May I Sell a Vowel Please?
You may have heard that of the 42 American Presidents, none has had a surname ending in a vowel. The significance of this is supposedly the fact that names ending in vowels are ethnic, most notably Italian, and that Americans have always voted for Waspish Presidents.
Actually, we have had 6 Presidents with surnames ending in a vowel. Arguably, 4 of these were not technically vowels, but rather a silent “e”, Fillmore, Pierce, Coolidge and Monroe. Monroe is the only name of the 4 which sounds like it ends in a vowel, but it would never be mistaken for an Italian name. The other 2 vowel ending surnames both ended with a “y”, McKinley and Kennedy, ethnic Irish names of two of our Presidents who were shot to death while in office.
The wide open run for President in 2008 is well under way and each party has a top candidate with a surname ending in a vowel, both of whom are not Wasps, the Democrat Obama and the Republican Giuliani. Giuliani is also challenging the syllable barrier, with his four exceeding the record of three shared by 12 men. We have had 10 monosyllabic Presidents, none of whom is considered top notch. The current holder of the office is monosyllabic both in surname and vocabulary, and is definitely bottom notch.
The best literal odds of election is for surnames ending in “n”, shared by 16 Presidents, and offering encouragement to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Next best is “r” with 6, followed by “t” and the silent “e” with 4 each.
As for first names, James is the winner, with 6 if Jimmy Carter is included, or 5 if he isn’t. Runner up honors are shared by John and William with 4 each. The only 3-peat is George, a name we should have retired before we got stuck with the 2 Bushes. We have had 2 Andrews and 2 Franklins. The 22 singles include some fairly popular names like Benjamin, Richard and Thomas, but also some real oddballs like Millard and Rutherford.
In the current crop of candidates, John McCain would seem to have the favorite name, a runner up first name with a two syllable last name ending in “n”. John Edwards has the same first name and a two syllable last name ending in “s”, which was good enough for 3 Presidents. New Mexico Governor William Richardson has a runner up first name and a surname ending in “n”, in spite of the fact he has Hispanic heritage. Senator Clinton has a proven last name, but her predecessor literally looms over her, and she has a female first name. Obama has the vowel problem and also a first name from a different hemisphere [and a middle name, Hussein, with definite negative vibes for some people]. Giuliani not only suffers from a four syllable last name ending in an ethnic vowel, but a certain holiday song that plays around election time will make some people think of his first name in a different light. Romney could have a chance to become the 3rd “y”, but a first name that sounds like a baseball glove is a definite handicap.
Considering factors other than names, here is my present thinking on how I think they are seen:
CLINTON - Best known, most polarizing . Overshadowed by Bill, with whom she is so closely identified. Very capable and very calculating. Huge treasure chest. Concerns about a woman President not as significant factor as concerns about Hillary. Her tactics toward Obama could make or break her, and so far she is off to a shaky start in that regard.
EDWARDS - Fairly well known and liked. Personable but not well connected or experienced. Concern that he would be treated as Carter was, not accepted by the power establishment.
GIULIANI - Only known for being everywhere after 9/11. As conservatives get to know his moderately liberal record and as his personal background is openly discussed, they will not want him. Liberals will prefer a Democrat - the whole package.
MCCAIN - More eccentric than maverick, and now more accommodating to the point of being submissive. Burned out and fading. Not trusted by those he irritated and from whom he now seeks support. Holds his age well, but as it is more discussed, it will hurt him.
OBAMA - The “it” factor to many. Brains, stage presence, elocution mastery. Straight talk and the high road. Freshly unique biography. Money and power are attracted to enabling him. Little experience on the big stage and not much meat yet put on the bones of his ideas, but the longer he stays in and the more mistakes Hillary makes in regard to him, the more money and power will move toward him. If he begins to show an impressive roster of senior advisors who would serve with him, that will help.
ROMNEY - Very handsome, but his Mormonism and flip flops on hot button issues hurt him. Conservatives may conclude that he espoused liberal positions only to fool liberal voters and get elected as Governor of Massachusetts, but that he is really a social conservative. Bigger problem is overcoming admitted public ignorance and concern about how being a Mormon would affect a President. Has strong financial connections and could soon rise from distant third to be a serious Republican challenger.
RICHARDSON - The New Mexico Governor is the most roundly experienced candidate, having also been in Congress, on the Cabinet as Energy Secretary and at the UN as our Ambassador, in addition to conducting many international negotiations as a special envoy. But the Democratic money and power are gravitating to the front runners, leaving him as a definite long shot.
posted by Tom Blake | 3:02 PM
7 Comments:
Clinton - not a chance. But the Democrats might nominate her in their wonderful tradition of handing the election over to the Republicans.
Edwards - He looks weak expecially compared to Hillary. So if Hillary can't win, a fortiori neither can Edwards.
Giuliani - I can't explain it, but I don't like him. Maybe it's because his name ends in a vowel, but I doubt that. I did like the leadership he showed after 9/11, though. But that doesn't seem enough to make him President.
McCain - He has long been my favorite. He has a good idea of what is important to most Americans. BUT I have a problem with his position on Iraq. Sadly, I could not vote for him at this point because of that.
Obama - He would have to get a lot of senior advisors to sign on before I would consider this upstart for President. Yes, I bought into the JFK thing in 1960. But I was young and impressionable then. But W got a bunch of senior advisers to sign on and they have really made a mess. So maybe Obama should do as JFK did, get a lot of non-senior advisers to sign on. I think this is what FDR did too. So I will continue to look favorably on this very undeserving candidate.
Romney - Nobody from Massachussetts can be elected President of the US. The Mormon connection is a plus to me. The many Mormons I know (Arizona is filled with them)are people of high moral standards, are very intelligent and well educated, are very interested in improving the living standards in the US as well as in improving the economy, and have high ethical business standards. I would vote for Romney in an instant, but his Mormonism, as Tom points out is a detriment to most Americans who don't know Mormons as I do, and his coming from the Bay State is the final nail in the coffin.
Richardson - He could be the best, but we'll never know.
So who would I vote for? McCain if he softens his Iraq stance, Romney, Clinton, Obama, in that order.
John from Phoenix
In November 04 you gave Sense a link to a political compass, which was posted here as part of an article on where we each stand on the political issues, social and economic. Your comment said you were in the southwest corner, which is not where McCain and Romney are, and in fact would not include any Republicans, except possibly Giuilani. Why would you vote for any Republican for President? A bad Democrat makes a better President than any Republican, just because of their stand on issues and how much power the President has to dominate issues (e.g. executive orders, Commander-in-Chief, Veto power and Supreme Court appointments).
I sense a strong undercurrent of older white male resentment of a young black male candidate for President. Joe Biden already put his foot in his mouth with backhanded half-compliments of Obama that he never would have said about a white man. Your referring to him as an upstart may be in that same vein.
If upstart means one has not paid his political dues, then consider the facts of the political dues of these people:
Hillary Clinton has one term as a Senator preceded by a totally botched effort to lead a health care reform task force while her husband was President and the Democrats held both houses of Congress;
John Edwards has one term as a US Senator;
Bush II had six years as Governor when he ran for President;
Romney has four years as Governor;
Giuliani has no legislative or gubernatorial experience, just 8 years as a Mayor and prior prosecutorial experience;
Obama has eight highly effective years in the Illinois Senate, plus the four years he will have in the US Senate before the next President takes office;
Only John McCain has more legislative experience than Obama, with four years in the House and twenty in the Senate. By the way, JFK was no flash in the pan, having served six years in the House and eight in the Senate before becoming President, a combination of only two less years experience than McCain had when he sought the Presiency in 2000.
And what’s with voting for Romney just because he is a Mormon? Isn’t that reverse religious discrimination?
Tom,
Your comments illustrate your sense of humor. I am chuckling as I write this.
Reverse discrimination? Because I like Romney who is Mormon? That's a leap. Your comment suggests forthrite discrimination (as opposed to reverse discrimination, whatever that means).
A bad anybody is not good for anybody else no matter what his or her political affiliation is. If you believe Republicans are evil because they are Republicans, you had better seek anger counseling.
I like Obama, but admiring his charisma does not make me want him to be President. I am very open to monitoring his career. I hope he does well, but that does not mean he should achieve a political level before he has earned it. There are so many historical examples of those who have and have either failed or instituted disaster.
