Crooked Talk

Why is John McCain running a dishonest campaign?

Last year, at a campaign event in South Carolina, John McCain called on a woman who had a question about the expected Democratic nominee. "How do we beat the bitch?" she asked. McCain laughed, said, "That's an excellent question," and noted he was leading Clinton in a poll, before assuring his audience that "I respect Sen. Clinton."

Back then, sexism directed at a candidate for high office did not cause a wave of revulsion in McCain. But sometime in the last year, he had his consciousness raised. So when Barack Obama scoffed at the idea that the GOP ticket offered real change from President Bush, saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig—it's still a pig," McCain's camp rose up in outrage at Obama for "comparing our vice presidential nominee, Gov. Palin, to a pig."

In this interpretation of Obama's remarks, the McCain people are—what's the word I'm looking for?—lying. They pretend to be unaware of the clear meaning of this old cliche, and the pretense is completely phony.

How can I be so sure? Last year, McCain said that Hillary Clinton's 2008 health care plan was disturbingly similar to her 1993 version: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." If that's a sly sexist insult, McCain owes Clinton a big apology.

Does anyone truly believe that Obama got up that morning trying to think of a sneaky way to call Sarah Palin a pig? Or that he is stupid enough to think he could get away with it? Is there anything in his past to suggest he talks or thinks about women in such terms? Of course not.

Now politicians are not saints, and campaigns are not conducted under oath. We all expect a certain amount of deceit from people running for office, in the form of fudging, distortion, exaggeration, and omission. But the McCain campaign's approach, as this episode illustrates, is of an entirely different scale and character. It is to normal political attacks what Hurricane Ike is to a drive-through car wash.

Take Palin's claim to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Long after it was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain strategy is that truth is irrelevant.

Last week, he released a TV spot on education studded with falsehoods. It quoted The Chicago Tribune calling Obama a "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." But the Tribune didn't say it. I did, in a signed column in the Tribune, which praised McCain's support for school vouchers for low-income families.

The ad couldn't be bothered explaining why Obama is wrong about vouchers. Instead, it said his "one accomplishment" was a bill mandating sex education for kindergarteners. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" asked the narrator, implying that 5-year-olds would be taught the proper use of condoms before being taught their ABCs. Which, as it happens, is not true.

McCain may be the only candidate who has ever gotten in trouble with FactCheck.org for quoting FactCheck.org. Another commercial showed a photo of Obama while saying the group called the attacks on Palin "false" and "misleading." But the group quickly repudiated the charge.

The FactCheck article, it pointed out, "debunked a number of false or misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings regarding Palin." The ad, however, "strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said 'completely false' attacks on Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. But we said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin."

Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Obama: He's wrong about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal judges. He would impede school reform.

But McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Obama isn't enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.

He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an election. What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JMR||

    I haven't found honesty is conservatives' strong suit lately...

  • JMR||

    And perhaps I shouldn't even call them "conservatives" anymore. Think "neocons."

  • ||

    Six years into Iraq, do we want another Republican who'll lie to get what he wants?

  • squarooticus||

    Someone let me know whether this is worth reading or not. After that drinking age column, I'm not willing to waste my time on a Chapman article without knowing in advance that it won't simply be 5 minutes of my life I'll be wanting back.

  • ed||

    Sheesh, Monday morning, barely halfway through my first cup o' coffee and I learn that politicians are dishonest. What's next: Americans don't care?

  • not Steve Chapman||

    squarooticus owes us each four seconds.

  • Rotten Tomatoes||

    Someone let me know whether this is worth reading or not.

    Not really. He's mostly having a fit over McCain making hay with the Lipstick on a Pig remark. Which would have been done by just about anyone else, and Obama should have known better than to set himself up for. Faux outrage over standard campaign tactics. I give it two stars.

  • ||

    Chapman is spot on ... I wish I could "spot on, once again", but his lamentably un-libertarian articles of the past few months prevent me from doing so.
    However, this Chapman piece defies recent history as it sagaciously isolates a very serious problem within the McCain campaign. Momentum toward victory in November just wasn't enough for JMac - he needed to go for the all too familiar political "kill", and he ends up looking like, well ... a politician. Watch as the markets crash and the polls begin to turn in Obama's favor - having tied McCain to Bush's policies, the Big Mo' pendulum will now swing back to Obama. The McCain campaign will accentuate this swing with the lies they tell.

  • jimmydageek||

    ...chosen to smear his opponent with ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to believe.



