Politician in training

Posted on August 25th, 2007 by Jackie Danicki

Meaningless words? Check. Empty gestures towards foreign countries? Check. Total lack of clue? Check. Utter failure to realize how stupid she sounds? Check.

To be fair, she does have much nicer hair than most politicos.

Filed under: Life

« Zzzzzz Quote to remember »

5 Responses to “Politician in training”

  1. nancy, on August 25th, 2007 at 7:26 pm Said:

    This is brutal. Also, she should be absolutely ashamed of herself for being so stupid that it’s not even funny.

  2. Jackie Danicki, on August 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm Said:

    I don’t know if she’s stupid, but she’s certainly uninformed and inarticulate. She may just be an incredibly practical person, concerned only with what is immediately in front of her. I don’t think that’s a crime. Still, I have little doubt that she’s brought great shame upon herself and her family. (Unless they’re really sick.)

    I assume that we all could have done better than she did. But I am curious how other people would have answered. I suspect my own response would have induced great horror in the judges…

  3. j. Rosen, on August 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm Said:

    I am just wondering why she was talking about South Africa. Is that a true statistic, 20% of american can’t find the US on a map?

  4. Jackie Danicki, on August 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm Said:

    Knowing how some of these statistics are derived, I highly doubt it. I don’t think it actually matters a whole lot either way, though.

  5. Shotrock, on August 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm Said:

    j. Rosen, this is what I tell people when they bring up one of the many “Murcans R Stoopid” statistics floating around:

    Say you were a reporter for CNN or Fox a couple of years back, and you wanted to do a “man on the street” piece about the Good Friday Agreement and whether the average Brit trusts the IRA to de-mob. I give you these two options:

    1) Correspondent introduces the segment to the American viewer by noting that Hyde Park Corner is where British political opinion has historically and quaintly been expressed, and that you interviewed 20 locals as they walked by.

    2) Correspondent introduces the segment to the American viewer by noting that the average Brit is totally football-mad, so a great place to determine the average Brit’s opinion is to stand outside a stadium and interview fans. And there he is, right outside Ibrox, as a sea of blue washes over him. He corrals 20 blokes for his “average Brit” opinion on the IRA/GFA.

    My point? Statistics all depend on who you ask. Situation #2 above is an obviously biased format, because even if each remark is aired totally unedited, you’ve pre-selected for only one result.

    Replace CNN with “BBC” and “Rangers fans/IRA” with “Ole Miss sorority girls on spring break/world affairs” and you get an idea of where that kind of statistic comes from.

Leave a Reply