Is it all about image?

[nikatnyte]

Today I asked a good liberal friend if he's been brave enough to watch any of the RNC hatefest. He works in the state government in Sacramento, so he admitted to watching Schwarzenegger's speech. He said: "It was a brilliant. The election's over. The Dems can't possibly win." Now, I like this guy, but he is given to hasty hyperbole. His contention is that the repugs have expertly fashioned a saleable image -- that of strength and manliness, epitomized by Arnold. I countered by saying that not that many actually SAW or HEARD the speech, but he claims it doesn't matter -- Arnold's now on their bandwagon and his message sells. (He went on to contrast that against news clips of Kerry waterskiing in girly-looking bathing trunks.) I hate to admit it, but he has an undeniable point. BushCo has crafted a distinct image, even though it hides a multitude of flaws. Kerry's image among mainstream voters, I fear, is still vague and "weak." How much does a macho, bullish image "sell" in this age of (perhaps exaggerated) terrorism, even when it isn't supported by anything solid or factual and ignores real issues? Can good old-fashioned common sense prevail against such marketing, when abetted by the major corporate media?

[Lovecrafty]

1. Be thankful you must be 18 years old to vote!!!

This macho crap appeals to children...or idiots! I hope that most people by the time they reach 18 will be aware of the shallowness of image alone! I doubt you'll get too many image-obsessed air-heads at the polls! They'll be too busy going to parties and binge-drinking! And always remember that "Yee-Haw!!" is NOT a foreign policy!