Three Years Ago. . .

. . . we first discovered Sarah Palin and were horrified. Today, we look at Michelle Bachmann, who is Palin times three, during the debates of the Republican nominees and she kind of doesn’t look that horrible against the other folks who share the stage with her.

And that isn’t a good development for the GOP. I have a naïve question to ask here. They’ve had three years to look for a presidential nominee. Was there really nobody better to be found anywhere?

I had the same question to ask when I first saw John Kerry, so I’m being fully non-partisan here.

This is a big country, and I can’t believe there isn’t at least a single presentable, likely-to-win Conservative politician. I wouldn’t support any Republican candidate, of course, but it’s kind of sad to see the collection of clowns the GOP came up with for these elections. (Come on, you have to agree with me that those debates were truly comical).

If Obama fails to win now, then the Democrats are beyond hopeless. I mean, even more hopeless we always knew they were.

8 thoughts on “Three Years Ago. . .”

  1. People usually deserve the politicians they get, Clarissa. Completely against reaso, knowledge or self-preservation, conservative USA — especially middle-class and poor conservative USA — *loved* Palin. And now they’ve graduated to loving Bachmann.

    Certainly, people can pontificate, and point to a deliberately dismantled public education system, carefully nurtured anti-intellectualism, barrage of misinformation by corporate-owned media et al as the reasons average Americans keep voting against their own interest, but the point is, most Americans appear to take greater comfort in letting media and bombastic politicians shape their reality than believing the evidence of their own daily experience.

    In a way, American political partisanship is more like fanatical religious devotion, on both sides of the divide. Politicians are not measured on their ability to understand national needs and govern equitably, but on a Weberian scale of charismatic authority.

    PS: I am naturally not saying this is the case with ALL Americans, because that kind of generalisation is utterly illogical. But it certainly appears to be a dominant pattern.

    Like

    1. Kerry was very uncharismatic. I felt that the only reason he was chosen was to outbid Bush at the militaristic game, and it is obvious nobody was going to buy that. Only a radically different candidate cold have won, not a mellower version of the one who was already in power. Incumbency is worth a lot and people dont abandon the person already in place unless you give them a very good alternative.

      Like

      1. I actually liked Kerry too. I picked him out of the crowd when there were still a dozen possibilities, and thought, “Okay, not very exciting, not a guy to blow your socks off, but he knows Washington and he is smart, and I can get behind his policies…

        Bugs me that “charisma” is such a requirement for a president. I don’t care how awesome a speechmaker someone is, I want a president who can Get The Job Done. (I read that sentence and I go, yeah, okay, how ridiculously naive. Being Presidential is a huge part of the job.)

        Like

  2. “If you truly want to test a man’s(woman’s) character, give them power.”

    Everytime I see a politician that is truly different I realize one of two things will happen to them. They will either succumb to the allure of power or get assassinated because they are asking for too much change. Obama hasnt been shot yet so that tells you tons.

    Like

  3. Television has changed the political system. Candidates are judged by the mainstream media as “electable” or “not electable” based on “charisma”, “willingness to give good soundbite”, looks, and the television-viewing public doesn’t challenge the mainstream media’s lack of attention to issues, lack of serious analysis, tendency to cast politics as a horse race, and general treatment of political and election reporting as equivalent to gossip about reality shows or American Idol-style “talent contests”. The television-viewing public has come to expect to be entertained, and does not expect to have to think.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.