD.
Then they go after Palin because she’s a working mom.
Not to mention they’re pissed because McCain didn’t pick “that f*cking Jew bastard”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2008 @ 3:12 am - September 10, 2008
Sounds like the Dems are suffering some serious buyer’s remorse right now.
Comment by Right Turn — September 10, 2008 @ 6:01 am - September 10, 2008
The dilemma for Obama supporters is, if Obama is as smart as they claim, then he’s smart enough to know how the “lipstick on a pig” comment would be perceived.
If he’s too dumb to realize how it would be perceived, he’s too dumb to be president.
Which is it?
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 6:32 am - September 10, 2008
Please, the man is speaking the truth about both of them. If she can’t take the heat then get the heck out of the race.
Comment by J Lynn — September 10, 2008 @ 7:33 am - September 10, 2008
and you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Comment by michael — September 10, 2008 @ 7:51 am - September 10, 2008
This is not an insult to Palin. If you think it is, then you don’t understand the simile. Its amazing that the level of thinking is so low that so many among us cannot understand this comment. For those of you who don’t understand it, and I’m no Obama supporter, but Obama is making you look stupid. Lipstick on a pig is a common simile or metaphor. In this simile, saying McCain Palin is “like putting lipstick on a pig” means that Palin IS THE LIPSTICK. NOT THE PIG. DUH!. You can make the point that Obama should have known people would be this dumb but frankly, I don’t think that should matter. And I don’t even like Obama, as a person, or a candidate, but this is just silly.
Comment by z — September 10, 2008 @ 8:33 am - September 10, 2008
V the K, yeah, I guess that Obama should have realized there are enough partisans that would feign that Obama was literally calling Palin a pig, even though it was a clear metaphor on what Obama believed is McCain pursuing the failed policies of Bush but dressing it up a little with “lipstick.”
Heck, there were actually people that believed that Bush I in 1984 when he said he “kicked a little ass” after the VP debate that Bush actually meant Ferraro was a body part of a four-legged equine. Go figure.
Comment by Pat — September 10, 2008 @ 8:54 am - September 10, 2008
Context, Pat. Context. Ever since Palin was nominated, Obama’s supporters have been trying to smear her with the worst kind of insults and lies about her family.
Obama could have made the same point by saying “Old wine in new bottles,” or “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” There is no shortage of metaphors. But his deliberate choice of the lipstick metaphor in the context of Palin’s acceptance speech and the scorched Earth campaign against her shows bad judgment and immaturity.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 9:22 am - September 10, 2008
#6 V the K is right on. Obama’s isn’t ready for prime time. I mean Sarah is really inexperienced huh. We are expecting her to make some fauxpas. But the exhaulted one? His claim to the Presidency is that he has been “running” his campaign for over a year now.
Mister yaoh umm ahh yaoh perfect.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 10, 2008 @ 9:22 am - September 10, 2008
Besides which, with Obama supporters whining that “‘community organizer’ is a code-word for ‘black’,” his followers really have no place to lecture others on being overly sensitive.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 9:35 am - September 10, 2008
A new attack against Obama Biden…..
This Democrat Congress has a 9% approval rating. The worst Congress in history? Why has Obama Biden voted with the Congress 97% of the time? Run from that.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 10, 2008 @ 9:38 am - September 10, 2008
“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. That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing, something different. But 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.”
The only constituency who could possibly be offended by this statement are fish. The accusation that Obama called Palin a pig is–are you sitting down?–a lie. It’s a lie. They think you’ll believe it because they think you’re fools. Fools who can’t read a newspaper or decipher the meaning of a commonplace colloquialism. That’s their opinion of you. (But Obama’s the elitist.)
Wake up. You don’t have to act like idiots just because McCain tells you to.
Comment by Jim — September 10, 2008 @ 9:58 am - September 10, 2008
Obama had best hire michael as a speech writer and go all out slash and burn, or he should take a few days off and repair the leaky tub his campaign has become.
He no sooner said “lipstick on a pig” and the crowd of drooling sychophants on the bleachers started laughing. It was a great KOS Kids moment for them. Meanwhile, the Messiah looked a bit perplexed. Maybe he is really too dumb to know what kind of humor makes sixth graders giggle.
I hope Sarah sprouts a big pig brooch for the collar of her suit.
Maybe Obama will call her a “dirty birdie” next. What a guy!
Comment by heliotrope — September 10, 2008 @ 10:00 am - September 10, 2008
Heh.
Ed Morrissey, as usual, has a tart, honest roundup of the issue:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/mccain-ad-lipstick/
He adds:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 10:18 am - September 10, 2008
Pat, I have a lot of respect for you and I rarely if ever take this tone with you, but: That is bullsh*t. Nobody is feigning. Obama tried to play a cutesy game where people like you would pick up the thread of deniability for him and give him cover, and you’re doing it. His comment used this careful structure:
Emphasis added to highlight the structure. Clearly he was bringing in Palin and McCain in that order, with insults that are respectively sexist (given the context of the campaign - thank you V) and ageist. The audience of left-wing bigots knew it and cheered accordingly. It’s right on the video. Watch the video. Obama pauses ‘just so’, for the audience to take it in - and they do. Now stop defending what’s indefensible.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 10:30 am - September 10, 2008
Obama may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
Comment by Attmay — September 10, 2008 @ 10:31 am - September 10, 2008
V the K got it correct…once again:) I say let Obama spin in the wind and be hoisted on his own patard…..and there will be more faux pax to come from “The One”….he just can’t stand it that a common sense, smart and down to earth “One of Us” elected leader like Governor Palin who has OUR American views and puts Country First instead of his extreme liberal views is sinking his Marxist elitist campaign…..he must be saying, “damn where is my teleprompter”…..he can’t speak without one and unless the lines are fed to him on one he can’t think without one…..whereas Sarah Palin gives a speech brilliantly even when the teleprompter breaks down or when John McCain first introduced her as his VP speech she gave a speech without a teleprompter and without notes and knocked our socks off and proved John McCain is far from that senile old man but as Rush Limbaugh said “John McBrilliant”.
Go Sarah Go…..she is both Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and I so wish she were our President but say my prayers that she will be elected our next VP and John McCain our next President and in 2012 when McCain says Country First, I did what I came to accomplish for the Country..now we need Sarah as President…sign me up and 8 years of President Palin….just what the Country will need….
Let’s see they have made fun of her for praying (my favorite is CNN mocking her for praying for our troops in Iraq that they do “God’s work) or that Andrea Mitchell whines that Governor Palin just can’t be possibly ready to be VP….only uneducated women will vote for her and she gives the same stump speech…duh..she doesn’t and NObama gives the same victim speech…..they will scare you because I am Black, they will scare you because I am Muslim…..he really does think we are stupid….but we aren’t because bye bye bye as to “The One” since we are all going to put Country First and put McCain/Palin in the White House!
Comment by Rocket — September 10, 2008 @ 10:36 am - September 10, 2008
I personally am not sure responding with an ad is the right thing for McCain/Palin to do, but I at least don’t think it will hurt them. I think this issue will blow over quickly. By that, I don’t mean it won’t do some lasting damage to the Obama campaign, but rather that the issue will probably be resolved in most people’s minds within 24 hours, and therefore, I wouldn’t expect the responsive ad to stay out there long. No point in continuing to point out what everyone has already heard. In some ways, that the McCain campaign would think such an ad is necessary communicates to me that they haven’t yet realized how much attention they are presently getting, and that’s understandable, given how Republicans are so used to being ignored except when they screw up and are so used to the media hiding Democratic gaffes from the public. But with Palin on the ticket, it’s not necessary for the McCain campaign to put these sorts of things out there. Everyone is paying attention now, not just political junkies. So, okay, they made an ad. No harm in that. But I still think it’s unnecessary, and dwelling on it won’t do the McCain campaign any good. Sen. Obama already shot himself in the foot on this one. The McCain campaign can’t hurt him on this point more than Obama already hurt himself.
I do think it will be interesting to see how Obama responds. (Apparently, he’s supposed to say something soon; perhaps he already will have by the time I post this.) Given the way he and Sen. Biden have been handling things lately, he is likely to dig himself into a deeper hole. I suppose the smartest thing for him to do is apologize for what he said, make it clear that he didn’t mean Gov. Palin is a pig, AND not blame people for misunderstanding him. I expect he’ll do the first two. I’m not so sure though about the last one. The smartest thing for him to do is to apologize and try to put this behind him, and I do think he may do that. I do think there’s a good chance though he’ll take a swing at the McCain/Palin team though for “using” or “exploiting” this issue. Democrats often have a hard time simply apologizing when they say the wrong thing, such as Don Fowler’s “apology” for what he said about Hurricane Gustav’s effect on the Republican convention, which still contained an attack on the person who busted him. Perhaps Sen. Obama’s apology will be smarter and more humble.
Comment by cme — September 10, 2008 @ 10:41 am - September 10, 2008
Well sure enough, Sen. Obama chooses to be defiant rather than just apologize. Given the number of people who took this as an insult directed at Gov. Palin, I’m not sure this was a good move. I still think the McCain campaign should drop the issue. Sen. Obama seems perfectly capable of wrecking his campaign all on his own (or at least with the help of Sen. Biden). He doesn’t need the help of the McCain/Palin campaign.
Comment by cme — September 10, 2008 @ 11:17 am - September 10, 2008
cme, I agree with you in the sense that I don’t think McPalin should spend any (or very much) money pushing this ad. Just the fact that it exists, and people can see it on the Internet, is enough. I think the true point is to slap Obama on his core brand. He really isn’t a gentleman and isn’t post-partisan. The ad’s existence is the slap. Obama’s people are going to feel a tad burned (though they would deny it) - and hopefully continue their own meltdown.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 11:23 am - September 10, 2008
IMO, the comment was simply a play on Palin’s “Bulldog” joke. To me this is the same PC idiocy that occurred when Trent Lott tried to pay respects to a dying Strom Thurmond by saying the world would have been a better place if the old guy would have won the presidency fifty years ago. I condemned that stupid-hype -PC pho-outrage then, and I condemn it now. If we want this “Political Correctness” to truely end, we cannot support it’s use when it suits our needs. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
That said - Karma’s a Bitch!!!
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 11:26 am - September 10, 2008
sonicfrog: so you agree, then, that Obama called Palin a pig.
What I came to say: DrewM, over on Ace, reports on what Obama just had to say:
cme, sounds like you were right about that hole-digging. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 11:34 am - September 10, 2008
Pat, I have a lot of respect for you and I rarely if ever take this tone with you, but: That is bullsh*t. Nobody is feigning. Obama tried to play a cutesy game where people like you would pick up the thread of deniability for him and give him cover, and you’re doing it. His comment used this careful structure:
ILC, I’ll accept that many of the people calling out Obama on that speech are not feigning. But I think a good many people are doing just that. I’ll respectfully disagree with you on that. I’ve seen this happen too many times to people like John Kerry, George H.W. Bush, and Trent Lott (who, you may guess is one I’m not particularly fond of), who I believe were deliberately taken out of context, when IMO, the context of the speech is clear. But the opposition was sure to turn it into the worst possible interpretation, and it took legs.
Was it a cutesy game that Obama was trying to play? Maybe you’re right. Maybe Obama was trying to really say that Palin is a pig in his comments, but then be able to say that’s not what he meant when he really meant it. The left and Democrats have said the same thing regarding the McCain campaign and conservatives, suggesting what others really meant. To me that takes a bit of mindreading on anyone’s part, and I’ve always said that humans are absolutely atrocious at mindreading. We argue more over things that are not said then things are said.
In light of this, I suggest that the media press Obama on exactly what he meant, ask if he should have realized the furor that this would have caused (as V the K suggested)
Obama was clearly taking Palin’s speech, where she used lipstick, and Obama turned it into putting lipstick on Bush’s policy. If you ask me, I think the candidates should come up with their own sh&t to convince the voters of their worth. And also, yes, Obama was stupid to even give a hint that he was calling Palin a pig. Same with the “old fish.” When Obama said “we’ve had enough of the same old thing” again, he was talking about the policies of the last eights years. How could Obama be referring the “old” specifically to McCain when McCain hasn’t been the one that’s been president for eight years.
But that’s the way I saw it, ILC. It’s not a cover for Obama. I am far from being impressed with him as a candidate. If I do end up voting for Obama, it will only be because he would be the lesser of two evils, in my view.
There are many things to criticize Obama about. As long as it’s acceptable for these types of slams (even in the context to which I believe Obama’s statement was intended), I don’t believe this is worth the time that’s given to it.
Anyway, ILC, it looks like we disagree big time with this issue. But I am honestly saying the way I saw it. Maybe the shades are more rose colored when it comes to Democrats over Republicans, I don’t know. But I’m really trying to be fair about it. And I believe that you are being fair about the issue. I hope we can agree on that.
Comment by Pat — September 10, 2008 @ 11:43 am - September 10, 2008
#7: “Please, the man is speaking the truth about both of them. If she can’t take the heat then get the heck out of the race.”
J Lynn, considering that the main stream media and the Obama campaign have collectively clutched their pearls in shock and horror every single time a Republican has dared to question Obama’s policies and qualifications to be President, then by your standard Obama should have gone back to the nursery about 12 months ago.
Comment by Sean A — September 10, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - September 10, 2008
To comment #9 by Z…
Z, we’re familiar with saying sugar, but our point is this: it was a stupid line to use. There was no way that Obama’s lipstick on pigs comparison wasn’t going to get tied up with all the real partisan and ugly attacks on Palin and her family. You know, given Palin’s lipstick and pitbulls jest during her acceptance speech? At the very best Obama showed sheer stupidity, at worst he was joining in with the low class attacks from the left.
Oh - and if the candidates are supposed to just sit there and take it, try commenting on the size of Obama’s ears and see how far he lets you get.
Comment by KevinQC — September 10, 2008 @ 12:27 pm - September 10, 2008
As Ed Morrissey pointed out: Obama - yes, Obama himself - has been accusing the McCain campaign of coded racism all this time, with no evidence. In other words, “mindreading” is a goalpost that we passed months ago and Obama should be judged under the standards he uses to judge others, no?
If Obama really didn’t mean it - if it was an ‘accidental’ joke or insult, that the crowd read into his remarks - then why doesn’t he say so?
Obama could have said, this morning, something like “I apologize for any undue hurt caused to anyone by yesterday’s remark. I was using standard idioms and had no thought of tying in with Governor Palin’s earlier ‘lipstick’ joke. I had no thought of insulting Governor Palin, other than that I truly think her policies will be bad for America.” He didn’t. Instead, he tried to change the subject with faux screeches of “Swiftboating!” and fresh attacks on his opponents (see above). #1 sign of a guilty conscience.
Um, surely you’ve notice that McCain is the oldest man in the race, being over 70 and white-haired. It’s a simple fact, on the order of Palin being a woman or Obama being half-black.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 1:07 pm - September 10, 2008
First of all… Palin is a pig, well porker to be more precise. She is all about pork-barrel projects when it is our pork and her barrel. She comes out swinging away at Barack with one demeaning snide comment after the next but the second someone even fakes a swing back the right bursts into tears like — a little girl. How pathetic.
QUIT WHINING ALREADY!
Last point, Palin is responsible for most Alaskans getting a nice fat check from the oil companies, which is why she is so popular. I am sure the oil companies would never pass on the costs of Palin’s scheme to people at the pump — how much is gas again? Our pork, Palin’s barrel.
Comment by Jim — September 10, 2008 @ 1:19 pm - September 10, 2008
When you see the video, as soon as Obama makes the “lipstick on a pig remark,” the audience breaks out in cheers and laughter, and Obama basks in it.
Odd response for someone who is simply using an old colloquialism, don’t you think?
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 1:24 pm - September 10, 2008
ILC, you’re exactly right about the apology Obama should have issued, which would have been both more decent and also more politically beneficial to himself than what he actually did say. Being a partisan Republican, I readily admit I’m not objective enough to know exactly how swing voters will respond to the situation in its totality, but I am quite sure the more gracious and humble sort of apology you mention would have been the better way for him to respond.
BTW, is anyone else excited for the McCain-Obama debates and also the Palin-Biden debate? I realize I’m prone to hughhewittesque polyannaism about the GOP’s prospects for success, but I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect three TKO victories by McCain and one by Palin. Obama won’t have the teleprompter and will be likely be unprepared for McCain, given his obsession with Bush and Palin. And Palin will probably exceed expectations (as she always has, albeit helped by Democrats who lower expectations of her ahead of time) and come off as more likeable and down-to-Earth than Sen. “If-you-don’t-support-stem-cell-research-you-don’t-care-about-children-with-developmental-difficulties” Biden.
Comment by cme — September 10, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - September 10, 2008
sonicfrog: so you agree, then, that Obama called Palin a pig.
No, he was referring to policy.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 1:32 pm - September 10, 2008
Dan, MM-partner, the two boys and I went up to Flint on Monday to, well, “touch the Flesh of History” as MM-partner put it. We’ve been to lots of W and McCain events these last 10 years and MM-partner did suffer through the convention in St Paul, so it seemed fair to spend some time in the presence of the HighPriest of the Temple of Barack.
Wow, it was electrifying… unless you engaged your brain. And hot; bloody hot. With props that made no sense –3 flex fuel hybrid Chevies that no one is buying because the Democrats won’t fix the gas supply problem.
Here we sat, in the epi-center of BigLabor’s 50+ year fleecing of Buick & Chevrolet –which drove the companies and suppliers away Flint. A city that is so filled with decay and economic rot and corruption of the spirit that it’s only hope is to dream about a comeback someday -there’s nothing else. A city that defined the racist impulse in “White Flight” to the burbs even before DC federal workers first fashioned it as a defensive strategy. A city that helped create Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground movement in radical cell meetings held at the nearby St Michael’s church basement in 1966-67.
