Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Ms CYPRAH's column >>

MS CYPRAH

Home Page
Over-Sixty, Sexy, Savvy, Soaring and Single! (A London Ambassador for the 2012 Olympic Games)
Articles Posted: 1728  Links Seeded: 4849
Member Since: 6/2007  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:59 AM EST
politics, security, barack-obama, election, president, usa, candidates, political-parties, values, reason, emotions, comfort, callous-republicans, aspirations, feeling-incandidates, feeling-inclusive
By Ms CYPRAH
Advertise | AdChoices

Well, one only has to look at the irrational support for the divisive and bigoted Republican candidates to see the answer!

People tend to base their election votes primarily on emotion, though a little reasoning does come into it when they are fully aware of the facts relating to a particular candidate or party. Emotions play a big part in voting choice because we tend to be drawn to anything which makes us feel comfortable, secure, which reflects our values and aspirations and which feels inclusive to us.

1. COMFORT and SECURITY....Anything which makes us feel welcome, in alignment with its aims and objectives, will draw us towards it. There is no reasoning in comfort and security. That is pure emotion which makes sure that anxiety and fear are kept well away from us. We want that choice to give us that cosy feeling of having a friend on our side, someone who will always look after our interest, who will keep the bad days away and give us the reassurance that we will be safe under their wing. Hence people will gravitate towards candidates who seem to exude confidence and stability to provide the necessary feeling of security.

2. Reflection of VALUES.....Reasoning takes a back seat when it comes to our values. That's pure emotion and identity. Our values reflect who we are, what we represent and where we hope to go. Any party or candidate reflecting our values immediately has our vote. That tells us we are among friends, among people who care about what we value, and the country would be in a 'safe pair of hands', being taken in the direction we too are travelling. That is why we tend to become loyal to one party or person over a long period of time because fear ensures that we do not align with anything different which might not work. So we tend to stick to tried and tested governments, which deliver the same dubious fare time after time, but which keep our comfort levels high and our values as priority.

3. Personal ASPIRATIONS....We tend to vote for our future, whoever appears to be able to make that possible. Our life is all about pleasure and pain which are both controlled by our emotions. It is natural that we are going to gravitate towards those who give us the most pleasure and are perceived to diminish any pain. Thus we will be keen to cast our votes for anyone fulfilling those essential emotional needs which align with our aspirations of what we would like to achieve and to be: anyone who would be able to fulfil our dreams and increase that sense of pleasure and value.

4. Feeling INCLUSIVE.....Any party which welcomes us and makes us feel significant and special has our vote. We all want to matter to others, to feel worthy and valued. Any candidate who extends that welcoming hand and genuine warmth will take us with them. If they are good looking as well, even better! It has little to do with reasoning. No one wants to feel on the periphery of life, or to be isolated from the action, and so we tend to vote for those who make us feel we really do matter.

It is feelings and emotions that lead us to the choices we make in elections. Feelings are emotions and they dictate the level of fear and anxiety we feel. The less fearful we are, and the more valued we feel, the more we are drawn towards the source of that warmth. As the proverbial saying goes: "No one is likely to remember what you said, but they will always remember how you made them FEEL."

 

©Elaine Sihera (Ms CYPRAH) 2012
Emotional Health and People Management Consultant
"Happiness is a state of being. We are the ones who decide whether we wish to be happy or not, by the script we use inside our heads.
"

 

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ms CYPRAH's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 2008: Barack Obama, Believers, BlackFolks, Cultural Understanding, Election 2012, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, Free Thinkers, Heated Debate, Naked Debate , Newsvine is for Sharing, Newsvine Optimist Club, ObamaExpress, ObamaVine, Open Mic, Open Minded, Operation: Hearts and Minds, Psych, Soc, Philos, Sociology, Teachers, The Big 2008 Election, UK Viners, We Must Change
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (61)
Ms CYPRAH

3. Personal ASPIRATIONS....We tend to vote for our future, whoever appears to be able to make that possible. Our life is all about pleasure and pain which are both controlled by our emotions. It is natural that we are going to gravitate towards those who give us the most pleasure and are perceived to diminish any pain. Thus we will be keen to cast our votes for anyone fulfilling those essential emotional needs which align with our aspirations of what we would like to achieve and to be: anyone who would be able to fulfil our dreams and increase that sense of pleasure and value.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:00 PM EST
Nick46

Elections are all based on emotion. It's a popularity contest. Reagan was elected on his popularity as an actor. Bush II was elected because of the novelty of having a father and son president. Kennedy and Clinton had charisma.

