Skip to content

Soy un perdidor

I see Maha is a bit upset that Ed Rogers “called Carter a loser”:http://www.mahablog.com/2006/11/29/civil-discourse/ on Harball. I take it she finds Rogers tone of voice irritating.

To be fair, Carter did lose an election; and his polices were not particularly popular. On the other hand, I don’t think Carter fits the classic loser mold. Let’s compare just some of Carter’s honors to attributes from Beck’s first hit.

|Carter|Loser|
|Governor of Georgia|Has a couple of couches|
|President, USA|Sleeps on the love-seat|
|Nobel Peace Prize (2002)|Monkey (time of Chimpanzees)|
|Presidential Medal of Freedom|Gets crazy with the cheese whiz|
|18 Honorary Doctorates|Shaves his face with mace in the dark|
|World Methodist Peace Award|Is out to cut the junkie|
|Great Cross of the Order of Vasco Nunéz de Balboa|Has butane in his veins|
|United Nations Human Rights Award|Baby’s in Reno with the vitamin D|
|Rotary Award for World Understanding|Saves all his food stamps|
|United Nations Human Rights Award|Burns down the trailer park|

If Carter makes it under the “loser” bar, my guess is it’s set far too high.

3 Comments

  1. Avedon wrote:

    They left out:

    Carter - won an election.

    Bush - didn’t.

    Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 8:23 am | Permalink
  2. Diesel wrote:

    Bush didn’t win an election? At what % of the popular vote does that canard get invalidated? 55? 60? Just curious.

    This post is hilarious, btw. Wish I had thought of it.

    Soy un perdidor!

    Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
  3. thudfactor wrote:

    Welcome, Avedon! Bush was a “loser” the first time at least. Not so sure about the second.

    And thank you, Diesel. I knew I had to post quick or you’d get to it before me.

    As far as Avedon’s point, I think that until we manage to fix our electoral systems to the point where massive fraud seems unlikely, you’re not going to get rid of that “canardâ€? at 70% of the popular vote. Obviously the system will never be perfect, but things like Diebold’s hackable, poorly tested machines and Ken Blackwell’s clear conflict of interest do little to encourage faith in the results.

    AFAIC, all elections are suspect until such things are resolved. There’s too much potential for error or perfidy.

    Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*