If you’re a Republican looking for cred on Iraq, then you want Lindsey Graham to stand up and tell everybody you were for the "surge" when nobody else was — as Lindsey did for best buddy John McCain last week.
But if you’re looking to bolster your rep as a fiscal hawk, then you want South Carolina’s junior senator.
Jim DeMint has made a name for himself nationally as the scourge of earmarks. So it is that Sarah Palin’s got to be grateful for his op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal this morning, headlined "Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge." An excerpt:
In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.
My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin’s leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.
Related Posts
I thought this was kind of funny, because I said just the other day that the politician Palin reminds me most of is Jim DeMint.
DeMint is a joke because he acts like Palin returned the earmark money for the Bridge back to Congress. Umm, hey Jim, she KEPT the money.
If you want to talk about earmarks, you need to read the below. You can find out about the our elected officials and the earmarks and who proposed the most etc. Would you believe that it says Clyburn applied for the most?
Published on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org)
Earmarks for S.C. projects rolling in
By David Wren, The Sun News, July 6, 2008
6 Jul 2008 // Talk of earmark reform in Congress has done little to slow federal spending, an analysis of budget documents shows, with S.C. legislators well on their way to surpassing last year’s totals for appropriations.
With less than one-third of all proposed spending bills publicly available as of last week, S.C. legislators have inserted 47 earmarks totaling $61.5 million into budget legislation for the 2009 fiscal year.
That compares with 132 earmarks from S.C. legislators totaling $152 million for all spending bills in the 2008 fiscal year.
Most earmark requests for 2009, including all of the Senate’s and five more House bills, have not yet been made public.
The earmarks include money for colleges, nonprofit agencies, the military, public works projects and renovation of a historic building in Georgetown.
Six of the eight S.C. legislators designate earmarks, saying the process helps them direct spending to crucial projects in their districts. Two legislators – Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Joe Wilson – do not designate earmarks.
S.C. earmarks accounted for less than 1 percent of the national total this year, costing each resident about $34.41 in taxes. California, at $929.2 million, had the largest dollar amount of earmarks, while Arkansas had the highest per-capita cost – $506.34 per resident.
“It doesn’t appear that Congress is having any success at controlling earmarks,” said Tom Schatz, president of taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. That nonpartisan group aims to hold public officials accountable for how they spend money.
“Despite additional efforts to increase transparency and reform, the process has gone nowhere,” Schatz said.
There has been a push by some in Congress, including DeMint, R-S.C., to put a moratorium on earmarks, which cost taxpayers $17.2 billion in the 2008 fiscal year.
Unlike most grants and other federal funding, lawmakers add earmarks directly to budget legislation without any competition or debate over whether the projects deserve tax dollars.
Not all earmarks are wasteful, lawmakers say, and they help address constituents’ specific needs. Critics say the appropriations are excessive and often funnel money to dubious pet projects.
Too often, legislators use earmarks as a way to repay favors to campaign supporters and political friends, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan group that promotes accountability in government.
S.C. earmarks for the coming year are on pace to eclipse 2008 levels because only seven of 12 proposed House spending bills have been made public. None of the 12 proposed Senate bills has been publicized.
In addition, proposed appropriations for historically earmark-laden House bills that pay for defense, transportation and housing projects have not been announced.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., has the most proposed earmarks for S.C. legislators so far, with 22 projects totaling $32 million. Clyburn represents the state’s 6th District, including part of Georgetown County.
Clyburn’s earmarks include $10.5 million for a program to enhance science at historically black colleges and universities and $10 million to complete the Lake Marion Regional Water Agency’s water treatment facility, which will serve residents in a six-county region along the Interstate 95 corridor.
Hope Derrick, Clyburn’s director of communications, said the facility will replace contaminated wells many of those residents have had to rely on for drinking water. The project also will spur development, Derrick said, with Jafza International recently announcing plans to build a $700 million distribution hub in the area.
“This project is an example of how earmarks can transform an entire region,” Derrick said.
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., inserted a proposed $9.9 million earmark into the military construction bill to build a health and wellness center at Shaw Air Force Base.
Citizens Against Government Waste criticized Spratt’s earmark because a private fitness center already exists four miles from the proposed air base site.
Spratt, who represents the state’s 5th District, said the criticism is unfair because the new facility is designed to accommodate a growing number of military personnel – totaling more than 8,000 – stationed at Shaw.
“That number would overwhelm a private gym,” he said. “And if you put something off base, it’s harder to squeeze in 30 minutes of exercise between assignments than if the facility is in the middle of the base.”
Spratt, whose 11 proposed earmarks totaling $14 million is second to Clyburn, said the facility already was in the military’s long-range budget plans, but he earmarked the funds to get it built sooner.
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., has nine proposed earmarks so far, totaling $13.5 million in the 2009 fiscal year.
Brown, whose 1st District includes Horry County and part of Georgetown County, has proposed earmarks for dredging projects in the Intracoastal Waterway and the Georgetown Harbor and for a cargo inspection program at the Port of Charleston.
He also has proposed a $150,000 earmark for repairs to the 166-year-old Market Building on Front Street in Georgetown, where the Rice Museum and the town clock are located.
Brown could not be reached for comment.
DeMint and Wilson, R-S.C., said they will not sponsor any earmarks this year because the system needs reform. Wilson represents the state’s 2nd District.
Spratt said he also favors a more equitable system and more transparency in how earmarks are awarded.
“One good cure is more sunshine,” he said.
Spratt said he has “no problem whatsoever letting the sunshine in” on earmarks he sponsors.
Clyburn, in a statement, said earmarks are “an important part of my job” as representative for his largely rural, black-majority district.
Clyburn said communities in the 6th District were “systematically denied state and federal resources for decades” before he was elected in 1992.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pledged earlier this year that earmarks would not exceed fiscal 2008 levels. President Bush has threatened to veto spending legislation if the cost of earmarks is not cut in half.
That doesn’t seem likely, Schatz said.
“[House] members are already bringing home more bacon than last year,” he said. “The Senate usually adds more projects than the House, so taxpayers should watch their wallets.”
Clyburn and other lawmakers say earmarks are mandated by the U.S. Constitution, although the practice did not become popular until about 30 years ago, according to watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks, according to the watchdog group. That bill had 62 earmarks by 1980 and 2,108 projects totaling $7.3 billion this year. Similarly, there were two projects in the first national highway bill in the 1950s. This year, transportation bill earmarks totaled 2,031 and cost $1.6 billion.
“The State”=endorsing McMaster for Guv, 2010.
i think the late mendel rivers would dispute jim clyburn’s claim.
Endorsing in 2010? THAT came out of nowhere…
But speaking of Henry McMaster, I ran into him at a reception last night in Camden, and he was starting to tell me about his experiences with throwing Code Pink protesters out of the convention in his role as Sergeant at Arms, but somebody pulled him away to pose for a picture with somebody, and we never got back to it…
She stopped the bridge but kept the money. How does that math add up?
He’s got my vote if he will stand on my anti-pink platform.
Here’s a list of South Carolina earmarks. They bring money, jobs and infrastructure to our state.
FY08 Total federal budget was $2.9 trillion. Total earmarks were $25.8 billion. That’s less than 1% of the budget. That’s not where you go to cut spending.
Norm – You wrote: FY08 Total federal budget was $2.9 trillion. Total earmarks were $25.8 billion. That’s less than 1% of the budget. That’s not where you go to cut spending.
It’s a good start, an appetizer, if you will.
No one can compare to Pork Princess Palin.
Let’s study the DNA of seals, sex among crabs, etc, etc.
While these remarks were made at a campaign stop in Fairfax, VA today and have not received much coverage, Palin will certainly make the point again in other venues, much as she did with the hockey-mom joke.
The Obama team has to be careful about attacks in areas where Obama is weak; they have to do a better job of anticipating their opponents’ responses.
Obama is quite vulnerable in the area of earmarks and has opened himself up to further wounds by introducing it into his attack. Who couldn’t make a big deal of his $1M earmark to his wife’s employer?
While Obama’s spokespeople are busy with the Fowler comment tomorrow, his head shed needs to get over its Palin shock by redefining the route of attack on the big differences where he could have an advantage — healthcare strikes me as the big one — and guard the flanks. Most importantly, they need to get new, vetted, approved talking points out to every state Dem chair to stop further stupidities along the Fowler line.
Marketing and warfare, like most aspects in life, have both emotional and rational components. Obama has done well on the emotional, but hasn’t yet solidified his brand with independents because he’s not yet made the rational / logical sale. Ditto for Palin so far.
So I guess it makes sense to attach Palin on the rational / policy side, but the attacks can’t be in areas where Obama is weak. That just opens his flank and he’ll be worse off than where he started.
Brad, I want to know what you think about the increasingly absurd stuff coming out of the McCain campaign the past few days, such as the continually repeated lie about the bridge to nowhere despite its refutation by virtually every media outlet (really, who is DeMint kidding?), the ridiculous faux-offense at the “lipstick on a pig” comment (which McCain has been known to use himself), and the downright offensive ad suggesting that Obama supports sex ed for kindergartners.
Snead, here’s how the “math adds up.” The money was allocated for the bridge, which Palin supported. The bridge was scrapped, figuratively, but the earmarked money was still sent to Palin’s state and they spent it. It was public pressure that turned her against the project, finally.
Mike Cak, your shameless bias in regards to all things GOP is almost admirable. Several unbiased sources are pointing out that her claim about stopping the bridge is a half truth at best. The earmarks and federal tax dollars her state CONTINUES to pull in would make Byrd of WV envious. She lead the 527 for the crook, Stevens. This is certainly an area for Obama to debate.
Speaking of GOP rhetoric, DeMint gives a wink and a nod to the propaganda perpetuated on behalf of the expense report queen. Karl Rove dismissed Gov Kaine’s experience as a mayor of Richmond because the city was small. Now he champions Palin’s “experience” as mayor of a city the size of Camden. McCain belittles Obama’s international experience but chooses a VP who’s left the country once and admitted she “doesn’t keep up with the Iraq war. Shameless.
Duckie Cakora’s more than just a shameless Republican ‘ho cheerleader.
He has guile, too, albeit transparent and amateurish.
John McSame and the Princess of Pork repeatedly lie about earmarks and pork for the biggest welfare state in the union; they get called on it; and Duckie sonorously and out of the goodness of his Repugnant Party heart tells Obama what his REAL strategy should be.
Thanks, but no thanks, Duckie. Crawl back in your hole with the rest of the morally repugnant people running John McSame’s campaign. McSame has shown he’s not fit to be president just in the last week.
Quack, quack.
It isn’t just earmarks. The Wall Street Journal did a story last week analyzing spending patterns. With the exception of FY 2006 and 2007, when Katrina-related spending put Louisiana and Mississippi at the top of the list, Alaska is the year-in year-out champ on corraling Federal dollars. For FY 2005, it got $ 1.84 in spending for every dollar it sent to Washington.
This whole earmark stuff is much ado about very, very little. 25 billion? Really folks that’s a tiny drop in the bucket. And much of THAT is probably money well spent. This is a distraction really. In fact the whole GOP presidential campaign is one huge distraction. They’re trying to run out the clock with silly stuff. Their man at the top of the ticket is policy-wise a clone of the current failed president. And the more time they can spend on the silly stuff, with MSM in tow, the better off they are.
Wake up America. John McSame is wrong for America because his economic policies favor the rich over hard-working Americans AND because his foreign policy will continue the endless war policies of his predessesor. Don’t be distracted from reality by phony indignation about pigs with lipstick, preachers, pregnancies and other such nonsense. In the words of Bill Clinton, “it’s the economy stupid”.
As many have pointed out here already, but it bears repeating: Alaska (and Palin) kept the money. DeMint’s op-ed piece was factually wrong.
To paraphrase and respond at the same time to Mike C’s point: McCain has to be careful to attack in areas where McCain/Palin are weak…namely, truthfulness, decency, and the desire to, yes, change the terms of political discourse in this country. McCain is, amazingly, in the middle of trashing his own record of service to his country. If he continues to go down this Steve Schmidt-led road, his legacy of service to this nation will be forever tarnished.
McCain does not represent change. He represents the continued erosion of America’s moral standing in the world.
That’s it, "Guero."
Mike Cakora is a made guy on this blog; a guy who’s used his full, real name here since the beginning. That makes him a man of respect. In fact, like Doug and Phillip and Herb and a few others, he’s practically a capo. You don’t get to fling names at him from behind cover.
After seeing this, I went back and checked your record on this blog. Nothing but vitriol, usually of the sort that shows no respect for whomever you’re addressing.
The next post in which you do that will be your last here. Either argue like a grownup, or go to the parts of the Blogosphere where your approach is welcome.
