What I'd Like to Hear a Presidential Candidate Say...
May 18th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"After Sen. Barack Obama's comments last week about what he typically eats for dinner were criticized by Sen. Hillary Clinton as being offensive to both herself and the American voters, the number of acceptable phrases presidential candidates can now say are officially down to four.
"'At the beginning of 2007 there were 38 things candidates could mention in public that wouldn't be considered damaging to their campaigns, but now they are mostly limited to 'Thank you all for coming,' and 'God bless America,' ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos said on Sunday's episode of This Week. 'There would still be five phrases available to the candidates if the Obama camp hadn't accused Clinton of saying 'Glad to be here' with a little tinge of sarcasm during a stump speech in North Carolina.'
"As of press time, the two additional phrases still considered appropriate for candidates are the often-quoted 'These pancakes are great,' and 'Death to the infidels.'"
The Onion satirical commentary above--Number Of Acceptable Things Candidates Can Say Now Down To Four--has a lot of truth to it. On a related note, one thing I find annoying about these elections is the "likeability" factor. The candidates have to be "likeable," "one of the people," etc., and have to chow down with whatever constituency they're wooing. This in an election for the top post in the most powerful empire in the history of mankind.
By contrast, one day I would like a see a candidate who tells the electorate this:
"I'm running for president because I'm the most qualified candidate. I'm not here to be your buddy. I'm not here to make you like me. I'm not here to be one of you. I'm not going to beg for votes in every greasy spoon in Iowa, and I'm not going to glad-hand you at rallies--it has nothing to do with the job for which you're electing me.
"I'm not going to waste my time with 23 different damn debates going over the same issues over and over again--I have better things to do. I'm smarter than you and more educated than you--hell, I'm smarter and more educated than almost anybody--and that's why you should vote for me for president.
"And if you're looking for a friend, go get a dog."
Now that would be a candidate I'd vote for...
"));
19 queries. 0.449 seconds.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I would love to hear that too, but I seriously doubt that will happen. The moment any candidate so much as suggests there might be an intelligence someone will shout "elitist" and then the candidate will have to eat tons cheap. greasy food to prove otherwise.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Glenn and TS you have almost missed your chance. It did happen. Hopefully its not too late
May 18th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
You had a candidate that said that Glenn. His name is Ron Paul. But since many Republicans apparently fear honesty and integrity, he's got an uphill battle.
On a related note, one guy who called me for advice on custody issues, I told him family courts are one of the main reason why I'm running for office. So the guy says, "Well I'd vote for you but how do I know you won't be just another political sell-out like all the other politicians".
I gave him a good earfull. "People like you are a big reason why I'll never win. The ONLY way I think I'll have a chance to win is to sell-out and be "politically correct", only say "nice things", and tell people what they want to hear".
I've heard much the same from many other people in elected office. They've told me, "Thomas, we like your views, but you'll never win by telling people the truth".
Ron Paul did just that - he spoke the truth. And several people (some on this blog) felt more threatened by his message of truth than they are by feminists preaching hatred of men. Go figure!
Thomas Lessman
Website: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
==================
May 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Glenn there is a presidential candidate that says that... Ron Paul.
The question is, do we have enough balls to write him in, since honesty is so important to us, or do we consider it "wasting a vote," whatever that means.
You might find this onion story relevant as well;
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks
May 19th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Paul,
Most Ron Paul supporters have enough balls to stand up for him when he is being ridiculed by the general public. It is hardly a question whether they have the gut to write him in. It is the others that need to make up their mind.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:08 am
I too am fed up with the way politics has degenerated. Nowadays there is too much pandering, and too many candidates who simply want to avoid anything controversial or politically risky and simply concentrate on 'motherhood and apple pie' issues.
Partly this has been exacerbated by the opinion polling industry, which makes it easier to ensure that you are simply telling the electorate what they want to hear.
Ultimately the electorate is partly to blame, in that people prefer politicians to tell them what they want to hear rather than telling them how things really are.
Another trend in modern politics that I dislike is the need for politicians to be seen to be caring about the needs and lives of ordinary people, and the fake concern and empathy that needs to be expressed. It would be nice if someone running for office could say 'I'm not going to pretend to be concerned about everyone's problems. I'm not some over-attentive mother who is sensitive to your every need. It's my job to make the hard decisions. And I won't be able to please everyone. And it's not my job to provide for your every need. You may need to do more things for yourself.
And by the way, I earn a lot more money than you do. But I deserve it. Being in public life is tough, and involves long hours. So don't get resentful about the fact that you make a lot less than I do. I've earned it. You haven't'.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am
The reason why the courts and the laws are biased against men is because many men are politically apathetic and don't vote. The solution is simple - VOTE! Additionally, encourage other men to vote.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:46 am
I must vehemently disagree. While politicians should have qualifications and qualities vastly beyond the average American, they cannot present themselves as inaccessible or "elitist" without alienating a majority of voters. They must be able to understand and look out for "the little guy." Anecdotes of success notwithstanding, the US is becoming a society where simple hard work is not enough to succeed, and millions of working men and women of all colors in certain regions live in poverty. A person coming from a place of privilege (such as inherited or marriage into wealth) may have difficulty understanding the less fortunate (or even the middle class), and why they could use a hand up (not handout).
