 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
41 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
107 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
1 new comment | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | Hot Enough To Be President Or Not? | | | | | found on US News And World Report
written by chiaboy, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Mon 10 Mar 10:14pm | | | | |
 | "What criteria is used to elect the President of the United States?," asks chiaboy. "A new article from U.S. News and World Report claims it all comes down to 'likability'."
The likability of presidential candidates has been a big issue ever since 1987, when Maureen Dowd wrote on the front page of the New York Times: "Everywhere you look, the men who would be President are, as the poet Rod McKuen once put it, `listening to the warm.' " Dowd quoted pollsters, consultants, and academics about how Americans now wanted likable presidents
"Stuart Rothenbeg, a political analyst, differentiates voters into two camps: 'Issue voters are mostly ideological voters, but the voters in the center think first not about a candidate's stand on trade or abortion, but is he a windbag? Is he arrogant? How is his bearing? How does he carry himself?'
The piece profiles John Kerry and his ability to vibe with common folk and comes away surprised at how well he connects. Irish or not, Kerry seems to have the gift."
| |
| | | "But is a glamorized popularity contest really the best way to chose the leader of one of the largest nations on the planet? Some maintain that issues still matter, and matter a great deal. Maybe a strong jawline and the ability to quip on cue isn't the hallmark of great leadership."
|
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | | | 60. It worked for Clinton | | | | by bjrubble |  | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:11pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
I would hazard that Clinton was the most all-around likeable President in the past few decades. (Reagan was probably more likeable in some ways, but only to those on his side -- his ideological rigidity didn't endear him to those outside his camp.) Needless to say, most other countries loved him, and US standing in the rest of the world certainly benefited from it.
The pro-Bush people who say "you can't criticize the administration unless you have an alternative" kind of miss this point, I think. It's as much the style as the substance. Those piddling little messes they make ("Axis of Evil", "Old Europe", "talk but not negotiate" with NK, etc) are what's really demolishing our legitimacy. Even if you don't care about anyone else, and even if everyone knows it, maintaining the appearance is vital.
I guess one person *can* make a difference, but most of the time they probably shouldn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 105. Re: It worked for Clinton | | | | by pesh2000 | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 10:59am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 60 | | | | | |
I would hazard that Clinton was the most all-around likeable President in the past few decades. (Reagan was probably more likeable in some ways, but only to those on his side -- his ideological rigidity didn't endear him to those outside his camp.)
I think your comments about Reagan apply to Clinton as well. If you weren't on 'Clinton's side' you were likely to pretty much despise him.
For people who are strong Republicans or Democrats, I think your guy is always likable.
That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. Re: Likable? | | | | by OmnipotenceNet | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 5:02pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
If we get one, does that mean that the rest of the world will suddenly like us?
I don't want to copy from snarkism, but the simple answer is: no. Maybe you've heard this before...
"The United States is like the guy at the party who gives everybody cocaine and still no one likes him."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. 1987? I don't think so.... | | | | by ninjagirl |  | | | at Mon 10 Mar 11:13pm | score of 3 brilliant | | | | | | |
The US News and World Report article is very short-sighted in its claim that The likability of presidential candidates has been a big issue ever since 1987. I would argue that a candidate's charisma and looks have been huge factors in his election since the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960, when Nixon was recovering from knee surgery and Kennedy came off as a tanned Adonis to the viewing (and voting) public. Television coverage is one of the most (if not the most) important factors in a candidate's ability to get a message across. And even if he doesn't have such a great message, if he can communicate warmth, likeability, and telegenic, synthetic "honesty", the sad truth is that most people won't have any desire to dig deeper.
Looks matter. It's a sad fact, but we live in a world now where someone like Abraham Lincoln would have been laughed right out of a nomination. (That Amish beard? Who the hell does he think he's kidding?) FDR would never have been elected, not in a wheelchair. Wheelchairs are so not Presidential, you know? Overweight, pasty-skinned, rat-faced, sweaty little men will have to settle for being the powers behind the throne from now on. And if you ask me, a few of them have done pretty well for themselves. More's the pity.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 25. Re: 1987? I don't think so.... | | | | by mandigirl | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 7:33am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Actually, I remember hearing in History class in high school that FDR tried REALLY hard not to let people know he was in a wheelchair. When he gave speeches, someone would help hold him up. They knew then that no one wanted a feeble president.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 58. Re: 1987? I don't think so.... | | | | by OSULugan | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:07pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Actually, I remember hearing in History class in high school that FDR tried REALLY hard not to let people know he was in a wheelchair.
That's kind of the point of his post. In today's world, there'd be no hiding the fact that he was wheelchair bound. The press just doesn't respect the privacy of public figures like they used to. And the modern televised world prevents items, like FDR's wheelchair, from being covered up so well.
And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Ah, but you're forgetting the Evil One | | | | by weex | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 10:48am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Let's see: "pasty-skinned," check. "Rat-faced," definitely. "Sweaty little man," triple check.
You've just described this guy -- who, if he hadn't been a paranoid fuck-up, could well have been one of the most influential presidents of the 20th century. Who gave us Henry Kissinger? Who gave racist Republicans the "Southern strategy" that has allowed them to win the White House repeatedly?
And who got elected twice over nicer, better-looking opponents? It's typical that the U. S News report doesn't even mention him. Thoroughly unlikable but still electable, he's sort of the black hole of modern presidential politics. And he's a big hole in your theory that nice-looking guys finish first.
Personally, my theory is that a people get the leaders they deserve. Sometimes we want mean-spirited (Nixon), sometimes we want flag-waving shallow (Reagan), sometimes we want slick and shrewd (Clinton).
And sometimes, golly, we luck out and get all three (Bush II).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. now more than ever--Amusing Ourselves to Death | | | | by lawnwrangler | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:51pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Yes, the televised JFK-Nixon debate is generally considered the dawn of the modern era of politics.
I'd say more than "likability" as the most important factor is if the candidate can be entertaining, which in this paremeter means having charisma and being able to break issues down into consice soundbites. As Perry Ferrell said, "the news is just another show." This notion was described in detail in Neal Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Americans in general view everything as entertainment (btw-this doesn't mean it's always "happy" entertainment, e.g. the constant replaying of the WTC burning and collapsing was horrific AND "entertaining" in a sick rubber-necking kind of way).
Point being, GWB is maligned by many but many others simply see a man (albeit I'd argue, perhaps on an unconscious level) who's exciting or entertaining. It's sad, but "entertainment" is the lens through which all information and data is filtered for most Americans. GWB may be sickening to those of us who dig deeper into issues but like him or not he IS a charismatic guy. He has his whole schtick-persona down pat and for people who don't follow politics beyond the evening news fluffery, he's someone they can latch onto.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Give me a pretty picture everytime. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 2:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
One of the odd aspects of the Kennedy-Nixon debates, other than their being the first televised debates, is that your perception of who won them varied dependent upon the medium you either saw or heard them on. For those who witnessed them on the tube, Kennedy emerged as the better of the debaters. For those who listened on the radio, Nixon came through as the winning candidate.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 86. Re: Give me a pretty picture everytime. | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 4:02pm | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
And for those who went to public school, the last president elected was Truman, who defeated one of Donald Duck's three nephews.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. Regan the role model | | | | by MonkeyBoy |  | | | at Mon 10 Mar 11:53pm | score of 2 intriguing | | | | | | |
The likability of presidential candidates has been a big issue ever since 1987
The true model of style over substance was Ronald Regan. A lot a people just liked him for little reason other that he reminded them of a kindly protective grandfather - even though he displayed flashes of senility while in office.
To me he reminded of Philip K. Dick's theme of a robotic puppet as president (sometimes called Yancy I think), even though I think Dick used Eisenhower has his model.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 5. Beauty contest | | | | by anykey | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:05am | score of 2 interesting | | | | | | |
I visited Costa Rica during presidential elections last year. Everyone, and I mean everyone seemed to be involved in the election process. Anyone there could tell you, in depth, about the candidates, issues, past performance... They really, really wanted to talk about it. I was jealous.
We simple are too comfortable in America. People don't understand the fact that their participation in this democracy should prevent the conditions that originally caused the creation of this nation from returning. It is a privilege. The vast majority of the American public knows nothing about our leaders, their voting histories, or the issues themselves. Many believe that they are all a bunch of liars so what the hell, we might as well pick them based solely on presentation.
Perhaps it would be better if our brand of democracy weren't imported, as our only hope now will be to package the information in a Survivor-like reality series. A vicarious-democracy.
Let us devote to unselfishness the frenzy we once gave gold and underpants ~ Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 16. Re: Beauty contest | | | | by empressrenee | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 4:51am | score of 2 astute | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
Many believe that they are all a bunch of liars so what the hell, we might as well pick them based solely on presentation.
I think that this is really the point. We don't trust what any politician says. So, we go by what we can, our gut feeling. And since America is such a commercial society we go with who can sell their "product" the best.
Just look to the recent Bachelor and Bachelorette shows. You don't see ugly successful guys an gals. They are all good looking. We see good looks as a sign of success.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 45. We Don't Want Truth! | | | | by scottfeldstein | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 10:49am | score of 1.5 novel | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
We don't trust what any politician says.
People don't seem to want the truth. I can't imagine - literally can't imagine - someone running for president and just plain old being as straight and truthful with everyone as it was possible to be. They probably couldn't get elected dog catcher. I contend that if there was a market for such a politician, we would see some. But the fact is, no matter how people are bitching about the ones we have now, they are exactly what the American people want.
People don't want truth. They want to be lied to. And they are. And they say democracy doesn't work! Seems to be working fine.
Incidentally, I just have to register this: the fact that so many of my fellow Americans find GWB "likeable" causes me to dispair.
scott d. feldstein - on the web at scottfeldstein.net, AIM: TheBeeWolf
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 55. Re: We Don't Want Truth! | | | | by callmejay | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:57am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 45 | | | | | |
"People don't want truth. They want to be lied to."
I don't think that's actually true. People want the truth, but since everybody has his/her own opinion on the issues, there's no way someone could gather more than 50% of voters together behind him/her, without appearing to different people to be for different things. Look at Clinton. To the liberals, he was one of them, with his sensitive speeches, sax playing, and hippie style, but to moderates, he was a moderate with his "responsible" fiscal policies, etc. Also, presidents (except the current) are always pretending to be much more religious than they really are to try to round up the religious vote, since those damn religious people are so much more organized than the rest of us. :)
The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 79. Re: We Don't Want Truth! | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 2:44pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 45 | | | | | |
I can't imagine - literally can't imagine - someone running for president and just plain old being as straight and truthful with everyone as it was possible to be. They probably couldn't get elected dog catcher. I contend that if there was a market for such a politician, we would see some. My town has an alderman (sort of a city council person, basically) that I believe is honest. She has been in office several terms and, in my opinion, has honestly acted in what she believes to be the best interests of the citizens, rather than cynically grabbing power for its own sake. This doesn't mean I am in full agreement with her actions: she and I disagree on some issues, have discussed it, and she told me flatly she thinks I'm wrong and isn't going to do as I suggested, but she has coherent reasons for disagreeing with me. (They aren't in line with my own opinions, but I agree it's a logical way of thinking about things.)
So, there is such a thing as an honest politician.
Sadly, she seems to have no interest in running for higher office, although some friends and I write her in for congressperson in every congressional election anyway.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. real-time moderation | | | | by gerrymander | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:36am | score of 2.5 nuanced | | | | | | |
This doesn't surprise me. As a society, Americans put a premium on being pleasant and personable, and it's only natural for the leader we choose to reflect that.
Which is not to say that the presidency is in any great danger of being a devolution to the blandest or a popularity contest, despite what some might claim. Congeniality is a social lubricant, a form of personal marketing. This is not to say pleasantness is just a facade. Rather, it is one of the more honest cultural traditions of a truly democratic population, an outward expression of the premise that every person has worth.
