Letters to the Editor
-
My God!
What bullshit. I know that various pundits, pollsters, and prognosticators have claimed that persons of the female persuasion vote based on their emotional response to a male candidate. Here's a hint: men don't think that way. I suppose this is reaching the logical conclusion of the apparent use by the electorate of personal characteristics as a surrogate for professional characteristics.
Using personal characteristics as a surrogate generally leads to deleterious results. There was a joke running around a few years back where you were given the personal characteristics of three men and asked which one you would like for president. You were not told that the three men who were being described were Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Adolph Hitler. The clueless generally picked Hitler because he had no vices and was not a serial cheat something that couldn't be said for his co-panelists. And just look at The Current Occupant.
I think it would be good if opinion shaping outlets, like Salon, would stand up and say that using personal characteristics as a surrogate for professional behavior is a bad move instead of debating the accuracy of the claims and thus lending them some air of legitimacy.
Under the heading of For the Record and Full Disclosure, I will not under any circumstances vote for Three Names. This has nothing to do with the fact that I'm male and she's female and, no, I would have no desire to date her. It has everything to do with the fact that you don't have to ask her what her position is; all you have to do is look at the latest opinion polls. Plus the fact that she has no clue what the ideals and principles that founded this nation were or how to apply them.