    Newsflash! The American people are gullible enough to believe such stuff.

  • Mad Max||

    Speaking of faux outrage, I must say I'm *shocked* that McCain is acting like an ordinary politician. I am so disillusioned; I thought he was for straight talk and virtue, and . . . zzzzz

    Where was I? Oh, yes, I was trying to articulate the enormous depths of my outrage. It's got me worked up so much I . . . zzzzzz

    Huh, what? Oh, yeah, those were snores of *outrage!*

  • BDB||

    Well, joe, people were gullible enough to buy the Iraq War.

  • ||

    I haven't found honesty is conservatives' strong suit lately...

    As if honesty was a strong suit amongst anyone in politics... I thought that, by definition, you had to be a soulless Gollum-like creature in order to run for elected office.

    I can't begin to explain the extent to which I am worried about either major candidate getting elected.

  • ||

    implying that 5-year-olds would be taught the proper use of condoms before being taught their ABCs

    Was the class taught by Mr. Garrison?

    While Chapman is factually correct, to actually be outraged by a politician lying is beyond stupid. Where is his outrage against his fellow journalists, who give McCain a pass for just about everything he does?

  • ||

    What's McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so consequential as a war. Just his soul.



    Umm, Just like all the rest of the politians, McCain has had his soul surgically removed, and has been engaged in crooked talk a lot.

    But this is one case that is not a lie. Obama's audience certainly new he was calling Palin as a pig, even if Obama was so clueless as not to know what his speech writer had in mind. Obama's subsequent comment about an old fish makes it clear whoever is putting words in Obama's mouth knew they were calling Palin a pig and McCain and old fish.

  • BDB||

    newshutz, do you have ESP?

  • ||

    Was McCane calling Hillary a pig?

    How about the McCain political advisor who wrote a book titled "Lipstick on a Pig?"

    Calling foul on your opponents' attacks is a fine political maneuver, but they pushed it beyond the realm of credibility, and handed Obama a golden ticket. They went full retard; you NEVER go full retard.

    BTW, Palin's not the pig; she's the lipstick.

  • armchairpunter||

    One must be daft or intellectually dishonest to equate Obama's invocation of the old pig-lipstick maxim AFTER Palin's acceptance speech with previous utilization by McCain or other politicians in other contexts. Nearly 40 MILLION people remember hearing the pit bull-lipstick line from Palin's speech, and that's just the folks her heard it live. (Clearly, the audibly amused crowd that heard Obama make his "lipstick" crack remembered it well.) It takes a special kind of thick-headedness or guile to shrug and say "What's the big deal?"

    I think Obama and his sympathizers grossly underestimate the sensitivity of the antennae of the American viewer, tuned each day for many years now by the cynical, irony-laced banter that constitutes the bulk of television entertainment.

  • Bhama||

    who knew that pit bulls were so hypersensitive?

  • ||

    What, did she take out a trademark on the word "lipstick?"

    You can try to keep putting lipstick on this pig, punter. It's still a pig.

  • ||

    Who'da thunk it?
    Reason writers agreeing with Karl Rove. Or vice versa...
    Yes, even his rove-ishness has gone on record that 'McCain has gone too far' with the dishonesty.
    ["courtesy" of Fox News]

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  • BDB||

    "Yes, even his rove-ishness has gone on record that 'McCain has gone too far' with the dishonesty."

    You have to be kidding me.

  • ||

    STOPIT STOPIT STOP IT!
    Stop running Steve Chapman's stream of retarded subconsciousness!

    It's too stupid to even point out how stupid it is.

    JUST STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • marc h.||

    "He wants to raise taxes"

    Actually, an "honest conservative" couldn't say that, either. Obama is offering most Americans a tax cut.

    And McCain is offering most Americans a tax increase by taking away the tax subsidy on health care.

  • Elemenope||

    While Chapman is factually correct, to actually be outraged by a politician lying is beyond stupid.

    It's not just a rage over a lack of honesty (I agree that would be, if not stupid, at least naive).

    The real issue is that, unlike most politicians with a modicum of sense, once McCain gets *caught* having lied, he doesn't walk the lie back, obfuscate, or tell a cover lie. He just simply *repeats the lie*. Over, and over, and over. In the age of Google, that's simply fucking psychotic.