  • 6 votes
#1.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:35 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Great summary, Nick.

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:58 PM EST
Carol-99

Actually, the Bushes weren't the first family with father and son as presidents.

http://www.answers.com/topic/are-the-bushes-the-first-father-son-presidents

No, the nation's 41st (George H. W. Bush) and 43rd (George W. Bush) presidents were preceded as father-son presidents by John Adams (1735-1826), the 2nd president of the United States, and John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), the 6th.

  • 2 votes
#1.3 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:07 PM EST
ryoushi12

My personal observation, the left tends to use reason, the libertarian uses ideology, the republican uses ideology and emotion, and the independent is the most emotion driven of all - I've seen independents who literally make up their mind based onthe very last thing they've heard and how it made them feel.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:26 PM EST
Nick46

Actually, the Bushes weren't the first family with father and son as presidents.

True. But none the less Bush II would never have been elected if daddy had not preceeded him. We do things because they are unique or "cute". If Bush II had not been such a "dog" we probably would have had a Bush III. Heck we would have had R. Kennedy or T. Kennedy had things not happened.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:55 PM EST
Carol-99

Some republicansare still wanting Jeb to run, so we could still end up with another Bush . . . .

  • 1 vote
#1.6 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:58 PM EST
Im 4Me

My personal observation, the left tends to use reason

My observation which I have learned here on Newsvine, the left represents the most emotional people I have ever seen. They have the ability to take a shred of a factoid and turn it into an epistle on what someone else thinks. Particularly if that thinking does not match their own. Not at all level headed.

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:27 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

My observation which I have learned here on Newsvine, the left represents the most emotional people I have ever seen.

Ha ha, it just shows how important perception is with individuals.

According to ryoushi in # 1.4

My personal observation, the left tends to use reason

So which one of you is more accurate?

That is the danger of ignoring people's uniqueness while focusing on generalities.

  • 2 votes
#1.8 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:29 AM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

Of course it is emotions, there was no rational reason to elect the least qualified stupidest of the bunch to be our President.

  • 1 vote
#1.9 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:06 PM EST
Ripley8

Im 4Me

My personal observation, the left tends to use reason

My observation which I have learned here on Newsvine, the left represents the most emotional people I have ever seen. They have the ability to take a shred of a factoid and turn it into an epistle on what someone else thinks. Particularly if that thinking does not match their own. Not at all level headed.

try looking at the Fox boards !!! pathetic and the bulk emotional and not the positive kind !

the bigots came out en mass on the Fox news boards when Whitney Houston died !

While both sides use emotion ... the left is more rational. logical. Proof of emotional voting ? looks at the rights use of social issues !

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:12 PM EST
Reply
Luther28

To be honest I no longer have any idea what others may base their choices on, of late certainly not reason. For myself my selection is strictly on merit and what I might perceive as the ability to perform the job, usually end up disappointed but none the less.

  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:17 PM EST
Nick46

For myself my selection is strictly on merit and what I might perceive as the ability to perform the job, usually end up disappointed but none the less.

Usually disappointed? Because it was perceived merit based on campaign rhetoric. Unfortunately it's who comes across as the most capable. Who has the best smile, the best debate persona, the best clever comebacks. Gingrich is running strong even though his own party ostracized him.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:03 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Unfortunately it's who comes across as the most capable. Who has the best smile, the best debate persona, the best clever comebacks.

Absolutely.

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:30 AM EST
Reply
Daniel The Mensch

I vote for those who use the available observable facts to shape their policy decisions, adhere to the law, and whoever I think is the most efficient and capable representative. I also appreciate a little fire in their presentation too. The problem is, these are few and far between.

