Stupid Politician tricks: Uniquely American?

[Enigma]

Looking for some insight from our over-seas readers around here....

Here in the US, there is a bizarre thing that happens to people running for President. They all feel the need to portray themselves as a good-old0boy, hunting, man's man. Kerry did it before the last election with his joke of a "hunting trip" ..(Because as you know, when you go hunting, you bring the press corps...) Bush has his dopey "brush clearing" and "ranch work" which, again, the press corps joins in on, and now this from Mitt Romney:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/05/romney.hunting.ap/index.html


BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- In boasting about his lifelong experience as a hunter, Mitt Romney may have shot himself in the foot.
The Republican presidential contender has told audiences on several occasions, most recently this week in gun-savvy -- and early voting -- New Hampshire, that he has been a longtime hunter. But it turns out he has been on only two hunting trips.
Critics said it was the latest example of a White House aspirant willing to say anything to reach the Oval Office.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he told a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.
Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.


So, I was curious if this happens in the elections of other countries, too. Does Chirac go rock climbing? Does Blair take the press on a fishing trip? Or is just here in America that politicians seem to believe they have to have some fantasy make believe macho hobby in order to be elected? :hmm:

[Letum]

Not in the UK.
I am sure we have had a PM in the past who was involved with something like this, but I can't remember it ever being used as a photo opportunity etc.

In fact, our current PM banned hunting with dogs!
The thought of any political leaders doing "ranch work" is laughable.

I would like to think this is because the English are more cynical about their leaders, even when they support them.

[The Avon Lady]

This is what happens when society would most probably accuse candidates of pedophilia if they kept on kissing babies. :hmm:

[PeriscopeDepth]

No, it's what happens when a Republican candidate who has supported gun control for most of his career needs to appear conservative (all candidates do this, Dems need to appear more liberal and Republicans more conservative) enough for any hope of winning primaries/caucuses.

PD

[The Avon Lady]

No, it's what happens when a Republican candidate who has supported gun control for most of his career needs to appear conservative (all candidates do this, Dems need to appear more liberal and Republicans more conservative) enough for any hope of winning primaries/caucuses.
How did Kerry appear more liberal by playing the part of Elmer Fudd?

[PeriscopeDepth]

All right, I should not have said "all candidates". Granted, Kerry didn't have to run very far left during the primaries because...Well, he was already that far left. A candidate like Clinton definitely will.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

How did Kerry appear more liberal by playing the part of Elmer Fudd?

He didn't but since he is also J. Kerry, he had no clue anyway so nothings new.

-S

[TteFAboB]

There's a country somewhere in Asia (that narrows it down doesn't it :lol: ) where candidates are expected to brawl with other candidates, random people, policemen, anybody.

[SUBMAN1]

There's a country somewhere in Asia (that narrows it down doesn't it :lol: ) where candidates are expected to brawl with other candidates, random people, policemen, anybody.

I think all Asian countries do that don't they? I've even seen brawls in Japanese debates

[bradclark1]

There's a country somewhere in Asia (that narrows it down doesn't it :lol: ) where candidates are expected to brawl with other candidates, random people, policemen, anybody.
I'm all for that. Maybe Arnie could become president then.:)

[Rykaird]

To answer the the question proposed in the title of your thread, no, stupid politician tricks are not uniquely American. They are worldwide, and have been around since man first sought political power.

The idea is to demonstrate alignment with the belief systems of key voting blocs. What IS uniquely American is that one of these belief systems is that a real American is a rugged, macho type. Remember when Al Gore, during the debate with Bush, suddenly left his podium, and strode across the stage menacingly towards Bush while Bush was speaking? He was hoping to provoke a flinch, so that the big news out of the debate would be that Bush was intimidated by Gore. It didn't work - Bush just kept talking, smiled at him and made some small comment. It ranks as one of the most bizarre moments in US presidential debates. But it does show the importance the US voting public puts on "toughness".

By the way, this is no different than Hilary walking around saying that "my religious faith influences every one of my political decisions", her sudden and visible return to regular Sunday churchgoing, all the while carrying the biggest bible she could find. She knows a big chunk of voters are religious, so poof - she starts demonstrating that alignment. You can argue whether she really is a practicing Christian - I won't, because I can't read her mind - but it is fair to say that the level with which she portrays herself as a Christian has dramatically increased.

In other countries, with different belief systems, demographics, psychographics, and voting blocs, the issues are different. But the stupid tricks are just the way the game is played. It is up to us voters to try to see beyond the tricks and make guesses about what policies the politician will actually implement if elected.

[John Channing]

The problem is not that they are tying to appease left or right... it that they are trying to appear as "just plain folks".

The problem started with the Kennedy administration and the de-mystifying of the Whitehouse. The advent of television and an out-of control press corps opened up the Whitehouse in a way that the American public had never seen before.

All well and good, but because of this de-mystification people began to believe that anyone could do the job. Ronald Regan did not get elected because he had a firm grasp of policy or any particular vision that resonated with the American people (other than making irresponsible threats against countries that had a different system of Govt.), he got elected because people liked him. He is still fondly refered to as "Uncle Ronnie".

People want to elect some that they think they would like. Instead of electing the smartest guy in class, they vote for the one they like the most, that frat boy. I like my next door neighbour, but I sure as hell don't want him running the country.

So now the world finds it's self in a position where the President of the most powerful country on earth has absolutely no clue where most of the other countries on earth are located, let alone possessing the flexibility of intelect that is required to deal with them in a responsible, intelligent and successful manner. leader who gives everyone childish nicknames (Pootie-Poo anyone) and thinks it is funny to mug for the cameras.

This lack of, let's call it intellectual engagement, also leads him to be manipulated by some genuinely evil people and corporations.

But the American (and Canadian) people still want to elect someone that doesn't make them feel stupid, someone they would invite over for a BBQ and a few beers. So we are subjected to endless parades of nozzleheads, posing in the woods, or at a Basball game, or community BBQ, being "just plain folks".... while the string of stretch limos is idling just off camera to take them back to the private jet to fly them to the next "just plain folks" photo op with, hopefully, a short stopover at the Presidential Suite at the Luxury hotel they are staying in.

Don't blame them...blame yourself. They are just giving you what you want.

JCC

[Enigma]

I was totally going to applaud this post until I got to this part...

Don't blame them...blame yourself. They are just giving you what you want.

i agree with damn near everything you said here, but those of us who actually pay attention and form an educated opinion arent getting what we want. Sadly, it seems we are the minority.

[Yahoshua]

Judging politicians is kinda like playing hopscotch, ya just don't know what to expect when they're on camera.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/hopscotch.gif



And the only way to judge who a candidate really is who they say they are is via their voting record. (I looked but there doesn't seem to be a database of Romneys' voting record at the moment).

[John Channing]

I was totally going to applaud this post until I got to this part...

Don't blame them...blame yourself. They are just giving you what you want.

i agree with damn near everything you said here, but those of us who actually pay attention and form an educated opinion arent getting what we want. Sadly, it seems we are the minority.

It's not an original thought...

"In a democracy, people usually get the kind of government they deserve, and they deserve what they get.”

JCC

[Smaragdadler]

Don't blame them...blame yourself. They are just giving you what you want.
Right. But it's a "feed-back loop". This is a good explanation:



[...]

C. Banks support governments; governments support banks. While the British Government urged a predetermined war on the mineworkers in its ostensible determination not to support pits that were seen by many as being quite viable, destroyinbg the lives of people and communities in the process, it was pumping millions of pounds into a bank which had totally collapsed.* Our inner cities changed so drastically in the sixties because the bankers speculated with money housed with them by people paying into pension schemes. In attempting to secure their futures by using the banking system people unwittingly contributed to the destruction of their heritage. As far as Establishment financial institutions are concerned, people and their culture run a poor second to profit.
D. If you want to know where the Etsblishment is and what it's doing watch television. Advertising is ther sorcery of the twentieth century since it persuades people to part with their money in exchange for goods which they neither need nor want. It does this in the most insidious ways, playing on the conditioning to which we have all been subject since birth. Twenty-four-hour television is not far away. It keeps the masses happy and programmes them into the Establishment's one-pointed, no-choices approach. Education, in the wrong hands, can have the same results. At its worst it is no better than Establishment propaganda.
E. Ignorance is not nerely the absence of knowedge. It is also the limitation of one's world-view. It is quite possible to understand the workings of the world in which one lives without knowing anything about the wars of Troy. The world-view of an individual ensnared within the Establishment pentagram however, is, by definition, enslaving.

New Conspiracy

For some years now conspiracy theory has ruled supreme. The Jews and the Masons are in it together with the bankers and other rather more sinister groups with members in very high places. They control everything that happens, steering the rest of us in any direction which pleases them. For most people who accept the theory, it is at least a comfort to realize that whatever goes wrong, at least they're not responsible.
I differ from the usual theory only in respect of who's doing it and why. Most of us are, unwittingly, the perpetrators of the conspiracy through our own acquiescence. Any contribution made by an individual to the Establishment pentagram increases the hold of the Establishment on himself and on everyone else. Buy The Sun and you contribute; refer to members of the Convoy as 'hippies' as does the BBC and you contribute. There may well be a number of ill-intentioned politicians and racketeers actually manipulating situations but we are all responsible for the situations themselves.
[...]




The rest of the text is more of some occultistic blabla.
found here:
http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/ess_hornsh.html

[nikimcbee]

Not in the UK.
I am sure we have had a PM in the past who was involved with something like this, but I can't remember it ever being used as a photo opportunity etc.

In fact, our current PM banned hunting with dogs!
The thought of any political leaders doing "ranch work" is laughable.

I would like to think this is because the English are more cynical about their leaders, even when they support them.

I thought they had those "puffy powder wigs" does that count?:rotfl: