MUST Our President Like Beer and Hunting?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
April 23, 2008 11:16pm CST
If the person running for President of the United States doesn't like to drink beer and go hunting, does that make him or her an "elitist" or "out of touch"? If he or she says "No thank you" to a certain kind of food, even if the city he's in happens to be famous for it, does that automatically make him "condescending"?
This doesn't have to me, nor is it meant to be a partisan discussion. I hope it's one we can keep nice and friendly but this is something I've wondered about for quite some time, not just during the current election season. We want our elected officials, including our President, to be able to relate to us, the working class men and women of this country. We claim they those wanting their offices are "elitists", "out of touch", "condescending"; we seem to want the best of both worlds of our Presidential candidates in particular - we want them to have experience, we want them to be morally superior but at the same time we want them to be... US!
Think about it, for someone to even WANT to run for President with all the crap they have to go through let alone for them to have accomplished enough in their lives to be even remotely taken seriously as a legitimate candidate, wouldn't you think someone would have to be a rather exceptional person? I don't mean more worthy as human beings than the rest of us but don't you want your President to be a little bit smarter than the average person? Don't you think he or she should have some special abilities dealing with people and a real capacity for learning? Does it matter all that much that he or she isn't interested in the same sports we are or that he doesn't like the foods everyone loves where we live? Why does a candidate have to defend himself because he doesn't have a hunting license or because he can't bowl very well? Why should someone running for President have to prove she can be like "one of the boys" and drink a shot and a beer? Let's face it, even if we think a candidate is "talking down to us", what does that even matter? I've had bosses who talked and looked down on me but if he gave me a job and a paycheck and treated me with respect as long as I was able to make a living I really didn't care if he wanted to have a beer with me or not! On the other hand, if he tried to act like one of "us" only to stab us in the back, that was a different story.
I guess my point is we shouldn't be looking for a President we'd like to have a beer with a who would be fun at a barbecue. That isn't to say we can't have a President like that but it shouldn't be a requirement. If he or she doesn't hunt that doesn't mean he or she won't want YOU to. If he likes wine and you like beer or he likes Swiss cheese and you prefer Cheez-Whiz, what does that matter in the scheme of things? In a big country like ours we're not going to find someone just like all of us because we're not all alike , not by a long shot but we should want someone who will protect all of our rights to be who we are.
Annie
3 people like this
6 responses
@jormins (1223)
• United States
24 Apr 08
I do have to admit in the past I liked Bush more than Gore and Kerry just because of his manner of being more of a 'regular type of guy'. But in hindsight we probably should ask for much more when it comes to such an important position of power. Before Bush I never thought the President could affect so much because of our sustem of checks and balances. George W. Bush has taught me a great lesson which I will never forget. Based on new voter registration for the Dem's and their record number fo voters I think many have learned this lesson as well recently.
While it is funny to watch him dance or when he tells the Pope "awesome speech your holiness", in hindsight we should probably stick with the best person for the job, and vote on the issues, not the tabloids.
2 people like this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
24 Apr 08
Jormins,
Just to answer your response and not to get off topic too far, not EVERY problem we have in the US today can be blamed on GWB or the war in Iraq! Gas prices were on their way up at a phenominal rate even BEFORE we invaded Iraq! The major problem with the economy right now is self-inflicted with the subprime mortgage crisis NOT the war in Iraq or anything GWB did. I know you would like to hold him responsible for this but in reality, he just DOESN'T have that kind of power! Congress is controled by the democrats, WHY then if they believe it is so wrong to be in Iraq do they not pull the troops out? THEY in fact DO have that authority!! There is not a blanket fix just as there is not a blanket placement of blame!
@jormins (1223)
• United States
24 Apr 08
I don't know where you live but gas prices where I live are up about 200% since Bush took over. Yes Bush is not the cause of every problem in America. The Democratic Congress has much of the blame. But Bush is driving the car so to speak. We would not be in Iraq if not for George W Bush and you are extremely naive to think different. Congress can cut funding to the war but can't withdrawal the troops. That is left to the power of the Commander in Chief. How unpatriotic would Obama and the Democratic Congress be if he had cut funding to the war? I can see the attack commercials already.
2 people like this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
28 Apr 08
Actually Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 2006 press release declared that "the Democrats have a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." She has been in charge of of the majority in the house and they have had a majority in the senate and their "common sense plan" has only increased out gas prices.
Actually I don't believe that either the Democrats or the Republicans have had anything at all to do with the price of gas. the real problem is speculation. I wrote about it in length on another discussion so I wont bore you with it here.
We, as a nation, have to stop focusing on blame, and focus our energy on solutions. I am sick and tired of the blame game. If we worked half as hard on finding solutions as we do on blaming our opponents and covering our own political rear ends, we would be great beyond our dreams.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
25 Apr 08
You pose a lot of good points and this is one of those rare moments where I think we see eye to eye. Unfortunatley, most of America wants the president to be like them. I remember people liked Clinton because he smoked weed and screwed around. Men though he was cool and women saw him as a lady's man. It really worked out well for him. People laughed at Al Gore when he tried dressing like a lumberjack and grew a beard. I think Bush got a lot of the common man votes because he lived on a ranch and wore a leather jacket.
I remember once me and some friends were hanging out and this guy said "I like Bush, he stutters and says funny things without thinking sometimes. He's a lot like me." My buddy looked at the guy and said "Yeah, but I don't want you to be president."
2 people like this
@sarahruthbeth22 (43143)
• United States
27 Apr 08
For some the president has to like what they like or at least be likable. Bil Maher said they vote for the candidate that they would want to have BBQ with ." Talking down' to anyone is wrong , especially these days. I think "talking down" to the jury is the main reason O.J. found not guilty.Most people won't listen or respect anyone who talked down to them.I guess back before Kennedy, people assumed that the president Had to be smart and they didn't think he had to be just like them.As long as he could do the job And was protestant that was all that matters. But here came Kennedy. he was likable and yound enough to be just like John Q public . But he was Catholic and it Still didn't matter. I think that is when the tide turned. But then we had Johnson and even worse, Nixon. after Nixon , everyone had to bend over backwards to prove that they were just like everyone else.It is so sad because the smarter people don't even run.
1 person likes this
@skinnychick (6905)
• United States
26 Apr 08
None of it matters in the scheme of the Presidency. What should matter is what that person will do for us.
To date, noone has really done anything for us or this country except take it down.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
27 Apr 08
Amen! (OK, before anyone says anything about me saying "Amen" I think I can say that without violating the Separation of Church and State!)
I was just thinking, do you realize those who are voting for the first time this year at the age of 18 were only 10 or 11 years old when Bush took office? They were only toddlers when Clinton was inaugurated after defeating another Bush? They've never known a President who hasn't been a Clinton or a Bush. Their wanting "change" doesn't seem that strange when you think of it that way!
Annie
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
28 Apr 08
That's a great point Annie. There hasn't been a president WITHOUT the name Bush or Clinton in 20 years! I can't imagine what their perspective must be. What lessons is this teaching our young people I wonder?
1 person likes this
@skinnychick (6905)
• United States
29 Apr 08
It's probably teaching them that politics is all about who you know and not about the type of politician that you are or what you plan to do for this country.
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
24 Apr 08
Good question Annie,
I know that you would like to keep this discussion apolitical, and I would as well, but I think that the answer to your question is going to be different depending on the view of government the responder has. I am not going to talk about parties, but I would draw a distinction between liberals and conservatives. I will attempt to define liberal and conservative as best I can though I am sure that none of us will agree exactly. Conservatives believe in a smaller role for government, opportunity versus provision, hand up versus hand out, smaller federal roles versus larger state roles, lower taxes tiered over all income levels. Liberals tend to believe in a larger role for the federal government, provision for those in need, government assistance in many aspects of our lives, health care, child care, elder care etc., and controls over most aspects of business. This requires higher taxes with a larger share paid by the wealthiest. I know these are very broad generalizations, but they are close I think.
I think conservatives probably don't care about what the candidate drinks or does in their free time. In many ways, they view the president as a hired manager, hired to run the country in a conservative way. While liberals, by the very nature of what I described above, would like to have someone that they can relate to. Someone who understands where they are in life so that he/she can empathize and provide for their needs.
If we look at the two liberal candidates now facing off in the Democratic primary you will see what I mean. If you looked at a chart of their platforms, they are virtually identical. www.afa.net/pdfs/08vg.pdf (the Republicans are not far off from each other but they are not identical like the Democrats are.) The point is that this whole primary process is about personality and salesmanship. Or at its worst, its about whoever doesn't make the biggest mistake. But this ties into your question about the importance for some to make a more personal connection to a candidate and then president. If you are more inclined to expect the government to provide for you, then you would want someone who more closely identifies with you.
I think this whole process needs to be restructured but that is another discussion! lol
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
30 Apr 08
LOL! You're too funny. I have to admit that I liked Biden as well. We don't agree on much politically, but I thought he was a pretty solid guy. I trusted him and thought that he was indeed focused on issues. I would rather see him on the ballot now than either of the current democratic candidates. Maybe I am just aggravated with both of them now because I am burned out on this whole primary process. Let's be done already!!!
Do you know how this primary compares to others in the past? I can't find any info on when in the process do we typically have the nomination resolved.