John Kennedy was a flash in the pan. His career was orchestrated by his influential father. That's not to say he didn't have considerable talent. Only that he would not have been elected if his father had not bought off Dick Daley.
Your litany of inexperienced candidates who did well is interesting to me. From that list I would have to vote for the following in your order of experience:
McCain
Guiliani
Romney
Bush II
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
I like your ordering except for Bush II. I would remove him and vote as you recommend.
John from Phoenix
I think what you were saying about Mormons is that you like their work ethic, and I agree they are admirable in that regard. We have a lazy President now, who works only at perpetual preaching to the choir and lying to everyone else. It would be nice to have a President who works hard at what the office requires, especially if his view of what America needs is progressive rather than reactionary. I think Romney only pretended to be progressive to get elected in Massachusetts.
Republicans do make me angry. Some are evil, most are reactionary and self-interested instead of compassionate, and all subscribe to a political view that is unhealthy for America.
I have trouble following your views on experience as a Presidential qualification and your ranking of the candidates in that regard. You say Obama has not earned the Presidential level, but you do not explain why his more lengthy experience in government office makes him less qualified than those you rank higher. His time in government ranks second only to McCain. Personally I discount Mayoral and prosecutorial experience as Presidential qualification, meaning Giuliani is not really qualified. A combination of legislative and Gubernatorial experience is the best in my opinion, and Richardson is the only one who has it. In spite of the fact you list all the Republicans ahead of all the Democrats, I am having trouble believing the explanation may simply be that you are in fact a Republican.
I do not understand why you persist in calling JFK a flash in the pan, considering the length of his Congressional service. As for paternal financial enabling of JFK, I have less problem with a man openly contributing to his son’s campaigns in order to get bragging rights than with special interests contributing in expectation of paybacks at public expense. In Illinois in1960, the Democrats may have stuffed Chicago ballot boxes to make up for what the Republicans did in the southern part of the State. Public financing of campaigns and improvements in election monitoring are worthwhile goals we should be seeking.
Obama and Romney are the least well known of the top candidates and I expect their numbers will rise as they become better known nationally. You say you are open to monitoring Obama’s career, but I suggest right now we should be monitoring his campaign, and also Romney’s, to see what their vision is for America and how well they do in convincing people to let them lead us to it.
Tom,
I do like the Mormon work ethic. But more general than that, I like their sense of morality.
What you say about Republicans applies to many politicians. Many are evil, reationary, and self-interested. My guess is that roughly an equal percentage from all political parties in the world fall in this category.
Being mayor of New York City provides better experience for US President than governor of 40 of the states.
No, watching a campaign does not provide insight into a candidate's character. Quite the opposite. I hate to keep using Hitler as an example, so I will use Bush II. We need to watch his career, not his campaign style.
John from Phoenix
I’ll save exploring Mormon morality for another day, and particularly if Romney becomes a bigger player.
I doubt that depraved politicians are equally spread through the political parties of the world. I expect some parties cultivate them while others discourage them. My primary interest and observation though is regarding the two main US political parties, and I have followed them intensively, particularly during Watergate and then again for the last 15 years. I was not able to follow as closely during the Reagan years but have been catching up on that through various readings. I have always been a Democrat and I always knew Nixon was a crook, something Watergate proved. But Nixon also started the Republican party on a crooked path, and Reagan/BushI took it still further from the straight and narrow. Bush II has taken the party so far out that they cannot even see the path any more.
Mayoral experience, even of the largest city in the country, is inherently different and significantly more limited than the experience of serving as a Governor. The issues and dynamics involved at the State, national and international levels are far removed from the overwhelming majority of issues faced by municipalities. For that reason, as well as for the lack of national exposure, mayors are not traditionally considered viable Presidential candidates. Giuliani is currently being considered for two reasons, his national exposure following 9/11 and the lack of broadly appealing candidates in the Republican party. Because of his political positions and personal lifestyle, I expect that his star will fade soon.
The best approach is to both watch the candidate’s campaign and study his or her career. Hitler, being as terrible as he was, does get overused as a devastating comparison. I suspect that Bush II is destined to achieve that same disgusting status.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home