And here stood the HighPriest. Making fun of Palin and he actually said “you can’t just recreate yourself… you can’t just make these things up as you go along”. And I thought, oh boy, don’t reference JohnKerry and the flipfloping metaphor. He did later in the day at another. now famous, event. “Making it up as we go along” is it? Well, it’s not as bad as the Hillary, duck your heads it’s sniper fire nonsense.
Not you highPriest –not the guy who had an Uncle who liberated concentration camps in WW2 and who’s life was spent as a crazy uncle, ruined by war. Not the guy who added 7 states to our Nation. Not the guy who said he was conceived by his parents as a reaction to the civil rights marches in Selma… even if they occured 4 yrs after he was born. Not the guy who said Iran didn’t “poise a serious threat to the US” even tho’ they are close to having nuke weapons. Not the guy who used JFK’s meeting with Khrushchev to defend his wildly irresponsible promise he’d meet with terrorist states without preconditions –only to learn that JFK had regretted doing exactly that and Khrushchev beat the crap out of him and the US in those meetings and that led to the Missle Crisis.
But, sure enough… BarryO went there again and criticized McCain-Palin for doing what he does routinely on the stump: just makes it up.
So we sat there, in the big unused warehouse deep inside the college campus only a stone’s throw away from what had been, when I was growing up, the single largest manufacturing enterprise in the world. Now, it’s just open fields and memories; no plants, just educators teaching those who remain how to get out of town fast. No jobs, except for the corrupt Democrats who line City Hall, the County govt and courts.
It almost seemed other-worldly. And he didn’t have a clue that the cheering invitation-only, mostly white crowd in a 63% black city, could smell the fear in his sweat, the terror in his voice and the flailing cry of a fleeting campaign.
It was electrifying, if one suspended use of brains on entry.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 10, 2008 @ 1:47 pm - September 10, 2008
McPalin’s New Ad is brutal. Just brutal.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 1:47 pm - September 10, 2008
OK sonicfrog, so you’re changing you’re earlier opinion? That’s no problem; everyone gets to change their mind. But for the record, before, you had written this:
Grammatically and semantically, **if** it was a play on Palin’s Bulldog joke, then, inevitably its intent was to identify her as a pig. That would be the reason Obama’s defenders (including Obama) loudly maintain that he was only using a standard colloquialism and *not* making any reference to Palin’s Bulldog joke.
In other words, the logical choices here are:
- Either he was referencing her Bulldog joke… and thus indirectly (but still unmistakably) calling her a pig;
- Or he wasn’t.
Which is it? There’s no third option here; at least not logically.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - September 10, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
McCain started it.
Comment by Ahem — September 10, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - September 10, 2008
#34 V - Yeah, it’s great. Goes straight to the heart of the issue. But Ed Morrissey makes yet another great point: McCain better *not* keep it up, or eventually he’ll sound whiny. Humor / light touch is the best way to humiliate the Messiah.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 10, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - September 10, 2008
I think the ad works because it points out the hypocrisy and the disconnect between Obama’s image/rhetoric and his campaign’s actions.
But agree, McCain needs to focus attacks on the hollowness of Obama’s slogans, and make a strong pitch for the middle-class by connecting the dots between domestic energy production and jobs.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 2:03 pm - September 10, 2008
False.
Obama was simply using a tired old metaphor to describe what he believess is bad, recycled politics from the Bush administration. Here is the whole quote:
And here is McCain using the same metaphor:
Was McCain being a sexist prick? No. he, like Obama, was referring to bad policy positions. Now if Obama would have mentioned Palin and NOT said ANYTHING about policy, then you could have more ground to stand on. But sorry, though you have every right to interpret the intentions of Obama’s words through your own partisan filter, I would be very careful to lecture anyone about logic or reason. By imposing an arbitrary limit of two choices, you committed a false dilemma fallacy.
And while we sit here arguing over some stupid metaphor BOTH candidates have used, no one has noticed that Obama has “revised” his position on tax hikes…. Again. Hey, we’re making progress. It seems Obama might just get the fact that higher taxes hurts the economy.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - September 10, 2008
Oops, didn’t proofread. sorry for mistakes.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 3:04 pm - September 10, 2008
Oh, and yes, I do have my own “partisan filter”. But I try to keep mine in check as much as possible.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 3:26 pm - September 10, 2008
As Ed Morrissey pointed out: Obama - yes, Obama himself - has been accusing the McCain campaign of coded racism all this time, with no evidence. In other words, “mindreading†is a goalpost that we passed months ago and Obama should be judged under the standards he uses to judge others, no?
ILC, if you’re saying that Obama is getting a taste of his own medicine, then fine. Then hopefully, he won’t pull the same crap any more either. But I won’t bet the rent on that one.
If Obama really didn’t mean it - if it was an ‘accidental’ joke or insult, that the crowd read into his remarks - then why doesn’t he say so?
I heard Obama say that he was not talking about Palin being a pig, but referring to the Bush policies that he believe McCain is going to continue.
Um, surely you’ve notice that McCain is the oldest man in the race, being over 70 and white-haired. It’s a simple fact, on the order of Palin being a woman or Obama being half-black.
Yes, McCain is the oldest person in the race, although Biden isn’t too far behind. I don’t believe that every time Obama uses the word “old” he is referring to McCain. And in this case, I don’t believe he was referring to McCain. Again, he was referring to the policies from the Bush Administration. In fact, one of the things that the Obama campaign is claiming is that McCain is no longer the maverick that he used to be, so that during most of the past eight years, he wasn’t a follower of Bush’s policies “the stinking old fish,” but now McCain, according to the Obama campaign, is now following Bush’s policies by trying to dress it up with paper.
For what it’s worth, it appeared to me when I read Sonicfrog’s first post, that he indeed meant that the pig was referring to policy.
So we both read the same post, and came out with opposite interpretations of it. I’ll chalk up that that’s what happened with Obama’s comment as well. It turned out I was right regarding Sonicfrog’s post. However, since I am not as trusting of Obama, I’ll just say that the jury is still out on what Obama really meant and was trying to do with his comment, since you and others whose judgment I trust interpreted otherwise.
