|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| And I gotta say, Goph. I'm a little surprised to see you arguing for what I always regarded as an oversimplified leftist view of the Reagan White House, ie. "Aww man, it was just an senile old hack film star led around by his wife and her fortune teller, hey anyone got any good jelly bean jokes!!" |
But I do not reduce the Reagan Administration to that. Still, that influence existed. My sources are those close to the President, including William J. Casey.
And does George W. Bush not cite his wife as occupying an extremely influential position in his life, personal and professional? That she and Born Again Christianity, if I read between the lines correctly, saved him from alcoholism? So add Laura Bush and her religious beliefs to our list.
And it was not always wives (and, as you said, their friends). Sometimes it was brothers: RFK and JFK.
I think you are getting my point, though, that it is not only the presidential candidate we vote into office, but his or her family and close circle of friends and loyalists as well. And we need to know who exactly we are sending to Washington and what exactly they believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That she and Born Again Christianity, if I read between the lines correctly, saved him from alcoholism? So add Laura Bush and her religious beliefs to our list. |
Yeah, but saving him from alcoholism is not the same thing as having an influence on policy. Some people are saved from alcoholism by their pastor at church, or friends at the office, etc, but those people usually don't occupy center-stage in a discussion about the campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps they ought to. We ought to know how each candidate sees the world and thinks, reaches decisions, etc.
And I think W. Bush's alcoholism and new-found religious beliefs probably came into play to one degree or another re: United States-Middle Eastern relations. I have heard people I trust discuss it, at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And I think W. Bush's alcoholism and new-found religious beliefs probably came into play to one degree or another re: United States-Middle Eastern relations. I have heard people I trust discuss it, at least. |
Well, I was always pretty skeptical of that one. Like a lot of people here, probably, I've read quite a bit about the build-up to the current war, and nothing I've encountered leads me to the view that Christian belief played much of a role at all in the war planners' schemings. I suppose Bush could have been influenced on a few decisions here and there by his personal faith, but not on anything like a meta scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If attention to the First Lady's career etc is justified by her influence on the president, does this also apply to other levels of government? I don't see why it shouldn't. If I'm someone who really worries about politics at the state level, for example, should I be inquiring as the what sort of career a gubernatorial candidate's wife has?
|
You're correct to ask this question. The answer, however, is no. I've been watching politics since '64 and there is only one non-presidential election (all levels) that I've ever been aware of where the candidate's wife's views were discussed. It may have happened more often but it is not at all common. The one case: Maria Shriver & Arnold. In that case, it was mostly done with humor. Everyone knew she is a Democrat and he was running as a Republican. There were jokes about their pillow talk. It was not a significant concern.
This insistence on knowing what the views of a potential First Lady are is something new. Possibly it's a consequence of the first Clinton campaign idea of 'getting two for one' coupled with the realization that Nancy Reagan played a bigger role than expected. In both cases there seems to be a Dragon Lady aspect to it all--a fear of a strong woman exerting evil influence on a weak and pliant president.
Very few people will allow their choice of who to vote for be influenced by, let alone determined by, a candidate's wife. I suspect a significantly larger number of people will allow their decision about who to vote against be influenced by a president's wife. Considerable numbers of people are still uncomfortable with professional women. (Remember the storm caused by Hillary's comment about baking cookies?) Deny it if you will, but there are still some residual pockets of racists lurking in the country. The concern about Michelle Obama is largely aimed at stirring up those two groups: Hey, Republicans! Have you noticed Michelle is a woman who didn't stay home? Have you noticed she's black? Oh no! Run for the hills...or better yet, run to the polls and vote against her  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeslamb
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know we sort of got onto a tangent, but I love her. I think those of you who don't are just haters.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jeslamb wrote: |
| I know we sort of got onto a tangent, but I love her. I think those of you who don't are just haters. |
Chock full of substance, that post was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeslamb
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, fine. I was trying to be terse and lighten up this 3-day weekend (I'm in the states right now), but I suppose I'll jump on my soapbox for a moment. Ya-Ta Boy said it perfectly. At no other point has a perspective first-lady gotten this much scrutiny. Why? Because she was legitimately concerned about high school aged girls participating in a trial for Gardasil? Ask yourself if you would like your own child participating in that study, and then take into consideration the demographic of those girls who were proposed to participate. The original blog says: "She [Obama] also altered the hospital�s research agenda. When the human papillomavirus vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer, became available, researchers proposed approaching local school principals about enlisting black teenage girls as research subjects." Why were only black teenage girls the proposed enlists? Are they more promiscuous? Are they more susceptible to HPV? I'm white, and I've been to a racially diverse high school, and through my knowledge I can tell you that an equal number of my white and black female friends were sexually active. The trial does smell fishy, especially with knowledge of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and often more common disenfranchising of minorities -- especially in urban areas. Oh, and she posted in a photo with six other prominent black female figures that included Mrs. Louis Farrakhan? I can only imagine the photos Hilary Clinton, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, and even Cindy McCain have been in. I think the Canadians are onto something with leaving this unnecessary scrutiny of political figure's wives out of the races. This scrutiny is trivial and silly. Almost as silly as the criticisms that she wears sleeveless dresses. Really?
Sort of off topic, if anyone is interested, read the biography of Malcolm X. I think it will certainly put this Black Nationalism/Reverend Wright situation into a bit more perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The original blog says: "She [Obama] also altered the hospital�s research agenda. When the human papillomavirus vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer, became available, researchers proposed approaching local school principals about enlisting black teenage girls as research subjects." Why were only black teenage girls the proposed enlists? Are they more promiscuous? Are they more susceptible to HPV? I'm white, and I've been to a racially diverse high school, and through my knowledge I can tell you that an equal number of my white and black female friends were sexually active. The trial does smell fishy, especially with knowledge of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and often more common disenfranchising of minorities -- especially in urban areas. |
You raise some interesting points. I'd really like to read more about those HPV vaccine studies in Chicago, but no one really seems to have picked up on the story, likely for the reasons of political inconvenience that I mentioned earlier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
