Obama recently criticized the Mccain-Palin duo a few days back, pointing out that the change rhetoric Mccain was attempting to pull was, in fact, nothing more than a cheap bluff. Ironically, what in the end became more controversial were the words 'lipstick on a pig' which resonated throughout the entire campaign trail, leaving some Republicans fuming while sparking off widespread debates.
Now to be honest, Mccain should have seen this coming ever since he stole his opponent's catch-phrase during the RNC last week. After all, Obama certainly wasn't going to sit around idling after his opponents had adopted his slogan of change as their own.
In fact, the illinois senator already started ruffling feathers on Tuesday when he begun using the word lie in his critisisms of the Mccain campaign. But this move has also drawn flak: A lie indicates a delibrately untrue statement made with malicious intent, leading some to claim that it is too strong a word to use.
[Obama] "I mean, you can't just make stuff up. You can't just re-create yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."
..."I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough."
[ TRANSCRIPT: Obama: "John Mccain says he's about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is: Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove styled politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington! That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig.. [but] it's still a pig." ]
First of all, forget the accusations of sexism. Lipstick on a pig is a commonly used phrase throughout the world - even John Mccain have said it once. And it also makes no sense to dismiss all of Palin's criticisms by simply labeling them sexist - that's just using disctractions to detract the debate from the actual issues.
So was Obama's accusation justified? Actually, probably yes.
Why? Because most importantly, Mccain isn't even the maverick that the mainstream media propagates he is. There is overwhelming evidence and statistics which suggest things about John Mccain that's in stark contrast of the image he's trying to project. Consider once again the statistics that he voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, more than any other senator, and 100% of the time in 2008. Or take a look at this arguement:
Myth #1: John McCain is a maverick.
...The truth is that McCain's breaks from the Republican Party line are few and far between. According to Congressional Quarterly's "party unity" ratings, since he came to the Senate in 1989, there have been only three years in which McCain voted with his party less than 80 percent of the time. When he has gone against the party line -- such as on campaign finance reform, global warming, or tobacco regulations -- McCain has taken a position that was overwhelmingly popular with the public, meaning that when he takes a "maverick" stance, he's gaining support with the public -- and hardly taking a political risk.
Just as important, McCain's acts of independence aren't so much on high-profile issues as they are on issues that the press makes high-profile, precisely because of McCain's involvement. In all these cases, something important happens in the media when McCain opposes his party. When an ordinary senator crosses party lines, he or she will join members of the other party and perhaps have occasional opportunities to be quoted or interviewed on the issue in question. When McCain crosses party lines, on the other hand, the story the news media write undergoes a shift: It then becomes a story not about a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, but a story about John McCain and his rebellion. This is why McCain is perceived to be much more of a maverick than Republicans such as Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who actually break with the GOP far more often. Yet journalists continue over and over to call McCain a "maverick," seldom questioning whether there might be more to the story.
(Source: MediaMatters)Watch The Video
More information:
NYTimes: The Real John Mccain
Video: Why is the Media giving John Mccain a free ride?
Blizzard of Lies: Stop Focusing On Distractions and Lies. Start Worrying About The Real Issues
The GOP Loves the Heartland to Death
And these substantiations are merely the tip of the iceberg. In actual fact, John Mccain is only a maverick simply because the mainstream media claims he is one. There is simply no other way to gather adequate support after eight devastating years of failed Republican rule.
But if he isn't the maverick he claims to be, why is Mccain even championing change? In fact, even if he was sincerely championing change, why does he support so many of the failed policies made by the previous administration? Wouldn't the people know better? Wouldn't he be eventually exposed? The answer is simple: Because, at least in America's case, using lipstick on a pig really does work. -Mr Hans
Obama's reply to the senseless controversy:
(Even if you disagree with everything, do watch it. He makes a strong point)
Just in case you're wondering, here is the definition of the phrase 'Lipstick on a Pig'
No comments:
Post a Comment