[Scott Brown is] at the start of his national career. He has zero legislative accomplishments. He hasn't really defined himself. He hasn't earned the right to be a viable Presidential candidate. Yet, there he is...C'mon. Scott Brown is not a serious contender for a presidential nomination; the guy is pro-choice, among other things. He's the flavor of the month, nothing more.
I think it says something even worse about our culture that we are starting to pick our leaders this way. We face serious problems and a growing list of serious threats. We need leaders who are serious people. Not leaders who are famous for being famous.
Palin, on the other hand, may be a serious contender for the Republican nomination, but in that she is no different than other plucked-from-obscurity figures from the past, such as Spiro Agnew or Gerry Ferraro. Granted, neither of them became nominees for president, but then again neither, so far, has Palin. Yes, her credentials were on the thin side for a Veep, but not shockingly so (Palin's real problems aren't with her paper credentials, but with her behavior before and since the selection, behavior which was made her quite unpopular nationally and thus probably not a very likely nominee). Is Sarah Palin a below-average pol on the serious-o-meter? Sure. Is she the first of that type to become a big national name? Nope.
Six months ago, people thought that Joe the Plumber was a Serious Republican Leader. Guess what? He wasn't. Scott Brown isn't Joe the Plumber; he's a perfectly legitimate pol who just won a Senate seat in a huge upset. Of course Republicans, a party that hasn't won very much lately, are all excited about him. This is neither new, nor remarkable, nor a sign that either party is about to turn to Paris Hilton for leadership. Plenty of things to worry about in American politics, but this ain't one of them.
"Six months ago, people thought that Joe the Plumber was a Serious Republican Leader."
ReplyDeleteFalse. People expected him to be, at worse, a frequently broadcastable party symbol.
"Guess what? He wasn't."
True.
"Scott Brown isn't Joe the Plumber;"
True.
"he's a perfectly legitimate pol"
This is precisely what is being disputed here.
"who just won a Senate seat in a huge upset."
True.
"Of course Republicans, a party that hasn't won very much lately, are all excited about him."
True.
"This is neither new, nor remarkable, nor a sign that either party is about to turn to Paris Hilton for leadership."
Your thesis, which has nothing to do with the previous 5 sentences.
"Plenty of things to worry about in American politics, but this ain't one of them."
Your thesis.
Well, thanks for the comment. The point is that it's not unusual at all for a party to highlight a recent success story -- but that's not the same as elevating someone to become a serious contender for the presidency. Brown would be somewhat unusual for a presidential candidate, but he isn't one; he's a brand new Senator, and his credentials for that, while a bit on the slim side, are not any big deal.
ReplyDelete