American Parser

Standing In The Gap Of The Real And Perceived

Sex For President?

Look away! Look away! – Democratic (Photo credit: Norm Walsh)

In the past couple of months, Mitt Romney has been steadily moving toward the 1144 delegates necessary to secure the Republican nomination in Tampa Bay, Florida this August, and represent Republicans in the 2012 presidential election in November. Assuming he clinches the nomination, Mr. Romney would face the formidable sexiness of Barack Obama a mere two months later, and make no mistake: he would lose such a contest.

That’s right; you heard me: sexiness. It’s as simple as that. Let’s go ahead, face it, and say it out loud. We want our sexy back. And if it never left, we sure aren’t trading for a loss. We really are that shallow.

Unsavory and banal as it may be, the simple truth is, underneath the veneer of issues and morals and ideology and patriotism, every presidential election in the United States since 1960 has been determined by one¬†criterion: who’s sexier? Sure, in some elections, the decision might be a matter of degrees, really, but on this characteristic, most of us have proven to be single issue voters. Oh, you need a little coaxing?

Okay, let’s go there. Ready? Because over the next few months, we’ll examine here all U.S. Presidential elections since 1960, in chronological order, and from them take clues to the outcome of this year’s election. So subscribe now to American Parser on the bottom left corner of this page, and join us for the season, won’t you? We promise, you’ll have something to say along the way. And we hope you will.

Look away! Look away! – Republican (Photo credit: Norm Walsh)

16 comments on “Sex For President?

  1. Jan
    May 23, 2012

    After Obama won office, and even before, there was the talk around the water cooler..”Isn’t he SO handsome?!” the girls would say…and I’m thinking, ummmm…nooooo…helloo.. “And isn’t Michelle BEAUTIFUL??!” I’m thinking about what kind of distorted Jedi mind trick these people were playing…or how many mushrooms they probably had in the 60’s to further damage their cognitive thinking…how can you call two rather homely/average looking people sexy and beautiful (and let’s not forget FASHIONABLE) with a straight face??!. Either they are willingly deceived, or more likely, simply wanting and wishing something to be so (when it isn’t) that they will call it something it is not, and hope and pray that somewhere, over the rainbow, it will come true. It’s kind of like when I was preteen, wore a hideous hairstyle, had red hair, red eyelashes (you couldn’t see them), red eyebrows (didn’t show up in pictures), with bangs down to the top of my nose and my mother would tell me how “beautiful” I was. I knew she was lying but I thought, well heck, I’ll just go with this for a minute. I suspended belief. But only until the next day in school as the usual group of boys chanting “I’d rather be dead than red on the head!” Back to reality for me. But the Obamaites never have to come back to reality it seems. Their self deception continues into all areas of the passes on most of the compaign promises he has failed to keep.

    To clarify, I could care less what politicians look like. Obviously, it should not nothing to do with who is elected. I daresay, if the same standards were applied at our nation’s beginning we’d be in sad shape. I believe honestly, integrity, moral character, intelligence was the criteria for office, and now it’s something so totally opposite.

    And, for reference sake:

    Denzel Washington = HANDSOME
    Beyonce’ = BEAUTIFUL


    • Charlie Brown
      May 24, 2012

      What a shame. Just another thing that you and my mom have in common, Jan. But I’ve always kind of liked redheads. One thing’s for sure; they’re all fireballs, as you have amply demonstrated here today. I’ll be interested in hearing from you more as this series progresses.

      You had your share of the sixties, and you turned out okay. What gives?


  2. Pingback: Sex For President 1968: An Argument For Abstinence « American Parser

  3. Pingback: Sex For President 1964: Momentum Is Everything, And So Is Machismo « American Parser

  4. Pingback: Sex For President 1960: The Young and The Restless « American Parser

  5. Pingback: Sex For President 1972: It Seemed Like A Good Idea At the Time « American Parser

  6. Pingback: Sex For President 1976: A Southern Thoroughbred Wins By A Nose « American Parser

  7. Pingback: Sex For President 1980: Here Comes The Cavalry « American Parser

  8. Pingback: Sex For President 1984: 525-13. ‘Nuff Said. « American Parser

  9. Pingback: Sex For President 1988: Where’s George Michael When You Need Him? « American Parser

  10. Pingback: Sex For President 1992: Baby Boomers Become The Establishment « American Parser

  11. Pingback: Sex For President 1996: Out With The Old « American Parser

  12. Pingback: Sex For President 2000: The First Round Of The Second Sixties. Thanks, Boomers. « American Parser

  13. Pingback: Sex For President 1960: The Young And The Restless | Intentious

  14. Pingback: Sex For President 1964: Momentum Is Everything, And So Is Machismo | Intentious

  15. Pingback: Sex For President: An Argument For Abstinence | Controversial News, Controversial Current Events | Intentious

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on May 23, 2012 by in Here We Go Again and tagged , , , , .

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,614 other subscribers

Share This Blog


What You Missed

Top Rated

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,614 other subscribers

Share This Blog


What You Missed

Top Rated

%d bloggers like this: