Political Attacks

[Note: See Update below.]

I’m all for ’em. Slinging REAL mud between political opponents is a Very Good Thing. It can enlighten the public about those seeking office in ways that just won’t happen if candidates are able to control their own stories in an echo chamber.

But the mud had better be genuine mud dredged up from the candidates’ own personal records, not toxic sewer sludge deliberately dredged up from somewhere else, made to appear as if it were a candidate’s own and then poo-flung by hordes of rabid monkeys. The latter is pretty much what the rumors and downright lies and false reports circulating the past coupla weeks about Governor Palin have amounted to.

Today, I got wind of two things that don’t quite fall into the toxic sludge area but do reflect poorly on Repubgnican’t/conservative voices. One is the assertion that Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comments were plagiarized. Well, maybe. The “lipstick on a pig” comment itself obviously was not. The rest of the comments do have an eery similarity to a Tom Cole political cartoon. But. The Tom Cole political cartoon has an eery similarity to statements made over the past week made by Obama operatives and the campaign itself. Chicken? Egg? Cole simply another Obama campaign operative spouting its talking points? The Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind and the Dhimmicrappic political machine have so much pillow talk/spore exchange going on it’s really hard to tell.

At any rate, it’s a weak assertion of plagiarism and that dog won’t hunt with the electorate.

The one that bothers me more is a McCain campaign ad answering the “lipstick on a pig” comments. First, the ad, then my observation:

[NOTE: YouTube pulled the ad reportedly because of a copyright complaint by CBS. See comments on this post. I told ya, McCain… ]

Set aside the arguable inference (“The Obamassiah meant to call Sarah Palin a pig”–not entirely clear from the context of Obama’s remarks, arguably he could have been implying that, but it’s not clear) from his remarks stated–not implied–by the ad. That’s an arguable issue. (Weakly arguable, IMO, by those who assert that story, but arguable nonetheless.)

What bothers me is that I was sure Couric was NOT referring to sexism contra Palin. In the age of Google, the McCain folks should not have STRONGLY implied that Couric was addressing sexism in the presidential campaign in general or against Palin in particular. Firstly, it would ring utterly and completely false. Couric defend a conservative woman? Get outa here! Secondly, didn’t happen. Google is your friend if you base your comments on fact, otherwise…

Now, true, Couric was attempting to equate her own “courageous” struggles against a putative glass ceiling with Hillary Clintoon’s similarly perceived “glass ceiling” struggle (perceived by Couric and others–including, apparently, Palin). But it is a long way from that assertion to a direct tie to the attacks on Palin being denounced by Couric of all people. A few clarifying words–either voiced over or in graphic–could have tied the sexism remarks back to the Hillary campaign as perceived by PUMAs and others then noted a similarity to the Palin attacks in general.

Still, tying all that back into the lipstick remark as a personal, “sexist” attack on Palin is weak indeed. Oh, it’ll be strong with folks who don’t think it through because of laziness or lack of ability to do so (admittedly up to 90% of the electorate) and who already have a bias toward accepting any negative remarks whatsoever about The Obamassiah (probably about 50% of that 90%), but that still doesn’t make it an honest ad, and I thought Juan Mexicain ran the “straight talk express”.

That ad is NOT “straight talk” in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Mr. McCain: tear down that ad!

There’s enough of substance to attack The Obamassiah on. This ad is just beneath any worthy candidate.

(OK, now here I get to water down my objections to the ad with nit-picking: the musical underpinnings of the ad? Lame. Even with my really nice subwoofer thumping the last string bass hit, lame. OK, so maybe I’ll just say, “Not to my taste. Borrrrring.” *yawn* :-))

[UPDATE: I was pretty well finished with this whole lipstick on a pig thing until The Obamassiah opened his yap yesterday and put his clown shoe in it. On w/David Letterman, he offered this “analysis” of his own words:

“…in Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea, in this case I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans, that just calling them change, calling it something different, doesn’t make it better, hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.”

Exactly as the phrase seems in context–if you watch the whole thing and/or read a transcript. But now this exchange…

Dave: “Yeah, they got together and they said, ‘You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.’” (audience laughs) “Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?”

Obama: “It does. But keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick, you see?” (audience, Dave laugh) “But now we’re…”

Dave: “I don’t know, you’re way ahead of me.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.”

“[H]ad I meant it that way… “? No, O Great Obamassiah who Failed to Learn Logic In Law School, the expression “Palin=lipstick as McCain policies=pig” only works if you were NOT using the expression to call Palin a pig, if you WERE “talking about John McCain’s economic plans”.

Dumbass.

“Nuance” only works under three interdependant conditions, O Great Obamassiah:

1. It’s simple enough for clear communication (I know, I know: “simple” and “nuance” seem contradictory, but only because dumbasses make it so)
2. It’s honest, not playing fast and loose with the facts and
3. It makes at least some sense.

The Obamassiah’s nuance in this case fails all three conditions.

The Obamassiah: smart stupididity. Is this someone we want in the White House?

*heh* Looks like Jerry Pournelle had a reaction to the McCain “response” ad that was in a simliar “family” as my own:

“Phony outrage is very bad tactics.”]


Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Allie is Wired, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

8 Replies to “Political Attacks”

  1. I didn’t even waste any time writing about it, because I heard the whole clip. It is clear he was talking about the economy. However, did you notice after he referenced the lipstick, he THEN said HE (meaning John McCain)? Hmm. I also heard something today that I thought I’d ask you. Someone brought up the fact that a gentleman might have just given an apologize for anyone who misunderstood what he said, but he continued again today by opening his speech with it!

    The story would have been gone. Poor advice he’s been getting, unless this is him…Also, if he doesn’t want to apologize, does that mean that he actually did mean it? Anyway, I more meaningful things to do with my life. 😉

    Have a great day!

  2. Rosemary…

    *heh* I’m obiously not as “genteel” as you. Were I to “apologize” for others’ misunderstanding of (or taking wild umbrage to) something I said, I would probably apologize like this,

    “I’m sorry. I was unaware that you are stupid. Let me say things m u c h m o r e s–l–o–w–l–y, oh, and I’ll try to use smaller words. If that doesn’t help, please bring along someone who can count to eleven without taking his shoes off to interpret for you.”

    But then, I do not suffer fools gladly.

  3. I was really busy at work the last two days and I missed that entire brouhaha. Never even got to see McCain’s clip before YouTube pulled it. What’s this about a copyright claim from CBS?

  4. The video used a 5-second or so clip of Katie Couric that was a miniscule portion of a segment of a program owned by CBS (See BS? Why! There’s no BS like CBS!). Now, usually such short clips can be used freely, although longer clips almost always require royalty payments. BUT copyright law is specifically designed to allow the copyright owner to control significant changes to the owner’s material, and the McCain campaign did indeed change the meaning and intent of Couric’s words, as I nnoted in the post.

    Now, I’m not a lawyer, and specifically, not an intellectual properties lawyer (how I do wish The Ramdom Yak were around to comment right now! And not just because he might have something lawyerly to opine), but that’s the way it looks to me.

  5. My one real disappointment in all this? Oh, not the disingenuity of misusing the Couric comment; that’s really just typical political BS. My one real disappointment is that I’ve gotten no comment about my paraphrase of one of Ronald Reagan ‘s most famous one-line zingers.

    *heh*

  6. BTW, if “The difference between a hocky mom (like Palin) and a pitbull is lipstick,” what’s the difference between a rabid chihuahua and a Katie Couric? Not enough lipstick differential to tell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *