POTUS by Height

One of the most scientific ways of predicting who will win in American Presidential Elections is to measure the heights of the two leading candidates.  For some rather incompetent reason I had been convinced that sitting President Barack Hussein Obama was taller than just about everyone, but he isn't.  His wife, Michelle, is extremely tall.  Obama just has that tall skinny look that gives the impression that he's super-tall.  He's 6'1" 1.85m.  Actually, my husband, at least at his tallest, was the same height as Obama.

Americans are an extremely superficial nation.  They go for image, and for Americans height gives the appearance of leadership and intelligence.

For some dumb reason, I kept thinking that Obama was taller than Mitt Romney.  But then I saw them standing side-by-side in their first debate.

Back in the race? Republican candidate Mitt Romney puts on strong performance at first presidential debate on Wednesday.

|

Photo credit: AP

While you're at it, read Ruthie Blum's review of the first Obama-Romney debate.



And why do I want to know how tall Mitt Romney is? It's because the taller candidate usually wins. There was a very close vote between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy who were both the same height. If Nixon had been taller, there's a good chance that his sensitivity to the heat and lack of sweat guards wouldn't have had kept him from the presidency in 1960. It was that close.

Mitt Romney is 6'2" 1.88m which is a full inch taller than Obama.

While voters consider more than physical stature when they get to their polling stations—at least we hope they do—data suggests that height does play a factor. Since 1789, the taller candidates have triumphed in 58 percent of U.S. presidential elections, and what’s more, they’ve won the popular vote 67 percent of the time. There’s even a term for this phenomenon: “the Presidential height index.”

What's amazing is that FDR's height was winningly impressive, though he mostly sat.  His use of crutches built up his shoulders, giving the impression of physical power, even though he had to be lifted in and out of cars.  The journalists of the time purposely kept those pictures from the American public.

Now, does that mean that policy plays such a small role in how Americans choose for whom to vote?  Yes, it could be.  Most voters, black, white, yellow, red or whatever do consider color important.  A very large percentage of the Obama voters voted for him because of his color.  They love the idea that "a Black man can be elected President."  Nu, what does that make them? They chose whom to vote according to color/race.  For sure they are no different than those who will only vote for a White person.  Yes, that makes them racist.

For Romney to defeat Obama, Americans must stop voting by color and look carefully at the candidates, their experience, policies etc. 

Good luck America and good luck world.

Re:American Elections- Do I Have a Right to Voice/Blog My Opinion?

As an American expatriate who has never voted in American elections, do I have a right to voice or blog an opinion?

Some people may say that the best way of giving an opinion is actually voting, but I'm not going that route, sorry.  To do it I'd need an American address and in all honesty I don't have one.  My parents have sold their New York home and live in Arizona.

The issue that has been in the news recently about Mitt Romney is his "gaffe" about the problems for Israel if there would be a Palestinian sic state.  Republican candidate for the United States Presidency told the truth about the goal of the so-called "Palestinians." 

Mr Romney is shown saying that Palestinians are "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel".

"The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace," he says, adding that "the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish".

Why should that be considered a "gaffe?"  It's refreshing and encouraging that Romney sees the world through accurate lenses, unlike most politicians including Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who thinks that by bending the truth he is a more acceptable leader.  He may be more accepted by the extreme Left Israeli media, but he's not a leader if he follows their lead.

Why is this statement by Romney considered a "gaffe?"  I hope that he stands by it.  Now if Romney stands by his very un-pc, aka not politically correct statement it will show guts, the kind of guts the United States and the world need from an American President. But if Romney starts hemming and hawing and diluting it, then he'd be proving himself no more than any other weak politician.

Unfortunately, most politicians running for office are really chasing polls, trying to manufacture campaign platforms to conform to popular opinion polls.  That makes them followers, not leaders.  That means that they don't have the guts to do what's right.  Their aim is to get elected at any cost.  This is an international problem.  The world is being run by the media, those savvy enough to control the minds of people, yes, very big brother. 

Big Brother's face looms from giant telescreens
 in Victory Square in Michael Radford's
 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-Four.

1984 was over thirty years ago, but the book Nineteen Eighty-Four  is brilliant.  Unfortunately, we're living it now.

Is there a world leader to rescue us?