Pigs, Lipstick, Hypocrisy, and Plagiarism

The "Pigs Wearing Lipstick" Controversy Continued

It's interesting to note how the media and so-called fact check/reality check analyses have come down on the side of Barack Obama regarding the "pigs wearing lipstick" controversy. John McCain on The View yesterday was exactly correct: Barack Obama is very much into symbolism and knew exactly what he was doing by interjecting that idiomatic expression into his speech and that his audience would interpret it as they did, a nuanced cheap shot at Sarah Palin. I've already written a post about this and examined the excuse that John McCain had talked about HillaryCare v. 2 using the same phrase.  The fact that left-leaning so-called fact checks would not take into account context of the remark (i.e., the way the audience would respond to the comment following Sarah Palin's much-circulated joke over the past week about hockey moms and pitbulls),  the nature of using the idiom (re: the alleged co-opting of the "change" theme vs. McCain's specific reference to an opponent's policy), and the constant attacks by Obama and his cronies on Sarah Palin and McCain's judgment and motive in selecting her over the prior 10 days--is hardly surprising and predictable.  Obama's use of the phrase was not only criticized by GOP sources, but by feminists and fair-minded independents as well. Then Obama has the audacity to imply that the GOP "invented" the issue and that he pointedly refused to back off, not even attempting to apologize to those whom understood his use of the idiom in the context of Palin's speech speaks volumes about his character (or lack thereof). How hypocritical for a man whom claimed to want to run a post-partisan government to treat his opponents in such a disrespectful manner; I do not believe that fair-minded Americans will tolerate this when it comes to stepping into the voting booth this fall. 

I've got a downloaded film clip from an Obama appearance the day before the "pigs wearing lipstick" where he specifically used the term "pork" in describing earmarks attributed to periods of Palin's tenure as mayor and governor. Going from attacking Palin and pork one day and talking about lipstick and pigs the next day is little more than a sophomoric attempt of sarcastic humor at Palin's expense.

I've already addressed the point about the earmarks: Palin sees the earmarks as related to Alaskan infrastructure, and there's no doubt that Alaska, as the nation's largest state by mass with unique geological diversity, has relevant infrastructure challenges. One can certainly argue that earmarks per capita and net state benefit gain (i.e., Alaska contributes less in tax revenues than it gains in outflows) are in Alaska's favor, and Alaskans enjoy the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.

Palin's Requests for Earmarks

However, the Democratic attempt to argue the earmark position against Palin is disingenuous for two fundamental reasons.

First, Sarah Palin as mayor and governor has had a fundamental responsibility to obtain project funding from taxes or other sources, e.g., the federal government.  She is not alone in that; other local and state governments seek federal funds as well. However, Sarah Palin NEVER had a vote in the earmark process; that fell on Alaska's congressional delegation, and they bear the actual responsibility for any unworthy earmarks. The worst the Congress can say is 'no'. Nevertheless, as my previous post pointed out, Governor Palin has trimmed down the number of statewide earmarks by half in just 2 years--to the point the Alaskan congressional delegation complained, saying the decreased number of requests was hurting their credibility.

Second, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not have clean hands when it comes to earmarks, being cited by a couple of well-known watchdog groups as being among the worst abusers of the earmarks process.

What Obama Has Learned from Biden

Last weekend in Indiana, Obama gave a campaign speech with the following attack line: "'Watch out George Bush. Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"  Funny line; only problem is--Obama stole it from a Washington Post cartoonist. Tom Toles.

SHADES OF NEIL KINNOCK! Kinnock, of course, was the British politician whose words Joe Biden also used without attributing them, too, during the 1988 Democratic primary campaign. 

But then, if you recall, this isn't the first time Obama has stolen ideas. Remember these words from earlier in the campaign: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?" Obama stole these words, with the same outraged pretense, from current Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

Isn't it ironic and hypocritical to be criticizing your opponent for failing to have original ideas by stealing the criticism from someone else's work? What's even more pathetic is that Barack Obama now has to resort to stealing campaign talking points from editorial cartoonists...

Who Genuinely Brings Change?

Going back to the "change" mantle, to which : since neither Bush nor Cheney are on the ballot this fall, whoever wins will constitute change. But we already know that Obama's issues are not innovative, but more of the same old same old tax-and-spend, increase-the-federal-footprint "solutions" with bait-and-switch teaser tax policies (yeah, right: he's going to deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans and a trillion dollars of new spending through a modest tax increase on 5% of Americans and maybe putting the Brooklyn Bridge on eBay for his supporters to bid on...: guess what's going to happen AFTER the election when he "suddenly" discovers taxing the rich won't pay for his government expansion programs? [Hint: Look at how Democratic Illinois Governor Blagojevich has done with his Democratic-controlled legislature. We don't need those funding gaps at the federal level.] Christians have a saying: WWJD--Democrats have an opposite saying: WWCD "What would Clinton do?" Clinton decided he needed to raise taxes...), globally uncompetitive business taxes (which encourage investment in foreign plants instead of American businesses and Americian workers) and windfall profits taxes (which have tended to increase dependence on foreign sources of oil),  job-killing trade protectionism, liberal judges whom impose their own views over existing law and American cultural values, disrespectful, condescending campaigns, make-work boondoggle infrastructure projects, an energy policy which has unrealistic timelines and focuses on nonscalable technologies accounting for about 5% of utilized energy in America, including subsidies for corn ethanol and the related regressive effects on food inflation, while maintaining a self-imposed moratorium on drilling, forcing America to import more of the oil it needs--dollars which could have instead been invested at home, developing America's own energy resources.

Tom Toles is wrong, of course. The Democrats have tried to paint McCain as a Bush clone, but most people remember they were rivals for the 2000 Republican nomination.  What we know was when Obama was given a free hand to pick his own running mate, the man who wore the "change" mantle, like Bush, he picked a Washington veteran, a 6-term senator whom was elected to his second term before McCain left the Navy.  McCain picked a fellow reformer whom has also worked across the aisle as Alaskan governor.

McCain has had publicly recognized nuanced differences on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts from Bush, plus elimination of the scope creep of households subject to the alternative minimum tax; he's pushing a significant cut in business taxes, which should encourage American investment and job formation. He's also calling for reforms in job-related laws to reflect the new realities of more mobile careers, including accommodation of flexible work schedules, telecommuting and working at home, portability of healthcare and other benefits, and expansion of job training and retirement alternatives. McCain wants all Americans to be able to purchase health insurance on a fair tax-free basis and a greater number and variety of plans across state lines, tort reform to control skyrocketing malpractice costs which result in  a reduction of practitioners and/or higher costs passed along to consumers, outcome vs. piecemeal reimbursement schemes (and no payments for ineffective care), information technology reforms to eliminate sources of error and to establish the standardization and transportability of medical records, more competitive drug costs including imports of cheaper prescription drugs, and improved transparency so patients have better information to judge medical performance, quality, and costs. Energy policy includes tax credits for renewal energy to the point of market critical mass, more nuclear power plants to lower carbon-based emissions, and greater production of domestic oil resources to lower the interim dependence on foreign oil consumption.

McCain will reform MORE than policies: he will reform PROCESS. No more earmarks--to Alaska or any other state. If a Democratic Congress continues to grow the bloated federal government and budget, McCain will, unlike Bush, veto spending bills. Unlike both Bush and Obama, who have less military and foreign policy knowledge and experience, McCain, as someone who has experienced war firsthand and who has sons serving the military, will be more careful but decisive in how and when to use force and to demand performance and accountability; he will not require on-the-job training.