Sometimes, I think that the major media and the political punditry really have their priorities out of whack. Why else would we have to endure articles that criticize a candidate for the amount of money that they spend on their wardrobe?
[N]ews that the Republican National Committee (RNC) bought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family nearly $150,000 worth of clothing since September fueled charges of hypocrisy by her detractors and sparked questions about the legality of the expenditures.
Really? Why?
Consider it a campaign expenditure, similar to John Edwards' haircuts at $200 or more a clip. Yes, I know that conservative commentators criticized Edwards for those haircuts, and that Rush still refers to him as “the Breck Girl”, but come on! This is ridiculous on both sides.
It's a sad fact of life that physical appearance matters in our election.decisions. This has been evident ever since Richard M. Nixon lost the election to John F. Kennedy, an occurrence that was attributed to some degree on his poor physical appearance during their nationally televised debates. Given this, campaign expenditures on wardrobe, makeup, haircuts or other items relating to physical appearance and attractiveness seem justified.
But really now. Doesn't this support my contention that our national elections are really nothing more than popularity contests? Shouldn't we be basing these important decisions on matters of policy preferences, and on the records of the candidates?
Focusing on how much money a candidate, or a campaign, spends on clothing, haircuts, makeup, or other visual trappings is nothing but pettiness. The media needs to grow up. So does the electorate.
http://perrinelson.com/2008/10/23/1262.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment