Right. Well, Ike had a very warm smile, and besides, he was a war hero. But Johnson & Nixon, whatever their individual good & bad points, absolutely were indeed uggggly. Especially LBJ. The best thing anyone could say about his looks was that he looked like a beagle.
IMHO, I think some men believe that women just vote for good-looking men because they themselves would only vote for a woman if she were physically attractive.
I didn’t make the statement that the media was as liberal as Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf. It’s up to DKW to pove his statement. And by posting the way you did was very one sided. But then it doesn’t sound like you would be interested in proof anyway. IMHO it sounds like all you want is to try to pick on conservatives.
While I agree that the assertion is probably unsupportable, I have to point out that Harding was considered to be a very handsome man. Perhaps tastes have changed, but he was considered to be a real dreamboat, for some reason.
Oh, were you maybe talking about JFK or LBJ as well? Have you ever heard them speaking?
Johnson talked with a heavy Texas drawl. And as for JFK, he was on the verge of attacking Cuba but couldn’t even pronounce it.
Did this make them any less intelligent or ineffective as a president?
I have a question for all those that complain about the way GWB pronounces things. Do you or would you say the same thing when Jesse Jackson speaks? He mispronounces many words yes I don’t think I have ever heard anyone refer to him as iggnorant or dumb because of it. Could it be because he’s black and to say anything negative about a minority is a liberal no-no?
There have been studies showing that, all thing being equal, taller men are more succesful than shorter men, to a point. Seems like 6’2" is optimal. Above that, the trend reverses. Bush is “short” relative to recent presidents, but is taller than average when compared to the general population.
You’re kidding in the 2nd paragraph there where I have bolded your post, right???
There’s a difference between having an accent and stumbling over your words. Unfortantely, Bush is afflicted with both.
The one excpetion I would say is the speech he gave about 1 month after 9/11/2001. I thought it was a great speach, extremely well delivered. Usually, though, he scores pretty low grades on public speaking.
Great response to my OP–thanks!
A few musings:
Some of you really do want to talk about substantive issues, and I sympathize, but do remember that my particular OP is basically whether persons like me (who sometimes just can’t get over their personal gut reactions to “presentation”) are being bad citizens, unpatriots, part of the problem not the solution, etc.
One counterargument is to note that nearly everything that happens in the executive branch has almost nothing to do with who happens to be President, but rather with the total effect of bringing in (say) a team focusing more on conservative-Republican constituency groups than liberal-Democrat CGs. The job left to the Prez, which nobody else can do (so goes the argument) is to “look good,” “be dignified but caring,” “show insight into what’s going on,” “act presidential,” and in general serve as “the good American writ large.” This is why I, definitely more liberal than conservative, can say some nice things about Reagan. Didn’t like his constituents and the things they wanted, but the man fulfilled the public role of US President very well indeed. In that sense, GWB falls flat.
Do we have to have “handsome” candidates? Not really. None of our recent party nominees has been “soap opera star” handsome (including JFK). In fact, in the whole history of the presidency, we’ve elected one babe (Franklin Pierce, best forgotten) and one ugly-as-an-old-hounddog (LBJ)–unless you count obesity and its opposite as “ugly.” Just about everybody falls someplace in the looks-like-somebody’s-husband category.
No, my thing about “looks” isn’t so much a matter of conventional prettiness as “does this guy look trustworthy, or nice, or intelligent, or decent, or imaginative, or insightful, or all of the above–but not none.” GWB comes closest to “nice,” I’ll concede.
I myself am cursed with beady eyes.
Now here’s some oddities:
I agree that the conservative movement has some “beefs” with Bush. They never liked the Bush family, which as a whole is more New England blueblood than good ol’ Southern-fried. So does this mean he “stands up” to them? Not on the stuff that really matters to a non-them.
His speech-making. In some respects, he’s better at delivering a written speech than Clinton. He has better writers, and he can be fairly smooth in the mechanics of delivery, whereas Bill had lousy writers and projected real discomfort at being restrained by the written word. Bill’s advantage, and George’s failing, is in making extemporaneous remarks. WJC sounded like he cared, and like he really was thinking about the subject EVEN WHILE HE WAS TALKING. GWB sounds like he just wants to get away from the lights, and hasn’t thought about the subject for a minute in his entire adult life (so as not to get in the way of his rote memorization of a few stock phrases).
Bush wasn’t always viewed as being a few episodes short of a miniseries. As Texas governor he was viewed as being smart, moderate, and refreshingly flexible (especially by non-Texans).
One shouldn’t assume that people who are allergic to Bush also despise his cabinet appointees. I would describe Rumsfeld as a pretty smart “stand-up kinda guy.” As for Cheney: I remember the vice-prez debate in which he said we ought to be addressing ways to recognize same-sex relationships. The Rel Right went postal over that, but he said it, said it forthrightly, and I have to respect him for being willing to do so–it’s just the sort of thing Bush doesn’t do.
As for not being short, it depends upon your frame of comparison. We usually elect the taller candidate. I believe Clinton was well over 6’1" even WITH his pants on.
And some guys just LOOK short…the curse of narrow shoulders.
You know, I know this is all conjecture and opinion, but for what it’s worth, I’m glad GW is in residence. I feel about Gore the same way many of you feel about W, so it was a relief to me on Sept. 12th to have them both where they were. That having been said, I’m satisfied with the idea that Dubya isn’t comfortable starring in the media dog and pony show, equally as UNsatisfied, was I at Clintons comfort in front of the camera. Yeah, Clinton SEEMED like he cared, but believe me, I KNOW he didn’t. The cite comes from my own ears. Now I don’t believe that W cares any more or less, but I’d like to believe that he’s nervous in front of cameras, and steady as a stone when dealing face to face with people, I honestly don’t give a tinkers damn if he shows well, he’s proven his capability to my very own satisfaction, and oddly enough, has confounded his opposition with that same capability.
As far as him being stupid…well…Will the first person with degrees from both Harvard AND Yale, AND tenure as a State governor please stand up?
I thought as much.
—What Would Scooby Doo?
I wasn’t talking about pronunciation. I was talking about not understanding how English works. Saying things like “if we try to do gooder” and stuff like that.
Great. A graduate in the White Studies Program. Whoop-de-fuck-a-doo.
There are strategies that mediocre people, people bright enough, perhaps, but not all that sharp. Some overcome the deficit with sheer hard work. Not being clever, they compensate by refusing to be ignorant.
Another type learns to sneer at cleverness, all that “pedantry”. They pride themselves on instinct, on “knowing in my gut whats right”. In essence, they make thier judgements by intuition, but would never apply so effete a word. And they will cling to these judgements against all reason. You cannot argue a man out of a position he didn’t think his way to.
I suspect Fearless Misleader is of this type.
Amen. Too bad so many Americans vote on who they’d rather have over for dinner. Which means that they tend to vote for people they do not agree with on issues.
It’s ugly and depressing.
One theory is the GWB has mild dyslexia. As many know, this has zero correlation with intelligence or anything else.
I specifically said I wasn’t taking sides, and since I know next to nothing about the political stance of American media I have no opinion of my own. What I am interested in is what kind of proof you expect DKW to show. How can you prove that the media is or isn’t right or left? DKW didn’t say he had proof; to me it sounded like opinion. By demanding proof, you imply that there is proof. I’d like to see it.
No, you haven’t made any claims. However, showing that the media is liberal (whatever that means) is a much more persuasive argument than saying “So the media is conservative? Show me!”.
There have been some recent studies indicating a distinct turn to the right by American media. They’ve been cited on the Straight Dope in other threads. Maybe a search … ?