I get the idea of him with a walker, but what’s the spoof on Cindy? I figured they’d show her chugging a beer or crucifying a worker or something.

LOL…no, it’s not as edgy as the New Yorker cover, but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate.

Boring and nothing is worse than a Johnny Come Lately like Vanity Fair…Next Please!

She’s holding prescription drugs. Back in 1989 she became addicted to Percocet and needed treatment.
George Bush is on the wall but I can’t make out what is burning in the fireplace.

but I can’t make out what is burning in the fireplace.
It’s a document that starts out “We the People …”

“She’s holding prescription drugs. Back in 1989 she became addicted to Percocet and needed treatment.”
No, Cindy McCain STOLE drugs from a non-profit she was overseeing. Her husband had the charges fixed for her. She never faced trial.
“but I can’t make out what is burning in the fireplace.”
Most conservatives today wouldn’t know the Constitution if it was painted raspberry red and being used to bludgeon them.

Thanks Moonshadow. I went back and looked and thought “Man does Moonshadow have great eyesight!” Then I found out the image was hyper linked to a large one.
ds0490, how do you know my political affiliation? Since I live in Massachusetts, I’d probably be considered politically left in many other parts of the country. Here I’m a moderate to center right.

Then I found out the image was hyper linked to a large one.
Ha-ah, got you!

They could have done a lot more with Cindy McCain, just standing there in a leisure suit isn’t very inventive. Although maybe they decided to go easy on her because she holds herself back from campaigning – unlike other political spouses.

“Although maybe they decided to go easy on her because she holds herself back from campaigning – unlike other political spouses.”
Really?
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1179643.aspx
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/392787.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/cindy-mccain-in-arizona-t_n_112695.html

Well, it looks like the LEFTY LIBS are Vanity Fair are so incapable of thinking for themselves, this cover is a poor man’s copy of one ALREADY done by National Review. They present this as an clever response to TNY Obama cover and what do we find out? They’re common thieves. Good grief you libs get worse by the hour.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

Guy,
There’s a major difference. In the National Review, the portrait is of Cheney, not Bush. Admittedly, that is more reflective of just who has been ruining America for the last 7.5 years.

Freudian slip or just a plain old typo.
I meant to say “running” not “ruining” America, but the only place BushCheney have been “running” America is into the ground.
Also, you give the impression that you are responsible for ‘finding’ the National Review spoof, but the link you copied and pasted appeared in the combox below the article.
To avoid plagiarism charges in future, you might want to give credit where it’s due.

Guy,
There’s a major difference. In the National Review, the portrait is of Cheney, not Bush. Admittedly, that is more reflective of just who has been ruining America for the last 7.5 years.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM
Freudian slip or just a plain old typo.
I meant to say “running” not “ruining” America, but the only place BushCheney have been “running” America is into the ground.
Also, you give the impression that you are responsible for ‘finding’ the National Review spoof, but the link you copied and pasted appeared in the combox below the article.
To avoid plagiarism charges in future, you might want to give credit where it’s due.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | July 24, 2008 10:46 AM
________________________________________________________________
Okay CHARISMANIAC NO MORE, tell me the MAJOR differences. You used the word MAJOR. They are minor but go ahead, list the MAJOR differences (personally I don’t think you know what you are talking about, journalism professionals have already agreed to the extensive similarity)
As for your typo, its usually the LEFTY LIBS here that engage in TYPO/GRAMMAR/SPELLING NAZI activities. My observation is that the rest of the people here appear to have matured beyond such childish offenses and are able to navigate such human foibles.
As for some “impression” I gave. Ring…ring…anyone home? I pasted a LINK. That means I GAVE credit to the people that the link goes to! Sorry I expected you to actually be able to use some common reason. Next Please!

Actually,the NewYorker cover was a spoof on the lies that have been spread about Obama. The joke was – this is the image that some yahoos have about Obama, because the right knows that they can depend on the ignorance of their audience.
The Vanity Fair cover is just an attempt to be offensive by taking the truth about McCain and exaggerating it. He’s old, but hardly using a walker. She did have a drug problem, but she’s over it.
So the two covers are actually quite different.

Actually,the NewYorker cover was a spoof on the lies that have been spread about Obama. The joke was – this is the image that some yahoos have about Obama, because the right knows that they can depend on the ignorance of their audience.
The Vanity Fair cover is just an attempt to be offensive by taking the truth about McCain and exaggerating it. He’s old, but hardly using a walker. She did have a drug problem, but she’s over it.
So the two covers are actually quite different.
Posted by: | July 25, 2008 3:51 AM
______________________________________________________
Uh “I” read above. It isn’t the cover of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker that is being compared in the exchange I was having to which you are referring. It is Vanity Fair’s cover being compared to the earlier published cover of The National Review. Those are the two being compared.
National Review cover vs Vanity Fair cover
NOT The New Yorker vs Vanity Fair.
Next Please!