This tidy, endearing phrase has been used in recent years to justify the high political aspirations of dim bulbs such as George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, among others from both sides of the aisle, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

Why do you want someone you feel is "one of us" to represent you? Especially for the highest office in the land? Shouldn't we demand a bit more?

 

I don't know about you, but the idea of a long-haired, bigoted, beer-drinking, NASCAR-loving, porn-viewing, tattooed, quick-tempered, Bible-tossing, reality-TV-watching, American Idol-addicted, coke-sniffing, pill-popping, overweight, underpaid, debt-ridden clown who cheats on his/her significant other regularly while rocking out to AC/DC in the Oval Office is just flat-out frightening. I use those pejorative terms because they cast an umbrella that covers about 95 percent of the US population (if not more).

 

Bottom line: Most Americans are screw-ups, and hopelessly unfit for governance. Why, pray tell, do you want someone like you calling the shots in the Oval Office, with their unsteady, reactionary hand on the big red button?

:popcorn:

Palin, maybe, but Bush is smarter than anyone on this board.....

Palin, maybe, but Bush is smarter than anyone on this board.....

 

Not likely.

And I never did understand the fascination with having a "Joe sixpack" at the helm of the ship.

Palin, maybe, but Bush is smarter than anyone on this board.....

 

You just won't allow yourself to admit he's a moron. I'll take my chances against him any day of the week, even after an four-day drunk.

 

But this thread isn't about him specifically. It's about generally disturbing behavior on the part of the American electorate. A willingness to settle for less, because it makes us feel good.

Politicians use the phrase because that is how people vote. People vote that way because the familiar, even when bad, is less scary than the unfamiliar.

 

Your error Jim is in searching for rational behavior in irrational beings.

You just won't allow yourself to admit he's a moron. I'll take my chances against him any day of the week, even after an four-day drunk.

Just to clarify: Him, or you?

 

 

No, in all honesty, despite your distaste for his policies and decisions, he is definitely not a fool. He would out "smart" many of us on this board.

This tidy, endearing phrase has been used in recent years to justify the high political aspirations of dim bulbs such as George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, among others from both sides of the aisle, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

Why do you want someone you feel is "one of us" to represent you? Especially for the highest office in the land? Shouldn't we demand a bit more?

 

I don't know about you, but the idea of a long-haired, bigoted, beer-drinking, NASCAR-loving, porn-viewing, tattooed, quick-tempered, Bible-tossing, reality-TV-watching, American Idol-addicted, coke-sniffing, pill-popping, overweight, underpaid, debt-ridden clown who cheats on his/her significant other regularly while rocking out to AC/DC in the Oval Office is just flat-out frightening. I use those pejorative terms because they cast an umbrella that covers about 95 percent of the US population (if not more).

 

Bottom line: Most Americans are screw-ups, and hopelessly unfit for governance. Why, pray tell, do you want someone like you calling the shots in the Oval Office, with their unsteady, reactionary hand on the big red button?

 

I think there are good reasons some may earnestly desire this as well. We do have a culture of self-governance through representation. There exists the perception that there may be a danger in having one class of citizenry make decisions that benefit themselves exclusively and/or ignore the plights of others outside of that group. That perception could be founded or not. This may explain why it's employed by politicians who are hopelessly unlike us and taken up by their supporters and surrogates. A lot of people play a part in their own duping.

 

I agree with the sentiment of the post, though. I certainly see no reason to desire incompetence in elected positions. I especially loathe many aspects of the reactionary populism that breeds this as well.

I think there are good reasons some may earnestly desire this as well. We do have a culture of self-governance through representation. There exists the perception that there may be a danger in having one class of citizenry make decisions that benefit themselves exclusively and/or ignore the plights of others outside of that group. That perception could be founded or not. This may explain why it's employed by politicians who are hopelessly unlike us and taken up by their supporters and surrogates. A lot of people play a part in their own duping.

 

I agree with the sentiment of the post, though. I certainly see no reason to desire incompetence in elected positions. I especially loathe many aspects of the reactionary populism that breeds this as well.

 

I think it has less to do with what you say and more to do with our country's alarming instinct toward anti-intellectualism.

Just to clarify: Him, or you?

 

 

No, in all honesty, despite your distaste for his policies and decisions, he is definitely not a fool. He would out "smart" many of us on this board.

 

I've been trying hard to find evidence to support what you say, but I keep coming back to the fact that he's a dolt, propped up by supporters of his daddy. GWB is the absolute worst-case example of nepotism gone awry.

I think it is simply people want leaders who understand the struggles they are going through and have similar values instead of not understanding the daily struggles that people are going through cause they have never been there.

This tidy, endearing phrase has been used in recent years to justify the high political aspirations of dim bulbs such as George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, among others from both sides of the aisle, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

Why do you want someone you feel is "one of us" to represent you? Especially for the highest office in the land? Shouldn't we demand a bit more?

 

I don't know about you, but the idea of a long-haired, bigoted, beer-drinking, NASCAR-loving, porn-viewing, tattooed, quick-tempered, Bible-tossing, reality-TV-watching, American Idol-addicted, coke-sniffing, pill-popping, overweight, underpaid, debt-ridden clown who cheats on his/her significant other regularly while rocking out to AC/DC in the Oval Office is just flat-out frightening. I use those pejorative terms because they cast an umbrella that covers about 95 percent of the US population (if not more).

 

Bottom line: Most Americans are screw-ups, and hopelessly unfit for governance. Why, pray tell, do you want someone like you calling the shots in the Oval Office, with their unsteady, reactionary hand on the big red button?

 

:rolleyes:

Just to clarify: Him, or you?

 

 

No, in all honesty, despite your distaste for his policies and decisions, he is definitely not a fool. He would out "smart" many of us on this board.

 

I agree and with the exception of a very few, it wouldn't even be close.

This tidy, endearing phrase has been used in recent years to justify the high political aspirations of dim bulbs such as George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, among others from both sides of the aisle, and it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

Why do you want someone you feel is "one of us" to represent you? Especially for the highest office in the land? Shouldn't we demand a bit more?

 

I don't know about you, but the idea of a long-haired, bigoted, beer-drinking, NASCAR-loving, porn-viewing, tattooed, quick-tempered, Bible-tossing, reality-TV-watching, American Idol-addicted, coke-sniffing, pill-popping, overweight, underpaid, debt-ridden clown who cheats on his/her significant other regularly while rocking out to AC/DC in the Oval Office is just flat-out frightening. I use those pejorative terms because they cast an umbrella that covers about 95 percent of the US population (if not more).

 

Bottom line: Most Americans are screw-ups, and hopelessly unfit for governance. Why, pray tell, do you want someone like you calling the shots in the Oval Office, with their unsteady, reactionary hand on the big red button?

 

 

Any reason you picked these two?