Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fair point, I didnt consider that, But for some reason "President you can have a beer with" still irks me for some reason. I think it may be because it is an anti-intellectual argument that reached out to the LCD.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.

While you or I won't ever get to meet the President socially, lots of other high ranking people from other organizations and governments will. It is very important for a president to be socially adept.

But I think he's got a reasonable point that being socially adept and able to interact productively with the folks the President needs to is a bit different from being someone you average LCD voter feels like he would enjoy having a beer with. I do think there's an element of not wanting our President to be "too smart"/unapproachable there. When in reality we really do want the most competent (which includes both social and intellectual abilities) person we can get there. Not really an Everyman, which was part of Bush's appeal to many voters.

I have friends who served wtih HMX-1 during the Clinton and Dubya years (Presidential Helo Squadron) and he said it was always his experience that the Clintons were always very distant and/or just on the edge of rude to any military personnel who might be around under flag rank, but the first time Dubya went out to Camp David the first thing he did was shake hands and jaw briefly with the Marine security and helo mechanics out there, then did little stuff like opening up the President's personal theater to the Marines and sailors, then at random he'd walk in, get some popcorn, grab a chair and just "hang out" very personable guy over all.

While that is cool(I kinda like GB for that kinda stuff)
But the point is, the argument leans towards "Do you want an Uppity First class show pony for a president or a Laid back cool guy for president" and not if they are distant or not.

Is "do I want a beer with him" really any more or less important than "do I want the guy with the horse owning wife"?

Probably not, but then what is American politics besides a massive exercise in pointlessness and futility?

hotsauceman1 wrote:Fair point, I didnt consider that, But for some reason "President you can have a beer with" still irks me for some reason. I think it may be because it is an anti-intellectual argument that reached out to the LCD.

I agree with this fully. However, that anti-intellectualism has become a necessity in order to win some states.

d-usa wrote:Is "do I want a beer with him" really any more or less important than "do I want the guy with the horse owning wife"?

I would say so, yes. While I think the "do I want a beer with him" argument is just an anti-inellectual perversion of the "is he socially intelligent, or is he just a robot with a human suit" question; the "do I want the guy with the horse-owning wife" is somewhat of an indicator of just how out-of-touch someone can be during a time when 40% of the country is close to or below the poverty line. Particularly when an entire campaign is based around image being substituted for fact, the horse element is quite representative of either that candidate's cluelessness or else sheer arrogance (or both, in Mitt's case).

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Is "do I want a beer with him" really any more or less important than "do I want the guy with the horse owning wife"?

I would say so, yes. While I think the "do I want a beer with him" argument is just an anti-inellectual perversion of the "is he socially intelligent, or is he just a robot with a human suit" question; the "do I want the guy with the horse-owning wife" is somewhat of an indicator of just how out-of-touch someone can be during a time when 40% of the country is close to or below the poverty line. Particularly when an entire campaign is based around image being substituted for fact, the horse element is quite representative of either that candidate's cluelessness or else sheer arrogance (or both, in Mitt's case).

I suppose that a horse is good enough to base a choice between two rich schmucks off of.

Between two guys wealthier than most of us will ever be, although the President's level of wealth is much more achievable,

One is a guy who gew up with fairly well-off parents and grandparents (and clearly a successful stepdad), but went to prep school on a scholarship, then undergrad at Occidental and Columbia and worked for five years before going to Harvard Law and being elected President of the Law Review, and seems to be in a position of needing to work to support his family (although of course, once you've been President, you can pretty much work part time writing books and doing speaking tours).

One is a guy who grew up rich, went to prep schools and Harvard straight up (though did take a couple of years out for missionary work), and currently has a family net worth of around 300 million, counting himself, his wife, and the trust fund he established for his kids.

The horse thing is just symbolic of the kind of wealth where you can buy and sell companies, will never have to work again, and neither will any of your kids or their kids or probably any of their grandkids or great-grandkids either.

It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.

Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.

I agree that the shorthand "owning a horse" is an inaccurate encapsulation of the concept being expressed, as lots of people who aren't rich own horses. Owning an Olympic show horse worth hundreds of thousands of dollars is much more symbolic of her/their wealth and perspective, but it's not nearly as pithy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.

Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

I've heard you can get horse super cheap in the UK; mostly in lasagne.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I agree that the shorthand "owning a horse" is an inaccurate encapsulation of the concept being expressed, as lots of people who aren't rich own horses. Owning an Olympic show horse worth hundreds of thousands of dollars is much more symbolic of her/their wealth and perspective, but it's not nearly as pithy.

I won't say it's not a fair point though Rafalca, the Oympics show horse in question isn't worth over $100,000, the total number of horses the Romney's own is over $250,000 which is based out of a Moorpark California stable that Mrs. Romney's a senior partner in. Any less ridiculous? To me not really, I have expensive hobbies too, and mine don't make me money or win international sporting awards. Just a matter of scale at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I've heard you can get horse super cheap in the UK; mostly in lasagne.

"100% Beef, we promise this time!"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.

Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.

So a burger walks into a pup, the owner asks "why the long face?"

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.

Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.

Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.

Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.

And Romney spent just shy of a decade involved in work for his church, in addition to working his job full time. I'm not a big fan of Mormons but their clergy work hard for their communities and you see everyone in their churches from the lowest to the highest. Ann Romney has also been extensively involved with charity work for underprivileged children in Massachusetts and nationwide. I'm still not seeing much difference here. Both are rich, both are schmucks, both have put in time with the poor. One guy's just richer then the other guy. Both are out of touch, with reality at least if not the country.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.

Further, I would hardly describe Obama as a career university man. Sure, he was a lecturer at U Chicago, but he was also employed as an associate attorney, and an attorney of counsel during the same period; while also being involved with various NPOs.


I'm also going to dispute the idea that "career university men" belong to the upper class, and cannot understand the plight of the common man. Some do, the ones that teach at upper-tier private schools, but state school professors don't make a lot of money considering that they generally spend 9-10 years in school, the majority of which are spent living on a ~15-25k stipend (depending on the school).

KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.

But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.

Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.

Were you trying to miss the point? The difference isn't to hold Romney accountable for being born into affluence- the difference is that he tried to convey that he understood what it was like to not have been, when every single piece of information we saw and every quip he made demonstrated the opposite. Romney was born so far above the middle class that he could only read about it in books, and he didn't even bother to do that because he was born so rich he'd never need to.

 azazel the cat wrote:
But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.

I think that second part of your post is the salient element here. While they both are rich now, at least Obama knew at one point what it felt not to be.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.

But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.

I think I mis-communicated, in the choice between a cosmetic surgery and the horse I chose the surgery, because being blind sucks.

 Ouze wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.

I think that second part of your post is the salient element here. While they both are rich now, at least Obama knew at one point what it felt not to be.

Yes, Obama was well aware of what it was like to be in the upper middle class, what hardship he must have felt.

Yeah, your comments equating the situations of the two really don't correspond to reality.

One is a guy who had to work for a living. The other never needed to. One is a guy who, if he hadn't become President would have been comfortably able to put his kids through school and help them get good jobs. The other is a guy who could endow entire schools, and whose kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will never have to work a day in their lives unless they feel like it. I'm not saying this is makes them in any way bad people, but when you have three hundred million dollars or so, I'm not going to be shocked or saddened when people find that worthy of comment or parody.

 d-usa wrote:
So a burger walks into a pup, the owner asks "why the long face?"

You're on a roll lately!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yeah, your comments equating the situations of the two really don't correspond to reality.

One is a guy who had to work for a living. The other never needed to. One is a guy who, if he hadn't become President would have been comfortably able to put his kids through school and help them get good jobs. The other is a guy who could endow entire schools, and whose kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will never have to work a day in their lives unless they feel like it. I'm not saying this is makes them in any way bad people, but when you have three hundred million dollars or so, I'm not going to be shocked or saddened when people find that worthy of comment or parody.

Yeah... that's a fair point.... I've liken'ed the Presidency similar to "American Idol" now. And Obama just oozes Charisma...

But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

While it's worthy of parody, it's true that almost all our presidents are both wealthy and graduated from Yale or Harvard.

Personally, I don't see a ton wrong with Romney's comments. As someone who was on the fence, and ended up voting for Obama, I have been wondering the exact same thing- "Would Romney have handled this sequester / economic situation better?" (Note: Not, would he have been a better president, as obviously I voted the other way)

I've had this discussion a number of times in-person and it does bother me how far left Obama planted his flag (from my perspective) both in his acceptance speech, and his state of the union speech, and how little he spoke about the economy in either. I think it's fantastic that democrats and republicans may be able to reach a grand bargain on immigration- but I want a grand bargain on the economy, too.

My friend and coworker is of the opinion that Obama did this as a debate tactic. If that's so, and it works, he'll end up with my support in the end. But if his agenda for his second term is truly a laundry list of democratic "wants", and little to do with the economy, he'll have definitely swung me back the other way.

To put this in perspective- I work in a building with 3 companies. 2 have closed within the last year, and my company has laid off half of it's workforce (not me- yet... but I'm looking for jobs at this point just in case, obviously). The economy should absolutely be remaining front and center, and I absolutely wonder if Romney would be handling the current economic climate better.

Again, not if he would be a better president overall, but if he would be handling these economic problems better. He'd obviously have more support from the House. Would the Senate compromise with him...? Who knows. But he's done it in a business environment, and it's a valid question.

If you don't think it's a valid question, I really think you're not looking at the issues, and I don't think he's a "sore loser" for saying out loud that he thinks he could've handled this crisis well.

No, I don't think he's a sore loser for saying he could handle this well; but I think he kinda is for all the other stuff he said in that interview.

I agree with you that I think Romney would have handled it as well though, mostly because I don't think there was a huge amount of difference between either one of them really, policy wise. A few niggles here and there but ultimately I think on many important issues, but especially the economy at large, the President can do a lot to ruin it, but not too much to fix it; just a cheerleader really.

I agree with you for the most part, Ouze!

 Ouze wrote:
No, I don't think he's a sore loser for saying he could handle this well; but I think he kinda is for all the other stuff he said in that interview.

I agree with you that I think Romney would have handled it as well though, mostly because I don't think there was a huge amount of difference between either one of them really, policy wise. A few niggles here and there but ultimately I think on many important issues, but especially the economy at large, the President can do a lot to ruin it, but not too much to fix it; just a cheerleader really.

Okay... let's backup... what can the President do for the Economy? Obama or Romney? I mean...really?

Obama's problem is with the Republican House... had Romney been elected, he'd have problems with the Democratic Senate.

The real problem is in Congress... are we asking our President to be leaders of their parties to facilitate optimal governance?