For example, what do millionaire elected officials with on the surface successful marriages really understand about the plight of men on this blog? Can they identify with men living in poverty saddled with unreasonable alimony or support payments? Can they empathize with so called "deadbeat" dads, the vast majority of whom are demonstrated to be living in poverty or with unstable employment, as opposed to being *the very ones* voting and signing into law measures to have them publicly shamed and jailed? Are these qualified and well to do politicians not the very ones to whom you must appeal to have common sense put into law regarding family or father's rights? I submit it would be much easier if these politicians were people like yourselves - with their own family issues if necessary. Unfortunately, such people (divorced or single dads with financial concerns or issues about fairness regarding gender, marriage, divorce, alimony and child support) would probably never be elected to Congress or the White House.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Thomas Lessmann said
"I gave him a good earfull. "People like you are a big reason why I'll never win. The ONLY way I think I'll have a chance to win is to sell-out and be "politically correct", only say "nice things", and tell people what they want to hear".
I've heard much the same from many other people in elected office. They've told me, 'Thomas, we like your views, but you'll never win by telling people the truth'."
The other problem is that in order to get anything done in politics it is necessary to compromise sometimes and to say that your opponents have a point. As soon as you do that, you are accused of selling out by a lot of people.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
If that did work, then people would say those things to get elected.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
How about a candidate who will speak up for men's rights?
Oh Glenn, could you start a campaign to suggest to the candidates that men's rights need to be taken seriously since none of the seem to do so.
One of my biggest conerns is I-VAWA (the international violence agaisnt women act)......seem that violence against men is a reprehensible as violence against women - not that violence agsainst men would get the attention of many feminists.
ok, so men in america can now go to domestic vioelnce shelters despite the sexist name of VAWA, but must we make the same mistakes on the international stage????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I see where you coming from Glenn but I somewhat see what Aardvark is talking about. Its true that politicians do way too much pandering these days but at the same time a total separation from the public whose interests you're supposed to be looking out for (even if you and the public aren't on the same page) would be a very bad idea.
Look at Bush. He basically acts as if the constantly rising gas prices (they're knocking on the door of $4/gal. in my area) is no big deal. The prices aren't all his fault but I would at least like to think that he acknowlegdes the problem and actually wants to do something about it.
Trying to be everyone's friend is not the solution and neither is total separation. You can see the mess trying to be everyone's friend can cause but I know I wouldn't vote for candidate that made no effort to get to know the people he/she is supposed to be looking out for in this country and represent us on the world stage.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I would like to vote for the candidate that returns power to a neutered congress!!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Nowadays you are the bad guy if you tell the truth. Our society has been so softened by political correctness and special interest groups, e.g feminists that they don't even know how to confront the truth anymore or their not sure what the truth actually is.
I would love a politician to say those things but I think less than 10% of the population can actually that much truth and honesty.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Fred Thompson tried that and failed.
If Americans were a reasonable and sensible people... Well forget that... never happen....
Please continue your dog and pony show.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The latest outrage is when feminists jumped on the bandwagon criticizing him for calling that female reporter "sweety." It's apparently sexist to say sweety yet despite the fact that women in professional settings call me honey and sweety regularly. I'm male and I don't mind. Sometimes people need to just grow a backbone and get over themselves and get over it as opposed to this perpetual outrage at everything.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Aye, that's one of the main problems.
And then top that off with the "nanny-state" and everyone (especially women) thinking that the government should take care of them instead of them taking care of themselves....
Of course, Glenn, it would be HIGHLY politically incorrect for me to say so, but you need to realize that this all changed when women got the vote. They voted for government to become their surrogate father/husband and men, being the majority of the workers and earners, are the ones mostly paying the bill for it.
P.S. I agree with Ron Paul's message: I'll get the government out of your life, and then you can take care of yourself to the best of your ability.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think Ralph Nader has the real explanation for why politics today is what it is --
We now have a government of, by, and for the large corporations and "the people" rarely enter into the big policy decisions, which are all about corporate greed and profiteering.
The Iraq war is the prime example of how to swindle the American public with faux-patriotism all the while funneling billions to Halliburton, Blackwater, and dozens of other for-profit companies that are profiteering from the war and American & Iraqui blood being spilled.
Hundredsof corporate lobbyists inside the beltway ensure that democracy does not accidentally break out.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
We have the "leaders," and the government, we deserve.
We are, apparently, not very deserviing....
May 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Good one Glenn, although Aardvark get the points.
Along similar lines I note that American’s love to hear presidential soft spoken homilies, preferably by “real people”, you know, “just like them” in relation to all things “American” and they like tough talk when it comes to “crime” (whatever that might happen to be on the day) and America’s “enemies” (whomever they might be on the day). This appears to be highly ingrained if not borderline obsessional.
Look what it gets us - Bush I and Bush II – with promises of small, low-spending government that should stay out of the people’s way. Look what that got us – more indelibly-ingrained national socialism.
Well, we seem to fall for it every time. Even Bill Clinton, who has twice the intellect and street smarts of the two Bushes combined – sorry let’s make that four times the intellect – was very adept at appearing to be down-home American and the electorate ate it up – most didn’t even notice the fact that he was extremely intelligent, largely because he (cleverly) hid it from them.
I saw an interview of Ohio voters in the last election. One interviewee, a grass roots American, when asked what he thought of the candidates, said, “Well, I’m a Republican, always have been, and I voted for Bush last time but I kinda feel like America needs to have a President that has some . . . what I’d call sophistication – if you know what I mean. I don’t believe George has much of that and I kinda think that isn’t too good for our country. So I’m gonna vote for the other guy.” Needless to say, that guy was not representative of the group as a whole.
I agree with other posters - Ron Paul was the only true American running in the current election – I suspect that certain personality traits let him down.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
"The other problem is that in order to get anything done in politics it is necessary to compromise sometimes and to say that your opponents have a point. As soon as you do that, you are accused of selling out by a lot of people."
Malcolm,
No it is not so. Compromise means a give and take. I have a small problem with the give. The TAKE is what I have a big problem with. If you are compromising your stand, you got to be trading something - which will not be explicit. The moment politicians start cutting deals with each other - people start loosing their representation. This is what I have a problem with when people say that you have to bring people together - no you don't! You don't have to - if they do come together by themselves behind you - then that is ideal. By the way this compromising has been going on too long, which is why the US govt is in the state it is.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Not to get too political, but I also suspect that many of Paul's policies weren't the greatest ideas. In fact, I know he did. He is sincere as can be but you can't run a serious platform insisting on returning to the gold standard.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Celia,
The certain personality traits that have let Ron Paul down are - humbleness, intellectual take on situations, no desire to appease the media or the establishment, no pandering, no jingoistic war mongering or fear mongering, trying to help out everyone - not just those that directly control policies via lobbying and uncompromising ideals.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Taidan,
He was not running on returning to a "gold standard" - rather commodity backed money
where 1 dollar = something tangible.
It is mis understandings like this that have cost him (actually not him - it doesn't matter to him if he looses - its the American people loosing out) dearly.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Even if our dollar was backed by silver, our dollar would regain considerable value. It would be better if it was backed by gold.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that will save the United States from certain decline.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Pankaj said:
“Celia,
The certain personality traits that have let Ron Paul down are - humbleness, intellectual take on situations, no desire to appease the media or the establishment . . .”
With respect I have to disagree, I think most individuals have no argument with those traits – in fact most would admire and respect them. The ones to which I was referring were his occasional lack of tact and his tendency to become, for lack of a better term, “shrill” and, at times, even somewhat inarticulate when he was attacked. A calm but precisely-aimed, intellectually devastating answer to his detractors would, I suggest, have served him (and those of us who believe in his platform and the Constitution) better.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
A lack of tact? Do you mean lack of pandering or sugar coating? It is a welcome change to have a political figure (not a politician) to actually speak his mind. When was the last time you saw that happening?
As to him being shrill - please cite an example. There are thousands of youtube videos that can help you. Practically all his television appearances are there. I fail to see where he has not been articulate. Infact he has always been to the point and precise in answering what he was asked. I never saw him less than precisely aimed and intellectually devastating. Please, I really want to see what makes you think he was not so.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Pankaj,
I am not attacking him personally – in fact I have supported him, and the Libertarian movement, for years and still do. I am simply commenting on what I believe let him down.
I am making a personal observation regarding his demeanor. I think he could have been a bit sharper on the hustings. He tends to get flustered when under pressure (or at least appears to do so) and his remarks sometimes come off as something other than “considered” even though they are almost certainly more so than others’ - this lets him down. His comments will often appear to be "off-topic" even when, in fact, they aren't - I call this being inarticulate. Sometimes, especially in a controlled environment he pulls it off very well but too often he shoots himself in the foot when the pressure is on.
His honesty and forthrightness are without question – his occasional SEEMINGLY off-topic remarks turn the average, uninformed American off. He frequently will launch into the middle of an answer that was in desperate need of some introductory comments – a brief preamble or “stage setting”, if you like. This is what I mean by inarticulate. It is easy to give such answers when one is preaching to the converted – after all they already “get it” – but this doesn’t work on an audience devoid of background knowledge.
I have attempted to introduce this movement to my academic colleagues (with some success) but most simply regard Ron Paul as a little bit “whacky” and out of touch. To be perfectly frank with you I put this down to his inability to “tell the story” in a reasoned, rational, unemotive fashion. This is what I mean by inarticulate.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
>people start loosing their representation.
>it doesn't matter to him if he looses.
"Fails to win" and "Being deprived of" is spelled L O S E S. Thank you.
Nothing personal, Pankaj! : ) (I mis-spell words, too.)
May 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
lol... Jay R, thanks for correcting me. I would have sworn it was the right word, but apparently it is not.
This is probably another of those UK english vs US english mismatches. But I will try to use the US english from now on.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
"this doesn’t work on an audience devoid of background knowledge."
You are right, but I don't call that inarticulate. I have converted over a couple of staunch opponents of his. And I dont really think the responsibility of educating people is completely on him only. If people are uneducated - they have a chance to understand what he is talking about. If they don't take that chance, they deserve the govt they are going to get.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
What did Barack say about what he eats for dinner? I missed it...
And yes, Ron Paul was our hope...unfortunately, too many out there claim to want the truth, claim to want the government out of their hair...but when it comes down to it, they only want the government out of their hair if it benefits them...not if it benefits someone else...and of course, nobody seems to really want the truth...at least, not the majority.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Pankaj said:
“And I don’t really think the responsibility of educating people is completely on him only.”
Of course it is not “completely on him”. But it is partly “on him” and it certainly is in his (and our) best interests that he present a cogent message to help people understand.
To use a simple analogy, there are good teachers and some less so. Good teachers inevitably make learning easy, not a struggle. In this day and age most working people’s lives are pretty full. If someone can impart valid, useful knowledge in a facile manner, we are all better off having gained that knowledge readily than ending up finding it all to hard to justify pursuit of that particular knowledge, and for many, ultimately concluding that it is all to difficult to even be worth pursuing.
“If people are uneducated - they have a chance to understand what he is talking about.”
Yes but there is nothing wrong with him offering readily comprehended guidance and inspiration to send them on their way towards its acquisition. A coherent explanation accompanying an answer can sometimes save a lot of angst and thus in some settings it may, in fact, be of equal value to the answer itself.
“If they don't take that chance, they deserve the govt they are going to get”
Yes but that’s not to say that you or I deserve it.
GB Shaw said, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” Which was a nuanced version of Joseph de Maistre’s famous quote. I think Shaw’s version is closer to the truth.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Celia, the responsibility of defending your freedoms is on you. Idealistically speaking you should reject such a government. Practically speaking you should strive to educate as many people as you possibly can - the right way. If you don't like the way the govt is - change it. If not, move. If that is not possible for you - then you are in a ignore or live with it sort of situation.
"it certainly is in his (and our) best interests that he present a cogent message to help people understand." - no its not! What is he going to gain by getting into a presidency which will only have the congress negate everything he tries? Actually he is better off being a teacher than a President - thanks to the way people have elected their congressional representatives. It would have been probably in his self-interest to blow off the money he got on ad campaigns on a short dash to get victory. But he did not.
I don't know what country are you talking about when you mention Shaw's quote. Because the USA is not a democracy - never was and never should be. It is a constitutional republic. Thank god for that and work with the local Ron Paul group to get ethical local govt.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
"If someone can impart valid, useful knowledge in a facile manner, we are all better off having gained that knowledge readily than ending up finding it all to hard to justify pursuit of that particular knowledge, and for many, ultimately concluding that it is all to difficult to even be worth pursuing."
While I agree with the sentiment - my experience has been horrible at trying this. People simply do not care at what the knowledge is - its a fast food sort of knowledge acquisition process coupled with blatant disregard for human values when it comes to humans outside the USA. Its a shame that Dr. Paul has to preach to such a crop.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Any candidate currently running for president has got to be better than the current "president".
May 20th, 2008 at 8:29 am
What's amusing to me is that Bush II went from middle of the road, to superman, to deadbeat in terms of approval ratings in less than eight years. He was not particularly liked when he entered office (I forget the actuall approval numbers when he entered office or in his first moinths of office). Post 9/11, he went from 90% approval ratings to somewhere in the 30% approval or less lately.
Just a few years ago it was open season on anyone who dared cricize bush II. Now, the opoposite is true, speak in favor of Bush II and expect to be attacked verbally, not debated. I have never been a big fan of Bush II and I was pretty vehemently against him for a time, but now can put things in a little greater perspective (I am still mostly displased with him, but refuse to blame him for everything and anything under the sun).
Here's the irony, his approval ratings will go down and down slowly until he leaves office. And then what happens? As time passes, his approval ratings will rise. He'll never get to 90% approval as he did post 9/11, but over time he will be regarded more and more favorably. Ten and twenty years from now he will be presented to the public as being as good as Reagan (not that I like Reagan, but his rep was polished and whitewashed as bush II's will be).
May 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Celia Says – “To use a simple analogy, there are good teachers and some less so. Good teachers inevitably make learning easy, not a struggle. In this day and age most working people’s lives are pretty full. If someone can impart valid, useful knowledge in a facile manner, we are all better off having gained that knowledge readily than ending up finding it all to hard to justify pursuit of that particular knowledge, and for many, ultimately concluding that it is all to difficult to even be worth pursuing.”
Some may view this type of candidate favorably (s/he is informative and a straight shooter) while others will feel s/he is pedantic and condescending (he talks down to us like we are ignorant). The system we have now (despite its flaws that we could never possibly agree on) is one of the most transparent in the history of the world and that is both to its benefit and its detriment.
Pankaj Says - “Celia, the responsibility of defending your freedoms is on you. Idealistically speaking you should reject such a government. Practically speaking you should strive to educate as many people as you possibly can - the right way. If you don't like the way the govt is - change it. If not, move. If that is not possible for you - then you are in a ignore or live with it sort of situation.”
And if my neighbor ignores their responsibility, I may get the shaft along with him or her. We are in a collective boat where we all may suffer for the indecision, ignorance or, contempt of our collective neighbors.
We live in a supposed constitutional republic, not a democracy. IS that like saying we are Lutherans and not Christians (knowing that we are in fact different from and yet still much closer to the Christians than we are to the Sunnis or the Shia).
We are a supposed capitalist society and yet we all get excited when commodity prices rise (some thing to expect in a capitalist society). When commodity prices fall we all put our COLLECTIVE heads in the sand and do NOTHING to prepare for the day when commodity prices wil naturally rise again (the first energy crisis of my life was a shock, the second one didn't surprise me except in how long it took for history to repeat itself and in how many people who lived through the last one didn't see this coming).
If we lived under communism, we could expect constant prices and short supply. We could buy our gas at the black market when gas ran out every day at the corner station. so let's all urge congress to set a price for fuel and wait to see if the international oil companies sell their gas to us for $4/gal or in the rest of the world for $12/gal (and if they did, who would be the first stockholder to sue the company cuz it didn't earn based upon expectations).
I have tried educating people. That was mostly surprisingly tragic in its consequences. I have tried ignoring it (that worked ok and I will likely go back to it). I am considering moving out (and I do not expect better results, just the same with different names). There will be drawbacks with moving out, but OH the advantages.
None of the places I am considering moving to do i expect to be as patriarchal as many suggest (matriarchy is strong in so many places you won't be able to escape it by running anywhere-women are everywhere thank goodness or your chosen deity). I see drawbacks to unrestrained patriarchy as well as unrestrained matriarchy.
people ask me who i want to win the coming election and sometimes i simply say i want someone who has the temerity to suggest that the candidate i want is oen for whom men's rights is a concern (not to be ignored or trampled on anymore). I do not care how they address me if they at least attempt to address my needs (they can talk nice or not nice as long as they stop steam rolling me and so many other men and women who get hurt in the process of steam rolling men).
IMHO, socialism wouldn’t be all that bad if it still had market forces in play and helped ALL people, not just the "IN" groups. Men are one of the "OUT" groups and as such the socialists in our midst refuse to address men's needs or issues seriously.
Republicrat or Demublican, what difference does it make? they all ignore men's rights and issues. In a matriarchy, infrastructure, lacking glamour, neither gets maintained (so it falls apart) or built (as needed for a growing society). who tends to build and maintain infrastructure? Mostly men (but it often benefits women as well -most men share with their women or the family courts just give most of it to the women anyway. In our matriarchal society, where women pretend to do work equal to men (equal work is equally DANGEROUS and maintaining and building infrastructure is quite dangerous), we, collectively get our panties in a bunch when we find men building bridges or fixing or maintaining anything earning a wage commensurate with the risks that they take to their health.
One of the biggest travesties today is the spending of the social security surplus at the same time that claims are being denied or delayed for years at a time for disabled workers (most of whom are men). But who dares, we have allowed illegals to take the jobs that they claim we do not want to do (we want to do them, but not for watered down wages, but at the wages that the market sustains based upon supply and demand. Ever heard of the Great Wall in China. It was a racist ploy to keep folks out of China. Anyone who wants to build a Great Wall here in this country is branded a racist if we dare point out that most Mexicans would rather pay a coyote $12,000 and sneak in the back door (to avoid the line) than to pay $3,000 for a green card applications fees and an immigration attorney coming in the front door and waiting in the line. Flood the back and dilute the wage of American men while we claim they do not want to do the work. We are willing to do the work, but we do not want to have to compete with someone who snuck in the back door so they could earn ten times what they would have earned back home and still look at us like we are scum.
If I do not like it here, I can leave and if they do not like it here, then stop giving me the dirty look and get heck out themselves.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Politics is a luxury that most folks do not have and is reflected in the low rate of voter turnout.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Akhi,
A lot of people like you have not joined Ron Paul - (one of them sees the merit, but does not have the gut to join it). The dream of socialism is actually a reality in a lot more countries than is a constitutional republic. Yes they are a whole lot different. People have let this country slide into becoming a democracy. And now that the careless generations have let this happen, some crave for socialism without even knowing what it really does to its people. Technically, if you are ok with socialism - why do you not move to Germany, France or UK? They have pretty good standards of living there.
The reason politicians ignore men's rights is because men ignore themselves and not the other way around. If you want to feel disgusted - look at a chivalrous man who looks out for the benefit of the woman (even unrelated) than himself. Feel disgusted when your son is taught that he should give up his seat to any lady on a bus as being polite. What has happened to the American worker is bad, but protectionism is not the answer. A steady flow of skillful hardworking immigrants held this country up for a long time. Only after it stiffled the gates to other immigrants did the illegals get the incentive to come in. Think about it this way - If a mexican illegal had to compete with a Chinese legal immigrant, there would not be so many illegals. Problem is - no matter what American workers say - there are jobs that illegals can get - despite not having the right paperwork.
The rest of the argument is a chicken and egg argument - were there jobs for illegals first which they sneaked in to do or are there jobs held back for illegals after they are here. My guess is its a cascade. Some jobs - some illegals - - low pay - more jobs - more illegals - even low pay.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Ron Paul was that candidate. The media blackballed him to such a degree most people had no clue who he was, even though I have seen more signs for Paul than any other candidate, in several large states. I have never seen the media play such a heavy handed role in determining an electoral outcome.
I will be writing in Ron Paul. I truly believe he would stand up for men's rights if he was made aware of the issues. In many instances he has stood against the same things we also stood against, such as VAWA.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Ron Paul scares me. It’s one thing to be all about “following the Constitution”, but you have to have a heart and a soul as well. Many of those on the extreme Right have neither.
He is good on a few issues (notably Iraq, although not surprising since he is so very isolationist, and also he’s anti Patriot Act), but he has very odd beliefs on many others. And what makes anyone think he will be good on men’s rights issues? Is it his lack of support for all things women-oriented? That does not necessarily mean he will support you men. Be careful.
He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, he is very anti-immigrant, pro-abstinence-only sex “education”, against abortion (fertilized egg is a person after all and so what if you’re raped by your uncle? Not the egg’s fault), wants an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting flag burning, opposes the minimum wage, etc. To a liberal like me, he is extremely right wing. White supremacists like him too because of his beliefs (although to be fair, he doesn’t appear to be one, despite objectionable comments he has made in the past).
May 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Pankaj,
“If you want to feel disgusted - look at a chivalrous man who looks out for the benefit of the woman (even unrelated) than himself. Feel disgusted when your son is taught that he should give up his seat to any lady on a bus as being polite.”
1) What is “disgusting” about either of these? Maybe you object because of your underlying misogyny, but neither of these is disgusting.
2) Who but family teaches sons to give up seats to women on buses? Schools don’t. And when is that last time you’ve seen a guy give up a seat on a bus to a female? (Although I don’t ride buses, but when I do, I don’t see it.)
3) How do you define looking out for the benefit of a woman (even unrelated)—running to open a door for her? Letting her go first into a room? Are these bad things? It seems like you believe all men would willingly throw themselves on grenades for us. Highly doubtful.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:08 am
They are disgusting because they teach men to value themselves lower than women for no apparent reason except what is between their (men's) legs. The cycle of devaluation begins there. Is it any surprise that some men who fall for this - feel the need to earn more to makeup to be worth something to the woman?
Unfortunate are those men that grow up in such families. Thank god men are getting more and more immune to such "teachings"
"It seems like you believe all men would willingly throw themselves on grenades for us. Highly doubtful."
No Jeana - I don't believe that. Only the suckers who are taught chivalry - do something stupid like that. It used to be heroic at some point in history - another name for such self-less misguided individuals. By the way the "ALL" in your statement did not miss me. Point taken - as far as there is a single man that refuses to be a sucker to chivalrism, men will not be thrown a bone even of a verbal - thank you. Good deal
May 21st, 2008 at 12:30 am
Jeana says - "Ron Paul scares me"
Although all your fears in him are baseless (His policies are clearly stated on his website) - here is something scarier - RON PAUL has stated that he will revoke the federal funding to VAWA and is in favor of eliminating welfare and making social security a voluntary option. Once the economy has been restored, welfare incentives for illegals have been eliminated - he is the most pro-immigrant candidate there is. But I would rather have you fear him.
I am glad that he scares you - that is a clear sign of which side is right for me - Thank you for affirming my faith in his ideas. In case you haven't known he is the most conservative member of congress - why are you even thinking about him with your "liberal" ideas?
Oh and he does not believe in Gay or Women's or even Men's rights - only individual rights - aka. bye bye special privileges.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:38 am
Sorry that was a little too harsh. My apologies Jeana - I thought I was being funny. There goes my dream of being the king of standup comedy. Nothing I have said is untrue in my opinion - but I should have put it in a better way.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:30 am
Pankaj,
“"It seems like you believe all men would willingly throw themselves on grenades for us. Highly doubtful."
No Jeana - I don't believe that. Only the suckers who are taught chivalry - do something stupid like that. It used to be heroic at some point in history - another name for such self-less misguided individuals."
Pankaj, the points I was trying to make are that:
1) Yes, it is polite to give up your seat to someone else. This includes a woman, but since chivalry is dead after all, it is entirely unnecessary to do this these days UNLESS: the woman is elderly, sick/disabled, obviously tired, with a baby or small children. And guess what, Pankaj, this goes for men too. I would gladly give my seat to a man with a baby or packages, or an elderly guy. This is the definition of politeness. Life should not be an every-man-for-themselves type of situation.
2) “They are disgusting because they teach men to value themselves lower than women for no apparent reason except what is between their (men's) legs.” No, you are not devaluing yourself when you extend politeness to someone else. You are showing that you are a gracious individual.
3) The grenade example was hyperbole. However, I do think that it is the ultimate act of selflessness to give your life to save another’s. I see nothing wrong and everything right about wanting to help save people. Not because you are a man; I would expect the same from a woman. It is the humanist thing to do. But I am a liberal; what I do know.
4) When you said that it was disgusting to give up your seat, I wondered, is giving up your seat to a woman more disgusting than falsely accusing a guy of rape in order to utterly destroy him? Which is truly disgusting, and which is an act of politeness? I am counting on you to come up with the right answer.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:03 am
You have experienced guys claiming to enjoy paying .. no? What do you think that was? I wish Chivalry was dead. If it were, there would be no Joe Biden. The correct situation is the benefits to be repayed for chivalry are non-payable anymore.
Thin line between being gracious and being chivalrous. Note that I did not mention that giving up seats to elderly being taught. The lessons of never hit women follow next. I have a clip I downloaded of John Stossel - where he talks about socializing of boys vs girls. It is pretty obvious after watching it - that in interest of self-preservation, a boy must be taught to put himself first - before everything else. Funny how even mothers prep their own sons to be disposable as an individual - a second class human.
Its a stupid act - unless you are going to benefit from it - e.g. your children might be saved. Apart from that - look at the company you are in, before you jump on it. For too long men have prided themselves - stupidly so- in jumping on the proverbial grenade. If you think about it - men have nothing to loose by the destruction of family. Yet they try to preserve it, bear the brunts of it - what for?
Both are disgusting. They just vary in degrees and blame. Society for teaching a young boy that somehow he should pride himself in being a second class human. The poor boy - for believing it - even after he grows up and shuts his eyes to reality. In the later case, society for failing in its job to protect the dignity of the individual. The man for believing that the society is interested in doing its job towards him. The later is a breach of trust and the former is much more offensive because an innocent child is being enslaved to the ideals of chivalry - which he cannot possibly understand or consent to.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
If I can, I will find it and give you a link to the article from 20/20. Makes you very angry - if you respect boys and men as humans that is.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:10 am
As a liberal you do know one thing very well.
How to spend money that is not yours on charity/work that you think is justified regardless of the will of those that earned it.
No one can beat you "liberals" at that and everything that goes into doing so. (Tsk.. you are not really liberal in the classical meaning of the word, if you were you would be fine with what conservatives do i.e. tolerate a different view point. )
May 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
Pankaj,
A trickle of Immigrants has been useful to this country and I would welcome that. What we have however is not a trickle, but a flood.
What happened to Ron Paul happened to Howard Dean (yup, the media shot his butt down). Hilary said she was the only candidate who was criticized for showing emotion (ignoring how Dean was shot to pieces for showing a strong emotion).
Really knowing all the alternatives and knowing the reality from the mythology/PR campaigns is a luxury that most people do not have or will not affford themselves. Knowing the candidates is not enough, there is still the problem of knowing the problems in depth enough to make sound decisions.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Pankaj,
“If you think about it - men have nothing to lose by the destruction of family. Yet they try to preserve it, bear the brunt of it - what for?”
I think, after hearing all the examples of how men suffer from divorce that they do indeed lose by the destruction of family. They lose a lot. Of course they want to preserve it. For themselves and for their children (and wife).
“Society for teaching a young boy that somehow he should pride himself in being a second class human.”
Can you give me an example of how we tell boys to be second class humans? I think feminism tells girls that they’re just as good as boys, but not better. If I thought that males were second class or heard someone allude to that, I would stop them right there. I’m sorry you think that society does that. From my perspective, it does not, but I’m not a male.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Pankaj,
“As a liberal you do know one thing very well. How to spend money that is not yours on charity/work that you think is justified regardless of the will of those that earned it.”
You conservatives to one thing very well too: you also spend money that is not yours waging wars that are not justified, on tax breaks/incentives to corporations (corporate welfare) to go overseas and take their jobs with them, and on tax breaks for billionaires, regardless of the will of those that earned it.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Not to criticize Glenn or any other FRA, but they are clinging on to a chivalrist dream. They are clinging to something they cannot hold - at least not the way they are fighting - need a whole lot more of force.
An anti-thesis to that is - feminists have often dreamed of destroying masculinity. What they have not thought about is what happens if masculinity shrugs chivalrism and lives for itself. They cannot possibly imagine what the effects of a self-destructive masculinity will be. It is the forte of men - to protect and to destroy. If worse comes to worse, there maybe a day where men will have to choose that path.
This is precisely why feminist mothers need to keep their boys "under control" - if they learn their true nature. So far they are doing a very good job at that. Lets see how long that lasts.
Here is my proof of boys being second class citizens - if a boy gets sexually assualted - what does the woman get punished for? Reverse the sexes and look again. Message is clear - its only a minor infraction to rape a young boy (just like the blacks) if you are female (just like the whites).
Yes that is a hyperbole - it has not gotten as bad as the black slaves for all men - just some that have been unfortunate.
FYI, many whites - usually slave owners - thought that the black slaves "had it good" in slavery. Jeana, sadly that includes your son too. He will become the best beast of burden for the rest of his life. Its his destiny along with almost all men that grow up in a feminist chivalrist culture. They have no chance of escaping.
Feminism does not tell girls that they are just as good as boys - it tells girls that they are privileged beings - who can have their cake and eat it too. In fact to make such a comparison would be an insult to the privileged class of humans - aka women.
Feminism 101 for Jeana - want to ruin a man's life along with trauma to carry along for life? Accuse him of rape. Don't worry all bases are covered with the hysteria we have created. You don't even have to prove anything if you are in the right part of the world. By the way, your contribution to the hysteria will be greatly appreciated.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
liberals open your eyes and welcome your long lost super-liberal brethren. They can give you even more of the welfare state - even more big brother than you can imagine. They even masquerade as conservatives for added effect - and guess what people believe them including the liberal brethren! The neo-conservatives! Bow to William Krystol as you pass by.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Pankaj,
True liberals do not masquerade as conservatives. I think both Barack and Hillary are far too corporate and "Washington" for me. I initially wanted Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards. I even liked Mike Gravel--he at least said what he felt even if he's a little weird. I like Bernie Sanders and John Conyers. I like Ted Kennedy. I don't like the corporate Dems. I despise neo-cons.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 am
Pankaj,
Is there any difference in sentencing for a man to rape a girl vs a boy? You bring up women raping boys, but how often does that happen? Women should not get away with it, but how is that the fault of feminists? Really, why would a judge not sentence a woman harshly? Or is it just the white blonde women who get away with everything? Do women of color get away with things? I doubt it.
And my son will grow up and think of females as his equal; not his superior. I do everything I can to prepare him (he's only 7 now) for the future. When he is sad because a girl "breaked" up with him, I tell him to simply find another girl because there's so many that want to be with him. I want him to know that he has choices and options and I am going to teach him how to maneuver the system so that he will succeed.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Jeana -
Real conservatives and libertarians are opposed to wars that do not involve defense of one's own country or retaliation for an attack. Neocons, and everybody else, support them.
Real conservatives and libertarians are opposed to corporate welfare, social welfare, any other subsidies to our economy, budget deficits, massive government spending, national debts, and central banking. Neocons, and everybody else, support them.
Real conservatives and libertarians are opposed to having social issues decided at the federal level, and would prefer those issues to bed decided at the state and local levels. Neocons, and everybody else, support them.
Real conservatives and libertarians are opposed to a surveillance and police and military state. Neocons, and everybody else, support them, when it benefits them.
Get the facts, not the B.S. you have been spoon-fed to believe in. It's people who think like you, and the neocons, who have brought this country to the brink of self-destruction.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
So it doesn't happen often? Do you know that?
Who's fault it is - a different matter.. at this point of time - boys are worth lesser than a girl.
"Why would a judge not sentence a woman harshly?" Don't tell me I have to take you through history to make you understand prejudice and privilege! Who knows if women of color commit rapes or not? The upbringing of black kids (who are most likely to be around them) is such that homosexuality is a bigger deal than whites - if you pick up a copy of Ebony - the kind of man hate and man degradation in there is an envy of the white feminists. They can just get to it - no prelude required.
Unfortunately - your son will think of females as his equals - and will treat them as superior and know very well that they are superior - just that he will be cultured to block it out. By his time, I pray things have not gone much worse than today. I hope you know what you are doing - because for all I know you may be damaging him more. As for finding a girl - whenever that happens hope he has cash in hand and not taken away by the previous "girlfriend" and hope he does not need to register on a sexual offender registery. With the way 13 & 14 year old boys can be put on that for harmless school play - i am sure a whole lot more boys will end up on there. Unless he is gay that is - then it will be completely alright.
You have time till he grows up - maybe not.. But try and see how it looks from the other side not the way you presume it looks. Unless you really know what it is like - boys will suffer. You said he needs to learn to maneuver the system - try and I hope you succeed - unfortunately I have no doubt in my mind that you don't know how to maneuver it yourself - after you put yourself in a man's shoes that is.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
On a brighter side, all who read and participate with this web-log have 4 years to prepare for the next national election to bring men's concerns to the fore.
There are a lot of capable people writing on this site to bring attention to the current state of men's issues. You guys know your stuff enough to challenge the feminist status quo in writing. Public airing of men's issues is more difficult when there are legions out there who will be very happy to contribute to the democratic process by shouting down others at public forums, labelling those as woman haters and redirecting discussions to women's concerns.
Looks like a lot of fun ahead.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
What I want to see is a Candidate with a plan, a real plan and the guts to stand up in front of anyone and everyone and read it, and btw when was the last time we had a candidate, at any level for any office, with a plan in hand?
And why is it the same idiots keep getting re-elected term after term?
May 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am
jeana Says: - “You bring up women raping boys, but how often does that happen? Women should not get away with it, but how is that the fault of feminists? Really, why would a judge not sentence a woman harshly? Or is it just the white blonde women who get away with everything? Do women of color get away with things? I doubt it.”
The mythology that has been created (mostly by feminists) around rape is that men do it and women do not. It is a useful mythology for women since they are not suspected, they rarely get caught and less likely to be prosecuted and if prosecuted, often not convicted cuz the mythology says that men rape, not women. And if convicted, the women who rape get lighter sentences than men, partly due to the mythology of rape (mostly put forward by feminists), that women should be treated less harshly since they are not natural rapists (men are according the rape mythology mostly propagated by feminists).
Women who commit most crimes get shorter sentence than men, not just women rapists (female sentencing discount awarded to women). The cultural mythology that kids need their moms more than their dads helps a lot to give women the sentencing discount (it is assumed wrongly that the absence of the father is not nearly as bad as the absence of the mother).
Articles decrying the absence of the mother who has gone to jail can be found readily, but the same articles decrying the absence of a father are rather uncommon.
Women of all colors get away with it, not just the white ones, but in what numbers? It is hard to say sine that research is not done by the feminists who have the near monopoly on rape research where the offender is most always assumed to be male and the victim almost always assumed to be female.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:30 am
What I would like to hear is a real EARMARK MENTIONED. Something like, we the U.S. CONGRESS are going to build free housing for all people on Social Security Disabilty, so that they can take their social security checks and spend them on something else besides Rent, & get this Economy back moving & groving.