E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Moore / Getty Images
It's no surprise that good looks give political candidates a boost -- but a new study suggests that's especially true among low-informed voters who watch more TV.
So who has the best shot at taking on President Obama in 2012? Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney? Not because of his stances on, say, job creation. Please. The guy looks like Jon Hamm's older brother. Just look at that meticulously manicured 'do.
Or what about Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann? The camera loves her almost as much as the Tea Party does. Those piercing blue eyes, that pearly, confident smile.
Hey, call it superficial. But a new study conducted by a pair of political scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that many low-information voters do, indeed, cast their ballots based on candidates’ looks -- especially the ones that watch a lot of television.
Gabriel Lenz and Chappell Lawson, associate professors of political science at MIT, wrote the new paper, which published in this month’s American Journal of Political Science. They based their research on a pair of voter studies conducted in 2006. One was the 2006 Cooperative Election Study (CCES), which surveyed 36,500 citizens on their voting choices, levels of knowledge and TV viewing habits. The other, conducted by Princeton University researcher Alex Todorov, asked participants which candidates in more than 64 U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races appeared more competent, based on appearance alone.
Among participants in the bottom quartile for knowledge in the CCES study, the duo discovered that a 10-point increase in a candidate’s appearance yielded a 0.8 percent increase in support among those who watch little or no television, a 2 percent increase among those with average TV viewing habits and a 4.8 percent increase in those who watch the most television.
But before next years’ candidates start calling for makeover and plastic surgery tips, note that the duo hasn’t pinpointed specifically what features make candidates look more appealing. But there appear to be cross-cultural archetypes.
Previously, Lenz and Lawson surveyed citizens in India, Mexico and the United States about candidates in other countries, and there seemed to be general consensus on who were most desirable.
“Somehow when people in India look at faces that there’s no chance they’ve ever seen before, in Brazilian deputy races, say, they can pick out the people who win reasonably accurately,” Lenz said. “But the truth is we don’t really know (why)." Lenz offers that past research has suggested that voters tend to go for a face that looks more "dominant."
Lenz expressed confidence that there is a causal link between TV imagery and voting patterns but also acknowledged other factors.
For example, the candidates who invest more into managing their images will presumably, fare better as a result. So how much do their actions contribute to data correlations versus the level of voter engagement?
“It’s an observational study, and because of that there is some worry that it’s making the wrong inference,” Lenz said. “So it’s possible that some alternative explanation like that could have given rise to our findings.”
In terms of the report's larger implications, Lenz explains, "We ask people in democracies to vote on all these sub-national races. They have very little information about them, and we don’t make information readily available to them. And so, just like they would with a new acquaintance, they tend to judge them on first impressions, largely based on appearance.”
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Come on you are talking in the article like this is something new.
I have ladies in my office who know zero about Obama, but voted, and will vote for him again because " He looks like them "
How many times have we been walking down the street see a " Shady " guy on the corner, and we reach for our billfold to make sure it is still there after we pass..
This has been going on for decades.
Would you have prefered Palin? His votes were not so much because of color, but we (this country) could have benefited if he had a chance. Besides, the movement to put him back in the cotton field is what will ultimate break us all.
That speaks well for the mentality of these people. I think Bachman, Palin and Romney are goofy looking. Palin and Bachman have a crazy look and Romney looks like a stuffed shirt.
I suppose there is a certain amount of truth to this article. Obama was technically more attractive than McCain, although IMO, he looks like a black "Howdy Doody".
If votes were based solely on looks, I'd say our next POTUS will be Rick Perry.
I voted for Hillary. It wasn't Bill, but I figured if one Clinton could turn our economy around after Reaganomics/Bush I, maybe another Clinton could do it again after Bush II. Too bad everyone else wanted a "change". Some change we got...
I'll go further than that. This has been going on since people elected someone to an office or post, even if that office or post was just their 'leader'.
How else can you explain Reagan, Palin and Bachmann?
It is widely believed that the televised Kennedy / Nixon debates were the fall of Nixon in 1960. Kennedy was young and charismatic, Nixon was an angry, stodgy and older.
Nothing new.
Stupid article. Another "DUH" award. Is it possible the more high profile candidates take better care of themselves (because they can afford to), indulge in elective/cosmetic superficial improvement and spend more discretionary $ on themselves? Attractiveness generally implies better health and higher intellect. Which we all know do not go hand in hand.
People voted for Bush because he looked like someone "I can have a beer with" at a backyard BBQ. And people (idiots) will vote for Rick Perry for the same reason: a PERCEIVED look of dominance, which people confuse with leadership. Just think back to your high school student president elections people!
By today's standards, two of our greatest presidents, Lincoln and Truman, never would have been elected.
Those who vote for candidates for their looks get what they deserve.
Agreed. This is not new info. People have been voting for pretty/image people regardless of their position on the issues for years now, thus many of our problems today. People thought GW Bush would be someone neat to have a beer with...look what happened to the country as a result. My own belief is that people should be required to pass a civics exam to be able to vote, but that probably would require too much thought for many. Just remember that the power in this country wants us to be dummed down. It's how all the agendas get passed, regardless of who is in power at the time. It is however, particularly egregious in the Republican/Tea Party agenda. The less we know, the more they have to gain. Sadly, we are no longer a democracy, and we haven't been for years. This is partially the cause of that develoment.
Both you and Jeremy missed the obvious point of this. Reread the article on the study. It's conclusion was that those who know the LEAST about the specific candidates will judge them primarily on looks. Jeremy assumes (I suppose since HE clearly dislikes Obama), that voters who voted for the President, like those in his office whom he apparantly gave tests to, knew ZERO about him. You assume voters in general are just stupid (by the way that's "dumbed" not "dummed") as though the great minds who voted for Hoover and Nixon were somehow more learned and more democratically inclined than those today. I'd say both of you simply don't get out much--or perhaps need to associate with a brighter voter from time to time. The country will be just fine in the hands of ordinary Americans, who actually do vote because they care about the issues and the candidates, regardless of whether you or I happen to agree with the outcome at the moment. Take a breath. The sky is not falling.
AP - while I agree with your assessment that the sky is not falling I think you are very misguided in your trust of the American electorate. I think most people vote for a party or a name they recognize or the good looking one's or who the other important people in their lives are voting for. Most people in the US do NOT devote the time necessary to understand the issues and candidates that they should or that you appear to think they do. Just based on my opinion and personal experience of talking to other people.
Those of you talking about Bush here are forgetting something, he never won the election in the first place! He had to get the Supreme Court to nullify the actual election results to get himself made President.
Prohibition doesn't work,
and then you woke up.
And they vote Republican for it is what Fix News orders!
It's a bit funny criticizing Fox News when you're on an MSNBC website, compared to which Fox News is highbrow.
Erik,
Highbrow? Fox isn't news anyway. There is no comparison. The company is run by a monster and a filthy lying crook. And he hires the same type of people. No integrity what so ever.
nwnative,
You do realize Murdock has ties to other news media outlets as well, CNN among them, don't you?
IF it looks like a thief, sounds like a liar, walks like a crook, talks like an insurance salesman, ... it is a republican congressman.
If it is also male and a good looking republican, he is still in the closet.
Otherwise, it is a pig wearing lipstick.
Sounds like Paul Ryan. May the DEVIL be waitin for ya an hour before you die. Lordy Ryan deserves it. LOL!!!
You just described 99% of the Democrats in congress, you fool. I hope you're proud of what you've done to this country... it's idiots like you who've ruined what little good we had left.
Nicholas,
Your precious Republicans are very busy trying to take away what we have left or don't you watch or read the news?
You obviously are describing Ricky Perry. Deep in the closet with Marcus Bachmann.
MoonRiver -
Good analogy. The only difference between the republicans you describe and most democrats is that the democrats talk like used car salesmen instead of insurance salesmen and they have come out of the closet and they ain't all good lookin'..
"Low-information voters" Ha, Ha, Ha...is that the PC way of saying "people-who- are-too-stupid-to-actually-learn-anything-about-the-candidates"? What a surprise? Who woulda guessed that couch potatoes weren't very smart? I guess the soaps, reality and dancing shows haven't "taught" them very much? What genius's for thinking to relate looks to the quality of their representation, why didn't I come up with something that smart? Forget all this political bickering, drop all the "gotcha" ads, forget wasting time on debates, why worry about Rep or Dem, what we want is their photographic portfolios to see who would make a great politician! Let the dumbing down begin.
