ELECTION OF 2000: A gay man's rationale

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 05, 2008 1:40 AM GMT
    The latest events with Super Tuesday and the elections this year brought back some interesting memories and one in particular that I've never forgotten (and never let a certain friend EVER forget either)

    The thread on here about Presidents also reminded me of this pathetic exchange...

    It was the election of 2000. I was a huge Gore supporter and had my yard sign and even made campaign calls for Gore. A friend of mine from Hutchinson indicated he was for Bush. I was shocked. "How could you want this guy", I asked.

    "Well you have to be able to communicate effectively", he said.. and to do that you must be good looking".
    I was dumbfounded, "You think Bush is good looking and you'd vote for him based on that", I asked? He quickly pointed out that "Most effective communicators and successful presidents have been good looking".

    I was appauled.. "So based on that Lincoln was one of the most horrible presidents"...icon_mad.gif

    He hates it when I bring it up even to this day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 1:48 AM GMT
    That says a lot about our society. A society where fame or popularity is more based on external appearance then talent or integrity. How else can one explain the popularity of Britney Spears despite her limitations as a music artist.

    I hope your friend is now re-thinking his criteria for selecting a President after the disaster of George W. I personally was never a big fan of Ronald Reagan either despite his charm.

    You are right about Lincoln, probably the best US president and one of the finest leaders in Western countries in the last 300 years. Gore Vidal's novel "Lincoln" brilliantly details Lincoln's subtle skills as a politician (he was a master at manipulating people).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 3:57 AM GMT
    On the 2000 election ~ Bush went to Harvard for his graduate school, Gore was there for his undergraduate, and of the 9 supreme court justices who decided the whole Florida fiasco, FIVE were at Harvard for either undergraduate or law school. they all go to the same football games! I'm not busting Harvard or having a great education but the election process and canidates have been so absorbed into the entrenched 'system' of so called 'elites' that it's hard to call it a democracy anymore. I certainly can't imagine Andrew Jackson or Jefferson or others accepting it as such.

    I was much more appalled by what happened here in the last presedential election in Ohio, with the pandering to bigots there during the last week of the election with anti-gay marriage promises and propaganda. and it WORKED! it swung the vote for them; then they cynically ditched that plank as politically inconveniant within a couple weeks of being in office. I live next door in Western Pa, so we had the special priviledge of experiencing that commercial broadcasting here. I knew of more than a couple guys who got what can only be called physically ill and completely disillusioned about the entire election process over that one.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 05, 2008 11:18 AM GMT
    One name needs to be mentioned....

    Dennis Kucinich
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 05, 2008 12:50 PM GMT
    Um.... what for?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 1:24 PM GMT
    I remember reading in Blink about the misconception of appearance's lure in elections. They used Warren Harding as an example. Handsome, appealing, and likely the worst public servant ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 1:59 PM GMT
    This all goes to why the founding fathers used an electoral system and created a republic democracy vs a straight democracy: most people are too stupid to know what's good for them. The original example in this post clearly demonstrates that. The whole 'I wanna have a beer with him' rationale for electing Bush has been revealed as cultivated, well-marketed idiocy.

    Dammit Karl Rove was/is a genius. icon_mad.gif

    Will voters be more aware or informed in 2008. Who knows. Current events turn on the silliest things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2008 2:03 PM GMT
    Absolutely I agree that appearance has a lot to do today with who people vote for. Its a by-product of the video age we live in. Appearance wasn't a big factor back in Lincoln's day because they didn't have TV, 24hr news or the internet. People actually voted for the better candidate. Today its all about the sound bites and getting on the news, saying what they think people want to hear.
    The televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy is a perfect example. It wasn't the substance that was the major factor in the debate but how polished and attractive Kennedy looked compared to the ragged, tired looking Nixon who refused to wear stage make up.
    Should appearance matter? Of course not, but when all the candidates are as worthless as the current batch, what else are you going to use?