That the name gave W a running start there absolutely no doubt, just like the kids of famous stars have a leg up getting in the motion picture business. But that is were it stops cold. The Republicans desparately needed a true contender for this years election after being out of the oval office for 8 years. The name allowed him to be given the chance to be judged by the party leaders, but it was his past record of performance in Texas, moderately conservative (i.e. centerist) stance, and charismatic demeanor that allowed him to build the collition that led to the nomination. The country today is primarily “middle of the road” whiether Democrat or Republican. That’s why you won’t see the likes of either a Buchannan or Ted Kennedy as the nominee for either party. Also the counrty seems to have shined away from the idea of the revered elder (i.e.wise) statesman in favor of the good ole boy who is enough like ourselves to be our next door neighbor as long as he does “his job.” In that regard, Bush is a boomer and although I am NOT a judge of male looks (I never saw what the ladies did in Clinton, LOL), there are no determental “flaws” I can see in his appearance. On one last note, I have relatives who live in Texas (democrats by the way) who have told me that what we saw at the convention in regards to minority inclusion was not lip service in any degree. What you see is EXACTLY what you get. They are waiting to see how the Gore ticket shapes up at the convention next week before they decide, but they are leaning heavily in favor of W at this time.
PunditLisa
I thought the two posters that I named anwered the first question as well. See also the previous post by Phil_15.
I don’t think anyone votes for a candidate thinking that they are doing so because that candidate is good looking. But people’s appearences can color other people’s perceptions of them. So it is not inconcievable that political pundits can rate someone a better candidate because of the perception that he is good looking. (This was commonly brought up with regard to NY senate candidate Rick Lazio). But whether the voters are voting for the guy in part because of his looks, is hard to figure out.
It would be incredible if someone could vote for a candidate because his father was George Bush Sr. That guy had a hard enough time getting people to vote for him. I think that name recognition helps early on, as noted by Phil_15, but after that you’re on your own. Also, in the case of leaders who have strongly dedicated followers, a family member can automaticaly count on a core of support. This bodes well for Jesse Jackson Jr. (the congressman). Also, in the case of the Kennedys, they have come to stand for something larger than any one particular family member. But George Bush? I don’t think so.
I just find it amusing that anti-Bush people seem to hold to the idea that “he hasn’t done any good.”
The last post by Phil_15 relayed the comment that regarding George W., “what you see is what you get”.
Here in Florida, his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, has implemented a controversial plan that eliminated minority set asides in state contracting. The plan was hailed by the general population, as well as conservative black columnists, but loudly decried by the left, especially the liberal black left. (Surprisingly, the press leaned in opposition but was certainly more tolerant than I would have expected.)
Late in the first year of this program, dollars spent with minority contractors by the state of Florida is UP approximately 80%.
Wouldn’t it be something if the Bush brothers lead the way for greater support of the Republican party by blacks and other minorities?
[quote]
The plan was hailed by…conservative black columnists[/quote}
All one of them?