What can hogwash do to lipstick? | Sept. 11, PolitiFact
'Lipstick' analysis went beyond facts When the Times began its "PolitiFact" feature I believed that we might finally actually get some unbiased and desperately needed facts instead of more opinions and commentaries.
Silly me. Little by little, this feature has morphed into simply more opinion and commentary in support of the Times political leanings as is clearly evidenced by the supposed "facts" in this piece.
The fact is that when Sen. Barack Obama delivered that line, he paused, laughter broke out, then applause. He laughed himself and then continued. The audience clearly "got it" that the remark targeted Gov. Sarah Palin and everyone was delighted by such cleverness, including Sen. Obama himself.
I, too, have heard the "lipstick on a pig" remark used many times but never have I heard it followed by hearty laughter. Occasionally, the remark is followed by applause because of the point made about the issue, but it is not, in itself, a humorous remark.
I urge you to return this feature to presenting actual facts about the important issues during this election season and leave your commentaries where they belong — on the editorial page.
Sandra Tracey, Tarpon Springs
Just handle the heat
With regard to Sarah Palin, surely she and Sen. John McCain must realize that "if you can't take the heat, then you need to get out of the kitchen."
McCain needs to stick to the issues pertaining to how best to help our deeply troubled country and let Palin "take the heat" that all political candidates must endure.
We are deeply involved in a war in Iraq, a place we had no business going. We are seemingly lost in Afghanistan, and now trooping into Pakistan, with or without invitation. Our neighbors are losing their houses because the current administration "wasn't minding the store." And our educational system is a big joke.
McCain needs to "let it go" with regard to "lipstick and pigs." Who cares!
Judi Larson, Sun City Center
What can hogwash do to lipstick? | Sept. 11, PolitiFact
Obama knew he was referring to Palin
The St. Petersburg Times cannot seem to keep its editorial opinions out of the news columns.
It is your writer's opinion that Barack Obama was not talking about Sarah Palin when he made his lipstick-on-a-pig comment. I believe Obama knew what he was doing and enjoyed sticking it to her. There's no way to measure it: You cannot say factually that "Obama clearly wasn't talking about Palin …"
James Robert Vaughn, Oldsmar
McCain should apologize
I can't believe the McCain campaign has the gall to expect an apology from Sen. Barack Obama regarding his "lipstick on a pig" analogy. It was clear from the speaker's context that he was referring to the Bush policies that John McCain has ardently supported and no doubt will continue to support if he is elected.
McCain should fire the campaign worker who brought this nothing issue to light, apologize to Obama for misrepresenting his words and promise to keep the campaign focus on the issues that are destroying this nation, my home!
Jeffrey Chin, Tampa
Too much trivia
As an experiment I Googled "Palin and lipstick and pig" and received 299,000 hits many of which were newspaper articles. This may not include all of the references by TV journalism.
Why do the media play up such trivial nonsense? Why do the media write articles that basically consist of quotes from opposing parties pointing the finger at each other?
Instead they should be publishing the candidates' ideas and following their statements with investigative inquiry into the issues from hopefully nonpartisan experts instead of partisan pundits.
Michael Logan, St. Petersburg
Picture of bias | Sept. 9, letter
Photo was appropriate
Was the photo of Sarah Palin you used with the Sept. 6 letters biased?
Absolutely not. Considering that Palin riddled us with "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick" and that she supports aerial hunting of polar bears and wolves in Alaska, I think the photo choice was perfect.
If she had been allowed to write her own acceptance speech at the Republican convention, we might have seen even more of her true colors.
She comes across as aggressive, competitive and narrow-minded. Beware of a wolverine in ewe's clothing.
Nancy M. Leggett, St. Petersburg
The deregulation con
Republicans have long railed against any regulation of the business community. Their argument is that in order to achieve the full potential of capitalism, business must be left to operate unfettered, thus allowing market forces alone to regulate their actions. That this flies in the face of the effects of human nature and avarice seems not to bother them at all. In the past few years, the American taxpayers have tasted the bitter fruits of this policy.
While those who profited were the ones who argued for and eventually achieved deregulation, it was, as usual, the citizens who were left holding an empty poke. However, this was no ordinary con game. We may never know the final tally, but it is safe to assume it is in the area of hundreds of billions of dollars and still growing.
I am referring to, first, the savings and loan, then the banking and now the home mortgage fiascoes. I say to anyone who thinks these were aberrations and not schemes engineered by the business community with the support and complicity of the past few Republican administrations, "I've got a 'bridge to nowhere' I would like to sell you."
Robert A. Shaw, Madeira Beach
Repulsive party | Sept. 9, letter
A matter of method
A recent letter writer offered the following view of the Republican mind-set: "I got mine … and the hell with you." This is not an uncommon view albeit (I believe) an inaccurate one often attributed to Republicans and conservatives.
I believe a more accurate view is that most people regardless of their party affiliation or political philosophy feel concern and caring for their fellow man.
Where the political philosophies diverge is how to act upon that concern. The person on the right will, acting as an individual, contribute to charities or provide aid to individuals in need. The person on the left will seek to pass legislation determining how much is "enough" or "too much" for any one person to have, seize that which they see as "excessive," and redistribute that money to whoever they (those on the left) determine to have a greater claim on it.
So can we get past the assigning of evil intentions and just accept the fact that the difference between people is not good intentions but the appropriate method to achieve them?
Ray Kelly, Spring Hill
I'm not an economist, but the government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sure looks like nationalization to me.
So why is it considered admirable for the mortgage industry to be nationalized, but national health insurance is condemned as socialism, to be avoided at all costs? Just wondering.
Joseph Pettigrew, Sun City Center
For years George W. Bush and the Republicans have championed the automatic adjustment of the marketplace accompanied by a hands-off business policy as the panacea for all economic ills.
With the current takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, does this indicate a flaw in that philosophy? Or possibly does it indicate that some socialistic measures have value? Just asking.
Frank Braccio, Treasure Island
Front page coverage for Sept. 11
Day deserved better
Did someone at the paper forget to turn the page on their calendar? A photo of a personal watercraft is your idea of honoring Sept. 11? Why wasn't a picture of the flag used instead of a sport? Inside coverage is not where the memory of this day belongs. Shame!
Cecelia LeClair, St. Petersburg