Name: Anonymous 2008-08-23 8:01
written by Andrew Tobolowsky at 411Mania.com and I liked it. So...
The recent gaffe about McCain's houses—how do you not know how many houses you own?—has opened a really silly question that's been going on all along. Which candidate is the rich out-of-touch one? As it turns out both candidates, including most other candidates for everything ever, are rich.
Here's the thing about Obama's money however: it comes from leveraging his success as editor of the Harvard Law Review—based on his grades and a writing competition—which means, pretty much, he was the best law student in the country that year. The rest comes from his books and speeches. In other words, he earned it. McCain's, of course, comes from his wife's 90 million dollar beer fortune as well as the money that was already in his family—to which granted, he's since added, with a book or two of his own.
However. The Republicans are seriously uncanny at coming off as the "just like you, run of the mill American, struggling through the hard times" guy. It has nothing to do with money, really, though they like to pretend it is.
The funny about McCain spokesman Brian Robertson's retort to Obama's attack on McCain's houses statement, is that it was so revelatory. One: Obama may not be as rich as McCain, but he DOES like arugula. In other words he's not out of touch because he's rich, but because he's sophisticated. Apparently
you can be as rich as you want so long as you aren't too bright and don't buy fancy condiments.
Two: HILARIOUSLY, they pointed out how rich Obama was by using the unfortunate number of four million dollars, as in he made four million dollars last year. According to McCain's answer to Pastor Rick Warren regarding how much a person needs to make to be considered rich—five million a year—Obama didn't make enough.
And yet, McCain is certainly winning the war to prove he's just like the rest of us. Apparently it's because the rest of us are really stupid. Like Baxter and the wheel of cheese, I'm no longer mad, I'm impressed. Even if they did poop in the fridge.
So I prepared a little quiz that I thought might help. First, a review question
George W. Bush:
A) A West Texas native, George W. Bush's youth was spent waking at five in the morning to muck out the stables, milk the cows, and attend to cattle. All his life he kept his nose to the grindstone and struggled through the hard times. He understands just what we're going through.
B) George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, spent a good part of his youth in West Texas except for the time he spent at HIS PARENTS ENORMOUS MANSION IN MAINE, attended the most prestigious and obscenely expensive boarding school in the country, Phillips Andover in Massachusetts, where he had the luxury of doing extremely poorly but being kept on, went to one of the top three universities in the country, where he had the same luxury, was handed oil company after oil company to run into the ground, was GENERAL MANAGER OF THE TEXAS RANGERS, and etc. Lowered taxes for rich people.
Right.
And now? Oh how things change.
More out of touch: Mid-40s guy who grew up as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago, or septuagenarian who's never been on the internet? You know what, I'll do two of these. Guy whose credentials and income comes solely from his personal performance in certain situation, or guy who owns something like NINE houses and his own plane?
Doesn't understand people's problems: Guy from a single parent family who worked his way into Harvard, rose to the top of his class on merit, and capitalized on that merit, or guy who coasted on his dad's money, partied his way to a 894 out of 899 in his class because he didn't have to work to get a commission in the army, then got handed any job he wanted….followed by marrying one of the richest women in America.
More into family values: Guy whose obvious affection for his wife has even been a detriment to his campaign, or guy who cheated on his wife and then got divorced?
More aware of the issues: Guy whose advertising campaign addresses a unique and important issue in pretty much every battleground state, or guy who spends his time attacking his opponent for being too famous and eating Brie?
I mean, seriously. How do they get away with this stuff?
Let's face it America, we have a serious problem here. Though Republicans may howl and claim it isn't so there just isn't a way to arrange all this evidence except to suggest ANYTHING but that, actually, America has no problem with absurd riches or unearned privileges: very few people in America, Paris Hilton excluded, have had more of either than George Bush and John McCain. No, the problem isn't the money, it's the arugula. Brian Robertson knows that, and so does McCain.
After reiterating Obama's just-short-of-rich income last year, Robertson went on to mock Obama for taking a vacation to fancy-pants Hawaii. Where, by the way, Obama was born and raised.
Let's be honest just one time. It's not the money, which McCain has more of, it's not the privilege, which McCain has much more of, it's not being out of touch which McCain—who still routinely confuses Iran for Iraq—in fact monopolizes. It's that Obama doesn't have easy answers to hard questions and takes subtle approaches to things many Americans have hardline views on. When Obama starts explaining the delicacy of an issue like abortion, we tune out and claim it was his fault rather than ours.
McCain's lifestyle, when he hides the servants and the body men and all of those things, seems more like ours because just like George Bush he never has had to wrestle with the nitty gritty of difficult issues. And that, let's face it, is how we like our candidates. Definite and un-introspective. Because THAT we recognize. It's not the money, it's the attitude. THAT'S us. More or less blindly, and increasingly angrily, attached to one side or another of an issue. That's how George Bush, and McCain after him, connect to ordinary Americans: by being just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as they are.
But most Americans do not directly influence policy and, having lived in the same place most of their lives, and having spent much of their time just keeping their family together and their roof over head, are perfectly entitled to black and white opinions on subjects. That's why we elect politicians rather than let each person make decisions for themselves: because to operate as a nation we need a professional class of people whose job it is to investigate issues and come to the most just and most reasonable conclusion. We need politicians who listen to our concerns. But we don't need politicians who are merely mirrors of ourselves. If that were teh case, we should just have anarchy. No, our politicians need to be better than ordinary citizens at making appropriate decisions.
The truth is these are delicate issues and the only hope for an America growing increasingly more divided is someone who can see both sides and steer a course that will please as many people as possible. You can decide for yourself whether you think Obama does, but he surely does more than McCain. And it's America's fault, not his, that that's a huge detriment to him. If you found him unimpressive at Pastor Warren's séance, perhaps he was. But he was clear and he articulated a liberal path, with compassion for the point of view of the right, on nearly every single issue. It took him too long and he didn't seem like he had all the answers already. Plus, the bastard eats brie.
We can call it anything else we want and not only will McCain let us, he'll help us, encourage us to see him—who has never been a blue collar person in his life, unlike the other candidate—as just like us. But the truth is, we don't want to elect Barack Obama because he's too smart. Well, dumb's worked pretty well over the last eight years, huh?
The recent gaffe about McCain's houses—how do you not know how many houses you own?—has opened a really silly question that's been going on all along. Which candidate is the rich out-of-touch one? As it turns out both candidates, including most other candidates for everything ever, are rich.
Here's the thing about Obama's money however: it comes from leveraging his success as editor of the Harvard Law Review—based on his grades and a writing competition—which means, pretty much, he was the best law student in the country that year. The rest comes from his books and speeches. In other words, he earned it. McCain's, of course, comes from his wife's 90 million dollar beer fortune as well as the money that was already in his family—to which granted, he's since added, with a book or two of his own.
However. The Republicans are seriously uncanny at coming off as the "just like you, run of the mill American, struggling through the hard times" guy. It has nothing to do with money, really, though they like to pretend it is.
The funny about McCain spokesman Brian Robertson's retort to Obama's attack on McCain's houses statement, is that it was so revelatory. One: Obama may not be as rich as McCain, but he DOES like arugula. In other words he's not out of touch because he's rich, but because he's sophisticated. Apparently
you can be as rich as you want so long as you aren't too bright and don't buy fancy condiments.
Two: HILARIOUSLY, they pointed out how rich Obama was by using the unfortunate number of four million dollars, as in he made four million dollars last year. According to McCain's answer to Pastor Rick Warren regarding how much a person needs to make to be considered rich—five million a year—Obama didn't make enough.
And yet, McCain is certainly winning the war to prove he's just like the rest of us. Apparently it's because the rest of us are really stupid. Like Baxter and the wheel of cheese, I'm no longer mad, I'm impressed. Even if they did poop in the fridge.
So I prepared a little quiz that I thought might help. First, a review question
George W. Bush:
A) A West Texas native, George W. Bush's youth was spent waking at five in the morning to muck out the stables, milk the cows, and attend to cattle. All his life he kept his nose to the grindstone and struggled through the hard times. He understands just what we're going through.
B) George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, spent a good part of his youth in West Texas except for the time he spent at HIS PARENTS ENORMOUS MANSION IN MAINE, attended the most prestigious and obscenely expensive boarding school in the country, Phillips Andover in Massachusetts, where he had the luxury of doing extremely poorly but being kept on, went to one of the top three universities in the country, where he had the same luxury, was handed oil company after oil company to run into the ground, was GENERAL MANAGER OF THE TEXAS RANGERS, and etc. Lowered taxes for rich people.
Right.
And now? Oh how things change.
More out of touch: Mid-40s guy who grew up as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago, or septuagenarian who's never been on the internet? You know what, I'll do two of these. Guy whose credentials and income comes solely from his personal performance in certain situation, or guy who owns something like NINE houses and his own plane?
Doesn't understand people's problems: Guy from a single parent family who worked his way into Harvard, rose to the top of his class on merit, and capitalized on that merit, or guy who coasted on his dad's money, partied his way to a 894 out of 899 in his class because he didn't have to work to get a commission in the army, then got handed any job he wanted….followed by marrying one of the richest women in America.
More into family values: Guy whose obvious affection for his wife has even been a detriment to his campaign, or guy who cheated on his wife and then got divorced?
More aware of the issues: Guy whose advertising campaign addresses a unique and important issue in pretty much every battleground state, or guy who spends his time attacking his opponent for being too famous and eating Brie?
I mean, seriously. How do they get away with this stuff?
Let's face it America, we have a serious problem here. Though Republicans may howl and claim it isn't so there just isn't a way to arrange all this evidence except to suggest ANYTHING but that, actually, America has no problem with absurd riches or unearned privileges: very few people in America, Paris Hilton excluded, have had more of either than George Bush and John McCain. No, the problem isn't the money, it's the arugula. Brian Robertson knows that, and so does McCain.
After reiterating Obama's just-short-of-rich income last year, Robertson went on to mock Obama for taking a vacation to fancy-pants Hawaii. Where, by the way, Obama was born and raised.
Let's be honest just one time. It's not the money, which McCain has more of, it's not the privilege, which McCain has much more of, it's not being out of touch which McCain—who still routinely confuses Iran for Iraq—in fact monopolizes. It's that Obama doesn't have easy answers to hard questions and takes subtle approaches to things many Americans have hardline views on. When Obama starts explaining the delicacy of an issue like abortion, we tune out and claim it was his fault rather than ours.
McCain's lifestyle, when he hides the servants and the body men and all of those things, seems more like ours because just like George Bush he never has had to wrestle with the nitty gritty of difficult issues. And that, let's face it, is how we like our candidates. Definite and un-introspective. Because THAT we recognize. It's not the money, it's the attitude. THAT'S us. More or less blindly, and increasingly angrily, attached to one side or another of an issue. That's how George Bush, and McCain after him, connect to ordinary Americans: by being just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as they are.
But most Americans do not directly influence policy and, having lived in the same place most of their lives, and having spent much of their time just keeping their family together and their roof over head, are perfectly entitled to black and white opinions on subjects. That's why we elect politicians rather than let each person make decisions for themselves: because to operate as a nation we need a professional class of people whose job it is to investigate issues and come to the most just and most reasonable conclusion. We need politicians who listen to our concerns. But we don't need politicians who are merely mirrors of ourselves. If that were teh case, we should just have anarchy. No, our politicians need to be better than ordinary citizens at making appropriate decisions.
The truth is these are delicate issues and the only hope for an America growing increasingly more divided is someone who can see both sides and steer a course that will please as many people as possible. You can decide for yourself whether you think Obama does, but he surely does more than McCain. And it's America's fault, not his, that that's a huge detriment to him. If you found him unimpressive at Pastor Warren's séance, perhaps he was. But he was clear and he articulated a liberal path, with compassion for the point of view of the right, on nearly every single issue. It took him too long and he didn't seem like he had all the answers already. Plus, the bastard eats brie.
We can call it anything else we want and not only will McCain let us, he'll help us, encourage us to see him—who has never been a blue collar person in his life, unlike the other candidate—as just like us. But the truth is, we don't want to elect Barack Obama because he's too smart. Well, dumb's worked pretty well over the last eight years, huh?