Wally, I don’t know what stuff you’re talking about. I suspect you’re referring to TV ads, which I haven’t seen since a couple of weeks back when I actually tried watching something on commercial TV one evening.
I look at what people say on the campaign trail (as reported by the WSJ, NYT, AP, etc.), and the only things that have bothered me in recent days is this silly back-and-forth about lipstick on pigs, and the hyperventilation over Carol Fowler, and I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I hate all that stuff — the Republicans whining about the “lipstick” thing and the Democrats whining about their whining about it.
Of course it’s ridiculous to make like the “lipstick” remark was meant to insult Sarah Palin. And I keep wondering how long the Republicans will be able to play on public sympathy for her and still rise in the polls. At some point the public has to say, “Hey, wait a minute…”
Of course, when you look at the remark itself OUTSIDE of that paranoid consideration, it really doesn’t reflect very well on Obama. “Lipstick on a pig” is hardly a thoughtful or respectful way to characterize your opponent’s positions on an issue — and it was said within the context of the intellectually bankrupt Democratic line that McCain=Bush, which is offensively foolish (and I say “offensively” because of the way McCain, as sort of the antiBush in the GOP, has suffered at the hands of the Bushies). Yeah, we get it — you’d like people to equate McCain with Bush because people don’t like Bush. That doesn’t make it a credible comparison to independents, however much Democrats may cheer (and independents decide elections). Obama is smart enough to argue against McCain on the merits of a issue.
McCain and Obama both know better, and I know they’re both capable of better — I’ve seen it.
Brad, I simply don’t see how it’s “intellectually bankrupt” to say McCain=Bush, an oversimplification maybe at best. But does it not seem that McCain has pretty much embraced the fundamental Bush positions on taxes, health care, education, and more or less the approach to foreign affairs? Even McCain’s supporters would have to agree with this. I still think you are remembering the John McCain of 2000 and are hoping against hope that that man is still in there, somewhere.
The best word I’ve recently read on the road McCain seems determined to pursue comes from Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic.
Money quote: “If this is the dynamic from here on out — each day dominated by an outrageous accusation by the McCain campaign, and Obama forced to defend against each outrageous claim, well, Obama is probably going to lose.”
Sad but true.
Brad, watch this ad, check the facts, and tell me with a straight face you think this is okay.
Factcheck.org link for that ad.
Wally –
Thanks for the links.
I think that what troubles some of us opponents of Obama is that he’s proved his inability to exercise good judgment / common sense when he had a real chance to change education for the better in Chicago with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He and the board of that non-profit funded silly political initiatives instead of educationally sound and tested programs. The $110 – $160M they spent over fiver or six years had no measurable effect on the kids’ educational outcomes.
Obama’s contemporary, buddy, and plagiaristee, Deval Patrick, now Governor of Massachusetts, walked into an education Nirvana upon taking office in January 2007. MA was the best performing state on the NAEP assessment tests in all four categories for one simple reason: his predecessors from both parties had established and support efforts, culminating in the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA) to ensure that the state’s testing methods conformed closely to the NAEP. Sure, administrators were stressed, as were teachers, but there were tangible, measurable, objective results. Patrick closed that office effective June 30, 2008 to pay his debt to the teachers’ union. Details here. His “hope and change” campaign was managed by David Axelrod and that’s probably why Obama used themes and verbatim excerpts from Patrick’s speeches — Axelrod simply recycled Patrick speeches for Obama. For the current skinny on Patrick’s sinking approval rating, type the following into the search engine of your choice: Deval Patrick popularity rating.
There’s a big difference between promises and track record; one can get clues from the “results” of contempoaries. So expect Obama to pay more heed to constituencies like the teachers’ unions than to the parents of kids, folks who don’t contribute as much and won’t notice the subtle changes he makes that will end up hurting public education.
it really doesn’t reflect very well on Obama. “Lipstick on a pig” is hardly a thoughtful or respectful way to characterize your opponent’s positions on an issue – Brad
Brad, you either are uninformed about McCain or selective in what you learn about him. During the primaries, McCain used the EXACT same expression in reference to a position of Hillary’s.
This recent lipstick issue is not about the actual term, which you deem thoughtless. This is about the gutter tactics of your boy McCain. Not only does he understand the genderless context of Obama’s lipstick remark, he used the SAME expression about a female as well.
Despite this, you champion him as a nonpartisan and gave kudos for his acceptance speech in which he denounced the very tactics he continues to employ. I believe if you were to seriously reflect upon your view of McCain and how it has become a mirage, you’d have an important editorial topic which would have even greater significance coming from you, a McCain cheerleader.
Sept 5, 2008 – Obama claims to have always supported the surge in Iraq, and knew that it would work.
What a pathetic liar.
Brad, you’re trying very hard to equate the very obvious and slimy gutter politics of the McCain campaign with Obama’s necessary response to the smears. As many have pointed out McCain used the same term (at least twice and maybe 4 times) in describing Hillary’s healthcare reform. The dems didn’t equate that with sexism. Yet the McCain camp, urged on by the likes of Carl Rove, seized on this opportunity to feign phony indignation. It is simply a ploy to avoid discussing the issues. And because the media continues to harp on it the scheme has the desired effect. Another couple of days where McCain doesn’t have to explain why his support of the president over 90% of the time makes him an agent of change. Typical GOP. As long as the press plays along they’ll continue with this stuff.
But the ad you completely ignore is the one that is truly disgusting. That’s the sex ed in kindergarten ad. What makes this ad a complete disgrace and is the coup-de- grais on any lingering doubts about McCain’s Maverickism, is the fact that John McCain “approved this message”. No 527 ad here. This slime was of McCain’s making and it was a lie, plain and simple.
The really sad part about the ad and all it’s slimy implications is how the press feels obligated to provide balance. There’s no need to provide balance here. The press just needs to report on this as a disgusting, irresponsible act by McCain to smear his opponent.
And why does he do this? It is a huge distraction from the extremely high unemployment rate, rising gas prices, declining real wages, endless war and abominable debt that has accrued as the result of policies SUPPORTED by John McCain. Paul Krugman’s latest article on this is right on the money. The GOP has become a bunch of liars. And John McCain is the most mendacious of them all.
No, I’m not trying hard at all. Whining is whining, and I’m sick unto depression of it all, and really want this election — which I had looked forward to for so long because for once, it was between two guys I liked — to be over ASAP.
And it’s easy for me to “equate” these things because I don’t see this as a contest between pure evil and pure good, as your rhetoric indicates that you increasingly do.
Just because you aren’t watching these ads doesn’t mean they aren’t important. Millions of people get most or all of their information from ads like these. The “good vs. evil” dichotomy arises not from the issues (well, not ONLY from the issues) but from the fact that McCain’s campaign is quite literally willing to say or do anything at all to win this election. They’ve released ad after ad with blatant lies about Obama rather than address the issues because THEY believe they can’t win this election on the merits of their positions. I freely admit that some of the Democratic ads have stretched the truth a little, but the difference in degree is staggering.
If the man I once respected, who you still respect because you don’t seem to be willing to open your eyes to what’s going on, isn’t the one conducting his campaign in this manner, he is allowing it to be done in his name.
Brad, it certainly is not a contest between pure good and pure evil, and I think you misunderstand and mischaracterize Bud’s views as such.
What it IS is a contest between new politics and old politics. Are you neutral on that point as well?
And, moreover, if you were either one of the two candidates, how would you run your campaign differently?
Dig in those heels, Brad.
The point being made is McCain’s gutter tactics in employing sexism charges to make political hay. Dismissing this as political jousting is shameful. Just a week ago your hailed his speech as surfing the wave of non-partisanship. When contradictory evidence reveals his hypocrisy, you shrug you shoulders.
Well, part of the problem might be that I haven’t seen these “gutter tactics” you refer to.
I mean that literally. Y’all are talking about TV ads, right? I haven’t seen any of them, and haven’t had time to hunt them down the last few days, what with interviewing several candidates, putting out pages shorthanded, and trying to keep a few plates spinning on the blog.
I hate TV campaign ads, and avoid them, and keeping busy helps me do that (not that I have any choice, with half the staff I once had). Robert and I had a conversation about the ads several hours ago (and several crises in getting our weekend pages done ago). He says by not seeing the ads I’m not seeing “the campaign.” I said the campaign is what the candidates say on the stump, and what such outlets as the NYT and WSJ report about them, because that’s mainly what I see.
I said that knowing that my view is wildly at odds with most people’s experience.
