Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Yeah, they will. But the extremists will be historically wrong.
John Adams was no slouch as a POTUS, and he was kinda tubby, often pictured with a double chin and a protruding gut.
William Howard Taft was such a lardass that he regularly got stuck in one of the White House bathtubs and had to be helped out.
Then there was Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was pretty fit and tough, but a lightweight he was not. So Christie would be in good company as far as his avoirdupois is concerned.
As far as your endorsement is concerned, Richie, c'mon get on the bandwagon with me. I'll endorse Christie in a nanosecond. He's light years better and more electable than all but one of the current GOP candidates.
How long do the think it would take Christie to stick a flamethrower in an appropriate place in some of the word-parsing, negative, obstructionist, unproductive members of Congress? |
Let's not forget how critical media driven image is. Folks voted for Adams and Taft before superficial image was everything. I'd speculate most citizens had never seen a full-body image of either before they voted. Teddy was a Rough Rider, so it was ok that he got a little pudgy. The tailored suits made up for it. The fact that people so quickly mention Christie's physical size is testimony to the horrible fact that superficial image is now almost everything. For most of our lifetimes, perhaps we could say the major reason R's and D's have been elected was simply because they 'looked good'. Once the favorable media image is broadcast, the money rolls in. Those who pay real attention to what the candidates believe in are becoming scarce as hens' teeth.
(my mother's old saying, meaning: 'really rare', or 'an honest politician').