I avoid the ideological since facts often seem to be ignored if they're seen to cause a conflict with their doctrine.

  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:28 PM EST
Nick46

I vote for those who use the available observable facts to shape their policy decisions, adhere to the law, and whoever I think is the most efficient and capable representative.

Obsevable facts? So you base your vote on who is the best actor. Certainly most voters don't research a candidates background. We have elected some virtually unknowns to all the country. So it's a marketing campaign. Like selling ice in the Arctic.

  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:25 PM EST
Daniel The Mensch

If you look at their policy positions along with their voting records you can discern whether or not someone is the real deal or if they are just acting. Mostly what I meant about "observable facts" is, does the candidate base their positions and policies on what is actually factual, or are they just following an ideological, political or religious doctrine? OK, if at any point someone invokes a deity for the reason why they do something, they're out, I'm not voting for them.

  • 3 votes
#3.2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:02 PM EST
Nick46

If you look at their policy positions along with their voting records you can discern whether or not someone is the real deal or if they are just acting.

I consider myself an average voter. I know very little about most of the candidates. Heck most people don't know much about candidates in local elections and much less about national. I never heard of Romney until he announced his candidacy. Now all I know is inflated BS and trash talk.

  • 1 vote
#3.3 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:38 PM EST
Reply
Chris-382117

Ms CYPRAH

i personally believe that at least for the past 50 years, the diving force has been emotion. Either they try to make you believe that you can get something for nothing or they make you fear what you might loose if that %#$& [insert the party you don't like here] gets control of anything more powerful than a matchbox toy. Both sides do it.

Republicans:

If you vote for us, prosperity will reign, but if you don't vote for us the bogey man will land on our shores and gut you and your family with a dull knife!

Democrats:

If you vote for us, you can have all these wonderful things and they will cost you nothing. But, if you don't vote for us, all safety nets will be removed and everyone not rich will be eating Alpo out of a can.

Libertarians:

If you vote for us, we will shrink government back to where it doesn't intrude on you. But,if you vote for either of the above, you will lose all of your freedom and prosperity to the all powerful, government uber alles.

None of them are completely true or completely false, but they use these tactics to keep themselves in power.

I personally would like Jon Huntsman to run for president as a 3rd Party candidate. He is the only candidate that has addressed any of the issues IMO.

  • 3 votes
Reply#4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:31 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Great comment, Chris, that sums them up neatly.

If you vote for us, prosperity will reign, but if you don't vote for us the bogey man will land on our shores and gut you and your family with a dull knife!

Nice one! :o)

I personally would like Jon Huntsman to run for president as a 3rd Party candidate.

Me too. He's quite a decent, knowledgeable man man.

  • 1 vote
#4.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:34 PM EST
Chris-382117

Ms CYPRAH

The problem is that both parties are using fear equally well. the democrats are trying to frighten everyone with the "Those nasty Republicans will have everyone eating Alpo, everyone will be required to home school." Nothing could be further from the truth, but it makes for a good 20 second sound bite on the "News".

As a libertarian, I get hit from both major parties. The republicans say I want to get rid of the Military and the Democrats say I want to get rid of all rules and safety nets. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. I want responsible and accountable government (accountable to the people) that is big enough to do what needs to be done, but not as big as it wants to be to satisfy its own Machiavellian desires.

  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:17 PM EST
Carol-99

Chris-382117, I think that another problem is that we try to label each other and say that Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, conservatives, liberals, etc. are all the same. Not all republicans have exactly the same views, and democrats do not all think alike. The "News" tends to focus on a few extremists instead of us ordinary citizens.

  • 2 votes
#4.3 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:53 PM EST
Chris-382117

Carol-99

Absolutely. The "News" and the latest crop of "Journalist" (I use the term loosely) are only interested in what can be shown in a 45 second sound clip. That, IMO, is why people like Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Bachman get the headlines and TV Coverage (besides the fact that they regularly stick their foot in their mouths and their heads somewhere else I won't mention)and Huntsman is just an "Oh, and him too". When the news stopped being a Lost Liter and became a contributor to the bottom line, they became slaves to the whims of advertisers and bean counters. Now, the evening news is nothing more than the 1st half hour of Entertainment tonight.

It is they that label everyone with the disparaging titles as it buys them more coverage and advertising revenue. The news focuses on the ideologues and activists and forgets about the other 97.45% from both parties. That way everyone pays attention to what they want us to hear and everyone is too busy or lazy to go find out for themselves.

  • 1 vote
#4.4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:06 PM EST
Carol-99

That way everyone pays attention to what they want us to hear and everyone is too busy or lazy to go find out for themselves

If we only pay attention to what the "journalists" want us to hear, we can only blame ourselves.

  • 1 vote
#4.5 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:29 PM EST
Chris-382117

As Pogo Possum once said:

"We have met the enemy and he is US!"

  • 1 vote
#4.6 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:25 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Not all republicans have exactly the same views, and democrats do not all think alike.

Precisely, Carol. A point many people miss with generalisations. It all depends on individual perception and aspirations: which candidate fit the preconceived notion of what is required.

  • 2 votes
#4.7 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:32 AM EST
Reply
Polka14

People vote on emotion and party affiliation. If everyone voted for their best interests using reason then everyone would vote for Ron Paul and for Libertarian candidates.

  • 2 votes
Reply#5 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:41 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Or even for Jon Huntsman!

  • 2 votes
#5.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:42 PM EST
Polka14

I don't read about him so I am unsure of his stance on freedom. Regardless, the People would vote for freedom if they really thought about it and did not base their vote on meaningless rhetoric from their chosen side.

  • 2 votes
#5.2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:47 PM EST
ryoushi12

There is not a thing ron says that is in MY interest, nor in the interest of anyone I know, since I don't know any multi-millionaires. Maybe when I win the lottery I'll like ron better, since every one of his positions will make life much better for the elites than for working people.

  • 3 votes
#5.3 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:29 PM EST
Polka14

Freedom is in the interests of everyone except the wealthy elite that want to control us and own our government.

  • 2 votes
#5.4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:48 PM EST
ryoushi12

But your ideology will simply transfer power MORE directly to those elites, unless you paln on STRIPPING them of their wealth and power BEFORE you strip the government of it's regulation of them.

The fact that you CANNOT grasp this simple fact, that a libertarain society is IMPOSSIBLE in the face of gross inequality of control of property and wealth and resources, is why I consider your ideology truly pathetic, and intellectually deficient. Your experiemnt was done in Iceland from 900 to 1100 CE, where everybody started off equally, and ended with an oligarchy so oppressive thathe bulk of the Icelandic population actively supported the takeover of their country by the King of Norway, as a way of supressing their fellow citizens who ran Iceland as their personal property.

  • 1 vote
#5.5 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:16 PM EST
Polka14

But your ideology will simply transfer power MORE directly to those elites, unless you paln on STRIPPING them of their wealth and power BEFORE you strip the government of it's regulation of them.

No. A libertarian government would strip the illegal relationship between government and the Corporate Powers. At this point in the US, income inequality and economic injustice is a result of this terrible union between government and these corporatist people. They write laws and regulations that force small companies out of business and harm the common citizen's ability to compete against the powerful corporate entities. At this point, the wealthy elite can essentially dictate the results of elections through the use of money to fund candidates and can buy politicians for various reasons including allowing drugs to enter the market. Libertarians would work for the interests of the People. The People will never see economic equality but most people can not even attempt to compete under a corporatist government. I think the anti-libertarian ideology to be very pathetic in my own opinion. I can only believe that these opinions are founded on anti-freedom principles.

  • 2 votes
#5.6 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:36 PM EST
Reply
Carol-99

It seems like many people vote for the candidate who has the best bumper sticker, since they don't read anything longer than that. Politicians count on the voters being too lazy to research the facts.

  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:12 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

LOL...good point! Slogans do influence people.

  • 2 votes
#6.1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:34 AM EST
Reply
greg-709692

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

Name recognition !

  • 1 vote
Reply#7 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:46 PM EST
MDC-441879

Has any one tried COMMON SENSE!!!!!??????