But Randy, I do my absolute best to do all the things required of me. And late tonight when I get home, and have my dinner and a beer, I’m going to read a book a little before going to bed. I’m not going to look at campaign ads on the Web. If I get some time tomorrow, though, I will.
I suspect, though, that I won’t be all that horrified to the point that it changes my mind about these candidates’ characters, and then y’all will really be mad at me. So I’m not looking forward to it.
The thing is, I’ve seen SO much of these two candidates, and formed such a deep impression of their characters, that these things that people get so worked up about over the course of a 24-hour news cycle just don’t move the needle much for me. And I really get tired of y’all getting so impatient with me because they don’t affect me that much.
I like McCain and Obama. I’m going to keep liking them even if I see some offensive ads from one or both of them. And that’s going to really tick y’all off, because y’all are really worked up about this stuff. I know, because I’ve been there with y’all. It’s wearing on the soul.
Speaking of which, here’s hoping to see you at Mass…
Anyway, this is my last comment or post of the day. It’s after 8:30. I’m going home.
If you can’t find the time to track down and watch the ads (and honestly it’s hard to blame you), try this NYT article which lays it out for you.
I hope you understand the reason I’m so intent on this is that I am convinced you are a reasonable person who will accept the truth once you acquaint yourself with the facts.
The Obama campaign talks about Palin to divert attention off Obama’s links to Muslims and other terrorists.
Wally, thanks for the link. Those of you who are independent voters or undecided may want to consider this:
Orrin Hatch called the McCain characterization of the famous “lipstick” comment as “ridiculous.”
Don Sipple, Republican advertising strategist, says, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”
More from the article: “Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.”
And lastly, this from Matthew Dowd, George Bush’s chief strategist from 2004 who knows a thing or two about these matters: “I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win.”
It’s not good and evil, Brad, of course not. It’s more of the same of the last 8 years and more from McCain, or something very new with Obama. We must change this kind of politics. So far I only see one ticket that offers any hope for this.
Brad, I posted and sent you a link for a Youtube clip of McCain using the lipstick quip in regards to Hillary. This isn’t some NYT outlier. This isn’t some 24 hour news cycle nonsense. McCain is completely and nefariously distorting Obama’s comment for political gain. He’s doing so by using sexism charges which he knows is complete fabrication. I believe this is clearly gutter tactics.
Yet you applauded him on this blog for his principled and unique stance against the same partisan rancor. When such clear evidence showing his hypocrisy is presented to you, you side step and talk in generalities about campaigning or plead ignorance. As a person so concerned with the party structure and as a champion of the unparty, I wonder why you don’t call him out for this. Obama clearly has not stooped to this level.
I did a Google News search for “McCain lipstick pig” and the following was from the first result listed:
“Actually, they are not lies,” McCain replied crisply.
“He shouldn’t have said it,” McCain said of Obama’s pig remark. “He chooses his words very carefully, and this is a tough campaign.” – http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain13-2008sep13,0,3087111.story
Yet McCain used the SAME EXACT words.
Nice try, no cigar.
Obama has his smart-ass moments, and the lipstick-on-a-pig remark was one of them. Look at the context, timing, sequence, and audience reaction of both McCain’s and Obama’s remarks. McCain’s was not preceded by any Hillary reference to lipstick, while Obama’s was; his audience understood exactly what he meant.
Here’s some unsolicited advice: Please stop the whining. You’re starting to sound like Obama.
Whining? Like the McCain camp whining about how the media focused on Obama and not him during Obama’s trip overseas?
Like the McCain camp whining about the questions being asked of Palin – the audacity of people wanting to ask her questions directly and not get filtered answers as she reads from a script.
Like you and other GOP cheerleaders whining about the media swooning over Obama while McCain constantly lives off his long extinct straight talk?
More hypocrisy, Cak. Keep supporting the gutter tactics so you don’t have to defend McCain on the issues. I don’t blame you for not wanting to talk about Greenspan disparaging the McCain tax cuts or Bloomberg calling McCain’s gas tax holiday the “stupidest policy he’s ever heard” or McCain suggesting that Palin’s experience with energy policy and Alaska’s proximity to Russia qualify Palin to handle the red phone.
Obama failed as a community organizer.
In contrast to Palin’s many achievements, most of the housing projects which Obama worked on as a community organizer failed. Many are shuttered. Millions of tax dollars were funnelled into contracts given the Nation of Islam and Mr. Rezko for lots of these failed projects.