I’ve received a bunch of emails - and read a number of posts in the comments section - that questioned whether or not this blog is ageist. It’s a fair question and I wanted to take a minute to offer my answer.
It isn’t. Here’s why:
Before the blog launched, I thought long and hard to see if I could come up with reasons how gender or race could negatively impact on someone’s ability to do an effective job as President… and I couldn’t come up with a single one. But I was able to come up with reasons why age - at least, potentially - could be a factor:
- Memory loss
- Decreased stamina
- Greater susceptibilty to illness
- Possible lack of ability to relate to the issues and concerns of the vast majority of younger Americans
- And, of course, the increased likelihood of dying in office… throwing the country into temporary turmoil and placing a greater importance of the role of Vice President
Furthermore, I got to thinking how the framers of the Constitution saw fit to attach an age minimum of 35 to the office of the President. Presumably, they felt that people younger than 35 lacked the skills necessary to be able to run the country. While I’m certainly not suggesting that we have a Constitutional amendment creating an age maximum, it does tell me that my line of thinking (namely, that age does matter) is clearly not without precedent.
Now, does all this mean that John McCain would AUTOMATICALLY be a bad President JUST because he’s 72? Of course not (he’d be a bad President for a whole host of other reasons!), but I am saying that it’s reasonable to make the subject of his age - and all that it entails - part of a dialogue about his qualifications… and that we shouldn’t run from the topic because it has an “ism” attached to it.
That’s what I say - what say you?
You know, when I first saw this, I thought that it meant that you were choosing Ageism as being younger than McCain, because, well, it is. Or also, there’s the classic Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 too, which is younger than McCain…
All of that aside, I don’t think that its bad at all to have this as a discussion in a humorous light. Its an important issue for people to consider for the reasons that you outlined above, and seeing the majority of Americans are younger than McCain himself, well, he doesn’t connect with the people the same as another candidate does–be it Obama or Clinton or Huckabee or Romney. That’s just the honest truth.
Keep it up. Its enjoyable and a good read.
Comment by Adam J. Cohen — May 16, 2008 @ 10:44 am
I agree with Adam. Keep it up. It’s an important consideration. And it’s a hilarious blog.
Comment by rach — May 16, 2008 @ 11:40 am
This is as dumb as race is an issue because it might make you more susceptible to assassination. Wisdom comes with age. It is a predictable argument for someone with no experience or any accomplishments to speak of, to call someone who has an abundance of those things too old.
A naive blog for naive people.
Comment by Blackbeard — May 16, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
There’s a slight difference between wisdom with age and decrepitude. McCain is encroaching quite rapidly upon the decrepitude side; the evidence is there for all to see. I’m almost 50 and I *know* I’m too cranky and tired to be president. Wake me at 3 in the morning with some lame-ass emergency and I’ll bite your bleedin’ head off! I might just push the button to make you go away!!
There are a myriad of reasons John McCain should not be president, age included. I can just picture our Commander in Chief keeling over at the podium in front of the entire world and leaving the reins in the hands of… God knows who. That’s the scariest thought of all.
Comment by Chilly — May 16, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
It is not the same as discussing race. Not in the slightest and it is ignorant and short-sighted to think that it is the same.
When age takes hold (as it will with all of us) we change. Our body begins to deteriorate, our faculties lessen, and our perceptions dull. That is one (of an overabundance) of the concerns I have with McCain as a president.
Here is a simple example which I hope further clarifies the difference between race and age:
My Grandmother turned 74 this year - she is healthy by all measures and standards though, her eyes have begun to go. So much so that the DMV has decided she is no longer able to competently drive a car and have revoked her drivers license. Show me where you can have your drivers license revoked due to race. See, completely different.
It is a simple example but, a good one in my mind. Despite the fact that she cannot relate to the issues going on in the world today or what it is like to try and raise a family now or the real cost of goods and services or many many other examples, she has been deemed too old to drive. Why on earth would I want someone that has been deemed too old to drive in charge of my country?
Yes, I know that McCain can still drive his car and is not in the exact same situation as my Grandmother but, the premise holds true.
We base decisions off generalizations - younger males are charged more for car insurance because they are more likely to get in an accident than similarly aged females. Generalizations are just part of the way things work.
Generally, anyone that is 72 is too old to be an effective president. My reasons for my opposition to McCain span more than his age… age is just the icing.
Comment by CannedWolf — May 16, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Just because your old and cranky does not mean that all people are the same way. Just because you are a minority does not mean that you are stupid. Have you seen Mac’s mother she is 90 something. This argument is hilarious the best President over the last 50 years was as old as McCain. Funny blog concept none-the-less.
Liberals=Gullible
Comment by Blackbeard — May 16, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
POTUS is not the only office that has an age requirement. You can serve your county graduate with a masters degree and work as a professional for many years and still cannot hold many public offices in your 20’s.