    It shows a level of disrespect for people generally that is usually beneath even politicians. It used to be that politicians had the good sense to do an insincere mea culpa when caught and the even more obvious sense to not repeat something that had been thoroughly and publicly debunked. To do otherwise is a deliberate insult, akin to saying "I'm gonna repeat what *both you and I know* is a lie, because I just think your too stupid or craven to care."

  • Elemenope||

    You have to be kidding me.

    No kidding. Rove commented publicly that McCain has gone further (into the gutter) than *he* would have.

    Yikes.

  • BDB||

    Can anyone go to the sixth circle of hell to interview Lee Atwater and see if he thinks McCain has gone too far?

  • ||

    The real issue is that, unlike most politicians with a modicum of sense, once McCain gets *caught* having lied, he doesn't walk the lie back, obfuscate, or tell a cover lie. He just simply *repeats the lie*. Over, and over, and over. In the age of Google, that's simply fucking psychotic.

    Sounds a lot like the arguments in the run-up to the Iraq War. All sorts of evidence disproving the claims about aluminum tubes and pilotless drones and Iraqi complicity in 9/11 came out - and the administration just kept repeating them, even when they were called on them.

    Even if you agree with the decision to invade Iraq on "democratization" grounds or whatever, can't you see what having that dishonest pretext sitting there like a timebomb, and then going off at the end of 2003/early 2004 did to your beloved policy? You can't govern like that. It's going to blow up in your face.

  • BDB||

    It worked then, what makes you think it won't work now?

  • ||

    Fool me one, shame...shame on me.

    A foo mah - can't get fooled agiain.

    There's been a lot of this for the past 8 years, and I think people are sick of it.

    Also, his opponent's political campaign is making a big deal about his serial lying. Sort of like Shrub did to Al Gore, except this time, there is actually evidence to back the charges up.

  • BDB||

    Well, we'll see if it sticks.

    There's a good chance people will think "He's a war hero! He would NEVER lie!" so I don't know.

    But the Palingasm is dying.

  • ||

    The outrage over the pig comment was silly, but so is this defense of Obama. Of course, without a any doubt at all, Obama's comment was an obvious allusion to Palin's 'pit bull' comment. In Palin's version, the pit bull was Palin, and in Obama's response, so was the pig (not some unnamed, unmentioned policy) which is why Obama's audience reacted as it did.

    It's completely irrelevant that the lipstick-on-a-pig metaphor has been used in many other contexts to refer to policies -- in this case the allusion was clearly to Palin herself.

  • ||

    There's a good chance people will think "He's a war hero! He would NEVER lie!" so I don't know.

    Well. Once too often. Did you know that John McCain can't use a computer because he was a POW? Did you know that John McCain understands what it's like not own seven houses, because he was a POW? Did you know that you can't say that being a POW doesn't make one qualified to be President, because John McCain was a POW?

    It would have been better for him if he and his campaign actually had been as reticent to talk about it as they keep saying they are. Then, they would have been able to bust it out now, and it would be a powerful rejoinder. Now, it's lost its punch.

  • BDB||

    Yeah, that might have run it's course.

    Still, even George W. Bush didn't outright lie about Iraq as he used double-talk and stretched the truth. He never came out and said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, but would vaguely hint at it.

    McCain just makes shit up, and when he's told he's making shit up, he repeats it.

    Sarah Palin, as we speak today, is once again saying she was against the bridge to nowhere and doesn't take earmarks.

  • libertarian democrat||

    I think McCain will lose some independents who admired his character for his rogue and straight-talker narratives.

    Others probably won't notice the change.

  • ||

    BDB,

    Bush had surrogates outright lie, and then used double-talk and truth-stretching to back up his surrogates' points.

    McCain puts his mug on TV, saying "I approved this message," and then lies. Or, he stands there on the stump (or Palin does) and says things everyone knows to be untrue.

    And the weirdest part is, the crowds go wild. They cheer even louder when he makes one of the untruthful statements he's getting in trouble for. Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

  • Elemenope||

    re: Iraq War comparisons.

    The difference there was that *at the time* the lies were not easily refutable. Only a few people on Earth had a decent inkling of the truth of the WMD thing, one way or another. So Bush lying over and over was (evil, but) not crazy, because he couldn't be definitively called on it 'till after-the-fact.

    On the other hand, whether Palin asked for earmarks, we can easily check that. Whether she said or didn't say certain things: we have fucking YouTube video. Whether McCain's or Obama's tax plan will raise taxes more...these are public plans, and some sassy think tanks have already drawn up useful bar charts.

    That's the ever-fucking difference. Unlike the war, we can know *now* with a five-minute Google about the types of things upon which the political camps are commenting, to check whether there is any correspondence with truth. That's what makes this beyond disgusting into simply stupid and/or psychotic.

  • Paul||

    Ur an idiot

  • BDB||

    Well, if McCain wins, politicians will just start to make shit up when running for election and re-election, and repeat the stuff they made up thousands of times until it's accepted as truth. It's a sad day if that strategy is actually effective.

  • ||

    An ur-idiot, as it wur.

  • libertarian democrat||

    Well, if McCain wins, politicians will just start to make shit up when running for election and re-election, and repeat the stuff they made up thousands of times until it's accepted as truth. It's a sad day if that strategy is actually effective.

    There are studies showing a similar effect, actually. Hopefully a few non-lying adds showing how stupidly the liars are lying would counteract it, but you can get people to believe some lies by repeating them enough.

  • BDB||

    Like I said, Elemenope, if this works, democracy has ceased to be effective in this country.

  • ||

    "But this is one case that is not a lie. Obama's audience certainly new he was calling Palin as a pig, even if Obama was so clueless as not to know what his speech writer had in mind. Obama's subsequent comment about an old fish makes it clear whoever is putting words in Obama's mouth knew they were calling Palin a pig and McCain and old fish."

    How on earth did you stumble on to Reason.com? Shouldn't you be out protesting an abortion clinic or something?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Well now there's a surprise. I had no idea that politicians were full of shit.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    It's a sad day if that strategy is actually effective.

    Been effective for as long as I can recall. And I'm pretty old.

  • ||

    Acutally, given the context of Palin's Lipstick-Pitbull comment in her convention speach, I think it's pretty clear that he WAS calling her a pig.

    It may be a well known phrase, but at that particular moment, the Lipstick-Pitbull comment was MORE well known. How could Obama not realize that it would be taken that way?

    And why is Chapman ignoring the context? Even if you don't think Obama meant it that way, at least acknowledge that the lipstick-pitbull comment alters the context of Obama's statement.

  • BDB||

    TWC, there's truth streching/double talk ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") and then just, you know, making stuff up ("Sarah Palin never took earmarks as Governor of Alaska").

    The latter is usually walked back by a pol when he's called on it. McCain has decided to just repeat it louder. It's either brilliant, or electoral suicide. I haven't figured out which yet.

  • BDB||

    TK, did you get in a time machine and go back one week?

  • ||

    Um, context makes it abundantly clear that Palin was the lipstick, and McCain (or his policies) were the pig.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  • ||

    I noticed in the last week or so, maybe since the far right was so mightily taken with Godly and righteous indignation at senator Obama's comment, that every public appearance and tv show is now John and Cindy McCain. Anyone have a theory why this is being done?

  • ||

    When everyone is obsessing about lipstick, pigs and pitbulls, we've crossed the point of no return. McCain and GOP talking heads aren't the ones keeping this ridiculous discussion going. The press is all too willing to overblow anything if it keeps them from having to analyze the issues. Chapman proves once again he's a tool.

  • Context||

    And why is Chapman ignoring the context?



    "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', That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can ... put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change; it's still going to stink. After eight years, we've had enough of the same old thing. It's time to bring about real change to Washington"

    Not only did he call Palin a pig, he also called her "John McCain"!

  • ||

    "Not only did he call Palin a pig, he also called her "John McCain"!"

    Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe

  • ||

    You're missing quite a few Uhs and Uhms there Context.

  • ||

    "Obama is offering most Americans a tax cut."

    It takes an especially willful kind of ignorance to make that statement. About half of all American workers pay no federal income taxes at all. There's NO WAY their income taxes can be cut!!

    Ahhh, but Obambi will give them tax subsidies, by taking $$ out of Rich Guy's pocket, or by borrowing huge amounts of money.

    And some people will think that's good government.

    Worse, some will believe Obambi in the first place.

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/09/the-palin-predi.html


    This is a very interesting editorial in todays usa today. It concerns Palin's faith and the christian conservatives love of her for it. IMHO, a must read for christians and fodder for others.

    Sorry, I am full retard concerning html.

  • Rhywun||

    Obama should just stop being "folksy" and/or "street". It doesn't suit him at all, and it just leads to shit like this.

  • ||

    Another shinning example of "fair and balanced journalism" from the leftward land of silliness.

    Not a shred of objectivity...

