HOME | FUNNY ARTICLES | TOP NEWS REPORTS | SUBMIT
|
Jan. 22, 2010 Conservative pundits and panicky democrats are making too much of the off year senatorial election in Massacusetts. Conservatives claim the right wing republican upset the liberal democrat, Martha Coakley, due to tea party activism and wide-spread discontent over the health care reform bill in Congress. Democrats are running around like a nest of baby mice invaded by a big tom cat, as if their fundamental principles are so unpopular that they're doomed politically. Both conservatives and liberals overrate the average intelligence of the American voter. I know this is cynical, and that there are many people who do vote based on political ideology, but perhaps at least half (admittedly this is guesswork) of voters make their decision based on looks and personality. Scott Brown is a handsome man, who looks like a Kennedy, and he ran a clever political advertisement comparing himself with J.F. Kennedy. The people of Massachusetts have a Kennedy fetish, and Brown prostituted himself as a Kennedy impersonator. That's by far the biggest factor explaining why he won this election. CNN interviewed people who voted for Scott Brown and also voted for Barrack Obama last year. Their explanations of why they voted showed a complete lack of consistency that is bound to frustrate conservatives and liberals alike. How can a person vote for President Obama one year, then turn around and vote for his exact opposite on the political spectrum the next? These voter's political opinions couldn't possibly have changed so completely in one year. Polls show that in Massachusetts, President Obama still scores very high in job approval ratings, and this state is one of the few where they still favor the health care plan being put forth in Congress. Yet, they voted for a Senator who is going to be a big roadblock to President Obama's agenda. The answer can only be that Massachusetts must satisfy its Kennedy, the handsome king, fetish. This isn't just a weakness in Massachusetts--the entire country will vote in favor of a handsome candidate over an ugly one. Let's look at recent presidential races. Obama was better looking than McCain. George W. Bush was better looking than Kerry. G.W. Bush and Al Gore looked about the same and that race was pretty much a tie. Bill Clinton's youthful looks beat Bush senior's looks. Bush sr. was better looking and taller than the goofy looking Dukakis. Reagan was better looking than Carter and Mondale. Carter was better looking than Ford. Nixon and McGovern were about the same, but Nixon was the incumbent and the economy was good. Nixon was better looking than Humphrey, though neither was particularly good looking. Johnson was the last ugly president to win, but Goldwater's saber rattling scared the daylights out of everybody. J.F. Kennedy was better looking than Nixon. In fact, even when it comes to Congressional races, not involving a long term incumbent, I can't think of a single ugly candidate beating out a good looking one, though I'm sure it has happened--there are a lot of prune faced congressmen and senators. (Can someone email me an example of a non-incumbent ugly candidate beating out a good looking one?) Meanwhile, democrats are in deep despair. One would think they were the minority party. To get their health care bill passed, all they have to do is end the silly, antiquated filibuster rule. But they won't consider it, because they're wimps. They're too afraid they'll lose in the next election. I don't understand this fear. So what if they lose...they can then just take a job making even more money as a lobbyist.
It's time for the democrats to find some guts.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