But likability isn't a substitution for holding issues dearly. One can easily imagine having friendly conversations with someone whose ideals are dramatically different from our own. John Scalzi pegs it perfectly: we're nice people, but we disagree on the details. And we'll continue to hash out those details in public fora, but no one should be shocked that the voices we choose to represent us are also the ones who have learned to be the most palatable.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 7. And who do they like? | | | | by phenry |  | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:10am | score of 4.5 astute | | | | | | |
See, this "likability" issue more than just about anything else is what pisses me off about George W. Bush. Not only do I not perceive this shallow, smirking frat-boy idiot, this privileged moron who's had everything handed to him by his powerful friends or those of his father since day one, this callow boob who's never done an honest day's work in his life yet credits his amazing good fortune to his own strength of character, this cave-dwelling Neanderthal who wears his own ignorance as a badge of honor and perceives thoughtfulness and intellectual curiosity as the traits of elitists, this uncaring sociopath who dares to lecture others on the importance of family while his own family careens out of control--not only do I not perceive this man as "likable" in any way, I don't even want to know anyone who finds these qualities attractive.
What exactly is it about this man that's supposed to make him so "likable"? Why do "liberal" reporters swoon when he tags him with those brilliant nicknames of his, like when he takes a name like "Dave" and somehow transforms it into something creative like "Dave-o" or "Dave-man" (wonder how long it takes him to come up with those)? How can people who make their living with their brains find so much to like about a man who not only has no apparent interest whatsoever in knowledge or learning but actively scorns those who do? Why is Al Gore, a man whom I'd love to talk to about any number of things, considered "unlikable," whereas Bush, who'd make me want to tear my ears off after a five minute conversation with him, is not? Politics aside, what is it that makes people actually like this asshole?
I'm not thrilled that all people seem to want in a president is someone they can have a beer with, but I think I'd be able to deal with that if not for the fact that the apotheosis of likability for so many people turns out to be George W. fucking Bush.
phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 107. Re: And who do they like? | | | | by pesh2000 | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 11:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
Well said, I never got the whole 'Clinton is charming' thing, and I don't get the whole 'Bush is folksy' thing. I did get the 'Reagan is grandfatherly' thing, but of course, I was 6 at the time.
That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 13. Re: And who do they like? | | | | by Osomatic | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 3:54am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Not only do I not perceive this shallow, smirking frat-boy idiot, this privileged moron who's had everything handed to him by his powerful friends or those of his father since day one, this callow boob who's never done an honest day's work in his life yet credits his amazing good fortune to his own strength of character, this cave-dwelling Neanderthal who wears his own ignorance as a badge of honor and perceives thoughtfulness and intellectual curiosity as the traits of elitists, this uncaring sociopath who dares to lecture others on the importance of family while his own family careens out of control--not only do I not perceive this man as "likable" in any way, I don't even want to know anyone who finds these qualities attractive.
I'm short of breath just from reading that sentence. Slow down and breathe, wouldya?
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Irrelevant in this election cycle | | | | by zhwj0119 | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 5:43am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
The interesting thing in the case of GWfB is that, regardless of how you view the Florida thing, Gore picked up more individual votes.
Sure, the electoral college makes some sort of sense when voting on issues that pertain to states and the federal government. I'm just not altogether certain that I like the idea of deciding on a representative basis which candidate cuts a sharper profile.
Really, given the numbers, Bush and Gore are both hanging around a +9 charisma, so there must be some other explanation...
zh---
If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself. --A Scanner Darkly, Philip K. Dick
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 32. Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 8:28am | score of 3 astute | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
The writeup isn't about voters like you whose minds appear to have been long since made up based on their ideology. Of course you're not going to find Bush likable, but yours isn't the mind he's trying to sway. Comparing your reaction to Bush's public persona with your reaction to a one-on-one conversation you might have with Gore isn't the point.
The USN&WR piece is about voters like...well, me in 2000 - deeply disappointed that McCain didn't grab the GOP nomination, skeeved-out by Bush, weirded out by Nader, and annoyed that Gore wouldn't commit to either embracing Bill Clinton or telling him to go piss up a rope.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by phenry | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 8:57am | score of 3 compelling | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
And I understand that. What really troubles me actually has very little to do with politics or ideology at all: it's that the reaction of the majority of the people to Bush's public persona is so wholly incomprehensible to me that it makes me question my ability to interact with others at all. I've pretty much lived my whole life trying to be everything George W. Bush is not: honest, sincere, intellectually curious, introspective. If we're living in a time when people react so positively to Bush's dishonesty, insincerity, incuriosity, and entirely unexamined life, then that means I'm pretty much fucked. And that's really not the result I was going for at this point in my life.
What's worse, I suppose, is that so much of this personal fondness for Bush is being driven by journalists, who in theory are supposed to be my people--I have a master's degree in journalism, though you wouldn't necessarily know it to look at me now--and who certainly should at least be inclined to disdain the kind of willful anti-intellectualism practiced by Bush. Instead, they celebrate it, and savaged Gore precisely because he came off as "too intellectual." If these people, who have college degrees and make their living with their writing just as I do, are so in love with Bush, then it's hard to know where that leaves me.
It's true: high school never really ends. I can't even begin to tell you how depressing that is.
phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 65. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:59pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
well, me in 2000 - deeply disappointed that McCain didn't grab the GOP nomination, skeeved-out by Bush, weirded out by Nader, and annoyed that Gore wouldn't commit to either embracing Bill Clinton or telling him to go piss up a rope.
Me too. An independent who wanted McCain. I ended up with W. If Gore was even remotely viable as a president I mighta voted for him. But I was sick of the Slick Willie admin's spin and lies. Gore just never seemed honest because he was in limbo as to what he was about.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:10pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
"The USN&WR piece is about voters like...well, me in 2000 - deeply disappointed that McCain didn't grab the GOP nomination, skeeved-out by Bush, weirded out by Nader, and annoyed that Gore wouldn't commit to either embracing Bill Clinton or telling him to go piss up a rope"
Sort of like me too. Only I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for the Shrub. So I did the only morally correct thing to do in that case -- I wrote McCain's name in at the poll. All it took was a quick question to the election judge and I got instructions how to do it.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by newkindakick | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:26pm | score of 1.5 witty | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
I get where phenry's coming from - it's not about ideology at all, it's about the fact that Bush is basically a walking smirk. In the American pantheon, Bush would be the god of smugness, and in the American hagiology he'd be the the patron saint of trust-fund fratboys. Bush pretty much defines "the unexamined life". I'm not sure how any self-respecting person can like that spoiled, snotty little princeling.
...journalists...who certainly should at least be inclined to disdain the kind of willful anti-intellectualism practiced by Bush. Instead, they celebrate it, and savaged Gore precisely because he came off as "too intellectual."
