LourdesWorld LourdesWorld LourdesWorld
# Monday, September 08, 2008

Maybe he'll have a drink with me

The election is approaching too fast now. We’ve watched for what seems like years as the debates and the primaries raged on. We took forever to whittle down to two people for President, and now we have less than two months from the conventions to the election to figure out what we need to see to make our choices. That really wasn’t an issue for me as we knew these people inside and out because of the process. We now, though, have a candidate for VP that nobody knows, and the system broke again.

 

There is truly a lot to say about all of that, I know. Today, though, I have a related thing about which to rant.

 

I again recently heard people talking about how important it is to vote for somebody who relates well to the common man. In the last two elections the phrase was that we needed to vote for the person you would more like to have beers with. We got George Bush and it was hailed as a real victory for the idea of getting the guy who seems most like us.  

 

I’ve been thinking about the ‘guy you would like most to have beers with’ thought because I heard it again yesterday by a McCain supporter. You know the line. Obama is an elitist, doesn’t understand good working folk, etc. It is good political banter, and it’s worked for a while as we’ve already said.

 

I don’t really know if anybody takes that stuff seriously though. In truth, the whole thing is probably code for something else, but what if some voters took to heart the ‘I would rather have a beer with him, so I should vote for him’ baloney?

 

Many of you know me. Many of you know that I have had beers with a wide variety and a large number of people in my life. I know ‘beer ’ stuff. I think you know I know ‘beer’ stuff. Here’s what I don’t get:

 

Most of the people I have had beers with are by and large the last people I would want to lead this great country. Most of the people I have had beers with would be the most likely to start a war with a country that never attacked or threatened us. They would make up reasons for doing so. They would yell things like “Bring it on” toward other countries when they don’t know what else to say. They would dress up in costume and hold a party for Mission Accomplished when the war is really just starting. They would throw away the ideas of negotiation and diplomacy as possible foreign relations tools.

 

They would give us the incomprehensible situation we find ourselves in now.

 

Just what is the problem with voting for the smartest people? On the list of criteria a voter uses to choose the POTUS why wouldn’t ‘Smartest’ be the first thing on the list? Not the only thing, but surely the first thing. “Let’s see. This guy sounds brilliant. The other guy can’t put together a coherent sentence with a speechwriter and a teleprompter, but I think he drinks beer. I guess I should just call the brilliant guy ‘too eloquent to be President’ and vote for the other guy.”  

 

This has to stop.

 

What are the criteria YOU use to figure out voting? 


Faculty and Staff | Dane Copti
Monday, September 08, 2008 5:27:42 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)  #  Comments [5] | 
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:21:52 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
My criteria consist of many elements. Of course my personal morals and values are in the mix as is with anyone, but also a real knowledge of each candidate’s platform must be in play.
Those who know me well on campus and in the community identify me as a conservative. They know that I tend to be rather fiscally conservative but also being in the Social Work field my views can be rather complex and intertwine within party lines.
Beer? Well no, I prefer wine. However, often times my pocket book forces me to the cheaper side of the aisle. But really, where did we hear that line so often uttered? Oh yeah, the media. When it comes down to it, I do not believe a true conservative would base his vote on a ‘beer buddy’. As I would hope this notion of voting for Sarah Palin because she is “hot” goes up in flames. To the women who would vote for Mrs. Palin because she is a woman I would like to say “don’t”. Those women who voted for Hillary should have voted for her based on her ideology and platform not her gender. As much as I would like to see those votes sway to the right I would much rather see citizens being responsible in acquiring knowledge of the candidate’s position first and then if they feel McCain and Palin are the ones for the job by all means welcome to the right!
As for voting for a “smart candidate” I have to say I do not think any of these people got where they are by being stupid.
For those who give the perception that no one knows Governor Sarah Palin, tsk, tsk. Those who are well informed and concerned with our current energy situation would certainly know Mrs. Palin. I picked her for V.P. six months prior to the announcement, perhaps I even prayed a little. I have to admit I was still pleasantly surprised when it happened. Even knowing McCain’s reason as we all do, it was a wise move and I welcome her to the race.
In the end, every candidate running loves this country. Those citizens who staunchly divide themselves by party lines tend to miss out on the beauty of that reality. We forget in the midst of the rhetoric and emotions that we are fortunate to have this system. A vote is much more than a party line. It is a responsibility to acquire knowledge and to vote according to that; not because your daddy voted a certain way.
The reality is we are all Americans, we love our country (if you don’t – move). We may not love everything about it but change starts within ourselves one person at a time. No one can promise us change; we are the only ones capable of that promise. We must advocate for ourselves and also be a voice for those who have none.
I believe that after every last vote is counted and no matter the outcome, Democrats, Republicans and all those in between will still be proud to be called Americans and we will continue to be a nation united.

“Those who define themselves solely by their grievances can never truly be happy.” Arthur Brooks, Gross National Happiness.
Audrey Wildman
Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:12:05 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
Audrey, thanks for the comment. Have you considered writing your own blog? It sounds as though you have a lot to say. Being a social worker who thinks she is a conservative, you must have a compelling story.
I agree with much of what you say here, but I don't think the second half of what you wrote was in relation to my blog, was it? What did I write that led to your thoughts about voting a party line? Also, when I said no one knows Gov. Palin surely you knew that I figured SOMEONE might think they know her. A little literary license was in play, certainly not a poke at you. The system I spoke of is the part that broke when an overwhelming majority of people (is that better?) now have to vote for a VP candidate they won't have time to get to know. I'm trying desperately to get to know her better now, but I am listening to her deliver the same speech day after day after day. This might have been less alarming a year ago than it is now when there are so few days remaining. Which other candidate might have gotten this far without so much as an interview on a major network? (Of course you don't count Fox any more than you might count MSNBC.) In her repetitive speech I hear about the chef and the airplane and EBay, and stuff I couldn't care less about. One side says that those things she says aren't even true, the other says everyone should just lighten up; questioning her is a sexist act. You really don't see a potential problem here? Yeah, it is a good system, but can you really see no flaws?
I respectfully disagree with two other things you wrote. First, you blame the media for the 'have a beer with' thinking. I know for sure that that whole idea was promoted by the Bush campaign team in 2000 and again in 2004, and they were by no means the first to try it. I think it worked well especially against Al Gore. As I said in the blog, I think nothing more of that than it is great political banter and a good campaign thrust. It is when people truly use it to determine which person would get their vote that it becomes scary. By the way, blaming the media for stuff in this country is a lot like blaming a waiter for bringing you the food that you ordered. They are little more than a convenient target for people, but they didn't create what we get and we still go back to them (and choose which ones to go to) for more of the same food.
Lastly, I'm trying to figure out why you added Brooks' line to the end of a comment on my blog. I notice it isn’t in your other blog comments, so it is obvious that you had to add it to mine. I know we've met a couple of times, but I don't recall much substance to those meetings. If you believe that I define myself solely by my grievances, and that I've never been and never will be truly happy, I would like to invite you to have a real conversation with me. I can be available and I would look forward to it. I'm not offended or angry per se, but I'm not used to someone whom I don't know very well being so negative and personal.
Dane
Monday, September 15, 2008 11:32:23 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
Mr. Copti,
Perhaps my frustration in the media is only caused by my own addiction to watching the news and since it is era of 24/7 I force myself to hear the same rhetoric over and over again. I do agree that Sarah has been standing on her stump speech lately and I hope that with her debates and the beginning of network interviews people will get a chance to get to know more about her and her views.
As for the campaign slogan of "Having a beer" I was agreeing with you as far as what is scary is that some people would run with that to the poles. I am frustrated with the lack of effort citizens use to gain knowledge before hitting the voting booths! Perhaps it was unfair to put it all on the media.
As for my use of Brooks, I do use that quote for most anything I write and counsel with. I did not use it on the other blogs to Dale only because I had just posted it here. I can see where you may have thought it was directed to you, but it was certainly not my intention and I apologize. If you were to look on my public myspace it is directly at the top of my blog page. I just love the quote! I think especially in my world of social work it is fitting. It shows that although many of us have grievances and causes we are passionate about we are defined by so much more. I am more than a mother, more than a wife, more than a student, more than a social worker, more than an advocate for my causes I am all those things combined. We as people - I believe - are such a diverse wonder of passion, love and humanity; and we should embrace ourselves and others as such. I so often hear people continuously banter on about the things they hate and the things they want to change and that is fine to a certain extent but is it too much to ask to find some good in their lives. That is what I believe that quote means. And again I meant that in no disrespect toward you, that is why I placed it well below the blog, just as an addition to share with others.
You will find as you get to know me (which I look forward to as well) that I am not a negative person and I try never to be negative and personal toward others. I will always try to find some good in everyone, even those who may personally offend me at times. And when I think -especially in this case - that I have offended anyone undeserving I will make amends appropriately. Thank you for your honest reply, it is refreshing to have such a mature exchange of words and emotion.

P.S. I do have quite a story.;)
Audrey
Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:58:47 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
Audrey, nicely done. Keeping up a mature exchange on these blogs is difficult for many I think. You've done your part and I thank you. Let's converse soon so I can hear this story.
Dane
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:06:50 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
I just find it really funny how someone that is intelligent is considered elitist!!! I guess that is the new definition of elitism now huh.....having a brain? However...it doesn't really take that much of an "elitist" to outsmart the current guy, let's be real here!! The fact that Obama is so intelligent is just a bonus in my opinion!!!!!!1
Dawn G.
Comments are closed.