Too late...it began a long time ago...
what do you mean " the ladies in your office will & have voted for Obama because he looks like them"...are you saying that black people voted for Obama because he's black?...At least have the guts to say what you mean and stop hiding by veiled words. Also if Obama was a bad candidate when running for President, then he wouldn't've won regardless of his race or ethnicity. Case in point : If black people only voted for black candidates solely because of their similar ethnicity, then how come Alan Keyes never garnered much of the black vote? It's stupid and insulting to assume that black people in this country have a single mindset when choosing leaders. I believe that white people often refer to this phenomenom as "identity politics"--gee It seems to me that white candidates and white voters have, never before for hundreds of years in America , had to worry about being cast as falling victim to identity politics--wink--wink--even though we know it goes on all the time...Why, just look at congress and see all those black faces in it--oops did I say that out loud?--Finally this article is about a candidates good looks or lack thereof. Stay on subject. If that's the case then it will be Romney vs Obama--Obama in a cake walk
Yes many black people voted for Obama because he's black. This isn't a racist thing. This is a fact. To deny it is just simple minded.
I didn't see any veiled words. I saw a clear statement. Maybe they didn't spell it out in the simple words that you want. But the point was clear, honest and TRUE.
Same as VOTING GOP Because GOD TALKS to Thier LEADERS !
And Thier LEADERS ONLY ?
Such Simple SHEEP!
And GOD TOLD , Palin, Bachmann, BUSH, To BLAME ( We The PEOPLE )
While the CORPORATIONS That Payed ZERO FEDERAL. INCOME TAXES ! 2008
2/3 of Which were BEFORE OBAMA was INAUGURATED. G.E. included....
Yet the CORPORATE Media and FOX By FAR Blame OBAMA !
you, nor i, nor anyone knows the mindset of a people so diversified in thought; so how you can say a majority of black people voted for Obama because he's black; It is rather unfounded. I do know that a majority of Americans, Americans of all different heritage, voted for Obama because he was a good candidate and he offered a fresh approach to politics. Voting for someone simply because of similarity of ethnicity is as lame as liking a musician because we both wear the same hairstyle--regardless of what their music sounds like. Again why didn't a majority of black people vote for Alan Keyes, he's been running for president for the last 15+ years. It's about politics and message. The fact that he's black might've been a bonus to some black folk, however it's safe to say that it was not the major metric for choosing Obama
You are an idiot. I am black and I voted for Obama as many black, white, asian, and others did because I actually liked his ideas. I did not vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton when they ran because I did not support their positions. Blacks don't always vote based on race just like white's don't.
Lindsey, count yourself among the ill informed couch potatos. Anyone who paid any attention to the exit polls knows without a shadow of a doubt that many black people voted for Obama because of his race.
Topspin, there are absolutely people that voted for Obama because they agreed with his politics. But if politics was the only reason, how would you explain why white people voted for Obama in proportions typical to any election, but the percentage of black people voting Obama was in the 90s?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html
There's the information you're looking for. Look in paragraph 4 to see the disproportionate number of black people that voted for Obama.
I would love to hear some bodies explanation of why, if the answer isn't, "many black people voted for Obama because he's black".
Actually studies have demonstrated that race was a factor in people voting for Obama. However, Obama can't rely on that in 2012 with him killing the economy.
Black people voted for President Obama because he was a democrat. Most black people vote democrat. Unless you're suggesting Bill Clinton was black.
All republicans vote white all the time.
Old GOP,
This is absolute horsesh*t. I was bitching about GE paying no taxes back when Reagan was in office. They haven't paid income taxes in AT LEAST 25 years.
Unbelievable.
"lindsay-3783295
you, nor i, nor anyone knows the mindset of a people so diversified in thought; so how you can say a majority of black people voted for Obama because he's black; It is rather unfounded. I do know that a majority of Americans, Americans of all different heritage, voted for Obama because he was a good candidate and he offered a fresh approach to politics.
.Why, just look at congress and see all those black faces in it--oops did I say that out loud?--
Also if Obama was a bad candidate when running for President, then he wouldn't've won regardless of his race or ethnicity. Case in point : If black people only voted for black candidates solely because of their similar ethnicity, then how come Alan Keyes never garnered much of the black vote? It's stupid and insulting to assume that black people in this country have a single mindset when choosing leaders. I believe that white people often refer to this phenomenom as "identity politics"-"
There are so many things wrong with your statements that I dont know where to start.... look at the link on the bottom, 95% of blacks voted Obama versus 55% of whites voting McCain... that says it all? Also 66% of 18-29 years old, 73% of sub $15k wage earners and 68% of first time voters voted for Obama, that takes care of their candidate knowledge (or lack thereof) issue.... stop lying to yourself that you voted for Obama because he was black, you had no idea what he was/is all about and that you hate republicans...ops, does that make you a couch potato? I'm sure you are...
brandtao.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/demographics-for-us-presidential-election-2008/
Romney's better looking and more qualified. He has the best chance of beating Obama if he doesn't try to be as conservative as Bachmann and Perry.