IMO, the comment was simply a play on Palin’s “Bulldog†joke. To me this is the same PC idiocy that occurred when Trent Lott tried to pay respects to a dying Strom Thurmond by saying the world would have been a better place if the old guy would have won the presidency fifty years ago. I condemned that stupid-hype -PC pho-outrage then, and I condemn it now. If we want this “Political Correctness†to truely end, we cannot support it’s use when it suits our needs. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
Sonicfrog, I agree exactly with your point here. I swear I thought of the Lott/Thurmond incident before I read your post.
That said - Karma’s a Bitch!!!
Yep, what goes around comes around. Will Obama and McCain learn the lesson? Probably not.
In the meantime it might behoove all the players to not mention pigs, lipstick, old fish, among other words, since these things seem to detract attention from actual issues.
Comment by Pat — September 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm - September 10, 2008
*But it’s OK to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that:
*Bush hates black people.
*”Bush lied, 650,000 died”
*Bush created hurricane Katrina and blew up the levees
*Bush and Cheney personally flew the planes into the WTC.
*We’re in a recession
*Vote for Bush and he’ll reinstate the draft
*Republicans cut funding to VA benefits every year
*Palin pushed to ban books
*Palin’s daughter actually gave birth to Trig.
*Support Bush and you support dragging black men to their death.
*Our soldiers are poor, ignorant hicks from Hoot ‘n’ Holler, USA who only enlist because they have nothing better to do with their lives.
*Our Marines were guilty of the “Haditha Massacre”
*Hurricane Katrina proves global warmism. We’ve never had a strong category 3 storm like that before.
Shall I go on with more examples of how stupid the elite liberals think Americans are?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2008 @ 3:32 pm - September 10, 2008
But Obama hasn’t run an issues-based campaign. His campaign is empty platitudes about Hope and Change. His campaign describes a destination, but does not explain how to get there.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 4:08 pm - September 10, 2008
Less well known, apparently, Steve Cohen (D,TN) compared Obama to Jesus and Palin to Pilate on the House floor this morning.
Worse than that, Biden asserted that if Palin really did love her son, she would support embryonic stem cell research.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2008 @ 4:15 pm - September 10, 2008
A talking head from Politico was speaking on Shepard Smith’s show on FNC about a quote made by the head of the South Carolina Democrat Party that Sarah Palin only qualification for VP was that she has not had an abortion.
Comment by LCRW — September 10, 2008 @ 4:40 pm - September 10, 2008
Thank you, sonicfrog, for reminding everyone that Senator McCain used the pig and lipstick comment to ridicule Senator Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal just as Senator Obama used it to describe McCaon’s Bush-like economic policies.
Senator Obama doesn’t owe anyone an apology for the pig and lipstick remark. It isn’t his fault that so many people judged the comment out of the context of his complete statement. But the McCain campaign and his supporters cry crocodile tears every time any one says something about Governor Palin that isn’t totally adoring.
If anyone should be offering apologies, it would be McCain to Obama for repeatedly questioning the Illinois Senator’s patriotism.
And I’d like two apologies from the McCain camp.
One is for Governor Palin repeating at every campaign stop that she thought the state’s jet was a waste and she put it on eBay. While she never claims she actually sold it on eBay, those who cheer and stomp their feet believe she did. And McCain has said she did. The truth is the state of Alaska was selling a lot of things on eBay, including two planes, when Pailin came into office. The delay in selling the jet was costing the state tens of thousands of dollars and it was soon taken off eBay and a contract was signed with an aircraft broker.
Secondly, the straight talker is lying about Obama’s record in Illinois in a new ad that claims Obama introduced a bill to require “sex education” in Illinois kindergarten classes. The inference is much different than the facts. The bill proposed a program to help 5-year-olds deal with sexual predators, such as explaining improper touching and how to react to a stranger being “friendly”.
Comment by Trace Phelps — September 10, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - September 10, 2008
I’m sure it would be unfounded if Obama wasn’t running an America SUCKS! campaign.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 10, 2008 @ 5:17 pm - September 10, 2008
Trace could we then ask the Senator to apologize for lying about accepting public financing of his campaign to get the corruption out of the system? I’ve been waiting for that apology for months. It is the 500 million dollar apology.
Obama backer and liberal Democrat Matt Damon just said if Mac Palin were in the White House it would be a joke like a bad Disney movie. Does Obama condone these comments like the one from the South Carolina chairman or has he just lost control of his campaign and his surrogates? Which is it? I know he looks tired, I know he has never actually had to run a full campaign. But he himself said he has 2500 people working for him. This is the guy remember who was going to bring a new tone, change, why did he lie about that Trace? Why?
Obama wanted the votes of gun owners, church goes this time. He was going to be a different Dem candidate. So now three of his surrogates have compared him to Jesus and Sarah to Pilate. Such a uniter. What a crass liar. Again is he encouraging these people of his or has he just lost control of his campaign because he is tired and not use to the pace and energy required of a national campaign?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 10, 2008 @ 5:23 pm - September 10, 2008
One is for Governor Palin repeating at every campaign stop that she thought the state’s jet was a waste and she put it on eBay. While she never claims she actually sold it on eBay, those who cheer and stomp their feet believe she did.
Ah yes, the rich Democrat leftist Trace Phelps wants Palin to apologize for what he knows other people are thinking.
Secondly, the straight talker is lying about Obama’s record in Illinois in a new ad that claims Obama introduced a bill to require “sex education†in Illinois kindergarten classes. The inference is much different than the facts.
LOL….again, Trace, you are upset because people might be thinking something different than what you wish them to think. The facts are simple; Obama demanded that sex education be taught to kindergarteners.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 10, 2008 @ 5:24 pm - September 10, 2008
It’s a distinction without a difference. She put the jet on eBay, when no one met the minimum bid she sold it through a private jet broker. The point is, the jet was sold.
But, the lefties are so desperate for a gotcha…
And anybody with half a brain can figure out Obama was talking about Palin. Watch the damn video. Do you think that Democrat audience is cheering and laughing because he used a tired colloquialism? No, they knew exactly what he meant.
And if Obama wanted kindergartners to learn about sex, it’s fair for McCain to point it out. It would be equally as fair for Obama to point out McCain supported Amnesty and letting illegals get away with tax evasion.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 5:46 pm - September 10, 2008
Age appropriate sex-ed, ND30. Along side how to report inappropriate touching, and with provisions for parents to opt their children out of the education at any grade level if they objected.
Comment by Jody — September 10, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - September 10, 2008
And I am sick and tired of people saying, “Well, John McCain said it about Hillary.” It’s not the same thing. Hillary is not a lipstick. She is definitely a bull dyke.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - September 10, 2008
is anyone suprised that conservative whiners are loose and fast with the truth?
Comment by michael — September 10, 2008 @ 6:35 pm - September 10, 2008
… And leftist whiners are SOOOOOOO much better!!!
Comment by sonicfrog — September 10, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - September 10, 2008
I am not sure which is more shocking - the majority of commentors just totally ignoring McCain using it a year ago and Dick and Lynn Cheney using it extensively four years ago OR how many gays are in such lockstep with a party that, forget about gay marriage, will not support the Matthew Shephard bill.
But the best is what V the K alludes to. I have seen e-mails accusing Obama of supporing amnesty as opposed to McCain whose name is on the bill.
Comment by Nate — September 10, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - September 10, 2008
57. Funny think about Conservatives. They happen to believe that the crime is bad enough, discerning what lays in the hearts and minds of men is beyond our ability to discern.
Then again when the left is the side of hatred and projection, maybe you’ve a leg up on believiing you can find it in others.
Comment by The Livewire — September 10, 2008 @ 7:05 pm - September 10, 2008
obama knew it would have been taken out of context. Or, since he knew, in context. The repubs are playing into his hands. He is trying to bring the “let’s talk about the issues” thing back. The repubs bought it hook line and sinnker. It was a calculated, well thought out, clintonian political move. Obama is gonna have the repubs chasing their tails. Trust me.
Comment by asdf — September 10, 2008 @ 7:10 pm - September 10, 2008
Matt Shepard’s killers got life in prison without parole and could have gotten the death penalty. Why in hell do we need hate crimes laws? Just sentence anybody who kills someone to life in prison or death, regardless of motivation.
And does anyone thing the tweaked-out meth-head thugs who killed Matt Shepard (after he left a bar with them in expectation of having a menage-a-trois) would really have been deterred by the prospect of additional penalties on top of life in prison without parole?
Idiocy.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 7:29 pm - September 10, 2008
Do you think the media, or the leftie trolls, will be as hard on Joe Biden for mischaracterizing his routine weather-related helicopter diversion as a harrowing death flight “forced down” on the “highway of terror.”.
Off-hand, I’m going to guess, no.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - September 10, 2008
#53 Jody, why in Obamas bill did they have to teach 5 year olds sex ed, when they could have just taught them not to go with stangers and not to let strangers touch them??In the bill in question they are allowed to explain and teach about gay sex. Kindergarten! ENOUGH! Quit making excuses for the inexcusable Obama record. ENOUGH!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 10, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - September 10, 2008
The leftie media jumped on Hillarys flight into danger because the were in the tank for Obama. Don’t expect them to treat Biden the same way. Women of America come on over to MacPalin!! You are welcome here!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 10, 2008 @ 8:23 pm - September 10, 2008
Because teaching age appropriate sex ed isn’t wrong. It’s called education.
Repeat after me: “Education is Good. Ignorance is Bad.”
Given that we have pretty much the worst teen HIV, STD, Pregnancy and Abortion rates in the Western World, we need to do a much better job at teaching age appropriate and comprehensive sex ed.
Comment by Jody — September 10, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - September 10, 2008
my favorite gaffe so far is in rudi’s speech at the convention. “got to desire..decide who to hire.”
Comment by michael — September 10, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - September 10, 2008
Unfortunately for you, Jody, we’ve already seen what liberal gays and lesbians call “educational”.
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off…….
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 10, 2008 @ 9:25 pm - September 10, 2008
Jody, as we already know, the liberal version of “age-appropriate” is taking two-year-old children to sex fairs and calling it an “educational experience”.
Why are liberals so obsessed with teaching young children about sex?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 10, 2008 @ 9:27 pm - September 10, 2008
If protecting young people from the hazards of sex is so important to liberals, why don’t they ever want to address the cultural aspects? Why do they insist that there’s nothing wrong with the filth of popular music, film, and television? Why don’t they object to the commercialization of sex, and the sexualization of children at ever younger ages? Why don’t they object to the mainstreaming of pronography into popular culture?
The only answer of the left to the problem of children being overexposed to sex is… more exposure to sex.
Comment by V the K — September 10, 2008 @ 9:47 pm - September 10, 2008
I’ll take non-sequiturs for 100, Alex.
in a free, capitalistic society, comprehensive, age appropriate education. Unless you are arguing to change that free, capitalistic society, V?
Comment by Jody — September 10, 2008 @ 10:34 pm - September 10, 2008
First off Palin is a pig. However, Obama was clearly talking about McCain’s policy. If anything taking the literal words of Obama Palin would have been the lipstick and McCain’s policy the pig. McCain is unable to attack Obama intelligently so he must fall to the level of attempting to twist words with a meaning which will benefit his best interest in mind.
McCain has even used the saying, “Lipstick on a pig”. McCain clearly aimed this comment at Hillary - she was his exact target. He is quoted in numerous newspapers he is also recorded on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
Just like the decision to add Palin to the ticket this attack is irrational and 100% out of desperation.
Grow up…. Palin is a pig… Obama’s comments had nothing to do with her though.
Comment by Tony Schwartz — September 11, 2008 @ 12:00 am - September 11, 2008
There really is no room to have an intelligent conversation with someone who would be delusional enough to support the McCain/Palin ticket. These types of discussions are pointless. To believe McCain has the best interest of the nation in mind or to think Palin is anything more than a choice out of desperation clearly proves one is completely out of touch with reality.
