Quote:
Originally posted by Publius
Ok so here is the question, how long before a fellow becomes President does he have to be “working class poor” for it to count? So a fellow grows up dirt ass poor, works his sorry ass all his life to make something for himself, then when he finally succeeds he decides to give something back to society by running for public office. BUT OH NO! now that he is no longer dirt ass poor he can’t possible represent the small poor working guy because now that he is “rich” he is no longer in touch with the common man. So again I ask, what is “rich” anyway? And why do we pay our elected officials so lousy and then expect anyone but those who don’t really need the income to run for public office? And what does the price of snow in Canada have to do with the cost of sand in Miami? Right so you see my point, NOTHING! It doesn’t matter which candidate has more money, or grew up poorer, or who has the most expensive toys, house, car, or any other garbage. The question really is which one will do the best job of doing the work of the people, and everything else is just noise being used by both sides to distract the voters from the real issues.
|
We're hi-jacking the thread from the original point....wait there was no point....very well then.
That is exactly the point. There is no such thing as a "working class poor" President and I get a little irritated when folks run for political office on that platform. These guys have already made their money and by the time they manage to run for higher public office their perceptions are already colored differently.
To discuss this concerning the current election...Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush and even Mr. Nader haven't had to worry about the bills for a long time. And yet, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush campaign as a man of the people. They give us the impression that they're regular working class stiffs just like everybody else. Mr. Kerry rolls up his sleeves, rides buses, and flips flapjacks and Mr. Bush "clears brush" in cowboy boots all in an effort to fool the voters into thinking their of the common man's ilk.
Does it affect the way he will govern? No, it shouldn't. People shouldn't care whether these guys grew up in the projects or were grown in some lab in Northern Maine. Ideas are ideas are ideas and it's the ideas that should be ran on rather than the background and actions of any candidate.
I think voters want to vote on issues. We want to be involved with the process. Instead we are subjected to the minutiae of the past. I don't give a rat's ass that Mr. Bush might have done drugs, drank a lot and got all his money from daddy. I don't care that Mr. Kerry might have threw his medals out, hung out with Jane Fonda, and marries rich. The problem is the media caters to this demographic rather than discussing the issues. There is a percentage who revel in this shit and there is a percentage who watch to accumulate cannon fodder to fire at the opponent and both are ruining the process. Instead of discussing tax plans, healthcare reform, social security, and the like, we're relegated to discussing likeability and botox.
I'm certainly not arguing with you
Publius In fact, it seems we agree at least on this one. We both arrived at the same place just using different paths. We're bogged down in the minutiae.
/end hijack