A local radio host’s topic today was: Why did the Republican cronies back W. from the start? Was it because they thought an ugly candidate couldn’t compete against Al Gore? (They thought W. was much better looking than McCain. I’m not so sure.) Anyway, they claimed Clinton won in large part because chicks dig him.
But what do you think? In this day of television, have Americans, esp. women, become too pre-occupied with looks?
I think if your theory were true, Steve Forbes or Gary Bauer would’ve gotten the nomination. 
**TampaFlyer **:
Oh, c’mon! I’m not going to vote for Shrub no matter what, but he’s much better looking than either Forbes or Bauer. Come to think of it, he’s probably the most attractive (IMHO) candidate that they’ve fielded.
Waste
Flick Lives!
More likely because they saw that he was drawing voters from all across the board in Texas. He managed to unseat a Democratic (and not unpopular) incumbent, get the Democratic Lieutenant Governor and legistlature to work with him, and attract a large percentage of Hispanic voters. In addition, Congress was getting killed, P.R.-wise during the impeachment, so it was pretty clear that Congressional Republicans were unlikely to be successful in a run for the Presidency.
For a party that clearly needs to be able to reach into “enemy territory” with their message, these are all huge pluses.
No doubt looking good doesn’t hurt, but there are definitely better-looking Republicans out there.
It also doesn’t hurt that his dad was a Republican president.
Women think George is good looking? I’ve clearly been hanging out in the wrong bars.
Does anyone think he would have a chance in hell if his father wasn’t a Bush. Hell no. Maybe, maybe, after a couple terms. But not now. Also his good looks add to the picture.
In my opinion Bauer looks like death warmed over, refrozen, then wacked against a dumpster a few too many times.
I like George W. Bush, and I’ll be glad to vote for him. That said, would a guy with the same background and experience named George Johnson be a strong contender for the GOP nomination? Probably not. There’s no question that his name counts for a lot.
Now, Bush’s looks and his name are important, but they’re not everything. His good fortune was to arrive on the scene at a time when the Republicans were getting desperate. They had just lost their second straight Presidential election, and were just DYING to find someone who could WIN!
Along comes a guy with a famous name (other candidates would have to spend tens of millions of dollars to achieve similar name recognition)… a wholesome image… personal charm… political success in a large state… warmth and charm… a conservative record combined with a moderate image… a surprisingly strong showing among ethnic groups that NEVER voted Republican before…
You can see why a lot of Republicans saw George as an ideal candidate. More than anything else, he had the LOOK of a guy who could win. Whether he actually has what it takes to BECOME President (let alone do the job well) remains to be seen.
I agree with everything astorian says above…except, uh, the “liking George W. Bush” part.
And it’s because I agree with what he says, and recognize the baldfaced machinations of the Republican Party, that Junior makes me retch.
Wait, as a female, I’m astonished people thing W is good looking!
He’s frightening! He’s got beedy black little eyes. He’s got a dull face. He LOOKS slow. He doesn’t have a nice smile. He’s got bad hair. He might be kinda cute in a weird way, but he’s NOT good looking.
Of course, that’s my HO.
Pepper, women supposedly thought that Clinton was good-looking, too.
I think the biggest factors are the name, and his success in Texas. The only way his appearance comes into play is the fact that he’s not downright ugly. And he doesn’t endorse Viagra.
I never thought that Clinton was particularly good looking. He wasn’t a dog like, say, Dukakis, but he never floated my boat. I didn’t vote for him, so clearly looks didn’t influence my vote.
Of course, I always wish that the GOP would endorse someone who has a freakin’ pulse. Dole just didn’t elicit enthusiasm of any kind from any group of people, including women.
IIRC, I read that all the modern (read: post t.v.) era have been over 6 feet tall, so our perception of who is qualified is skewed by appearance to some degree. (I guess this rules Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise, and George Stephanapolis out for future President…)
Others have argued that someone like Lincoln wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any sort of general election these days. Of course, I see pictures of Richard Nixon and I think that he blows that theory to hell. If people are ready for a change (e.g. in 1980, after years of double digits inflation under Carter), they’ll vote for the opposing party no matter WHO’s running, IMO.
After seeing GWB depicted as Alfred E. Neuman in “this Modern World” (you can read it at salon.com) I can’t help but snicker every time I see his picture.
–tygre, who really ought to register to vote so she can bitch for the next four years “but I didn’t vote for him!”
pepperlandgirl, I don’t think the impact of good looks is limited to females. If males think a candidate is good looking, they too will be more inclined to like him.
I second the posts of cmkeller and astorian that Bush got the nod because the Republicans were desperate for a winner.
One further point: In the last 5 elections, the candidate with the more likeable personality (IMHO) has won the general election. This bodes well for Bush.
Dubya is “good” looking?!
Ukelele Ike said:
“And it’s because I agree with what he says, and recognize the baldfaced machinations of the Republican Party, that Junior makes me retch.”
Why do people refer to George W. Bush as Junior? He is not a junior. His name is not the same as his Dad’s (similar yes, but not exact). However, Al Gore is a junior. Why doesn’t anyone refer to him as Junior? Weird…
I’m with pepper on this one. Dubya has the advantage over many Republican pols in that he looks boyish rather than legally dead, but not boyish like a nice boy – more like some little brat who would torment your pets.
astorian - kuddos!!! 100% in agreement! Although W hasn’t had the ton of experience in government, I do firmly believe that his actions in Texas (tax reduction, bipartisonism, and ability to “get things done” bodes well for the GOP ticket in this election…at least much better than Drole anyway, lol!
Yes, but what exactly did he do or say that made him a “winner” in their eyes? And did looks play a part?
There it is, this year’s “it’s the economy, stupid:”
Would you vote for him if his name wasn’t Bush?