Comment by Tony Schwartz — September 11, 2008 @ 12:04 am - September 11, 2008
Then don’t, dipsh*t. I mean, why did you even come here? Jesus Christ, what a hopeless and clueless hypocrite you are.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 11, 2008 @ 1:20 am - September 11, 2008
To say it more politely: The very fact that you’re here, talking, completely belies the alleged ‘truth’ of your claim.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 11, 2008 @ 1:22 am - September 11, 2008
in a free, capitalistic society, comprehensive, age appropriate education.
Which, as we’ve seen, means taking two-year-olds to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves for an “educational experience” that involves “showing off” in front of naked and half-naked adults masturbating and having public sex.
That alone makes it pretty obvious that Obama isn’t interested in protecting children from sexual predators; if anything, he’s supporting them being sexualized at that early of an age.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 11, 2008 @ 1:23 am - September 11, 2008
That’s gotta be the funniest, non-germane, non-sequitur, I’ve read in quite some time.
Thanks for that ND30!
Comment by Jody — September 11, 2008 @ 2:15 am - September 11, 2008
Thank you Jody, for admitting that you don’t have a problem with the sleazification of American culture, or the sexualization of children… as long as they are educated by the government schools so that they can participate.
The left’s war on families and childhood continues unabated.
Comment by V the K — September 11, 2008 @ 5:01 am - September 11, 2008
And, by the way, how is it that left-liberals view pornographic “speech” as sacrosanct and get the vapors whenever anyone suggests restricting it… but they are all in favor of censoring and regulating political speech through the Fairness Doctrine, through threatening individuals who criticize Obama with Justice Department investigations, and through their speech codes and other methods. Isn’t it absurd to believe that pornography has absolute First Amendment protection, but political speech is subject to regulation and censorship?
Comment by V the K — September 11, 2008 @ 5:22 am - September 11, 2008
And finally, if liberals are so concerned about protecting children, why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA’s “free speech right” to distribute instructional materials on how to kidnap, rape, and murder children. (Aside from the obvious reason that some ACLU members like Charles Rust-Tierney and left-wing talk show host Bernie Ward are really into kiddie pron.)
Comment by V the K — September 11, 2008 @ 7:08 am - September 11, 2008
#77 Because the right to bugger Children is in the shadows and penumbras of the constitution, and Kevin and jody hope to get 5 people in black robes to agree with them and state there’s a consensus, even when there’s not.
After all, with their outlooks on life, what sane mature adult would go out with either?
Comment by The Livewire — September 11, 2008 @ 7:16 am - September 11, 2008
Which, as we’ve seen, means taking two-year-olds to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves for an “educational experience†that involves “showing off†in front of naked and half-naked adults masturbating and having public sex.
Does anyone here who believes age-appropriate sex education believe that two-year olds should be taken to sex fairs? So the above irrelevant argument can be put to rest for good.
If protecting young people from the hazards of sex is so important to liberals, why don’t they ever want to address the cultural aspects? Why do they insist that there’s nothing wrong with the filth of popular music, film, and television? Why don’t they object to the commercialization of sex, and the sexualization of children at ever younger ages? Why don’t they object to the mainstreaming of pronography into popular culture?
V the K, perhaps I’m the only liberal that agrees with you regarding sex on TV, culture, etc. However, what’s even more insiduous is the glorification of violence on TV. Yet, we’re still in the age where violence doesn’t require a special warning on TV, but the topic of gay marriage does.
Comment by Pat — September 11, 2008 @ 7:32 am - September 11, 2008
And finally, if liberals are so concerned about protecting children, why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA’s “free speech right†to distribute instructional materials on how to kidnap, rape, and murder children. (Aside from the obvious reason that some ACLU members like Charles Rust-Tierney and left-wing talk show host Bernie Ward are really into kiddie pron.)
V the K, if in fact, that’s exactly what the ACLU did, then I condemn that. NAMBLA, of course, has the right to free speech, as long as they are not breaking any laws. That means they are free to advocate that adults should be able to have sex with children, and push their legislators to do so. But they shouldn’t be posting instructions on how to commit crimes and get away with it.
But I’ll go one step further. No one under 18 should be having sex, either with an adult or another teen. Further, it should be against the law everywhere for persons under 18 to get married.
If the ACLU did win that case, then I blame the judges who ruled for the ACLU. As for those who engage in kiddy porn, hopefully they were arrested for these crimes.
Comment by Pat — September 11, 2008 @ 7:41 am - September 11, 2008
Oh, and as it turns out, Obama’s law was much more than “good touch, bad touch”.
Apparently his concern was that all the kindergartners he knew whose parents were sexually abusing them knew to wear condoms.
Other question: if Obama knew all these children that were being sexually abused, why was his first response to demand sex education in schools — versus having the parents he knew were sexually abusing their children arrested?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 11, 2008 @ 12:57 pm - September 11, 2008
paper bag wins again::….Then don’t, dipsh*t. I mean, why did you even come here? Jesus Christ, what a hopeless and clueless hypocrite you are.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 11, 2008 @ 1:20 am - September 11, 2008
Comment by michael — September 11, 2008 @ 2:15 pm - September 11, 2008
McCain has proven time and again that his strategy for winning depends on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues… i just hope people aren’t as gullible as he seems to think they are
Comment by kingdom media — September 11, 2008 @ 7:12 pm - September 11, 2008
That’ll be non-sequiturs for $200, Alex. We’ll hit the Daily Double here pretty soon.
Comment by Jody — September 11, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - September 11, 2008
D’Oh! You found me out! Can’t talk now though. I hear the school bus pulling into the shadows. No time to waist. There are children to bugger!
Comment by Jody — September 11, 2008 @ 8:12 pm - September 11, 2008
McCain has proven time and again that his strategy for winning depends on personal attacks and distracting people from the main issues…
Well, then maybe Obama should stop making personal attacks, and stop using empty-headed platitudes about ‘hope and change’ instead of talking about the issues, if McCain’s campaign depends on BO continuing to attack and distract.
Comment by V the K — September 11, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - September 11, 2008
#65 NDLabarbera strikes again - because 1 gay couple out of millions in the country took their children to Folsom street that means ALL “liberal” gay parents do the same thing or at the very least advocate it.
This thread has some of the most ignorant and sickening comments I have ever read on here. Lie after lie after lie about what Obama believes about sex education. Lie after lie after lie about what liberals believe about sex education. Livewire’s buggery statement is so far beyond offensive that I cannot even come up with the words to describe it. Some of you have truly sick minds and all you can do is attempt to attribute to others what is going on in your head. Such displays of ignorance are common on CWFA, FRC, AFTAH and the like websites, to see the same diseased attitude here is appalling. Fighting the over sexualization of children, the violence in the entertainment field and the general disregard for human life that permeates the world is an excellent cause. These comments have NOTHING to do with that, they are pure hate and can only contribute to the problem. If you can’t base what you say on the truth, then STFUP and get the mental health therapy that you so clearly need.
Comment by Dave — September 11, 2008 @ 9:25 pm - September 11, 2008
Total Lie. He never called her a pig.
Even the Hasselbeck on The View says so.
Instead of clearing it up on here, you push it along. Classy.
Comment by jimmy — September 12, 2008 @ 2:08 am - September 12, 2008
Livewire’s buggery statement is so far beyond offensive that I cannot even come up with the words to describe it.
The words you’re looking for are “the truth”.
One would think, Dave, that if you were truly opposed to all of these things, you’d be attacking the gay parents, gay public-sex pushers, and liberals who support the sexualization of children — rather than the people like us who are pointing them out and condemning it as wrong.
Instead, you’re condemning us for condemning them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 12, 2008 @ 2:29 am - September 12, 2008
And, Dave is reduced to a spitting mass of incoherent accusations and name-calling by his inability to defend his side’s attitudes toward sexualizing children.
Comment by V the K — September 12, 2008 @ 6:40 am - September 12, 2008
awww gee, NDLabarbera and V the K thanks for proving again that you respond to what’s in your imagination. Petey Jr. the truth is so far from your understanding that it is unfair of me to ever think you can do any better. I’m criticizing you for condemning every liberal for the actions of a few and for parroting the lies of the right that they us to falsely condemn ALL LGBT people. I don’t condemn you, you have condemned yourself to being impotent against the problems because you can’t even see them beyond your obsession.
V, I’ve never once tried to defend sexualizing children and I would be happy to join anyone in the fight against it. When you stop fighting liberals and start addressing the true problems, let me know.
Comment by Dave — September 12, 2008 @ 8:39 am - September 12, 2008
Well, Dave, you’ve been dishonest about this from the start. You’ve been claiming that kindergartners were only going to be taught about good touch/bad touch and stranger danger. Would you care to read what the legislation actually said?
Obama specifically demanded the legislation be changed from 6-12 to K-12 and the legislation required (that word “shall” in the quote above) teaching about STD’s and condom use.
Comment by V the K — September 12, 2008 @ 8:47 am - September 12, 2008
Not quite, V, though I think your basic point stands.
The legislation doesn’t say “…grades K-12… courses shall include instruction” on STDs and condom use. But rather, age-appropriate instruction. “Age-appropriate” is the weasel factor. It makes it a matter of interpretation. You and I know that age-appropriate instruction for a kindergartner is to say nothing. But the language puts the bureaucrats in charge. It basically *lets* them (not requires them to) teach age-inappropriate things while hiding behind a claim that they sincerely believe it is age-appropriate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 12, 2008 @ 9:44 am - September 12, 2008
I think experience has shown us that its the most strident people who will establish what “age-appropriate” instruction is.
Title IX, for example, was intended only to provide equal access of females to athletics. But the strident bureaucrats who implemented it insisted on equality of participation, which has resulted in the scaling back of athletic opportunities for boys.
Comment by V the K — September 12, 2008 @ 10:08 am - September 12, 2008
I’m criticizing you for condemning every liberal for the actions of a few and for parroting the lies of the right that they us to falsely condemn ALL LGBT people.
Which means, as I pointed out, that you’re condemning us rather than the liberals and LGBT people who actually carried out the actions.
That makes it obvious that you are more interested in protecting and defending child sexual abusers and sexualizers than you are stopping them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 12, 2008 @ 1:07 pm - September 12, 2008
#93 no, actually I have claimed no such thing.
#49 TGC - saying the USA can be better is not saying America Sucks. Hard concept for you, I know, but if Obama is saying America Sucks, then so is every other candidate who promises to make things better including those we make you wet every time you think of them.
Comment by Dave — September 12, 2008 @ 1:09 pm - September 12, 2008
#96
“Which means, as I pointed out,” that you are making assumptions not based on what I wrote but on what you want it to say.
“That makes it obvious that you” are unable to deal with reality and have to ease your conscience by fabricating the thoughts of others.
Comment by Dave — September 12, 2008 @ 1:14 pm - September 12, 2008
You know, 400,000 people attend Folsom Street Fair. Wouldn’t you think somebody would have said, “Hey, get those kids outta here!”
Comment by V the K — September 12, 2008 @ 2:13 pm - September 12, 2008
Yeah V, I would think so, do you know that no one did?
Comment by Dave — September 12, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - September 12, 2008
Title IX, for example, was intended only to provide equal access of females to athletics. But the strident bureaucrats who implemented it insisted on equality of participation, which has resulted in the scaling back of athletic opportunities for boys.
V the K, totally agree with you there. Some colleges have also eliminated men’s programs, to make participation equal. The NCAA keeps on saying that’s not what the law was intended to do, and urges colleges to not cut men’s programs to abide by Title IX, but college’s find that eliminating programs is the easiest way to do that.
You know, 400,000 people attend Folsom Street Fair. Wouldn’t you think somebody would have said, “Hey, get those kids outta here!â€
Excellent point. First of all, who knows how many of these attendants actually encountered kids there. And the ones that did see kids, I have to wonder what they did do?
Comment by Pat — September 12, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - September 12, 2008
400,000 doesn’t sound right. If I had to guess, I’d guess 40,000.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 12, 2008 @ 9:04 pm - September 12, 2008