Spencer: Well what a fantastically ignorant argument to make. Are you seriously going to suggest only white voters are capable of basing their voting decisions on issues and party? Did it not occur to you that the democrat typically wins over 90% of the black vote in EVERY Presidential election, even when a black candidate is not in the race? (Al Gore won 92% in 2000, about 20% more than Jesse Jackson did in 1984.) You know, with brain power like you've just displayed in our shared race category, I'm tempted to start marking "other" on my ballot.
Sad. People are so dumb.
At least we have some reason to vote for somebody. Unlike a lot more people who have no reason at all.
"low information" voters? Don't you mean "uneducated and lazy"?
I think by "low information" they mean MSNBC.
So, Count...that's obviously why you're over here at MSNBC...because you're a "low information" voter, har! I run rings around your logic!
Duh!!! Like Sarah Palin could get elected on her rich plethora of knowledge???
No, it is simply because she will do a great job of campaigning IN ALL FIFTY-SEVEN (57) States!!!!! Ha! Ha! Who knows, she may even do some campaigning at a United States Marine CORPSE Base!!!! Talk about a "plethora of knowledge"!!!
harley: that one is getting real, real old. How many times must you be told the same thing? Slip of the tongue (57 districts) is not exactly the same thing as being offended at merely being ASKED what you read.
This has been the norm for decades. But why only blame them? The media also pays more attention to candidates with better looks and charm, that's why the couch potatoes know them in the first place!
Meanwhile, true statesmen like Kucinich and Ron Paul are forgotton and ignored by the media and eventually by the rest of the sheeple in this country.
Both are spot on. They are also too extreme. Dennis K has made a ton of good points. He will never get close to being Potus. "THEY" won't let him.
I don't know why they are known to be extreme. I guess a better term would be that they aren't the 'politics as usual' candidates. But for many I guess that would be considered extreme.
They are "extreme" because they have principles and stand by them. The masses prefer candidates that don't stand for anything except voting for what the polls say is popular.
Paul is a libertarian. No government, no rules chaos. Kucinich is a left-wing momma's boy who will take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive.
Dan-3017212
Further proof of how mis-informed people are.
Ya know other countries laugh at us? They think us stupid, ignorant, uncouth and militaristic. NATO troops are wary of us. They think we're cowboys..shoot first and..you know the drill. Who, in their right mind, even consider Bonkers Bachmann and her gay "husband" wtf? Did he "pray the gay away?" LOL!! We are a GIANT, with a huge right arm, big chest, skinny legs, a weak left arm and a peanut sized head. The battle for the soul of the country is being fought rite now. 10+ yrs of tax cuts, war, and nation building has crippled us. Thanx DUMYA. BHO killed OBL. You hear me Georgie boy?!
Under Bush and the Republican Congress the country was recovering from the Clinton recession. Then Congress got taken over by the Democrats and a year later we got the worst economy since the Great Depression. You can thank Barney "there is no housing bubble" Frank for that. Obama has taken the Hoover/FDR approach to solving a bad economy which is more regulation and more spending. The results are going to be the same: a longer deeper depression than is necessary. The best thing we can do for this country is elect either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as President. Johnson left his state with a billion dollar surplus and lower taxes, it had a 2 to 1 majority of Democratic voters.
RebeYell, you are right.
We HAVE become the laughing stock of the rest of the world, for the reasons you list and more.
That's creative. Absolute bull$#!t revisionism that bears no resemblance to actual events, but dang -- you sure can make some stuff up.
well, let him rewrite history. There's so little else to talk about with Bush...may as well pretend Clinton didn't hand him a surplus. (those who can read know better and we're more likely to vote anyway).
Guess that's why NATO talked Obama into starting another war for them.
only 2 CANDIDATES
Ms. Palin was the MORON for the SET UP !
M.s BACHMANN is The MORON !
The party you knew, its gone Old head, a new more radical element hijacked ur party.
It's an OXYMORON !
Get it !
Usually it Gets Just GOP sheep ????
A Yell Back at Ya , KEEP The LIARS in Line!
I hear ya!!!
