<strong>Written By:</strong> Jim Callaghan
<strong>Date:</strong> 2004-06-15 09:37:00
<a href="/article/70611503-image-vs-platform">Article Link</a>

There were the usual calls that said they thought image was a good thing, and there were those that disagreed.

Personally, I think image is only going to sway a voter who doesn\'t really know the issues.

A pretty face is not the way to choose a prime minister. A good debater looks promising, but again, look at the issues.

Take a look at Mulroney, who won the debate against John Turner the first time, then went on to win the largest majority in history.

He looked very \"prime ministerial\" that some seem to think is so important.

We all know what happened next !!

   

Your right Jim, it should be the issues and the leaders stance on them that determines our choice. Never judge a book by its cover judge it by its content.

   

<b>Image over substance</b> We all have a recent example on how one wins over the other...Reagan's funeral extravaganza is one of them, reality-tv another one. Television is the great mind killer. No need to analyze or think. Let's allow the image-makers feed our brain. The dumbing down of an entire generation is doing its job well when younger generations do not bother showing up at the polls.

   

Just as a corporation is a machine that earns itself money (maximizing profits is set in law), a political party is a machine that earns itself votes. These are inhuman, imagined organisations. </p> I'm reading Naomi Klein's <u>No Logo</u> and the more I read, the more I compare political parties with corporations. Rather than elect someone for their platform (product) quality, we elect them based on the emotional response that party (corporation) instills in us. </p> Think about this: Nike doesn't make shoes. They SELL shoes, but that's just a side effect of their real business. The real business is selling image. Well the same is true for the Conservatives and Liberals. No shoes, just image (I think I'm getting some good ideas for some new political T-shirts). </p> And with the constant onslaught of images-selling-products we now face (Intel, Nike, Calvin Klein, MacDonalds, etc), it's no wonder this concept has been applied to elections as well. </P> -KY<p>---<br>Kory Yamashita <br />
<br />
"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

   

Speaking of image, watching the debate last night I couldn't help but think that Harper probably spent more money on his hair than what I spend for a week's worth of food. I mean, I was expecting his make-up to begin dripping off his face at any moment because it was so thick. I ended playing computer games during their numbing orations in order to keep myself entertained between commercial breaks.

   

I didn't get to see the french debate. Sometimes I think Harper wears mascara because his eye lashes look too dark for his hair colouring. Don't make him cry (if that's possible), he could end up sounding like Jim Baker and looking like Tammy Faye.

For me the way someone looks is more often associated with how I feel about them. If they give me a feeling that they are sincere and care I see them having warm eyes a friendly smile or just an honest air about them. On another post I can be found to say that Gilles Duceppe is easy on MY eyes and part of that is because I sense that sincerity I'm talking about. He doesn't feel like he's selling himself or his issues. He just is. I like that.

The way Stephen Harper looked, was an obvious "makeover", to go along with his rightwing-ideology labotamy.

   

4Canada, that description is soooo fitting for Harper you're killing me....but the thing about Gilles I'm not getting, he is sincere, but it is a sincere interest in destroying Canada, which doesn't address those people in Quebec who actually want to be Canadians. I really don't like listening to a debate for PM where one of the people involved in the debate is selfishly only talking about himself, what he wants for his people, who cares about the rest of the country! So he may be easy on the eyes, but he is hard on the heart if you are patriotic. For me Canada is all of us, and we need leadership which represents all of us, Canadians.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

   

I totally agree Flat Cath,

He feels about Quebec the way we feel about Canada. In that we have something in common. I understand his passion.
However I think he's down sized his ability by limiting himself to fighting for Quebec. He doesn't realize he's capable of a more humanitarian/whole-istic approach. I think I need to email him.

   

Well if you do make sure you tell him about being easy on your eyes, he'll for sure listen to your passion!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?