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    then just, you know, making stuff up

    BD, every politician makes stuff up every day of every campaign. They spin it, deny it, exaggerate it, lie about, distort it, and do everything in their power to fit the message to whatever audience is in front of the podium this minute.

    If you read this blog you'll see that McCain isn't very good at it plausible deniability and is often caught with his pants down. If you listen to Limbaugh you'll find something entirely different.

    The truth is all politicians or candidates for office will lie if it suits them and they think they can get away with it.

  • Elemenope||

    brotherben --

    The author of that fascinating article you provided is, I think, a little too optimistic about the opportunity Palin provides to root out misogyny in the Christian evangelical community.

    What is more likely is that the cognitive dissonance will resolve itself as Palin representing a political imperative *only*, and not illustrative of an intended wider social order (that is, women in some cases having authority over men).

    People on this site in particular have been slobbering over just how many contortions the Left has gone through to criticize Palin, but not many have said peep about the amazing doctrinal distortions the Right has had to undertake to endorse *any* woman for a position of authority.

    I would very much like to believe that Palin represents that community coming to the light on female equality, but I am too cynical to believe that in the end this is anything other than a flanking maneuver in the Kultur War.

  • ktc2||

    Should have used this picture of McCain:

    http://www.wnd.com/images/mccainmonster.jpg

    for the post.

  • duster||

    Why does McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign?

    HaHa

    Good one!

  • Andy||

    I haven't read many of the comments, but in my experience people here don't like Steve Chapman. I think they should remember, he writes for the Chicago Tribune (or whatever paper, i'm too lazy to look it up). He doesn't write this stuff for Reason. In that position, he has to be a little more gentle in his libertarian leanings (which he does have, though maybe not as "pure" as some). If he wrote the way some of you seem to want him to, he wouldn't have anyone listening except people (like Reason readers) who already agree.

    Also I like how this article is about McCain being a prick, but in one paragraph he completely accurately shreds Obama from the Right. He must get tired of being called part of the "liberal media" every time he writes an anti-McCain piece. At least he isn't in the tank for one or the other, which is impressive in itself these days.

  • ||

    About half of all American workers pay no federal income taxes at all. There's NO WAY their income taxes can be cut!!

    Good thing that income tax is the only federal tax that comes out of workers' paychecks. Yup, just the income tax. That's the only one. Just ask anyone in payroll. About taxes. Maybe you can write that on a yellow sticky: "Payroll. Taxes."

  • voxpo||

    Nice column.

    I hear there's now a run on pork and red-state lipstick. Or it might be nassty speculatorssess pushing up the prices.

  • voxpo||

    marc h. | September 15, 2008, 9:44am | #
    ...McCain is offering most Americans a tax increase by taking away the tax subsidy on health care.


    Please define "tax subsidy." It sounds like a creature one might fashion in the new video game "Spore." Some sort of tax-spend hybrid with purple tentacles that emits ethanol.

  • ||

    Funny that Petraeus won't say we're winning in Iraq. Funny that his #2 is warning that any security gains under the Surge (which, by the way, weren't the purpose of the Surge) are fragile and could be lost in a heartbeat.

  • ||

    @joe: Obama cannot cut FICA for 95% of taxpayers w/o sinking the system, and he knows it. Even if you don't.

    He can't cut Medicare "contributions", either.

    Do try to pay attention.

  • Alan||

    RE: It takes an especially willful kind of ignorance to make the statement that "Obama is offering most Americans a tax cut."

    Ok, Anna, Obama is offering most taxpaying Americans a tax cut. Feel better now?

  • Street Wise||

    RE: Acutally, given the context of Palin's Lipstick-Pitbull comment in her convention speach, I think it's pretty clear that he WAS calling her a pig.


    Good. That's what she is.

  • Nick||

    So, um, still waiting for that article on Reason that will be willing to harshly criticize the candidate who will bring us closer to socialism than we've ever been, drive us further into debt, raise our taxes, take over health care and set up permanent middle class entitlements that will be difficult or impossible to reverse.

    Frankly the McCain pileon on Reason is kind of turning me off, because when I set the two side to side, I see more damage from an Obama presidency than from a McCain one, especially if Dems control Congress. It's not that Chapman's points are off (although Obama was clearly insinuating Palin in the comment but I really don't care). It makes me question why Reason continues to run the articles of one who is firmly in the camp of a politician who pronounces zero skepticism to the idea that government can solve all our problems, wants to make government "cool," etc.