I agree with you to a degree Jeremy. Many people voted for Obozo for one reason. Because he is black. The Platform being, If you do NOT support Obama you MUST be racist garbage. Hopefully many of us have learned from that, and will vote for a STRONG NATIONAL LEADER this time. Not a community organizer.
Most PEOPLE Voted OBAMA Because he WAS NOT a CORPORATE and GOP LIAR........
If he wasn't a liar then he most certainly turned on Turbo-Lie and far surpassed any liar I have ever seen. Can anyone say pathological?
"pathological". What were you saying about Mr. Bush?
Southern,
Could you please list some examples?
Examples:
When a bipartisan attempt was made to reform America's immigration policy, Mr Obama claimed to be one of the senators who in 2006 "had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out." If it were true, it would've boosted his repuation as a uniter of Republicans and Democrats. But miffed Senate staffers say Mr Obama never attended the critical early morning negotiating sessions where the bill was hammered out. And he played an even smaller role when the issue was re-visited in 2007—after showing up late for a meeting he was even upbraided by Ted Kennedy.
More recently, when referring to housing legislation unveiled this year, Mr Obama called it "the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd". Mr Dodd, an Obama supporter, may be too kind to say so, but this simply isn't accurate. Mr Obama backed the measure, as did Mrs Clinton, but he did not author or sponsor the legislation, which is to say he didn't put it forward anymore than Mrs Clinton did.
In yet another instance Mr Obama claimed to have passed a bill on nuclear regulation that never made it out of the Senate.
"I don’t take money from oil companies." Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
“we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work for the administration.
President Obama's claim "that we've already cut" $400 billion in defense spending is misleading. The president was referring to a Defense Department report that identified $178 billion in "efficiencies" over five years — which the administration says will save $400 billion over 10 years. But only $78 billion of the $178 billion represents actual cuts; the rest of the identified efficiencies will be reinvested in other Pentagon programs.
President Obama's much-told story about his mother's fight to get cancer coverage was untrue, according to a recently published book. And the White House isn't disputing the author's account.
In a "Twitter Town Hall" event, President Barack Obama repeated a disputed claim about the electric car battery market, and he claimed that the payroll tax holiday is worth $1,000 to "almost every single American" when many will get less than that.
FACTCHECK.ORG
I know it's true. A co-worker of my a long time ago said she couldn't vote for so-and-so because he was too ugly to be president. Jeez.
Jeez is right.
I'm glad folks didn't think that way in 1860: Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected.
Why Would Blacks VOTE for RICH White AZZZZ HOLES !
Look at the HISTORY of WHITE OPPRESSION and The HATERS on NEWSVINE!
You have a point, but the fact is that when blacks become rich and run for office they become AZZZZ HOLES too. It's the nature of the game.
The GOP in 1960 (your name) was a lot more moderate and sensible than that of today.
Like the article said, "people who are low-informed" or of low intelligence. Looks, or the suggestion of good looks is so pervasive and so misguided that people with a zero IQ and/or flat-out stupid can make million dollar music videos, make famous the most trivial of things, have little or even less talent doing anything, can get people, by example or imitation, walking, talking, thinking and doing the most ignorant things on the planet, just like them!
It is really no longer important who you are or what you stand for. It is no longer important that you have a good education and a positive skill. It is not even important anymore that you help anybody. It is no longer embarrassing or unacceptable that you have an IQ less than that of an amoeba or a tree sloth. What IS IMPORTANT is that you LOOK GOOD, and that is makes you feel warm all over - just like wetting the bed!
Then how do you explain R. Nixon and GW Bush 2 of the ugliest Pres. in American history, not to mention Abe Lincoln, now there's some ugly for you.
Good Point. LOL
Yes, but who was Abe Lincoln running against? he wasn't a looker either, furthermore the media wasn't obsessed with putting his face everywhere like they do now in magazines, tv and the internet.
Nixon being president was a total set up, the elitist needed someone to screw up the country for their gain and he was the perfect arse for the job!
GW being president? we all know the drama in the 2000 election. My dog could have beat Kerry in 2004.
...more bad news for Newt!
And we wonder why Americans are the dumbest folks on the planet??
Across the board in almost every state, the GOP is attacking education any way they can. The purpose is to create a generation of under-educated citizens that are more malleable to indoctrination.
If you concentrate all the wealth into the top 1%, you have to make sure the population is ignorant and easily cowed. Otherwise they'll revolt.
Stupid IS as GOP Teaches !
That has been the policy among nations/empires since the beginning of time and the sad thing is that the have-nots have yet to wake up. The Romans had hippodromes and the colliseum to keep people distracted. Now we have sports-mania, celebrity gossip and terrorism fears to keep us from paying attention to what is going on.
Good point!
it's just a matter of time before america revolts against both parties, tea baggers are included as part of the GOP. all present and past politicians are responsible for the shape the country is in. every one of them are, and were driven by greed, and power. the voters have been asleep, not paying attention to what the leaders have done. for intsance, the baby boomers have paid into SS for over 50 years. it seems odd to that the very year that the boomers will start collecting on what they paid for, the government starts saying SS is on the verge of bankruptcy. where did the TRILLIONS of dollars go? seems to me that with all the trillions collected, that SS should be able to support itself for the next hundred years or so. now the government is treating SS as a handout, like they are paying for this out of their own pockets. clinton had turned things around, and left office with a surplus. GW started using that surplus to give tax breaks to his rich buddies, and funding illeagal wars. the same gov. that stole our SS money, was about to jimmy hoffa in jail for taking from pension funds from the teamsters union. i think that the whole gov. needs to be overhauled. from white house janitor to POTUS. this latest delema with the country's credit on the line may, just trigger some action from the people. when 80% of the people end up in the bread line, and 20% eat cake and laugh about it, something must happen. sensible people need to organize, not TEA BAGGERS. our children and grand children will pay dearly for what is going on now. america is supposed to be the people's country. the way it is now, a few very wealthy people own it. the rest of us are slaves to them. the GOP has plans to take over in 2012. if that happens, the USA will no longer be a nation of free people. we will do what the wealthy say, or suffer dire consequences. it's sad that things got this bad. i hate the fact that my kids, and grand kids will live like prisoners, as they did nothing to deserve it
How much did this study cost? What morons even think up this garbage? If they think that the President is elected for his or her looks then the people that vote that way are also morons. This country doesn't need any more Obamas. Obama may not have been Corporate, but just like any politician, he is a liar. He does not care for this country. We need someone in the WH that will actually do the job he or she is elected to do, it's as simple as that. Obama really hasn't accomplished anything but spend, spend, spend and now threatens the Seniors by wanting to withhold their SS checks. Not too bright. Just a dimwit.
Ms.PALIN Was Picked for Her SKILLS and TAX RAISING ABILITIES ?
Well Doug: speaking of not too bright...apparantly you missed the part about Congress having some role in these budget negotiations?
Obama has been an "obomination" as president. I don't care what he looks like - he has got to go. More bills were introduced to drug America through psychiatry with his election than any other president. You want a drugged, compliant, Socialist society where the majority of "voters" just want to sit on their bums and wait for the middle class to earn enough to support their laziness? That won't last long - one day everyone will just decide - hey, what on earth am I working so hard for when I could get on the democrat freebie program??
we love Obama! great job. yes Bush sucks. the sole author of our current mess.
ugh. Golda Mier can make them all run up a tree.
Not withstanding Race, could it be that President Obama was the brightest star in the political element at that time? As a Republican, I voted for him because I did not like the alternative. Stop demonizing our local, state and national leaders but rather seek ways to support and enhance your political processes..
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye out to answer every man." (Col 3:6)
Peace and Love
Dr. Chuck,
"Not withstanding Race, could it be that President Obama was the brightest star in the political element at that time?"
No.
"Stop demonizing our local, state and national leaders but rather seek ways to support and enhance your political processes"
I totally agree with this approach.
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye out to answer every man." (Col 3:6)
Oops! That is actually Colossians 4:6 you quoted. :) Colossians 3:6 states "For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobediance."
No matter, they are both worth remembering.
Are you content with the outcome thus far on the vote you cast?
Are you content with the vote?
Oh yes...Can't imagine what the great minds of McCain/Palin would have come up with on this one. World catastrophe.
They should also factor in that on TV most of the good guys or at least the people we sympathize with are good looking. Roles for people of of suspicious character are played by actors who usually aren't as attractive. It's a stupid formula, but it seems to be what people want.
TV reinforces all of those old stereotypes that we should be beyond by now.
And the ONLY reason Sarah Palin has a career in politics is because of this topic becuae she is a bigger idiot than the fools who support her political career.. Oops.
I remember when Arnold was elected governor of California, many people were interviewed and said that the primary reason they voted for him was his reputation as an actor. They said that since he was so successful on screen, clearly he was the right man for the job.
dumbasses.