Barack Obama recently received some negative press for saying:
“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 something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
Of all these words, John McCain keyed–in on the phrase, “lipstick on a pig.” Apparently he went so far as to ask Obama to apologize to Sarah Palin for such an “offensive and disgraceful” comment . Seems to me McCain himself should apologize for even assuming there was a connection between his running mate and a pig. Perhaps while Obama is at it he should also apologize to fish mongers, sellers of fish, for calling their wares old. And then he’d better grovel before the paper industry for belittling their product as a mere piece rather than a ream. Seems to me people in the porcine industry (pig farmers) could take offense that their product is ugly and needs dressing up. Why didn’t McCain defend George Bush’s honor when Obama referred to his odorous stink? What if McCain’s running mate was Miss Piggy? I’m pretty sure that Muppet wouldn’t stand for any slights about her pink lipstick. And let’s not forget that McCain himself referred to Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal using the same idiom. I don’t recall the Clinton camp calling for an apology, but maybe I missed it.
But where exactly does putting lipstick on a pig come from? Apparently the poor swine have been getting a bad reputation for quite some time. Variations of this phrase have been around since the mid-16th century, with the first one recorded as, “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.” A British physician in 1732 is credited with saying, “a hog in armour,” meaning an ugly person dressed in nice clothes, and in 1887 the expression, “A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog,” came into vogue.
The word lipstick doesn’t even make an appearance in the English language until 1880. The hog changed to a pig and the clothing to lipstick in 1926 when an editor for the Los Angeles Times wrote, “Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks.” Well, we’re getting closer. It wasn’t until 1985, however, that the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio personality’s comments about the planned renovation of Candlestick Park as, “That would be like putting lipstick on a pig.” Apparently the radio host preferred a new stadium rather than just fixing-up the old one. During her first year as governor of Texas, Ann Richards referred to the budget proposal by saying, “This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess.” I love Ann Richards. I had the opportunity to interview her in the late 1980’s when she was in charge of the Texas state treasury department, and she didn’t impress me as the type of person who would slander a hog or a princess. She was a straight-talking Texan who spoke her mind while managing to retain a grace and dignity befitting a future governor.
So what does it all mean? I guess it’s just a way for politicians to sound more folksy…..help them relate to the common citizen. Apparently they don’t think they can just tell us that an idea isn’t new or valid, and then do us the honor of explaining why. They’d rather cover it up with a useless phrase that’s received more publicity than any of their policies. Focusing for a moment on an expression like “lipstick on a pig” helps me realize why politicians are so comfortable with mudslinging.
(If you’d like to learn more about the etymology (origin) of certain words and phrases, check out, http://www.etymoline.com/ and http://www.slate.com/. They were great sources for this column!)
“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 something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years.”
Of all these words, John McCain keyed–in on the phrase, “lipstick on a pig.” Apparently he went so far as to ask Obama to apologize to Sarah Palin for such an “offensive and disgraceful” comment . Seems to me McCain himself should apologize for even assuming there was a connection between his running mate and a pig. Perhaps while Obama is at it he should also apologize to fish mongers, sellers of fish, for calling their wares old. And then he’d better grovel before the paper industry for belittling their product as a mere piece rather than a ream. Seems to me people in the porcine industry (pig farmers) could take offense that their product is ugly and needs dressing up. Why didn’t McCain defend George Bush’s honor when Obama referred to his odorous stink? What if McCain’s running mate was Miss Piggy? I’m pretty sure that Muppet wouldn’t stand for any slights about her pink lipstick. And let’s not forget that McCain himself referred to Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal using the same idiom. I don’t recall the Clinton camp calling for an apology, but maybe I missed it.
But where exactly does putting lipstick on a pig come from? Apparently the poor swine have been getting a bad reputation for quite some time. Variations of this phrase have been around since the mid-16th century, with the first one recorded as, “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.” A British physician in 1732 is credited with saying, “a hog in armour,” meaning an ugly person dressed in nice clothes, and in 1887 the expression, “A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog,” came into vogue.
The word lipstick doesn’t even make an appearance in the English language until 1880. The hog changed to a pig and the clothing to lipstick in 1926 when an editor for the Los Angeles Times wrote, “Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks.” Well, we’re getting closer. It wasn’t until 1985, however, that the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio personality’s comments about the planned renovation of Candlestick Park as, “That would be like putting lipstick on a pig.” Apparently the radio host preferred a new stadium rather than just fixing-up the old one. During her first year as governor of Texas, Ann Richards referred to the budget proposal by saying, “This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess.” I love Ann Richards. I had the opportunity to interview her in the late 1980’s when she was in charge of the Texas state treasury department, and she didn’t impress me as the type of person who would slander a hog or a princess. She was a straight-talking Texan who spoke her mind while managing to retain a grace and dignity befitting a future governor.
So what does it all mean? I guess it’s just a way for politicians to sound more folksy…..help them relate to the common citizen. Apparently they don’t think they can just tell us that an idea isn’t new or valid, and then do us the honor of explaining why. They’d rather cover it up with a useless phrase that’s received more publicity than any of their policies. Focusing for a moment on an expression like “lipstick on a pig” helps me realize why politicians are so comfortable with mudslinging.
(If you’d like to learn more about the etymology (origin) of certain words and phrases, check out, http://www.etymoline.com/ and http://www.slate.com/. They were great sources for this column!)
No comments:
Post a Comment