    But I'm still writing in a fish head for President however. Honestly. The humans this round are far too scary.

  • Dave||

    John McCain, once known for his honesty and integrity, has done an about face and surrendered his values by employing the same tactics and people that he once opposed. Americans are starting to realize that he would rather lose his integrity than lose an election. How far he has fallen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccgh4rp3dcc

  • ||

    If Sara Palin was a man she would not get away with not talking with the press. Could you imagine her answering questions about Wall Street? If a Male candidate had a family as screwed up as Palins they would be vilified. Again a pass because she's a she. This isn't the Special Olympics its the real thing. We are treating her likes she's retarded. Thank you George Bush this is your legacy. Harkin Oil and then the United States.

  • Pepe||

    Not getting the argument from some of you that Palin was the pig in the analogy. The idea is that the Republicans are dressing up the same old shit to make it seem like change. She's clearly the change or lipstick. McCain and/or his policies are the pig. Please explain to me how people interpret it differently other than by lack of English comprehension skills or wishful thinking.

    If Palin is the pig then how does it make sense? So McCain got an attractive woman from Alaska and dressed her up to seem like something different. Nominating female governors from Alaska for VP is the norm in the GOP? If she's the pig then what the hell is the lipstick?

    Hell he didn't even bring Palin's name up. You could interpret his comments as saying McCain's policies are the pig and his presentation of them is the lipstick.

    The woman compared herself to an aggressive type of bitch already anyway. How is a pig worse? Pigs are smart.

  • Kendall||

    Obama's comment was clearly about ideas, not about Palin. But he's a moron for not realizing it would be taken as being about Palin, especially when the first audience he gave it to started chanting "Palin, Palin" at that point - then he used the same line again elsewhere that same day.

    But honestly I'm with those wondering how the Ginormus Government Left has taken over Reason and refused to run anything negative on Obama, just McCain. I'm registered as independent, not brainwashed, and that means I like to read good analysis on all sides. I've voted Libertarian, Democrat, and Republican before - but never have the Democrats presented a less appealing choice in Obama, and never have the Republicans come so close to a decent Libertarian pick in Palin.

    I'm voting McCain today so I can vote for Palin in four years. Remember kids, politics is a game of incrementalism so voting for the CLOSEST libertarian candidate, not the FARTHEST, furthers Libertarian ideals (just in case there are still a few Libertarians around here huddled in a basement hidden away from the ravaging savages)

  • Barry Dauphin||

    The idea that McCain is lying in the interpretation of the pig & lipstick because he once used the phrase is about as silly as it gets. If I yell "fire" when there is a fire, it is not the same thing as yelling "fire" when there isn't one. Using the same words does not mean having the same intention or meaning. A writer should know this. Reason is really going downhill, guys. This is plain stupid. Unreason is more like it.

    BTW it isn't simply the McCain camp pushing it. Many folks, removed from the campaign of McCain, simply listening to the remark have surmised the same thing. Oh but they must be lying too, since they are saying the same thing as McCain. Call thousands of people liars while you're at it. Because the use the same words, they must be accused of the same thing as McCain, by your REASONING.

  • ||

    Some of you need to look up the term 'double entendre'. It's entirely possible for Obama to have intended BOTH that McCain was dressing up change, AND making an allusion to Palin's pitbull-lipstick comment. Thus calling her both the lipstick and the pig, and fully meant for his audience to get it on both levels.

    Do we really have to go around playing stupid in politics like this? I'm no fan of Palin. I just think it's retarded to pretend you don't see the intended meaning just for the sake of partisan loyalty.

  • ||

    The problem is that the majority of the American people ARE gullible enough to believe it. Sad.
    http://tinyurl.com/2e2qgl

  • ||

    DON'T STOP, DON'T STOP, DONT'T
    Stop running Steve Chapman's stream of retarded sub consciousness!

    It's too stupid to even point out how stupid it is.

    IT IS STUPID BUT - THATS WHAT WE EXPECT OUT OF STEVE a stream of retarded sub consciousness! GO STEVE GO Here Steve Go Fetch this stick!
    I only say these agreeable comments because - there are those who need to be called out for what they really are. Steve - Bring me the stick. Here Boy! Don't Piss on the sofa!

  • Craig Westover||

    Prof Harry Frankfurt of Princeton notes that when "truth is irrelevant," that's "bullshit," which is more dangerous than lying.

    http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/09/15/3508/when_facts_arent_false_--_but_not_true_either

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement