General Question

flo's avatar

Will Mitt Romney be going on entertainment TV shows, esp. the trashy ones?

Asked by flo (7163 points ) September 27th, 2012

1)What does being entertaining have to do with being a president? Does Romney believe the president and president’s office are degraded by going to these shows esp. The View? Even the present day “60 Minutes” (“60 minutes brought to you by Viagra”?) How qualified is this show at this point to interview the presidential candidates?

2)How does a president have the time to go to any show never mind more than one show (Stewart, The View, Live with Kelly and Michael, and (talking about Snookie) and on and on and on?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

filmfann's avatar

Appearing on these shows are all about pressing the flesh (just ask Snookie). People want to like the candidate they will vote for. It is easier to imagine sitting down with a beer and talking to Obama after he appears on The View. Having a beer with Mitt (ignoring the fact his religion forbids it) would be easier once he makes Whoopie laugh.

flo's avatar

@filmfann what do most of these shows do generally speaking? They do trash right? Degrading the office of the president is not the thing to do even if they think they will get more voters IMO.

flo's avatar

I just found out Romney has been on Leno.

But how does Obama find the time to go on these shows? I thought his time is supposed to be valuable.

It was a jarring thing to see Dick Cheney on The View.

Pandora's avatar

Its all about appealing to the people as being a regular Joe and to get the undecided votes. People who listen to their campaigns have already decided who to vote for. Now its time to appeal to those who don’t know the issues and will decide to go for them because they think they are honest and understand who they are and can relate to them. Towards the end of an election it all boils down to who you think should be popular (If you are one of the undecided). Sadly our political structure relies on those idiots in the end. So the candidates have to try their hardest appear approachable. In the end, it is, vote for me! I’m fun at home barbecues. F the issues that you should care about but really don’t. Although Romney should just really stop talking all together. He keeps imploding every couple of days. The democrats don’t have to try so hard to win.

augustlan's avatar

It’s a fact of political life in this day and age, and has been for quite some time. The goal is to be seen by as many people as possible, and, more importantly, to be liked by as many people as possible.

wundayatta's avatar

If you can’t get elected, you can’t do the job. To get elected, you need votes. TO get votes, you have to talk to people. To reach people, you go on TV, in just about any venue you can get. You want shows with significant audiences in specific demographics.

Ther View gets women. Leno and Stewart get young people. There are other shows for older people. You go on ESPN Monday Night Football if you want to get men; particularly white men.

It’s all very standard. If a President starts thinking that going on a certain show demeans the office, then he won’t be President for much longer. So it’s a practical thing, and it’s all about votes. It’s all about showing how you are a real person who hangs out with real people. Lovable. Approachable. Not aloof, like Romney seems to a large number of people. Also, no one gets his humor.

rojo's avatar

Yes, he will.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Yeah, I’d could see them on Springer or Povich.

Povich: “Now Mitt, Barry—You don’t mind if I call you Barry, do you? —would either of you be willing to go backstage and take a lie detector test?” (Audience howls and whistles) Woooop! Woooooooop!!

A guy yells: “HEY BAAAAAARY! WHY DON’T YOU GO BACK TO KENYAAAA, YOU FREAKIN’ MUSLIM TERRORIST!!!”

Another guy screams: “MITT! HEY MORON! YOU GOT ANY MORE WIVES LIKE THAT AT HOME?!?!”

Soundstage erupts into boos and profanities, up the bumper music…

flo's avatar

“Sadly our political structure relies on those idiots in the end. So the candidates have to try their hardest appear approachable. In the end, it is, vote for me! I’m fun at home barbecues. F the issues that you should care about but really don’t” from @Pandora‘s post.
Does this help terrorists and the like?

flo's avatar

…i.e throwing out principles, selling out, just to get votes is an example to what kid of people? Hit men,... con artists…use anything to get results. And people who could be bought by terrorists too.

Pandora's avatar

@flo, In what sense? Do you mean in the sense that we can get someone elected that doesn’t deserve to be in their position? It has happened several time over decades. An terrorist have existed just as long if not longer. Hopefully, whoever we elect will make some good choices in surrounding themselves with sound minded people who are experts in their fields and can guide them to good decisions. However in the Romney camp, that may already be proving to not be the case. So God help us all if he is elected. Then the terrorist have a good shot at us.

flo's avatar

@Pandora I was trying to make the point that leaders job is to lead and be genuine. What kind of garbage is on TV these days? The netwrorks are abusing the office of the president/the country by using them to increase their ratings.

Yes you are right the terrorists and the like are not taking their cues from the president.
What kind of an example is it to the kids and adults who are already at risk of going in the wrong direction?

augustlan's avatar

@flo The networks aren’t abusing the office of the president. The president and candidates are using the networks, quite willingly, to gain exposure. It’s a symbiotic relationship, and I don’t see anything terribly wrong with it.

Also, I have no idea how you get from “The president is on a talk show” to “This will influence kids and adults to ‘go in the wrong direction’ and/or ‘help terrorists’.” What, exactly, is the connection?

flo's avatar

@augustlan When an OP asks something along the lines of: “Can you counter the points he is making in the book?” It is ridiculous/hostile unacceptable for someone to answer: “the author is a….(a vulgar word) instead of demonstrating how the author is wrong.

If you think It is okay to call people names if:
-They are not close to you, i.e they are a random author,for example.
-If a question starts the question by “what do you think…. ?”
then you will not see what I’m referring to either.

-The OP
and the -Permalink

augustlan's avatar

@flo Seriously… I am so confused right now. What does that old question/answer have to do with this one? How does it clarify your leap from talk shows to terrorism?

flo's avatar

@augustlan You will not see it. It wasn’t meant to clarify it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther