The American Mind

So, if Fred’s shoes aren’t a big deal, then Obama’s Arugula at Whole Foods comment isn’t a big deal, right?

Correct answer: neither are a big deal, but if you’re gonna “defend Fred’s shoes,” you might wanna take back your criticism of Obama.

Does anyone really care what type of shoes Fred wears? Declare already!

And DJ, bringing up a grocery store chain in a state where there isn’t a single store of said chain, is not exactly the same.

And DJ, bringing up a grocery store chain in a state where there isn’t a single store of said chain, is not exactly the same.

The point of either bringing up the Whole Foods thing or the Gucci shoes thing is to criticize the candidate for seeming “out of touch” with the public they’re trying to woo. Different situations, but exactly the same intent upon bringing them up. I don’t care about what kind of shoes Fred wore to the state fair, and i don’t care that Barack mentioned Whole Foods in Iowa. Neither should anyone else, and anyone giving a pass to one candidate while criticizing the other is being intellectually dishonest.

And DJ, bringing up a grocery store chain in a state where there isn’t a single store of said chain, is not exactly the same.

Again I ask – do they not have TV in Iowa? The Internet? Are you really saying that Iowans have never heard of Whole Foods?

I must have missed the unwritten rule where candidates can never, ever mention out-of-state businesses. Does that mean that no one can talk about Haliburton unless they live in Texas? That there’s only four or five states where I can mention the Swedish meatballs at IKEA?

You’re being asinine. Is that abundantly clear yet? I can’t imagine why you think Obama needed to look up every single business he might have thought about mentioning to make sure there was one in Iowa, lest they be confused. You must have a staggeringly low opinion of Iowans. Do you think they’re even aware that an entire planet exists outside their state? Or they all idiot mouthbreathers to you, Kate?

The point of either bringing up the Whole Foods thing or the Gucci shoes thing is to criticize the candidate for seeming “out of touch” with the public they’re trying to woo.

Exactly, DJ. It’s a fake media narrative. Universally, presidential candidates are rich people who do things the average person doesn’t do. Mr. Smith doesn’t go to Washington anymore, at least not to the Oval Office.

So how is it news? Yes, Fred Thompson wears Gucci shoes (just like the Pope). He’s a movie star. Isn’t that the whole point of his candidacy, in fact? That he’s good at pretending to lead?

for the love of pete…

Fox showed Fred’s shoes for all of 1.79 seconds. “Gucci” was beside the point. They could have been Allen-Edmonds or Nunn Bush or WalMart WannaBes.

The point of notice was: What are you doing in DRESS SHOES at a SHI+ PLOPPING STATE FAIR?

Even *I* would’ve asked that question, just for curiosity’s sake. Hell, I’d've offered my Chippewas if I’d been there.

dj sez: “… and anyone giving a pass to one candidate while criticizing the other is being intellectually dishonest.”

Bull and Hockey.

Fred was just there and it was the media that blew this out their arse. Obama initiated the contact, trying to be cute, blowing all on his own.

Ya see, Fred didn’t call attention to his shoes by saying anything stupid like, “Say, have you seen what they’re getting for a pair of these at Te Casan’s?”

Bull and Hockey.

Fred was just there and it was the media that blew this out their arse. Obama initiated the contact, trying to be cute, blowing all on his own.

Doesn’t matter. Neither scenario needed to be blown up into a manufactured narrative by a media obsessed with catching every candidate, Republican or Democrat, in a “gotcha!” moment. If you could step outside of your partisan bubble for a second, you could maybe see that.

Fred was just there and it was the media that blew this out their arse.

So, MjM, you’re saying Fred Thompson doesn’t put on his own shoes?

What the hell kind of presidential candidate can’t tie his own shoelaces?

Neither scenario needed to be blown up into a manufactured narrative by a media obsessed with catching every candidate, Republican or Democrat, in a “gotcha!” moment.

If only that were true. The problem is that the media is only interested in catching Democrats in “gotcha” moments. A Republican could eat a live baby during a debate and it would be, at best, B4 below the fold.

If only that were true. The problem is that the media is only interested in catching Democrats in “gotcha” moments. A Republican could eat a live baby during a debate and it would be, at best, B4 below the fold.

I dunno…Giuliani’s “i’m just like the firefighters” flub caught him a lot of flack, but then again, his not knowing how much a gallon of milk cost didn’t get much traction. It’s just too bad that if the media has to be this lazy and pursue flubs instead of, ya know, positions on the issues, they couldn’t give more time to the fact that Brownback and Huckabee don’t believe in evolution(!!), or the king of all “i’m just like the people” snowjobs…Dubya’s “I’m a down-home rancher from Midland, Texas…who was raised in uber-rich New England and sent to expensive private schools! Ah’m just like y’all!”

dj sez: “Neither scenario needed to be blown up into a manufactured narrative by a media obsessed with catching every candidate”

So observations – silly and otherwise – should just… what..? be hushed and ignored?

Does Obamamama’s arugula question tell you anything? Does it reveal anything, in your opinion?

Does Fred’s Gucci shoes?

And don’t just say “it doesn’t matter”. That is the chicken-shi+ way out (not to mention that you are so wrong you don’t even realize it).

If you would be so kind as to do this little exercise..

Put yourself in each mans’ place. Put yourself in each man’s situation as it occured. Imagine you are Obama; go through the motions he went through when he gave his speech to those farmers. Actually say the words as if you are he. Then do the same with Fred; imagine you are motoring around a state fair in golf cart, shaking hands, slurping slurpees, and wearing dress shoes.

Play the roles and the report your reaction, and hopefully, insights, to each.

So observations – silly and otherwise – should just… what..? be hushed and ignored?

Of course not. They should be seen as silly, which is what they are, and not overblown into ridiculous false narratives that are relatively unimportant.

Does Obamamama’s arugula question tell you anything? Does it reveal anything, in your opinion?

That he made a minor flub and didn’t realize that there wasn’t a Whole Foods in Iowa. Big effing deal. I get the whole “oh, he’s so out of touch with the common man” angle, but his years working in South Central Chicago count a hell of a lot more to me than whether or not he’s exactly up on what Iowans are farming.

Fred’s Gucci shoes tell me he’s rich. That’s all. If you expect me to believe that he’s more in touch with the common man than Obama (his name’s Obama, not “Obamamama.” It’s hard to take your points seriously when you can’t step outside your partisan biases long enough to not make up silly juvenile nicknames), i’m not buying it. He’s a frickin’ Hollywood actor, for pete’s sake. Which is not a bad thing, incidentally, nor does it disqualify him from being qualified to hold public office. But it does mean that he’s going to be “out of touch” with common people. But as Chet said, no one working class gets to be President. It doesn’t happen. So let’s drop the pretense and stop with the “hey, that politician’s just like you and me!” BS.

dj sez: “I get the whole “oh, he’s so out of touch with the common man” angle,”

~sigh~

You don’t get it at all. You only “get” what you are being told to get and you are only repeating what you’ve read/heard/seen.

Boring.

It was my intent, with the exercise above, which you obviously ignored, to get you a step beyond everything you have already read/heard/seen regarding these two incidents. I tried to get you past the MSM and it’s bubbling boobheads and past even the babbling bloggers. But when you reply the only thing you see is “a minor flub” it tells me that you really haven’t taken the time to look past all that crap and are only reading the surface garbage.

Being “out of touch” – or not – has absolutely nothing to do with the points I’ve tried to make you see. Indeed, the extent/size of the “flub” nor who the actual persons are, are irrelevant to the point.

>>> “It’s hard to take your points seriously when you can’t step outside your partisan biases long enough to not make up silly juvenile nicknames”

Does that include silly juvenile nicknames like your “Dubya”?

As I once mentioned prior, get over yourself.

And partisan? Calling the kettle black, are we?

At least I admit it.

Proud of it, in fact.

Does that include silly juvenile nicknames like your “Dubya”?

Um, hasn’t his friends and family been calling him that for years?

Well, obviously you’ve proven to be my intellectual superior, MjM, so indulge me and explain to me exactly why i should give a shit that Obama talked mention arugula in Iowa.

And partisan? Calling the kettle black, are we?

Hardly. Since i’m A) an independant, and B) arguing that both Obama’s and Thompson’s so-called “flubs” are non-stories, i really don’t see how i’m being partisan.

Just because i happen to like Obama (for the moment) doesn’t mean that i’m gonna stick up for douchebags like Hillary and Edwards just because they’re Democrats…since i’m not one.

>>>Um, hasn’t his friends and family been calling him that for years?

I see. So as long as the silly and juvenile nickname has a history, and I guess with the addition of it being used by freinds and family of the target, this is what gives *you* license to use silly and juvenile nicknames but no one else.

Fascinating how that works.

>> explain to me exactly why i should give a shit

Run the exersize described above and the explaination will (should, with any hope, I can hope, can’t I?) come to you.

>>> Since i’m A) an independant,

Please. We’ve been over this – what? twothreefour times? – before. Your writings reveal you to be about as independent of leftist dogma as a fish is of water. Your refusal of the label “Democrat” does not equate to being an “independent”. Likewise my refusal of “Republican”.

>>>B) arguing that both Obama’s and Thompson’s so-called “flubs” are non-stories,

Not “so-called”. That term – flub – is yours.