Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Rand's Urban League Speech VS. His Height



Recently, Ann Coulter pointed out that Rand Paul (5'8") or Marco Rubio (5'9") couldn't win the White House because they were too short. This had crossed my mind. Though, 8 years of Obama should have taught the country that height has nothing to do with cojones.

"Conservative columnist and gadfly Ann Coulter raised the issue of the height of U.S. political candidates to Fox's Sean Hannity last month when she suggested that prominent Republicans like Kentucky senator Paul and Florida senator Rubio might be too short to ever be elected president. “Rubio and Paul are as tall as my iPod,” Coulter told Fox News' Sean Hannity last month. “You can’t run a short candidate.”

Insults aside, height -- of lack thereof -- could be an obstacle for Rubio, who is listed at about 5-foot-9, and Paul, who measures 5-foot-8. At the highest level of U.S. politics, being short appears to be a distinct disadvantage -- and it has been since long before the age of television.

According to the 1982 book by psychologist John Gillis called “Too Small, Too Tall,” the taller candidate has won 80 percent of the elections in the 20th century." (source)

BUT, this might be the election that Rand Paul CAN win... If Hillary Clinton (5'7") is the opponent, Rand is TALLER.

47 comments:

Zelda said...

Not if she wears heels. But hopefully she will release that cackle of hers a lot during the campaign. That should be good for at least 5%.

Bram said...

She can't wear very high heels - she fell and probably had a stroke in 2012.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I'm not enthusiastic about Rand Paul, but his height has nothing to do with it.
I don't know what it would take for me to vote for anyone the Chicagocrats would run.

Bram said...

Is there a word in this speech you disagree with? It's tempting to image voting for a Republican candidate without holding my nose. It would be the first time since '84.

Zelda said...

Right? I mean I disagree with him on some issues, but they are beliefs he honestly holds, not ones that are suddenly politically advantageous to him. I don't have to hold my nose for that.

SoLow said...

This absolutely supports my theory that politics is one of the most ridiculous things that we deal with on a day to day basis.

Bethany D said...

Ha. I think her height won't matter because she's a woman... One of the FEW perks in a male dominated society ;)

CrabbyOldMan said...

Hitler honestly believed that the Jews were the root of all the world's problems, so I guess I could have voted for him without holding my nose.

Bram said...

Does Romney, Boehner, the Bushes, or any of the Rinos believe a thing they say in a campaign?

In 2000, Rinos convinced us they were conservative and won the Presidency and Congress. They then went on a wild spending orgy - doubling the size of the Federal Government in 8 years.

Zelda said...

Oh come on, Crabby. Genocide doesn't often stem from honest impulses.

Notwithstanding, I will amend my thought to honestly held beliefs not resulting in the mass extermination of innocent people.

Cr said...


It did though. It may be rare, but it was often enough.

Other honestly held beliefs:
Slavery is a just and proper institution.
Malaria is caused by foul smelling swamp gas.
A chap can smash right through that barbed wire if only he has enough sand.

The 1960s hippies were very forgiving of wacko beliefs if the belief was "sincere".

Leaders who do not have beliefs that are consistent with reality are a disaster for everyone else. Do we need to cite examples?

CrabbyOldMan said...

"Cr" was a cloddish blunder by CrabbyOldMan

Foxy Wizard said...

Rand is only 5 ft 8 in? Screw that. I'm not voting for him.

Anonymous said...

Did you catch your diminutive would be patriot hero run like a frightened child when approached by a woman who wanted to talk about Dreamers?

Zelda said...

Crabby - Given that Rand Paul's political impulses stem from a desire to see citizens afforded maximum freedom from governmental overreach, I'm going to take my chances.

Anon - Yeah. Nutcases scare me too.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, it is all a matter of the "desire" and the means of bringing it about being practical, workable ones.
It can be said that Jug Ears political impulses stem from a sincere desire for peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, his means have proved disastrous.

Zelda said...

There is nothing sincere about Obama. He is utterly self-serving. He wrote his fucking memoirs in his 30s. I think you'll generally find that the least sincere people make the worst leaders. You can't think Hilary would be better than Rand Paul even if she agrees with you on foreign policy, right?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Absolutely not.
I have said lots and lots of times that the only perfect candidate is one's self. Otherwise you are always voting for the least of evils. If the choice is Rand Paul or the Chicagocrat version of Margaret Hamilton (with due apologies to a great actress), of course I will vote for Paul.
Are there still some 2-year-olds in adult bodies that would throw the election to Shrillary if Paul does not get the nomination?

Zelda said...

Ok, but can you see why Paul is appealing outside of being the lesser of two evils?