I think there's a fair amount of self-hate involved with this lot's Gore-bashing and Bush-boosting.
I wouldn't normally do this kinda thing
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 71. Re: If Bush defines "the unexamined life"... | | | | by newkindakick | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:39pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 68 | | | | | |
Yes, definitely. However, when it comes to who I'd prefer to have as the most powerful man in the world, I'll take a paralyzed overexaminer over a foolhardy underexaminer any day.
I wouldn't normally do this kinda thing
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by NH4 | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 4:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
In the new American political system, Phenry, voting for U.S. President is indistinguishable from voting for High School Student Body President.
But the "fondness" for Bush is nothing more than an apparition, a War-on-Terrorism-induced rallying-around-the-flag rather than a personal embrace of this man. In a recent poll, EVERY potential Democratic candidate for President in 2004 was ahead of Bush by four points of more. Not the sort of fate that one would expect for a President with the artificially-inflated numbers that we keep hearing about, eh?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 89. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by deanc | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 4:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 61 | | | | | |
I think there's a fair amount of self-hate involved with this lot's Gore-bashing and Bush-boosting.
Or jealously. Another layer of the Gore-loathing phenomenon by the press corps was the fact that Gore represented what the members of the press corps could have been but weren't... a guy who did a few random things right out of college -- army journalist, reporter, divinity school student -- and then ultimately found himself in politics where he worked his way up from congressman to vice president.
Bush, on the other hand, is the biography of a man representing the opposite of the journalist lifestyle... a guy who went from being a Harvard MBA student to a bailed-out would-be oil tycoon on the strength of his father's business connections, to a baseball team owner.
While, yes, Al Gore grew up with a life just as privledged as Bush's, Gore comes from an intellectual and professional culture that's closer to the press corps than Bush is. Gore's existence was a constant reminder (rightly or wrongly) to a beltway journalist that, "this is what you could have been." On the other hand, journalists could easily chalk up Bush's "success/lack of career-ending failure" (rightly or wrongly) to wealth and family connections that those journalists never had, so Bush wasn't "competing" with them.
Bush is likeable because many Americans can feel as though Bush "deserved" to succeed without making the average american look bad or less deserving for not getting as far in life as bush did.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 91. Admittedly, mostly an OT rant | | | | by Ixbalanque | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 5:41pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
Sure, Gore was boring, but that didn't stop him from winning the popular vote. If not for Jeb's efforts to keep african americans from the voting booths, the results in florida would have been more definitive. I was studying abroad when Bush was handed the election by SCOTUS, and I still don't view him legitimately as my president.
If the election in 2000 had happened in a third world nation, we would all have had a chuckle and maybe lamented about the nepotism firmly entrenched in their governmental system; somehow, though, when it happens at home we just let it slide. Sure, our delusions of a democratic nation where things are on the up and up are swell, but maybe we could have used a bit of the introspection and soul-searching about our national character that could have come from the last elections events.
On topic, though, it strikes me that charisma and likability are perfectly valid criteria to look for in a leader. After all, I don't care how brilliant a candidate may be if they are unable to convince other leaders, domestically or abroad, to form coalitions and work with them. Charisma and diplomacy go hand in hand. And, this is precisely why I am not a fan of Dubya'. Worst. Diplomat. Ever.
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music - Groucho Marx
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 93. Not quite | | | | by sulli | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 6:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 89 | | | | | |
[Gore was] a guy who did a few random things right out of college -- army journalist, reporter, divinity school student -- and then ultimately found himself in politics where he worked his way up from congressman to vice president.
Gore's daddy was a Senator. Legacies happen on both sides of the aisle.
Tout abus sera puni
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 96. Re: Nice rant, but not the point at all | | | | by Jeff The Unhip | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:47pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
...the reaction of the majority of the people to Bush's public persona is so wholly incomprehensible to me that it makes me question my ability to interact with others at all.
Well, as others have said, he's Not Clinton (or more accurately more Not-Clinton than Gore), and that got him some votes.
As for likability: I don't think he's that likable, but he seems like a person who understands the value of likability, unlike, well, Gore (at least as the conventional wisdom has it).
What's worse, I suppose, is that so much of this personal fondness for Bush is being driven by journalists...
I'd suggest it was driven by their bosses, actually.
It's true: high school never really ends.
Fortunately, the whole world isn't high school, so you can find a way of escaping it. It just seems awfully hard to find out about them, that's all.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 102. Re: Admittedly, mostly an OT rant | | | | by Dan_Boston | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 10:25am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
Interesting perspective, since it was Gore and his camp who argued so vociferously that the votes of foreign nationals shouldn't be counted.....
I guess if Gore had won, he wouldn't really be your president either.
Seriously - why does every jack ass have such a set-in-stone radical opinion (on both sides of the fence). Tell you what, go to law school, sit on the bench for 10 or 20 years, get to the supreme court, do exhaustive research (primary) on the vote situation down in Florida, and then come forth with a rabid opinion supporting one theory or another. Until then, its fine to have suspicions, but please tone it the fuck down :).
The rantings you hear on this topic are tantamount to me talking about your mother - in both cases, you'd have people making sweeping statements based on (at best) heresay.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Re: And who do they like? | | | | by stogie | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 9:22am | score of 2 intriguing | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
I'll always remember a conversation I had several months ago with a hometown friend whom I hadn't seen in years. When the subject came to George Bush, he looked at me a little uncomfortably, as if wondering exactly how much scorn I'd show for what he was about to say. He then prefaced a withering criticism of Bush's foreign policy with the disclaimer, "I still think that Bush is a nice guy, but..." I was amazed by this, first because his political views had flip-flopped since high school, but also because I got the feeling that he'd had this conversation with others before and that the way he'd come up with to show his sympathy for opposing points of view was to say, "he's a nice guy," as if that was an out standing qualification for the presidency of the most powerful nation in the world.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 48. Re: And who do they like? | | | | by curve06 | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:04am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
How can people who make their living with their brains find so much to like about a man who not only has no apparent interest whatsoever in knowledge or learning but actively scorns those who do? Why is Al Gore, a man whom I'd love to talk to about any number of things, considered "unlikable," whereas Bush, who'd make me want to tear my ears off after a five minute conversation with him, is not? Politics aside, what is it that makes people actually like this asshole?
Apparently you never attended high school, or you would understand the answers to all of your questions. To sum up:
Bush == Rich, idiotic popular guy
Gore == Chess club president, yearbook editor
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Not supporting Bush but, | | | | by savagesquirrel | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:04am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
the reason that I think a lot of people like him is that fact that he is no smarter than the average American. When they show him on T.V. cutting wood with an axe in Texas and taking walks with his two dogs, a lot of people can relate to that. That's why I think a lot of people in your country like the man so much. They don't want to hear a President talking all this mumbo-jumbo about policies and foreign treaties because the majority of people don't really care about all the details. I think they like when he talks "dumbdowned" and uses saying like "If it's good for America four years from now, it's good for America today." Saying this actually makes no sense because you don't know if it would be good in the future, it's a prediction at best. Making up words is another common things that he does. We've all made this mistake before, and it shows that he's human.
All that being said. I don't want a person with flaws running the country. I want an articulate, charismatic, honest, and extremely hard working person in the driver's seat. I know, I know, he only has one out of the four in there. Waiting for the next elections for the better candidate.
Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 88. Charisma | | | | by NH4 | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 4:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
I thought "charismatic" was an essential part of the brew until very recently, Savagesquirrel. I, too, was of the opinion that personality was more important than ideology in the choosing of a President (or almost any other important American political figure). On the basis of that analysis, I thought Hillary Clinton a shoe-in for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2004, and I argued that someone like Governor Dean didn't have a prayer.
I am in the midst of a reexamination of my assumptions. Governor Dean has positioned himself as the Democratic candidate to vote for if you think the War in Iraq a mistake. As a result, he has an excellent chance of winning in the first caucus state, Iowa, a state where "Democrat" and "anti-war" are synonyms. Further, given that he was governor of the state next door to New Hampshire, and given that Kerry still doesn't stand for anything I can detect, I now think that Dean has a fine chance of winning New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary as well. The fact that he opposes our proposed War in Iraq is only one of the non-personality factors that favors his candidacy at this point: he was also very successful at reviving the Vermont economy, and with the U.S. economy continuing to tank, that kind of ability would be highly welcome on the national stage.
Winning in Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn't necessary be enough by themselves (ask Senator McCain), but the fact that there are multiple Southern candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination makes it less likely that the Southern primaries will produce the obvious winner of the nomination. Dean has an excellent chance of moving from Iowa and New Hampshire into a two- or three-way race that he could actually win in the Midwest.
Does Dean have charisma? Not much, in my opinion. Can he win anyway? I surprise myself by thinking that perhaps he can.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 100. Re: Charisma | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 8:35am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 88 | | | | | |
Does Dean have charisma? Not much, in my opinion. Can he win anyway? I surprise myself by thinking that perhaps he can
Does this mean our bet is off?
My knowledge of Dean is slight, but if the speeches I've heard from him are any indication, the "charisma" label applies. But maybe that's just a reflection of the debased state of politics -- these days I'm happy if a candidate can put a complete sentence together, and has the balls to forgo pablum and talk about specifics. That's enough charisma for '04, I think. Dean can go all the way.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 110. Re: Charisma | | | | by NH4 | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 3:56pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 100 | | | | | |
Not at all, Sglover: I stand by my earlier prediction for bet purposes, even if I am reexamining it from a practical standpoint. After all, one cannot trade in a bet on the Oakland Raiders in the Super Bowl at halftime, right?
And even if I end up winning the bet, perhaps it will provide some small comfort to you to note that at least I finally saw your original points.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 101. Re: And who do they like? | | | | by Dan_Boston | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 10:13am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Please don't think I'm a huge Bush supporter, because I'm not.
However, reading this doesn't make me like or dislike Bush any more or less. It does give me the strong opinion that you are a pompous windbag, and that if stuck spending time with you, I'd rip my own arm off just to have something to club you to death (or at least unconsciousness) with.
Cheers.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 9. As we slow slide into cyberpunk... | | | | by Nameless Cynic | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:26am | score of 1.5 incoherent | | | | | | |
(Anal notes:
Ma'am: 1984. Sorry
Kid: Reagan. Again, sorry)
OK. Let's think for a minute. Drama is losing ground to sit-coms, because people can't hold their tiny attention spans on a subject for an hour. (And sit-coms are losing to reality shows, because they're cheap, and life sucks... But that's not the point.)
As much as I'd like to agree with snarkism (and, omg, you don't know how much it hurts to say that), people get elected because of image these days. We live in a TV age. Anchor-persons get fired because of looks. And presidential candidates get labeled as "robots" simply because they don't come across well on camera. And borderline-illiterate boobs who can handle a camera get elected.
You aren't elected because of knowledge or ability these days. It's how well you play to a nation that regularly accesses "HotOrNot.com"
If knowledge or ability mattered, Ralph Nader would be president.
Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 18. Re: As we slow slide into cyberpunk... | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 5:31am | score of 2.5 astute | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
"If knowledge or ability mattered, Ralph Nader would be president."
Where would you get the idea that Ralphie has any ability to run a government? He has no experience in that particular field. He has experience in lobbying, lecturing, and suing, to be sure, but no demonstrated ability in the key day-to-day operations of executive bodies of any kind.
As for knowledge, Ralphie has depth in certain areas, but really very little broad knowledge of such important things as foreign relations, trade negotiations, or public policy outside of consumer protection and certain "green" issues.
Granted, he's no less qualified than most people, but even Gore and Bush both had government experience, both had some exposure to foreign relations, and both had fairly broad exposure to public policy issues.
I'm not saying that Bush or Gore were better choices - I didn't vote for them - but making up qualifications for a man whom you happen to agree with is dishonest. Nader has his own strengths, perhaps integrity and a genuine concern for his fellow man, and if you want to support him that's your choice. But build support for him based on his real characteristics rather than assert something so easily proven false.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. A voice in the wilderness... | | | | by JackH | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 10:50am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 18 | | | | | |
Although Nader is stronger than you think in areas like trade negotiations and understanding how our political system has come to operate, I gotta agree with you.
He's a compelling "voice in the wilderness" - an Old Testament prophet type, if you like. People like him are necessary, to expose what really goes on, to work behind the scenes, and when necessary, to rage against the priveliged and the powerful.
But the funny thing about prophets is that they don't make the best administrators or internal operators. They don't function well when it comes to actually having power or playing the political games.
If it came down to another Bush vs. a Democrat-trying-to-be-a-Republican, I might vote for him again. But I hope it doesn't come to that. 'Cause let's be honest, he's far more effective not being a politican.
"If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | | 38. Re: Rebecca Romijn-Stamos in 2008! | | | | by IamCreative | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 9:22am | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
I would vote for her, except I could not stand the idea of that dork from Fullhouse being our "first man".
"...and im tired of these dirty old sidewalks, think i'll walk off my steady job today" - Merle Haggard
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 21. oversimplification, again | | | | by timnet | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 6:57am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...but the voters in the center think first not about a candidate's stand on trade or abortion, but is he a windbag? Is he arrogant? How is his bearing? How does he carry himself?'
As one of the aforementioned centrists, I have long since given up on seeing a candidate who reflects my beliefs. The current climate seems to be Republicans happy to stay on the right and Democrats running to the left. After I finish figuring out where my opinions intersect with the candidate's, there is a certain value judgment on personalities.
I go to questions such as: Does this person derive pleasure from disagreeing with others or building consensus? Would this person let blind commitment to ideology forestall him from doing what's best for the nation? And, occasionally, would this person do more damage than others in the White House?
Certainly, when you know you're getting a president who is going to represent positions far to the right or left of you, a candidate's bearing, ability to play well with others, and personal warmth are going to have some impact. Or, if the choices are as bad as they were in 2000, you throw everything out the window and vote for Nader, hoping your protest will be realized. Of course, the media buried this discontent-with-the-political-status-quo angle in the whole Florida morass, so we're back to square one. Again.
"I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 103. Re: oversimplification, again | | | | by Dan_Boston | | | | at Wed 12 Mar 10:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 21 | | | | | |
You make good sense here, though, I would put a slightly different spin.
Part of the problem I have when voting is that neither party appears to have much loyalty left for their ideological roots - The Republican party was traditionally about less government - yet, the religious right's social agenda leads to more government, not less. In advocating a social message of 'good values' and 'bad values', they seem to me to be quite akin to the liberal thought police who judge everyone as either 'one of them' or 'a nazi'. (I do realize I'm exaggerating). In any event, the average democrat has likely moved far to the center of what your traditional democrat would like to see.
So in general, if neither candidate will satisfy you ideologically or on the issues, what do you have left other than personality?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 22. Bob Dole | | | | by cloudofdust | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 6:58am | score of 3 compelling | | | | | | |
The biggest mistake Bob Dole made while running for President was failing to come across as likable. On the campaign trail he was stern, gruff, scary, almost mean. After it was over and he started doing Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, etc., suddenly here was this easy going, likable guy with a great sense of humor. A guy who could have been President if only people had known he existed.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 23. Likability | | | | by MacGregor | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 7:01am | score of 3.5 funny | | | | | | |
I am reminded of a comment my father made when Ronald Reagan's colon polyps were removed, biopsied, and found to be not malignant. He said "That's what Americans want in a President; a benign asshole."
"Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty" --As you like it, Act 2, Scene 3
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 24. Democracy... | | | | by rdww | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 7:26am | score of 1.5 interesting | | | | | | |
... pisses off SO many people. While there is much to disagree with above (Dubya joins Reagan and Ike on our list of Republican presidents dismissed by libbies as lightweights at the time, but whose intelligence and leadership became apparent in retrospect), no one wants to deal with the implication of their comments - that the problem is democracy.
Browse video or magazines of the Watergate era, say 30 years ago, and you will marvel at how dumpy, balding, old and homely our national leaders were compared to today's slick-looking politicos. Between 1968-1974 primary and campaign finance reforms weakened the power of parties and the boys in smokey back rooms to pick candidates, and pushed the process into the hands of wildly ambitious individual candidates and swayable masses. If thou disliketh the result, blameth thyself.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 35. Re: To hear many Plasticians tell it... | | | | by sglover910 | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 9:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
Fair enough, but think back to the 1992 primary season - plenty of serious Democratic candidates to challenge Bush 41, but voters plumped for the smooth one. (As did I, in the general election.)
I don't know if I'd call Jerry Brown a serious candidate, although Tsongas certainly was. But your comment implies that all Democrats were enthusiastic Clintonistas in '92. I never got a chance to vote for Tsongas, because by the time my state primary rolled around, he'd already been consigned to the "can't win" category by the usual all-knowing media savants. If memory serves, the Clinton organization effectively smeared him in one of the earlier primaries, in a state (South Carolina?) that otherwise doesn't count for much; after that, he lost the "momentum" that the talking heads like to blather on about. The same thing happened to McCain in 2000.
The current primary system, with its endless series of little state contests, seems to favor mediagenic candidates. It doesn't look likely to change in my lifetime, but a quicker regional or national primary election might emphasize substance more.
An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 63. Re: To hear many Plasticians tell it... | | | | by itf | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:49pm | score of 1.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
Well, since you asked...
I actually first took serious notice of Bill Clinton early in '92 when there were still six guys in the race. I read a fairly in-depth article in some magazine (sorry, I don't remember which) comparing the policy positions of the six Democratic candidates and I determined that Clinton was closest to my own views. Tsongas was my second choice, as I recall, or possibly third after Harkin. Hard to remember at this point.
I followed up by reading more about the candidates and was impressed by the guy's biography: came from a poor family and went on to an Ivy League school and went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, etc. Youngest governor of Arkansas, lost re-election and then won the job back, all that. All admirable, nothing to dissuade me from supporting him. Various interviews that I read convinced me that he was articulate, intelligent, and was passionate about the issues I cared about but also pragmatic.
So I'd pretty much settled on Clinton before I ever heard him speak. Obviously an awful lot of Clinton voters were swayed by his personal charisma, which is admittedly impressive; but speaking for myself, it was his political stances that I agreed with, followed by a healthy respect for his intellect and strength of character.
Point being, I disagree with your comparison of Clinton to George W. Bush. Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and clearly rose in the world through hard work and his natural talents. And, without belaboring the point, George W. Bush is not a Rhodes scholar. Even worse, he revels in the sort of anti-intellectualism that I loathe.
Politics aside, there's no legitimate comparison between Bubba and Dubya.
"Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 70. My comparison was only meant to go as far as... | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:24pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 63 | | | | | |
...the relative likability of Clinton and Dubya.
His rise from humble beginnings was one of the things I liked about Clinton as opposed to Bush 41. (I liked it more about Tsongas, though.
I did have a problem with Clinton's doggin' around - not for the morality of it so much as for its signifying of sloppy judgment - but figured he'd grow out of it in the White House. Oops.
If that boy had learned how to find himself some discreet nookie he'd be on Mount friggin' Rushmore. With as many friends as he has in Hollywood, you'd think somebody there would've taught him the ropes...
(...and the cuffs, and the rubber pants, and the paddles, and that the safe-word is "Limbaugh"...)
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: To hear many Plasticians tell it... | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 3:13pm | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
For those of you Democratic voters who took part back then and chose Clinton over Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas or any of the others, I'd be very interested in hearing your reasoning. Tsongas seemed like a good candidate but I was concerned about his health issues and therefore decided I wanted to vote for someone else.
Clinton seemed to have the best stance on gay rights for his first presidential election, and I'm pretty much a one-issue voter, so that was that.
When he was up for re-election, I voted communist, after verifying that it was technically impossible for the candidate to get enough electoral college votes to actually get elected. I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton again after what he did to gay rights, and I won't vote for a republican, period.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 27. Tastes great, less filling | | | | by Choodle | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 7:53am | score of 1.5 interesting | | | | | | |
I'm too young to remember Reagan very well but I grew up hearing all sort of bad things about him. He was stupid, he was naive about foreign affairs, he was just a bad actor... But when that book came out last year with many of his speeches and radio addresses, I was surprised at how lucid he was. The link above, that I guess is intended to make everyone roll their eyes, actually had some excellent one-liners. So, did America elect him because he was likeable or did we elect him because he was pretty damned smart?
I usually post as resh omala.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 28. Re: Tastes great, less filling | | | | by cloudofdust | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 8:02am | score of 1 nuanced | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
Do you really think Reagan wrote his own speeches and radio addresses?
The fact that the guy was a great public speaker and could read a teleprompter like noboby's business doesn't give any insight into his intelligence.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 31. Re: Tastes great, less filling | | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 8:27am | score of 1 informative | | in reply to comment 28 | | | | | |
Actually, most of his speechs, especially prior to his Presidency, were his own. His archives are filled with the handwritten drafts.
But keep on sterotyping...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: Tastes great, less filling | | | | by paul_holloway | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 10:25am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
Actually, most of his speechs, especially prior to his Presidency, were his own. His archives are filled with the handwritten drafts.
But whose handwriting is it?
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 54. Re: Tastes great, less filling | | | | by grayskale | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
IIRC, Reagan's head speech-writer was none other than Gopher from "The Love Boat". The real key to Reagan's success was his ability to deliver the most absurd of lines in a way that made you forget what it was he was talking about and just get caught up in the flow. Looking back on things, the famous evil empire speech was one of the most frightening things I've heard, yet it was delivered well and played perfectly to the mood of the nation during the waning years of the cold war.
Say what you like about Reagan as a person, but I truly believe he's the model of what the american presidency is becoming. He was a charismatic figurehead for a group of relatively capable advisors. We may not like to admit it, but government by committee is precisely what we have.
-grayskale
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Re: Tastes great, less filling | | | | by callmejay | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:02pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
"So, did America elect him because he was likeable or did we elect him because he was pretty damned smart?"
He was an actor. Which, pretty much by definition, means that he plays well for a camera and can deliver a line. What's the difference between reciting a speech on camera as president and reciting a speech on camera as an actor? An actor, by definition, can easily look like a good president. It doesn't mean that anything he actually did was any good.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 30. It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by John the Cynic | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 8:13am | score of 2.5 astute | | | | | | |
I'm guessing that most people on this board have pretty well thought out political beliefs. The problem is that the majority of the population doesn't.
30% reflexively vote left, 30% vote right. The balance is up for grabs. I (having strong views) can't understand how a person can go from Carter, to Reagan, to Clinton, to Bush. And then they wonder why government doesn't work.
I know a person who voted for Ford over Carter because he thought Ford was a better athlete.
Face it, no one administers an IQ test prior to giving you a ballot. (Of course if they did, Gore would have won in Florida- how can you be too stupid to read a ballot?)
People get the politicians they deserve.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 57. Re: It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by fishist |  | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:02pm | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 43 | | | | | |
Except those people voted for Buchanan, not Bush.
Right, that is his point actually. They voted Buchanan accidentally when they intended to vote for Gore, thus taking votes away from Gore (though not giving them to Bush).
Having said that, I let it go a long time ago.
Reward good behavior. Punish poor behavior
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by MC Nally | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 2:11pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
>>> Face it, no one administers an IQ test prior to giving you a ballot.
>>> (Of course if they did, Gore would have won in Florida- how can you be too stupid to read a ballot?)
>
>> Except those people voted for Buchanan, not Bush.
>
> Right, that is his point actually. They voted Buchanan accidentally when they intended
> to vote for Gore, thus taking votes away from Gore (though not giving them to Bush).
If that's his point, his logic is bad. We can presume two likely outcomes for his hypothetical "voter IQ test": (1) that the unsuccessful would-be Gore voters who couldn't manage the ballot would have been screened out by the test and their votes not counted, leading to no additional votes for Gore, no loss of votes for Bush, and a loss of apparently unintentional votes cast for Buchanan, or (2) the unsuccessful voters wouldn't have been disqualified by the test and would have proceeded to miscast their ballots for Buchanan. Neither scenario helps Gore.
The logic cop in me felt compelled to respond to your "correction", but tell me again -- why are we even talking about this?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. Re: It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by itf | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 3:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
If that's his point, his logic is bad. We can presume two likely outcomes for his hypothetical "voter IQ test": (1) that the unsuccessful would-be Gore voters who couldn't manage the ballot would have been screened out by the test and their votes not counted, leading to no additional votes for Gore, no loss of votes for Bush, and a loss of apparently unintentional votes cast for Buchanan, or (2) the unsuccessful voters wouldn't have been disqualified by the test and would have proceeded to miscast their ballots for Buchanan. Neither scenario helps Gore.
But wait!
Assume that, say, 5% of all voters (regardless of affiliation) are idiots who can't deal properly with a confusing ballot. In the Florida case, Gore's idiots voted for Buchanan by accident. But if all idiots had been screened out beforehand, Gore's total wouldn't change but Bush would lose 5%! Victory for Gore!
or maybe I'm just trying too hard. :-)
"Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 94. Re: It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by itf | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 6:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 92 | | | | | |
You assume that Gore supporters and Bush supporters have equal IQ's.
I don't assume that at all, Gord. I just didn't bother taking the cheap shot at everyone who voted for the Bible-thumpin' coked-up poor-little-rich-boy draft-dodging failed-businessman anti-intellectual legacy-admission chimp, because it wasn't relevant to my point.
And for the record, the site that hosts your "analysis" seems to be home to a number of pseudo-scientific racist screeds.
"Hey, Sam - mind if I drive?" "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dashboard and shrieking like a cheerleader."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 72. Re: It's the 40% in the middle | | | | by Calmer than You | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:41pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
no one administers an IQ test prior to giving you a ballot. (Of course if they did, Gore would have won in Florida- how can you be too stupid to read a ballot?)
Gore might have won... depending on where you set the cut-off point. Remember: when it comes to education (and I think it's fair for our purposes to use level of education as a proxy for intelligence or at least intellectual curiosity), voting for Democrats is a polar phenomenon. The highly-educated (graduate degrees) and the under-educated (high school or less) tend to vote for Dems. Those with a college degree or at least some college tend to vote GOP.
So if you set your cut-off at an IQ of 100, you'd ensure Republicans victory from now to eternity. If you set it at 160, you'd have Ralph Nader's wet dream.
On a related point, if we were to institute a test as a requirement for voting, I don't see why it should be an IQ test. I don't advocate such a test (although not for reasons of principle, but because it would be impossible to select a test that would please every political group), but if I were to, I would want a basic civics test.
clinton(23), saying(22), white(21), woman(20)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 50. No way | | | | by resh omala | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:09am | score of 1 compelling | | | | | | |
If likeability is necessary to win an election how can anyone possibly explain shrub even getting the 49% that he got? I mean, he's like the creepiest, lyingest, sad excuse for a candidate since Richard Nixon. And so maybe he stole his way into office by the good graces of the toadies in the supreme court but really what in the world possessed so many people to vote for him? When I see him or hear him I just get overwhelmed by an overpowering sense of danger. Can't the rest of America see it too? No, I think there are other things at work besides personality.
I sometimes post as Choodle
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 80. Re: No way | | | | by mrmoog | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 2:46pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 50 | | | | | |
... how can anyone possibly explain shrub even getting the 49% that he got?
Well, I'm no statician (or in any way qualified to answer your quesstion), but I'd have to agree with Sarah Vowell's interpretation of the election; ie, that it was "The Jock vs. The Nerd".
The Sarah Vowell reference should make it clear which camp I fall into :(
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 114. Re: No way | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Thu 13 Mar 4:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
Well, I'm no statician (or in any way qualified to answer your quesstion), but I'd have to agree with Sarah Vowell's interpretation of the election; ie, that it was "The Jock vs. The Nerd".
Which is ironic because Gore was the quarterback in his college football team, and Bush was head chearleader. (no, really!)
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 51. Who votes and why? | | | | by plutocracywatch | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 11:14am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
For starters, the last three Presidential election victors won with a minority of the vote. Approximately half of the eligible adults vote, taking us to 24% of voters. Of those, many vote on single issues like choice/abortion or gun control/anti-gun control. Many constituencies such as African-Americans, who vote 90% Democratic, or union households, especially public sector unions, vote mostly Democratic. Others like white church-attending evangelicals vote some 70% Republican. So how many really vote for the candidate, much less his likeability?
read
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 62. ... | | | | by MrConnieLingus | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 12:28pm | score of 1.5 clever | | | | | | |
Behead the god-damn fascist stinking LIKABLE Republicans! How could any one with any brains at all fall for the nitwit dumbass lines the GOP has been feeding us. Only a retarded poop-brain with a smelly butt-hole could believe GWB or Reagan...those pea-brained jack-booted morons!
{...breathlessly awaiting karma...}
MrConnieLingus's member profile karma: -786 (disingenous incoherent brainDead onDope)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 66. Not everyone likes likeability | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 1:03pm | score of 2 interesting | | | | | | |
My extended family was very divided about Bush when he was a candidate. So while my end of kin are mostly Democratic, I was obligated to spend some quality time with the other persuasion. The gap was too great and caused to many other problems to start arguments so I mostly listened. Well the thing that struck me at the time wasn't that my kin were attracted to Bush personally but that he sort of represented a protest vote against all those forces they saw undermining society. As the anti-Clinton, his stiffness wasn't appealling as such but represented a guarantee that we wouldn't be subjected to any more charm. All my Republican kin talked a lot about how much they hated having to think about blow jobs while watching a State of the Union address and saying how Bush was a guy you could leave your wife alone with and not worry about him hitting on her. They didn't think he was particularly honest but were pretty sure he wouldn't be feeling any ones pain.
All this makes me think that if Bush had been likable, articulate, and sexy, he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of nearly being elected by my kin.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 85. Re: Not everyone likes likeability | | | | by Airbag | | | | at Tue 11 Mar 3:52pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
True enough. I don't mean to generalize too far beyond the limits of my anecdote. It just occurred to me that with questions like those put forward by Rothenberg such as "is he a windbag? Is he arrogant? How is his bearing? How does he carry himself?" that some people don't look at those qualities independently of comparisons they are making with people they have already developed a strong feeling about. In the case of my relatives, I got the impression that their loathing of Clinton had a lot to do with what make Bush "likable." If he was following a different act, the same people might have been turned off the very same qualities that made him seem appealing at the time.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 113. Re: Not everyone likes likeability | | | | by Ernest333 | | | | at Thu 13 Mar 4:13pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 66 | | | | | |
All my Republican kin talked a lot about ... how Bush was a guy you could leave your wife alone with and not worry about him hitting on her.
Probably true, but just don't leave your economy alone with him!
government + religion = taliban
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (1 hr, 48 mins ago) | -----=o---- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
