Posted on 09/12/2011 6:38:51 AM PDT by Little Ray
While there was more than one reason why John McCain was a long shot to win the 2008 general election, a big one was something almost no one talked seriously about: appearance.
That is to say, when was the last time an old-looking, white-haired, half-bald man won the presidency?
If you think this piece will be satire or fluff, think again. It rather will be very serious commentary about a very silly -- but painfully real -- phenomenon.
When people do discuss looks' impact on presidential fortunes, they usually treat the matter as a joke; we may hear, for instance, how a candidate must have "great hair" to enjoy rarefied commander-in-chief air. But if professional pundits and politics wonks think it's beneath them to wax anything but comedic on this issue, the joke is on them. After all, this is the age of American Idol.
To answer my earlier question, the last time Americans elected a bald president was 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower defeated similarly hair follicle-deprived Adlai Stevenson. Not coincidentally, this was just prior to the full flowering of the television age.
...
Of course, it's tragic that people are so influenced by superficials, but it's nothing new. It's little different from when a man marries for looks or a woman for money. And the fact is that, unless and until we can get election turnouts down to five percent, having fatally un-presidential looks will doom even a stellar statesman's chances.
Don't like it? Talk to the people who think that rallying the idiot vote somehow makes our republic stronger.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Just a little side note, I suspect Palin and Perry know not to go up against a grizzley with a .30-.30
Who would give a 3030 to a grizzly? [/sarc]
Romney would be the perfect candidate if he was actually a conservative. He’s made for TV. He has an answer even to unprepared questions just as we saw during the last debate. He’s going to make it very tough for Perry. I just don’t know what they’ll do.
I wouldn’t take on a Grizzly with any thing less than a 20 mm Lahti from at least 200meters away.
I’m just sayin’.........
I wouldn’t take on a Grizzly with any thing less than a 20 mm Lahti from at least 200meters away.
I’m just sayin’.........
Romney supports the right to arm bears!
“...having fatally un-presidential looks will doom even a stellar statesman’s chances”
When the situation in America becomes SO dire, (and we’re close) people will begin listening to ‘idea candidates’ with no regard for appearances.
This is how poeple SHOULD evaluate candidates. But it’s too bad getting to this place will take global insolvency, warfare or worse.
“When the situation in America becomes SO dire, (and we’re close) people will begin listening to ‘idea candidates’ with no regard for appearances.”
or Hitler or Hugo Chavez. :/
I don’t think so.
In the age of TV and 24/7 coverage, shallow, ignorant, and stupid people WILL go by appearances more than actual content, no matter how dire our circumstances.
Right.
THOSE guys present cure-all ideas that promise a chicken in every pot, etc. and back them up with a truncheon.
Only selfish brutes buy THAT stuff. Thanks to the NEA, we’re getting there.
Right, that’s called pandering, demagoguery, etc.
With the educational system routinely turning out people who can’t think past their own noses, this stuff is appealing to them.
Conservatives have their work cut out for them.
I figure a .378 Weatherby Magnum would do the trick. But I like the 200 meters.
I’ve heard that some crazy people take them with .30-06 or 8mm Mauser.
yeah, a .30-06 is nothing more than a skeeter bite to a big male.
I would add to this article the idea that conservatives are in general just better looking than liberals. One only need look at the host of liberal women in comparison to conservative women.
Additionally, outward appearance is a reflection of the type of spirit one has many times. Look at the liberal dope smokers of the past just as one example. Long hair, unkempt attire.
Looking “put together” gives the impression of actually giving a damn about yourself and others around you. It’s why we don’t typically walk in to job interviews wearing Birkenstocks.
It’s true that candidates didn’t have to worry about appearance so much before the age of TV. The better case for that would be the televised debate between Nixon and JFK. Nixon won that debate, but Kennedy “looked” better. And the case against balding just doesn’t hold up in Eisenhower’s case- although he was thin on top, he had a commanding presence and inspired confidence; Stevenson was balding and “slouchy”, and weak (and he looked it). McCain didn’t inspire confidence. While he was weak looking and frail, I think he was refused because republicans and conservatives thought he was a liar, an unrepentant closet leftist, and weak.
How many thought Kerry and Gore were more “presidential” than Bush? It wasn’t enough.
As to the women in the race? I have said this before- and I’m surprised I haven’t been flamed for it- Americans will NOT elect a woman to that office. At least, not in the foreseeable future. I love Palin and Bachmann, but they will not-NOT- win. The pretty, smiling, good-ole’-gal-nextdoor just ISN’T the “Iron Lady”, and it isn’t “commanding”. We aren’t electing a bureaucrat in some European nation-state. We are electing the leader of the free world, and the voters are looking for someone who can go eye-to-eye with some of the most evil tyrants this world has ever seen.
Americans won’t elect a woman.
I’d prefer .308 in a 20-round mag-fed semi-auto.
Ugly, squeaky voiced, Abe Lincoln wouldn’t stand a chance in this day and age.
Also known as the "Norsupyssy".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.