CrabbyOldMan said...

He does not appeal to me. His national security views are unrealistic.
Do you think his following will vote for the Republican candidate if Paul is not nominated, or will they sit in the corner and pout? Lay down and hold their breath?

Zelda said...

Crabby, you aren't really grasping the political reality. Paul can get people to vote who otherwise wouldn't. And we need those voters. Conservatives aren't getting it done and it has nothing to do with people throwing tantrums.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, you are the one not grasping political reality.
Of course Paul can get people to vote who otherwise wouldn't. Every politician can. It is a matter of the voters being either for or against.
Being either pro or con on any issue you can think of involves adding support from one direction and loosing it from the other. One needs to add more than one looses and I don't think Paul can do that.
It has everything to do with people throwing tantrums. Anonymously funding fringe groups and thereby splitting the opposition's vote is a very sound tactic.
The Chicagocrats have the good sense and discipline to avoid that mistake. The political right has not("no difference at all"). If the conservatives do not mend their ways, the left will remain in power and make the conservative agenda less and less likely.

Zelda said...

Conservatives have not lost tantrum votes in the past two elections. They're simply not winning. The message is stale, the candidates are lackluster, and the Democrat machine is far more technologically advanced. Time for someone new.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, what is the difference between loosing and "not winning"?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, I agree that we need someone new, but that someone needs to have broad enough appeal to win.

Zelda said...

So far only Rand Paul is going to have that appeal. You already said Establishment Republicans are going to vote for him. And if he can bring in voters who wouldn't vote for any other Republican, he seems like an obvious choice. He can't be any worse on foreign policy than Obama. He's not exactly a detached egotist with a Messiah complex.

CrabbyOldMan said...


"so Far" is the point.
I said that I would vote for him.
Provided that he doesn't chase away "RINOs" and independents.
It is debatable whether or not he can be worse.
You or I disliking it does not change the fact that a successful candidate needs to get over 50% of the vote. That means that candidate needs to have broad appeal. No matter how strongly a minority feels, they still loose.

Zelda said...

So I'm asking what there is to lose in Rand Paul? Even if he chased off RINOs and Independents, it's no worse off than we are with the "conservative" choice. And I'd like to see him run against Hillary. So far he's been the only one to call out Democrats on their war on women hypocrisy.

CrabbyOldMan said...

what is their to lose in Rand Paul?
THE ELECTION?
You don't think that we would be worse off with the Wicked Witch of the West?
Do you think that conservatives can win without at least some of the independents and RINOs?

Zelda said...

OH NO! NOT THE ELECTION!!! We've lost the last two with the safe bets. I think independents would be more attracted to Paul than any of the others and you seem to think the RINOs will fall in line. There's really no more to say. If Republicans don't do something new, they won't win.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I agree that the Republicans need to do something new to win.
We lost the last one because enough children in adult bodies either voted for someone who had no chance at all of winning or they didn't vote at all.
The Left has learned how to motivate the clueless. The right needs to learn too.

Zelda said...

Insulting the voters you wish to convince seems like a pretty dumb plan. That's not how Lefties do it.

CrabbyOldMan said...

...but they are beliefs he honestly holds, not ones that are suddenly politically advantageous to him.

Do his recent stance on interventionism change any opinions?

Zelda said...

That's a question I want you to answer. :-)

I've been reading the libertarian publications and some people are disappointed, but no one is saying it's a deal breaker. I'm guessing that if war is inevitable, they trust Rand Paul to wage it more than anyone else. They think he'll at least abide by the Constitution.

CrabbyOldMan said...

My point was and continues to be that anyone running has a set of “beliefs” tailored to maximize support, and those “beliefs” are subject to change with conditions.
I think that Paul’s national security position(s) greatly hinder his ability to exploit a very major Chicagocrat weakness.
I personally like Cruz at this point, but it is by no means assured that he, too, does not have baggage.
We need to decide who has the best chance of winning and forget about who makes our peepee twitch the most.

Zelda said...

So Cruz makes your peepee twitch, eh?

:-D

CrabbyOldMan said...

None of them do. All have negatives. It remains a matter of supporting the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate, unless, of course, one likes having a turd for President.

Zelda said...

Libertarians don't vote. Not for Republicans, and not for Democrats. Paul can get their votes. If Independents and RINOs fall in line, he can beat Hillary. No one else can because Libertarians will not vote for anyone else.

CrabbyOldMan said...

If what you say is actually true, the Libertarians are no better than the other wackos. I am surprised that you buy into it. I have always thought that your are bright and mature.

Zelda said...

You won't win without them, so I would suggest trying to understand their point of view. Otherwise Democrats will be entirely in control and your choices will be Hillary as the conservative and Elizabeth Warren as the liberal.

CrabbyOldMan said...

You seem to be overlooking the fact that "your choices" are actually "our choices".
Unless the Libertarian point of view attracts a majority they cannot win.
Supporting a party that cannot win splits the vote and throws the election to the Chicagocrats. How much of the Libertarian agenda are they going to advance and how much are they going to block?
In politics, refusing part of the loaf if you can't have the whole loaf is childish absurdity. Electing those who are the least sympathetic to your own cause in the belief that it will force people into the Libertarian camp is even more silly. The actual result will be what you want becoming progressively less possible.
For my part, I will support whoever I think offers the best chance of giving us smaller government, sane economic and national security policies, and a drastic reduction of the influence of the lunatic fringe on public policy.

Zelda said...

The Republicans can't win. They've proven it repeatedly. How many more elections do you need as proof? Republicans cannot get any more new voters. They are done. Kaput. Fin.

Libertarians - especially if they run as Republicans - can.

Democrats are not especially appealing, but they are far more innovative and inclusive, and they are not technology averse. But so are libertarians. And if the Republicans do not start running libertarians, they will become completely obsolete.

oakleyses said...

gucci handbags, ray ban sunglasses, tiffany and co, polo ralph lauren outlet online, longchamp outlet, polo outlet, louis vuitton outlet, nike free run, ugg boots, nike outlet, longchamp outlet, cheap oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, ray ban sunglasses, burberry pas cher, jordan pas cher, nike air max, sac longchamp pas cher, oakley sunglasses wholesale, louis vuitton, oakley sunglasses, jordan shoes, kate spade outlet, chanel handbags, louis vuitton outlet, prada outlet, replica watches, polo ralph lauren, louis vuitton, prada handbags, tiffany jewelry, christian louboutin outlet, christian louboutin shoes, replica watches, oakley sunglasses, uggs on sale, louboutin pas cher, michael kors pas cher, oakley sunglasses, nike air max, ugg boots, tory burch outlet, christian louboutin, nike roshe, nike free, louis vuitton outlet, air max, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp pas cher

oakleyses said...

michael kors, true religion outlet, michael kors, ralph lauren uk, michael kors outlet, north face, true religion outlet, michael kors outlet, true religion outlet, michael kors outlet online, nike free uk, michael kors outlet online, nike air max uk, burberry handbags, michael kors outlet online, oakley pas cher, coach outlet store online, new balance, replica handbags, north face uk, mulberry uk, true religion jeans, kate spade, nike tn, vans pas cher, michael kors outlet, ray ban uk, nike air max, uggs outlet, converse pas cher, lululemon canada, nike air max uk, coach outlet, uggs outlet, nike air force, hollister pas cher, guess pas cher, sac vanessa bruno, coach purses, nike roshe run uk, nike blazer pas cher, sac hermes, abercrombie and fitch uk, hogan outlet, hollister uk, ray ban pas cher, burberry outlet, timberland pas cher, polo lacoste

oakleyses said...

celine handbags, mcm handbags, gucci, lululemon, wedding dresses, abercrombie and fitch, valentino shoes, nike roshe run, nike huaraches, mont blanc pens, bottega veneta, soccer shoes, louboutin, north face outlet, chi flat iron, vans outlet, ray ban, mac cosmetics, nfl jerseys, hollister clothing, timberland boots, new balance shoes, nike air max, ferragamo shoes, longchamp uk, lancel, instyler, hollister, nike trainers uk, ghd hair, vans, converse outlet, giuseppe zanotti outlet, nike air max, herve leger, insanity workout, p90x workout, reebok outlet, hollister, asics running shoes, north face outlet, hermes belt, soccer jerseys, baseball bats, ralph lauren, beats by dre, iphone cases, oakley, jimmy choo outlet, babyliss

oakleyses said...

replica watches, ugg pas cher, moncler outlet, canada goose, hollister, links of london, moncler uk, montre pas cher, moncler, karen millen uk, canada goose jackets, canada goose, toms shoes, marc jacobs, pandora jewelry, louis vuitton, doudoune moncler, louis vuitton, supra shoes, swarovski, moncler, juicy couture outlet, wedding dresses, louis vuitton, moncler, pandora uk, thomas sabo, canada goose outlet, louis vuitton, ugg, canada goose outlet, pandora charms, canada goose uk, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, canada goose outlet, moncler outlet, swarovski crystal, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, coach outlet, ugg uk, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, pandora jewelry, canada goose, moncler

Blogger said...

Are you looking to earn money from your websites or blogs by using popunder ads?
If so, did you take a look at Ero-Advertising?