The Low Road Campaign

[Skinsfan55]

Look, I know Republicans probably outnumber Democrats on this board 3-1, but even the most ardent John McCain supporter has got to be getting tired of his low road tactics by now.

The man went from being an honorable war hero to a mudslinger in this election in no time flat, despite his promises to run a clean campaign.

Can anyone really point to an attack ad run by the Democrats? One that actually came with Obama's approval? I can't, but McCain has come out with one after another.

Most recently and most disgustingly McCain came out with an add saying Obama supported "comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners". The reality is, that while in the Illinois legislature Obama supported a bill that would teach small children to recognize and avoid sexual predators.

Now, you can disagree with Obama on the issues but it would really be a shame to see another election decided by dirty tactics lest they become more and more common in American politics.

(It's obviously not reason to vote for someone alone, but can anyone honestly say Obama hasn't run a clean campaign? Facts get interpreted differently, but he has not smeared anyone with these kinds of lies. I really believe that Obama believes in the intelligence of the American people to rise above this. By God I hope he's right.)

[Cappster]

Reed and McCain have long kept their political distance. But the ad suggests the committee's decision against calling Reed to testify is linked to Reed's decision to solicit money for a McCain fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this week.

"When the Senate investigated, the senator in charge never even called Reed to testify. And that senator? John McCain," the ad says. "And who's now raising money for McCain's campaign? Ralph Reed."

"Barack Obama's ad is ridiculous," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. "Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glxL ... AD92MB7LO0

In every election, the other side is always going to portray their opponent in a negative light. Smearing the opponent is always a top priority in every campaign. If a candidate could stick strictly to the issue, I would have more respect for that individual. Unfortunately, that never happens and we all get to hear about how bad the person and/or their policies are for the Country.

[KazooSkinsFan]

(It's obviously not reason to vote for someone alone, but can anyone honestly say Obama hasn't run a clean campaign?

You must not live in a battleground State. But overall, I'm not sure I see the difference. Both McCain and Obama are less personnally on the attack then any recent campaign. On the other hand, in both cases the attacks by the parties and affiliated political groups on both sides are vicious. I'm not sure why you recognize that with Obama and not McCain. And BTW, Biden has been vicious.

But in the end, it's Obama's anti-free enterprise Marxism that's the concrete thing in this election that's scaring me more then the stupid words both parties usually use. He has actually convinced me he's serious about ending free enterprise in this country as opposed to the Hillarys and Kerrys who like the Republicans convince me they are trying to get elected but change nothing because they sold out.

[Deadskins]

I don't have my glasses on, and when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it said the Lou Reed Campaign. I was thinking, "Lou Reed is running? Man, I'm gonna vote for him!"

[crazyhorse1]

(It's obviously not reason to vote for someone alone, but can anyone honestly say Obama hasn't run a clean campaign?

You must not live in a battleground State. But overall, I'm not sure I see the difference. Both McCain and Obama are less personnally on the attack then any recent campaign. On the other hand, in both cases the attacks by the parties and affiliated political groups on both sides are vicious. I'm not sure why you recognize that with Obama and not McCain. And BTW, Biden has been vicious.

But in the end, it's Obama's anti-free enterprise Marxism that's the concrete thing in this election that's scaring me more then the stupid words both parties usually use. He has actually convinced me he's serious about ending free enterprise in this country as opposed to the Hillarys and Kerrys who like the Republicans convince me they are trying to get elected but change nothing because they sold out.

That's funny, I had no idea Obama was trying to end free enterprise in this country. Just goes to show how dumb we Democrats are. Tens of millions of us thought that he was for it and against huge corporations driving everyone else out of the market and looting the treasury. Wait till I tell the guys.

[crazyhorse1]

(It's obviously not reason to vote for someone alone, but can anyone honestly say Obama hasn't run a clean campaign?

You must not live in a battleground State. But overall, I'm not sure I see the difference. Both McCain and Obama are less personnally on the attack then any recent campaign. On the other hand, in both cases the attacks by the parties and affiliated political groups on both sides are vicious. I'm not sure why you recognize that with Obama and not McCain. And BTW, Biden has been vicious.

But in the end, it's Obama's anti-free enterprise Marxism that's the concrete thing in this election that's scaring me more then the stupid words both parties usually use. He has actually convinced me he's serious about ending free enterprise in this country as opposed to the Hillarys and Kerrys who like the Republicans convince me they are trying to get elected but change nothing because they sold out.

Obama's not only trying to eliminate free enterprise, he's also the anti-Christ. I hear he's also a Moslem who likes to molest little children and put lipstick on a pig.

[JansenFan]

The antichrist thing is pretty funny. Someone sent me an email to that extent, and I was rolling on the floor. Then the person who sent it to me let me in on a secret... some people actually believe it.

I think he's a great speaker with nothing much else to offer, but the antichrist?

Sorry, back to the negative campaigning. I have voted for one candidate over the other because I didn't like the campaign tactics of one of the candidates, but the presidential election is always muddy, and is WAY too important to base solely on something that petty. No one of any party runs a clean campaign anymore. I'd bet mudslinging goes on in high school class elections.

As for the battle ground states, I live in VA, which is definitely a battleground state, but unless SF55 has moved, I believe he lives in a battleground state, as well, and one that is considered to be much more volatile than my own.

[JansenFan]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

[Deadskins]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all. And like he said on Letterman tonight, even if you were to somehow read her into that statement, she would be the lipstick, not the pig.

It's amazing to me that the Republicans are actually selling that premise to their constituancy. I guess the liberal media has struck another blow against the right.

[Hoss]

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all. And like he said on Letterman tonight, even if you were to somehow read her into that statement, she would be the lipstick, not the pig.

now that is some funny stuffs right there....I don't care who you like....



damn.. just had the olympics to finish the summer, then football season starts AND the campaign season.......

wow...life IS good.

to keep this on topic i agree that both parties run the low road.

[JansenFan]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all. And like he said on Letterman tonight, even if you were to somehow read her into that statement, she would be the lipstick, not the pig.

It's amazing to me that the Republicans are actually selling that premise to their constituancy. I guess the liberal media has struck another blow against the right.

And who said anything about the media? I'm talking about saying If you put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig, a week after Palin made her hockey mom, pit bull, lipstick comment, is too much to be an inadvertant conincidence.

[Countertrey]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all. And like he said on Letterman tonight, even if you were to somehow read her into that statement, she would be the lipstick, not the pig.

It's amazing to me that the Republicans are actually selling that premise to their constituancy. I guess the liberal media has struck another blow against the right.

And who said anything about the media? I'm talking about saying If you put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig, a week after Palin made her hockey mom, pit bull, lipstick comment, is too much to be an inadvertant conincidence.

Honestly, I can't agree. I do fear that the McCain campaign might be over-reaching on this. This is just an example of why any candidate's handlers get spleeny about off-the-cuff remarks.

It is a common saying, that fits perfectly with the comparison he wanted to make. Unfortunately (for Obama), for the time being, the word lipstick is OWNED, part and parcel, by Sarah Palin. Any comment that could appear derogatory must be avoided... but, oops... look what came out! Unintentional slur, absolutely (IMO)... grist for the McCain campaign, absolutely (even if over-reaching, it prevents Obama from getting back on message)... and I guarantee, Obama wanted to stuff it back into his mouth the second it came out, but sorry... too late.

He blew his best opportunity at damage control, when he did not immediately speak to and clarify his intentions, and he blew it again in his response to Letterman. If you watched his audience during the initial forum, their response was one of "Yeah, Barrack is getting down and dirty! Take that, Gov Palin". They got the impression that it was a slam of her, too... contributing to the controversy.

Inaccurate? Unfair? I think so. But, what the heck... just like a bad call that goes my way in a football game, I'll take it.

[JansenFan]

See, I find it hard to believe that no one on his team of speech writer's failed to make the connection, and, although I do not support Obama, I do think he is very intelligent, and I find it hard to believe that even if it did get past his writers, that he would have figured it out. I think that it fit perfectly, and that's why he though he could sneak it through.

I could be wrong, though. And for the record, I hadn't heard any reaction from the GOP when I posted. It was strictly my reaction when I saw the comments on some stupid celebrity show that came on while I was working in the middle of the night.

[Deadskins]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all. And like he said on Letterman tonight, even if you were to somehow read her into that statement, she would be the lipstick, not the pig.

It's amazing to me that the Republicans are actually selling that premise to their constituancy. I guess the liberal media has struck another blow against the right.

And who said anything about the media? I'm talking about saying If you put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig, a week after Palin made her hockey mom, pit bull, lipstick comment, is too much to be an inadvertant conincidence.

My media comment was pointed at the incredible airplay this total non-issue is getting. I never even heard Palin's lipstick comment, so I have no idea what association it might have. The worst thing Obama could do now though, is to apologize. If he does that, it is tantamount to admitting guilt, and the Republicans would be vindicated for overreaching, and Obama would suffer a huge setback. He needs to keep the focus on what he considers to be real issues, and not let the opposition dictate his campaign strategy.

[NC43Hog]

Go deep JF cause you're reaching.

Obama has used the lipstick/pig reference about 20 times during the last 19 months. Hell, even McCain has used it about 10.

It's a McCain camp distraction to keep folks from talking about real issues plain and simple.

Gimme a Break folks!!!

[Skinsfan55]

Yeah, I have never heard or used "lipstick on a pig" before but I guess it's a very common saying, it's even the title of a book.

In Obama's whole speech I don't even think he mentioned Palin once before comparing McCain's policies to putting lipstick on a pig.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

In any case, who would call Sarah Palin a pig? I think she's a dangerous right wing extremist... but she's also gorgeous. Damn her.

Also, BTW, I do live in a battleground state. Rasmussen Reports has 49% of Colorado going for Obama and 46% for McCain. It's a close one. My state may only have 9 electoral votes, but every one is important, and I get all the good ads here.

Personally I think/hope that during the debates Obama and Biden will make some distance in this race. I really don't think McCain or Palin will be able to hold a candle to either of those two in terms of speaking ability.

That's what I like about the debates, they're highly visible, but people are face to face so there's not the kind of mudslinging you see in political ads.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Obama's not only trying to eliminate free enterprise, he's also the anti-Christ. I hear he's also a Moslem who likes to molest little children and put lipstick on a pig.

I love irony. Re-read your posts on the Republicans for "perspective."

[KazooSkinsFan]

That's funny, I had no idea Obama was trying to end free enterprise in this country. Just goes to show how dumb we Democrats are

Truer words were never spoken. NC being a battleground state, every ad that ran here advocated government control over the economy. Socialism. The end of free enterprise. You can put lipstick on a pig with your anti-corporate rhetoric, it's still an anti-free enterprise pig. I advocate free markets. In no way has Obama ever advocated that, he advocates government control.

[KazooSkinsFan]

"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't, you know you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, Obama is no fool, and the way he slipped that jab in gives him plausible deniability, but only a fool doesn't recognize that as a veiled way of calling Sarah Palin a pig. So much for his "clean" campaign. Doesn't get much more personal than that.

Deniability yes, plausible deniability no. The laughter in the audience shows they didn't miss the reference. No way they laugh that hysterically just for that metaphor. I personally think the issue is overblown, but the micro thin skinned Democrats reaping what they sow makes me not care that much.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all

Exactly there's no bias in seeing that Democrats are innocent as the driven snow, pure, never meaning anything at all, just trying to do the right thing and the Republicans are evil, malicious and hate filled at all times. The public recognizing that and the media assuming and reporting it that way isn't bias at all, it's just reality.

So I'm curious. Which way do you view it?

- Obama and staff picked that metaphor without in any way recognizing people would connect it with Palin's lipstick joke and the audience after having heard that one countless times just happened to find this use funny beyond any other previous use of it and just rolled in the aisles (and they did if you've heard the tape) without themselves connecting it to Palin and then the evil Republicans manufactured this from nowhere.

- Obama and his staff have IQ's of 40 and the audience's hysterical laughter was because they did get the reference and laughed hysterically and Obama and staff didn't get it until the Republicans explained it to them even though the partisan Democratic audience got it immeiately.

[NC43Hog]

Some people read books, some read tea leaves, some even read minds. Now we have someone who can actually read laughter.



So the laugh meter was higher this time than the other 20 times he has used this phrase? McCain has gotten laughs each time he used it as well.

Too funny!!


What a great diversion from real issues.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Some people read books, some read tea leaves, some even read minds. Now we have someone who can actually read laughter.



So the laugh meter was higher this time than the other 20 times he has used this phrase? McCain has gotten laughs each time he used it as well.

Too funny!!


What a great diversion from real issues.

Have you heard it?

Yes, I think that hysterical laughter means they got a joke, and that I don't think they laughed hysterically for an old expression means I'm claiming to be a soothsayer.

[Deadskins]

I don't see that. He doesn't mention her at all

Exactly there's no bias in seeing that Democrats are innocent as the driven snow, pure, never meaning anything at all, just trying to do the right thing and the Republicans are evil, malicious and hate filled at all times. The public recognizing that and the media assuming and reporting it that way isn't bias at all, it's just reality.

So I'm curious. Which way do you view it?

- Obama and staff picked that metaphor without in any way recognizing people would connect it with Palin's lipstick joke and the audience after having heard that one countless times just happened to find this use funny beyond any other previous use of it and just rolled in the aisles (and they did if you've heard the tape) without themselves connecting it to Palin and then the evil Republicans manufactured this from nowhere.

- Obama and his staff have IQ's of 40 and the audience's hysterical laughter was because they did get the reference and laughed hysterically and Obama and staff didn't get it until the Republicans explained it to them even though the partisan Democratic audience got it immeiately.

Man, you really do suffer from projection. As I said before, I have never even heard "Palin's lipstick joke," so I don't know how his comments could be construed as calling her a pig. My comments, that you quoted above, were in response to the Obama quote JF posted. I do see this as a perfect example of media doing the exact opposite of what you claimed they do, however. And no, I didn't hear the audio of the comments, so I have no idea what the audience reaction was.

The first I heard about this "scandal" was when I saw Obama on Letterman. But when I googled "lipstick on a pig" I got hundreds of hits saying Obama had called Palin a pig. Really? Where? When?

That's a very common colloquialism, and as NC43 pointed out, Obama was using that metaphor long before Palin was even picked as McCain's running mate. Is it conceivable that, knowing Obama was using that colloquialism, Palin's speechwriters inserted her joke, so that the next time he used it, the Republicans could say he called her a pig? That sounds very Karl Rovian to me.

For the record (not that it's any business of yours), I am leaning towards not voting for Obama. His choice of Biden as a running mate tells me that an Obama presidency would be politics as usual. I would never vote for McCain, though. I used to like him, because I believed he had integrity, but since Bush was installed as resident by the supreme court, he has done nothing but disabuse me of that notion.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Bush was installed as resident by the supreme court

Again posting the left bias that makes it impossible to see the left skew of the media. You simply agree with them, that's OK, you have that right. Not recognizing it is what I'm pointing out. Your posts are deeply suspicious of Republicans and you brush off anything levied at the Democrats. The same way the media reports. Everyone has the right to bias, but it's still bias.

You also ducked the question. The laughter if you listen to the tape was excessive. It's not possible to believe they were innocently laughing that hard at an old saw. My question was if Obama and the audience got it or of Obama didn't and the partisan Democratic audience did. Is it really possible that Obama's campaign is that stupid to not get a recent news story when they injected the line?

And if you read my posts, I said it was overblown, I just don't feel sorry for the Democrats who endlessly call Republicans Nazis, war criminals, torturers, evil, liars and then whine to heaven and back at each and every opportunity at anything that comes back to them.

[Deadskins]

I said before, and I'll say it one more time: I can't answer because I haven't heard that audio. Where have I ever given the Democrats a pass? I am suspicious of Democrats as well. I think there are a few, on both sides of the aisle, that are on the up and up, but most are on the take, and do not have the people's interests at heart. I am suspicious of Obama because he seemingly came out of nowhere, and for his pick of Biden for the vice-presidency. But your constant projection of your own biases onto me is very clear.