In This Thread We Keep Track Of Politicians Caught Lying...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

SERIOUSLY!

If only we could get a real, ethical gentleman like JFK, or maybe a levelheaded straight shooter like LBJ, or a real American hero like US Grant, or a brave uniter like Andrew Jackson, or an honest, anti-hypocrite like Thomas Jefferson.

What the hell are you talking about?

Are you suggesting that we've never had a statesman or just that this isn't a particularly recent trend?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Are you suggesting that we've never had a statesman or just that this isn't a particularly recent trend?

I'm suggesting that lamenting the loss of the American statesmen seems particularly disingenuous, as the current batch of "nutjobs" (as honeychile so eloquently put it) pales in comparison to the actions of even some of our greatest past leaders (and definitely the functional retards like US Grant) . . . there also might be a slight hint of "what does lying to get elected have to do with being a statesman?" in there, too - season to taste.

[UGAalum94]

I kind of like Grant, not that I'm suggesting he was an effective president. I think the Ken Burns series on the Civil War just built up my sympathy for the guy, and it's hard for me to see him as "retarded."

That's neither here nor there, I realize.

I personally blame the media, as I tend to do for almost everything. I'm not saying the press was somehow less biased or more intellectual in their coverage or anything insane like that, just that the relentless coverage of all aspects of a candidates life, 24 hours a day for maybe even years leading up to the race isn't making it easy to hold anyone in high regard. And I think it might keep good, sane people with normal egos from ever considering actual public service by holding office.

Would you run? I damn sure wouldn't.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I personally blame the media, as I tend to do for almost everything.

How refreshing to find someone who actually admits it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

How refreshing to find someone who actually admits it.

Well, I also have to blame the public for paying them any attention as well.

We could all just quit reading, watching, listening to the crap.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, I also have to blame the public for paying them any attention as well.

We could all just quit reading, watching, listening to the crap.

I wish I could have done that for the past 8 or so years.....

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I wish I could have done that for the past 8 or so years.....

I'm not sure how much knowing any of the information we learn really changes anyone's behavior anyway.

Did you really do anything different based on what you learned through political coverage in the last eight years? (Did you love Bush at one point and change your mind?)

I don't think most people do. They vote for the candidates that they'd be most likely to vote for anyway with only a superficial overview of positions, I think. (I'm all out of love for Bush, but I wouldn't vote for John Kerry or Gore if I had it all to do over again.) And I think a very small percentage of the non-professional lobbyist population ever seek to influence the positions of elected officials once they are elected.

Have you written your congressperson lately? Started a re-call effort? Gotten involved in internal party politics based on Michigan or Florida? I haven't.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I kind of like Grant, not that I'm suggesting he was an effective president. I think the Ken Burns series on the Civil War just built up my sympathy for the guy, and it's hard for me to see him as "retarded."

That's neither here nor there, I realize.

Oh, I actually like Grant too, but it doesn't change the fact that he was an unbelievably awkward President - while he was an unreal general (especially the amazing Vicksburg gambit), he basically abandoned all of the qualities that made him a great general when he took office, hence the "functional retard" portion . . . how a guy that smart, creative and willing to take risks becomes a risk-adverse, corruption-loving, Panic of 1873-ignoring douche is beyond me.

Again, YMMV and all that.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I personally blame the media, as I tend to do for almost everything. I'm not saying the press was somehow less biased or more intellectual in their coverage or anything insane like that, just that the relentless coverage of all aspects of a candidates life, 24 hours a day for maybe even years leading up to the race isn't making it easy to hold anyone in high regard. And I think it might keep good, sane people with normal egos from ever considering actual public service by holding office.

Would you run? I damn sure wouldn't.

I'm not sure that the office of President was ever the province of people with "sane egos" at any point in history, to be quite honest, but I can certainly understand where you're coming from with the rest - and that was kind of my point. Just because we're bombarded with this stuff on TV, over the air and on the Internet doesn't mean that it's any 'worse' than stuff that happened in 1950, 1850, or 1750 - there's quite a bit of evidence that this is actually the norm, not a recent development, but we're simply more saturated with information than before.

This is kind of like the inane outrage at "those darn kids" by older generations - it happens every year, and has since the beginning of time. I guess in my mind, this is kind of similar to only showing the top half of Elvis's body on TV - we can shake our heads all we want, but that doesn't mean we're "right" or righteous.