  • 3 votes
Reply#8 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:57 PM EST
Matt22V36_40

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

Absolutely! Look at Obama. The only thing anybody said about Obama was "He'll be the first black president."

People ignored the fact that the guy is no more qualified than myself and there's no way I could do the job.

Upon election within seconds of it being annouced the news media expressed how historical the event was rather than saying that a good man was elected.

I'm not bashing Obama on this, that's not the point here. The question was asked if people base election votes on emotion and obviously they do.

Another example: Bush's second election. It was based on the emotion of fear. People didn't want to throw some new guy in who knew nothing about what was going on in the war. Bush did not have to do a great job his first term to get re-elected.

  • 1 vote
#9 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:30 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Another example: Bush's second election. It was based on the emotion of fear.

A very good point, despite how dismal he was.

  • 2 votes
#9.1 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:35 AM EST
Nick46

People ignored the fact that the guy is no more qualified than myself and there's no way I could do the job.

What are the qualifications that you want. And then tell us what qualifications Kennedy, Carter, JBJ, Reagan matched. The beauty is theoretically anyone can be president. You just surround yourself with very smart people. The bad part is only rich people with friends in high places can run for the office. Bush II certainly did not have qualifications.

  • 2 votes
#9.2 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:05 AM EST
Ms CYPRAH

The bad part is only rich people with friends in high places can run for the office.

How true, and depressing

  • 2 votes
#9.3 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:07 AM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

How true, and depressing

Why? The rich people steal less - the poor people loose their had, and take everything in sight. Look at Michelle Obama having vacations.

  • 1 vote
#9.4 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:04 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Look at Michelle Obama having vacations.

What about it? The Obamas still have had FEWER vacations than Bush.

I guess they are not entitled to any in your book then? I wonder why! Be careful, your bias is showing.

  • 3 votes
#9.5 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:48 AM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

What about it? The Obamas still have had FEWER vacations than Bush

Sorry, when did Laura Busch flown to Spain on vacation? When did Laura Busch had to go on two vacations in two month?

I guess they are not entitled to any in your book then?

Like the one she went to in Spain? No. She is not an elected official, and none of my money should go protect her beyond the reasonable. When she is a private, or if she chooses to travel as such - she can do whatever she wants with her money, not mine. What I find offensive is that she never did any of it before the election, when it was up to her to pony-up. Now that it's on my dime she suddenly is "entitled to it".

I wonder why! Be careful, your bias is showing.

Why should I be careful about my bias? I have a deep disdain for such behaviour, when a person of formerly average means suddenly gets elected to an office and has regular parties with celebrities, Kobe steaks, extravagant shopping sprees, and vacations that she never had before. And she is doing so with such a fervor, like she is trying to get enough of the "high" lifestyle, before her husbands is booted out. It is called "classless", and yes I am biased against that sort of people, regardless of their race or political creed, and I am not ashamed of this bias.

  • 1 vote
#9.6 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:11 AM EST
Carol-99

Sorry, when did Laura Busch flown to Spain on vacation? When did Laura Busch had to go on two vacations in two month?

Laura Bush also traveled quite a bit as first lady. Were you this outraged at the expense of her trips?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707080_1_sasha-obama-african-trip-foreign-trips

Her first foreign foray was a ten-day trip to Paris, Budapest and Prague in 2002 with daughter Jenna, who was then 20.

The White House made sure Laura Bush had at least one "official" event in each city, but she and Jenna spent the bulk of their time at each locale shopping and taking in the sights.

During her husband's second term, Laura Bush also made five goodwill trips to Africa to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS and malaria. But on an African trip in 2007, Laura Bush took Jenna and her other daughter, Barbara, on a safari.

  • 2 votes
#9.7 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:12 AM EST
Ms CYPRAH

Thank you, Carol, for that! But I guess she is entitled to it by virtue of her own qualifications? :o(

  • 2 votes
#9.8 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:24 AM EST
Carol-99

You're welcome, Ms CYPRAH.

  • 1 vote
#9.9 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:47 AM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Laura Bush also traveled quite a bit as first lady. Were you this outraged at the expense of her trips?

When Michelle Obama travels in her official capacity as a first lady - I have no problem with it. It is part of her job, as Mrs. President and the girl has to do what a girl has to do.

On the other hand please remind when did Laura Busch take a foreign VACATION? (you do understand that from a diplomatic protocol stand point it sends a wrong message, but I guess both Obama are too thick to worry about protocol). Also while we are at it - when did Laura Busch took two vacations in two consecutive month? As well as when did Laura Busch go on vacation without the her husband? Which brings me back to the point that Obamas (at least Michelle) is nothing more than a classless tramp who feels "entitled".

  • 1 vote
#9.10 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:48 AM EST
Carol-99

I have a deep disdain for such behaviour, when a person of formerly average means suddenly gets elected to an office and has regular parties with celebrities, Kobe steaks, extravagant shopping sprees, and vacations that she never had before.

Mr. Roger Rabbit, did you realize that the Obama's were wealthy before he was elected president?

  • 1 vote
#9.11 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:50 AM EST
Carol-99

On the other hand please remind when did Laura Busch take a foreign VACATION?

Even if she did not OFFICIALLY call it a VACATION, the ten-day trip in 2002 included lots of shopping and site seeing which are things that people do on vacation. Taxpayers paid for Ms. Bush's security while she was shopping.

As well as when did Laura Busch go on vacation without the her husband?

May I ask you why a first lady should not be allowed to travel or vacation without her husband? Must she be tethered to her husband?

  • 1 vote
#9.12 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:07 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Mr. Roger Rabbit, did you realize that the Obama's were wealthy before he was elected president?

And yet nothing about extravagant foods, lavish parties or exotic vacations on their dime. Not a peep about how Michelle used to do it. Only how they do it now - on my dime.

Even if she did not OFFICIALLY call it a VACATION, the ten-day trip in 2002 included lots of shopping and site seeing which are things that people do on vacation

Of course, but she also attended functions and ceremonies, to make sure it was not vacation only. It is called class, and it is done all the time, but her majesty Queen Obama cannot be bothered with baby-kissing, and cannot be distracted from shopping by an official function. Plus while it was a de-facto vacation, formally it was still a business trip, once again following the diplomatic protocol - something Queen Obama never heard of.

May I ask you why a first lady should not be allowed to travel or vacation without her husband? Must she be tethered to her husband?

She can travel anyplace she wants, as a matter of fact I'd like to offer a few choice destination where I think she can travel, with or without (preferably with) her husband. However there is such a thing as protocol, and also such a word - decorum. So when she chooses to make a spectacle of herself two month in a row, and makes it an official vacation, not even bothering with a pretend, and doing it all in-style on my dime, instead of her own - I have a problem with it. She can do what she wants when she pays for it, when I pay for it - I do not have to be happy about the fact that she finally feels she is rich enough, and that she "deserves" it. She has her duty to her husband, and to this nation, and that duty does not include her contiguously entertaining herself at her leisure and taxpayer's expense.

  • 1 vote
#9.13 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:55 PM EST
Carol-99

And yet nothing about extravagant foods, lavish parties or exotic vacations on their dime. Not a peep about how Michelle used to do it. Only how they do it now - on my dime.

Before Michelle Obama became First Lady, no one was interested in her social life.

Of course, but she also attended functions and ceremonies, to make sure it was not vacation only. It is called class, and it is done all the time, but her majesty Queen Obama cannot be bothered with baby-kissing, and cannot be distracted from shopping by an official function. Plus while it was a de-facto vacation, formally it was still a business trip, once again following the diplomatic protocol - something Queen Obama never heard of.

Oh, right. So, when Mrs. Bush spent a few minutes on some sort of "official" business each day, then it was perfectly exceptable for her to shop and go site seeing? Were those "official functions" planned for the purpose of justifying the Bush's shopping excersions? Since the Bushes required security, they were partially paid for by taxpayers. Besides, Michelle Obama has not spent all of her time shopping either.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/166980/20110621/obama-michelle-africa-south-africa-botsawana-official-trip-young-women-leadership.htm

This trip is not the First Lady's first foray into humanitarianism or public initiatives. On her first trip abroad in April 2009, she toured a cancer ward In England with Sarah Brown, wife of then BPM Gordon Brown. Since the election, she has begun advocating on behalf of military families and returning veterans. She is also a supporter of the organic food movement, planting an organic garden and installing bee hives on the South Lawn of the White House. But, she is perhaps most famous for her administration-wide initiative to reverse childhood obesity worldwide. Her movement, "Let's Move" encourages young people to to get healthy through exercise and a healthy diet.

Speaking of taxpayer money, did you know that Bush spent $20 million flying back and forth from the White House to Crawford Ranch? Did you know that he scheduled "work events" at Crawford Ranch so that his visits there would not be considered vacations?

http://www.politicususa.com/en/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush

During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.

If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers.

  • 1 vote
#9.14 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:39 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Before Michelle Obama became First Lady, no one was interested in her social life.

Well, actually that is not true. She was a wife of a state, and the US Senator, and after she became the first lady I am sure social media would've published anything she could dig on her. So please note - your statement does not refute what I said, but ratther attempts to divert attention from the simple fact - before she became queen, she paid with her own money, and was not known for demanding finer things in life.

So, when Mrs. Bush spent a few minutes on some sort of "official" business each day, then it was perfectly exceptable for her to shop and go site seeing?

Yes. And we would not be having this conversation is Michelle did the same thing.

Were those "official functions" planned for the purpose of justifying the Bush's shopping excersions?

One more time look-up the words "diplomatic protocol" and "public decorum".

Since the Bushes required security, they were partially paid for by taxpayers.

Hence the need to at least put up and appearance of the official business. This expense is a little more difficult to justify with this Marie-Antoinette attitude of our queen.

Did you know that he scheduled "work events" at Crawford Ranch so that his visits there would not be considered vacations?

Did he work on those events? Or did he pull an Obama, and told Congress - you guys go to work, because this is a crisis, and I am going golfing, but when I get back you better have a solution for me to sign.

As for your quote - Busch was elected our president, as is Barak Obama. I have not said a word about his usage of Airforce One (or price per hour, which I suspect went up due to higher fuel costs). I asked you a simple question - when did Laura needed to take two vacations in two month, and based on the fact that instead of a straight admission your continue to beat around the Busches - the answer is - never.

  • 1 vote
#9.15 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:14 PM EST
Carol-99

Hence the need to at least put up and appearance of the official business. This expense is a little more difficult to justify with this Marie-Antoinette attitude of our queen.

So, when a Republican puts up an appearance of conducting official business, then you are not concerned with how your tax money is spent?

I asked you a simple question - when did Laura needed to take two vacations in two month, and based on the fact that instead of a straight admission your continue to beat around the Busches - the answer is - never.

I don't know if Laura took two vacations in a single month or not, and I don't really care. The aforementioned 10-day-official-functions-shopping-site-seeing-trip-that she took in 2002 sounds like there were enough stops for it to qualify as two vacations if you ask me. Now, let me ask you a question. Are you concerned about how much all politicians and their spouses spend for travel, or are you only concerned about the expenses incurred by the ones that you don't like?

  • 1 vote
#9.16 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:35 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

So, when a Republican puts up an appearance of conducting official business, then you are not concerned with how your tax money is spent?

It is not about Republican or Democrat, it is about class vs. tramp, and there is plenty of each on both sides of the isle. Who knew that Laura Busch a wife of texan drunk has class, and Michelle Obama a wife of a Constitutional Professor is tramp.

I don't know if Laura took two vacations in a single month or not, and I don't really care.

Based on how much you seem to know about all this sh!t, I'll take this as a concession.

The aforementioned 10-day-official-functions-shopping-site-seeing-trip-that she took in 2002 sounds like there were enough stops for it to qualify as two vacations if you ask me

But I didn't. You decided to enlighten me on the subject, and I was impressed with the depth of your knowledge as well as the depth of your partisanship.

Are you concerned about how much all politicians and their spouses spend for travel, or are you only concerned about the expenses incurred by the ones that you don't like?

I am concerned about appearances of impropriety. Laura went to some length to avoid them, and Michelle here seems to be going to some length to highlight them. I guess you can't buy class, even if you have the entire US budget at your disposal.

  • 1 vote
#9.17 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:48 PM EST
Carol-99

It is not about Republican or Democrat, it is about class vs. tramp, and there is plenty of each on both sides of the isle. Who knew that Laura Busch a wife of texan drunk has class, and Michelle Obama a wife of a Constitutional Professor is tramp.

Okay, I'm done with this conversation. Michelle Obama has done nothing which would indicate that she is a tramp. If you think that shopping is trampy behaviour, then you must think that Laura Bush is also a tramp. I think that both Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are classy ladies.

  • 1 vote
#9.18 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:01 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Michelle Obama has done nothing which would indicate that she is a tramp

Correction Michelle Obama has done nothing BUT indicated that she is tramp.

If you think that shopping is trampy behaviour, then you must think that Laura Bush is also a tramp.

I thinking that unthinkingly spending the money that don't belong to you, and showing no decorum in the process is tramp. Laura Busch did none of the above, queen Obama keeps sticking it into our faces.

I think that both Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are classy ladies.

And I do not see any evidence supporting this assertion.

  • 1 vote
#9.19 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:02 PM EST
Ms CYPRAH

It is called class, and it is done all the time, but her majesty Queen Obama cannot be bothered with baby-kissing, and cannot be distracted from shopping by an official function.

You seem to have ignored all the social functions that Michele has attended. You only have to go on the White House website to be reminded of them and pictures as well.

You also seem to be an expert at insulting others, especially the Obamas. Experience has taught me that people who are quick to insult, regardless of the actual facts, tend to not only have a questionable agenda, but have very low self esteem and hide that under the desire for scapegoats, in order to make themselves feel smug and superior.

You mention class a lot, and how others are tramps. Well, if you were a connossieur of true class in the first place, you would not be putting others down just to boost your own ego. You would appreciate that such behaviour is rather vulgar, making you no better than the person you are insulting

As this is my column and I treat contributors with respect, please make sure your points are discussed without the insults. There really is no need for them, unless you wish for your comments to be deleted.

  • 2 votes
#9.20 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:52 AM EST
Carol-99

You mention class a lot, and how others are tramps. Well, if you were a connossieur of true class in the first place, you would not be putting others down just to boost your own ego. You would appreciate that such behaviour is rather vulgar, making you no better than the person you are insulting.

Thanks for that, Ms CYPRAH.

This thread illustrates why we should ignore comments like #9.4 in the future.

    #9.21 - Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:03 PM EST
    Reply
    Shub Tnediserp Remrof

    Gut check that's the best way to decide between multiple people.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#10 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:42 AM EST
    Roberta K. Starkey

    they base their choices on what the MEDIA tells them to think, feel and react. They are all duffesses, except Ron Paul, the only TRUE AMERICAN, and he is portrayed as an idiot by the media. You must seek him out to see what he is saying, and what he means, without people twisting him up. He is the only one with INTEGRITY, HONOR and Wisdom. The last 2 presidents acted like they OWN this country, not hired to caretake us, but to put their 'ego-spin' on everything....so what, they'd be remembered for something? They have ruined the already weakened fabric of this country, therefore our reality HAS BEEN DETRIMENTALLY affected by these ASSES which they are GIVING US to choose from!!! Ron Paul or bust - our only hope for this country to return to being the LIGHT AND LEADER we were, before the little men sat on the throne, with their feet up on the furniture - blowing smoke out their ears, and butts.

      Reply#11 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:51 PM EST
      Leave a Comment:
      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
      Newsvine Privacy Statement
      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
      FUN STUFF:
      • Leaderboard |
      • E-Mail Alerts |
      • Top of the Vine |
      • Newsvine Live |
      • Newsvine Archives |
      • The Greenhouse |
      COMPANY STUFF:
      • Code of Honor |
      • Company Info |
      • Contact Us |
      • Jobs |
      • User Agreement |
      • Privacy Policy |
      • About our ads
      LEGAL STUFF:
      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com