Skip to main content

The good-manner vote

Ohio Republican Senatorial candidate Josh Mandel has a new ad out which I find to be amusing. In this ad, a woman compliments Mandel on his "good manners." I'm not saying that having good manners is a bad thing, but I still found the clip to be humorous.

In so many ads, we hear about one candidate having more quality government experience than the other, of being endorsed by reputable groups and people such as the NRA and a deceased Ronald Reagan. We're then struck by negative commentary regarding the opposing candidate, as he or she gets pummeled by accusations of cheating on their taxes to being anti-American to punching random people at nursing homes. Then we're told by a woman to vote for a guy because he has "good manners." Really? When was the last time a candidate won an election based on the good-manner vote, if there ever was such a thing?

Yes, a Gallup poll just reported that these issues are the most important to voters:

1) Creating jobs - 48.2%
2) Equal rights for all - 16.8%
3) Abortion - 9.1%
4) Taxes - 8.9%
5) Good manners - 8.7%
All others - 8.3%

In light of Mandel's ad and the make-believe Gallup poll, I'm going to one day run for office and release the following ad:

"He usually doesn't eat with his elbows on the table. When his mouth is full of hot wings, he won't open it to speak. When he's bored, he'll go to the mall to open the front door to complete strangers - the elderly, handicapped and annoying teeny-boppers. The only place he's ever farted is in the bathroom with no one else, even his dog, around. Before punching someone in the face, he always says, 'Pardon me.' Lastly, whenever he's been drunk at a bar and wanted to engage in a one-night stand with a woman, he's always politely asked her, 'Excuse me, miss? May I please penetrate you tonight?' He may not have any experience in government, but the guy has a doctorate's in good manners. Vote Craig Rozniecki. He'd make your great-grandmother proud. I'm Craig Rozniecki and I approve this message."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"