C'mon, really: How can you insult Indiana voters by being an elitist when these same voters consistently vote 60-40 in favor of Republicans?
Seeing as most of the voters themselves aren't wealthy, and that the GOP regularly acts against their already stunted economic interests, there must be another factor at play so that the chickens will continue voting for Colonel Sanders in spite of all available evidence to the contrary.
Certainly one of the most dully repetitive aspects of the American dumbocracy is the requirement that every four years, candidates for the presidency must go to any length to convince large swaths of the voting public that the candidates are no more intelligent than ordinary people on the street.
In short, that they're just as stupid as voters who observe money and opportunity pouring from their pockets and react by proclaiming that God doesn't want gays to marry. Phenomenons such as that are as grassroots as ragweed, and about as meaningful.
Why the enduring spectacle? Does anyone reading really believe that most of the ordinary people that one encounters every day (myself included) have any business running a country of 300 million people? Or does the very fact that you can read this essay disqualify you from the discussion?
With surreal results, Hillary Clinton has been slugging back shots of redeye and talking about the joy of shooting varmints. Barack Obama went bowling and says he'll think about each and every one of us every day while in office. John McCain charms us with roguish folksiness, but has a wife who earns millions from a disgusting swill dealership and won't let us see the tax returns to prove it.
Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that you shouldn't be commander-in-chief if you're not bright, and if you're bright, you should act bright and not act dumb.
Furthermore, if the pilot of a jet airliner welcomed me aboard by insisting that he's just as ignorant, superstitious and untalented as the people streaming through the gates, I'm turning back to visit the car rental arcade. I know I can't fly the plane, and have no aptitude whatsoever for the skills required to do so; consequently, what I need the pilot to do for me is demonstrate that he can, and does. Don't pander to me by insisting that anyone can man the controls, because I know that's not true. Does that make me an elitist?
If eight years of the village idiot enthroned in the Oval Office doesn't make you seek an above-average skill set to earn the job, then I'm not sure anything can. George W. Bush, the worst president in American history, managed somehow to dumb himself down even lower than the electorate … and the catastrophic results speak for themselves.
I support Barack Obama, but I've nothing against Hillary Clinton, and although John McCain is a Republican and thus ineligible for my vote, he's a war hero and an intelligent man. All three are bright. Can someone tell me what's to be gained from making them dig ditches and quote wretched sit-com dialogue before declaring them worthy?
First and foremost, I don't think that I want someone just like me being in the White House. I know myself too well!!!
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I'm growing increasingly concerned about the word 'elitist' that keeps popping up. The word seems to have such a subjective meaning. What frightens me is that it seems to be cropping up and used in reference to people who are educated and have complex opinions on complex subjects.
ok , food for thought. Who has the better chance to win Reagan Democrats in November, Obama or Clinton? Remember this Democratic battle is also about who can win in November.
ReplyDeleteDo the electoral math and I believe the answer becomes apparent. Obama can not and will not carry the states that make the electoral difference, states where Reagan Democrats matter.
Interesting observations Roger. It makes me think about the two America's,; not the have's and have-not's of old, but the educated and uneducated.
ReplyDeleteI also hear the term "working man" bandied about these days and it's like what it the implication - that everyone else besides the blue-collar laborer is not working? That being educated and using that education for earning a living is somehow not as "honest" as what the "working-man" does? I cringe every time I hear it.
We need another complex intelligent human being as president, can we bring back Lincoln? Nay, Lincoln would be chewed up by our "dumbocracy" I suspect.
The worst president in history? You will never vote Republican? I assume then that you voted for Jimma Carta, the real worst president in the history of this country. Obama is the candidate, McCain will win the election and Hillary will run in 2012.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteI would argue that ineffective and worst are two entirely separate things. Whatever.
In your opinion, why do you view President Carter as the worst President?
...or, when Obama gets the nomination, the millions of new registered democrats and independents that came out for the first time to support Obama will vote in November to ensure that we don't get another 4 years of Bush.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't realized that we had a President Carta. I can't possibly imagine any modern day President coming remotely close to the incompetence of the current occupant of the White House. The long term consequences we face right now are, frankly, grim.
ReplyDeleteI think that his only peers might be James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding.
Mr. Typo, I mean Manzo, I was clearly using humor to portray Mr. Carter's Georgia twang. No other president has had a misery index associated with them, or interest rates so high. His complete lack of experience or understanding of what it meant to be a leader on that level brings to mind a junior senator from Illinois.
ReplyDeleteCarter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago by Thomas Hartmann
ReplyDeleteDaniel, seriously, have you ever studied history? You're so far off that it's hard to believe that you're not making a parody of something. I don't think Jimmy Carter was a good President at all, but there were certain far, far worse. Things were rotten when he got in office and things were rotten when he left office. But worst? You really do need to study some American history. And I'm deadly serious.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am a student, and always willing to learn. Let's add up the failure that was President Carter. He has visited Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea and the quasi-government of Hamas among others. His brother dealt with foriegn countries that held extreme positions like Libya (also see Bill Clinton). He and his budget director had some personal financial dealings that were considered shady. He failed to get the hostages out of Iran. He failed in the reduction of nuclear arms with Russia and they swept into Afghanistan. He then imposed a trade embargo that hurt American farmers and boycotted the Olympics, oooh! He frightened Americans in the late 1970's while they were waiting in line for gas by saying we would be out of oil in ten years. He created the highly inneffective Department of Education and Department of Energy. He started the "full diplomatic relations" with China. He loves communist countries. He did not support the B-1 bomber project and was weak ondefense. Americans were held hostage for over a year in Tehran and Carter could not even free them with force. He had to promise to unfreeze Iranian assets in the U.S. The main reason the hostages were freed was the promise of Reagan to bring them home. They were released the day after Reagan was innaugurated. When Carter left office, the unemployment rate was 7.7%, and the interest rate was over 12%. Of course, Reagan won in a monumental landslide in 1980. Americans breathed a sigh of relief as Reagan promised to "bring America back." That he did, and the 1980's were very prosperous. Was Carter the WORST? We can argue that he was along with a couple others. G.W. Bush, however, does not fit into the same category as the man form Georgia who claimed he witnessed a UFO and actually filed a sighting report with the government.
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose it all goes to show that you can lead a horse to water, but as the animal is waiting for the existence of the liquid to be "proven" by faith alone, it will die of thirst.
ReplyDeleteI've come to realize that I'm an elitist.
ReplyDeleteI had forgotten that American history only goes back to the 1970's.
I had forgotten that American history is about demonstrating the greatness of Ronald Reagan above all else.
I had forgotten that one only uses ideology as a lens for facts and doesn't use facts as a lens for ideas.
Shame on me.
OK, I'm willing to devote a minute to rebutting the blurry-visioned historian, but just a minute.
ReplyDeleteThe American hostages in Tehran were released precisely while Ronald Reagan was being sworn in; it was done as a symbolic middle finger from the mullahs to President Carter. Not the next day, as Mr. Short would have us believe.
Facts are such a bother, huh?
I'm told the hostages were released during the inaugural speech, not the swearing-in ceremony...but I do remember watching split-screen of the hostages BEING released while Reagan was speaking.
ReplyDelete...and I'm sure being invaded by Iraq had nothing to do with any Iranian decision making at the the time.
ReplyDeleteUnder Reagan, we armed Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia while simultaneously making ourselves more dependent on foreign oil by abdicating the conservation efforts put in place by Carter.
It's all working out so well.
Released day of, made it to U.S. base day after, OK you win. We could have let Russia take over the Middle East and control the gulf where 65% of the world's is exported from daily, or we can do what Reagan did and end the cold war. Decisions are not always cut and dry and sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two evils - kind of like me choosing between McCain and Hillary!
ReplyDelete"world's OIL is exported daily" - sorry, typing too fast. Forgive me Mr. Manzo.
ReplyDeleteCarter may have "normalized" relations with China but do you remember who actually opened the door?(hint--"I am not a crook"). I think that they(Carter and Tricky) were both correct. You cannot ignore another country just because you don't like their political system. Did someone mention Cuba?
ReplyDeleteCarter opposed the B-1 and that makes him weak on defense? He is ex-Navy(yeah, he actually served unlike...) Now, I don't know if that particular bomber was necessary or not, but opposing a Pentagon(or any other department)spending plan, on it's face, does not make one weak on defense.
Two helicopters collide at night on a rescue mission and it is Carter's fault? Gimme a break.