Comment by Duh — May 16, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Hmm. Actually, since the definition of ageism is “discrimination because of age,” and the blog suggests McCain’s age should be a factor in the election, yeah, I can see the argument for ageism here.
I think the better argument, though, is one you allude to in your post: The Constitution is ageist. It tells us outright that those under a particular age are not worthy of the position of President. Given life expectancy rates back then, thirty-five would have been an even “older” person than it is now.
Think about it. Many founders and CEOs of major corporations in this country are at or less than 35 years of age, including Larry Page, Sergey Brin (not a citizen), Chad Hurley, etc. Fine for a multi-billion dollar company like Google but not for running the U.S? Does something magical happen to people at age 35 that renders them somehow capable of running for President? Can you imagine if corporate America started trying to enforce an over-35 rule in its hiring policies?
It’s an ageist country, with an ageist qualification right there in the Constitution.
Also, the blog’s damn funny.
Comment by Stew — May 16, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Wisdom does not always follow age. How many people do you know over standard retirement age who are ignorant of basic facts, lack common sense, or otherwise make bad decisions? Not to mention decreased mental faculties as we get older. That’s not a swipe, it’s a fact.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#027
If I’m reading this right (which is a pretty big if) the life expectancy for a white male born in 1950 is just short of 67 years. McCain was born before this and is already past that number. As of 2005, at age 65 a white male has on average another 17 years. McCain has used about 7 of those years.
Is it ageism to point out that elderly people face different and possibly greater challenges than younger or middle aged people? More to the point, is it BAD to point that out?
Besides all that, anyone who takes this too seriously needs to take a deep breath. McCain wouldn’t be a terrible President just because he’s ancient. But the firebreathing archconservative he’s likely to bring on as his running mate would most likely be horrific, and considering the likelihood he’ll kick the bucket soon that’s something worth looking at.
Comment by Sean — May 16, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
First off, let me just say that I can understand the humor in this. So, more power to you.
In a serious discussion, however, age is largely a distraction. If you, as an individual voter, decide you are voting solely on the basis of age I feel very, very sorry for you. But certainly you can vote based on whatever reason(s) you so choose.
The 2008 race - perhaps more than ever - should be about issues. How does the candidate feel about health care? War in Iraq? Government entitlement programs? National debt? Economy? The list goes on and on.
Discussing age in a candidate is largely a waste of time unless there is some clear evidence that the candidate is unqualified for the office. Nothing like this has ever been presented in regards to John McCain.
You’re free to “hem and haw” about age all you like, but don’t be surprised when the majority of the electorate wants to hear what the candidates have to say about ISSUES THAT AFFECT THEIR LIVES! Strange as that may sound, this isn’t a sitcom.
I can only hope you’re old enough to understand that.
Comment by Distraction — May 16, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
And who, pray tell, was the best President over the last 50 years? I’m dying to know.
Comment by JenV — May 16, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
JenV,
Yeah, I was kinda curious about that one myself - and, at the same time, afraid to ask!
Comment by admin — May 16, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah… and the walker is younger than John McCain
Comment by Jason — May 16, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I totally agree with you on every point. Every time an octogenarian in a Cadillac mows-down a crown of pedestrians because the pedals confused him, people come out of the woodwork saying we can’t make seniors start taking driving tests because it would be age-ist.
Personally, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
After a certain point in life, things start slipping. Refusing to acknowledge that isn’t being fair, it’s just being ignorant.
Comment by mog — May 16, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Well, gosh, considering the tone in which the comments have been delivered, I’m guessing Ronnie Raygun.
Yeesh.
Comment by Chilly — May 16, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
There are endless reasons for not liking McC, without going into age…by some of your same criteria someone who had a serious illness (e.g. cancer) would also be disqualified. I despised a local candidate (who then got elected, alas) for playing that card against a better qualified but cancer survivor adversary. Out of touch with younger voters? How about out of touch with older/middle aged/not quite that old/not quite that young voters? + a lot of it is who you surround yourself with (which IMHO Obama is excelling in, and I am not kidding, Wright fake scandal notwithstanding), what kinds of qualifications they have….
Comment by catia — May 16, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Oh, and…
…if you can find a large group of the electorate who will sit and watch long-term discussions on the issues, well, you’re likely not looking within the US anymore.
Sadly, we just don’t have the attention span anymore. I’d love it if we did, but it’s just not the case.
Comment by mog — May 16, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
The blog is a great concept and hilarous. Keep up the good work.
That’s what I say.
Comment by jsg — May 16, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Get a funny bone, people, instead of crying politically correct!
Comment by suesun — May 16, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
George Washington was approximately 57 when he became POTUS and 65 when he left office. Similarly, his next five successors (Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) were all in their late 50s or early 60s upon election, and well into their 60s when they stepped down; the seventh president, Andrew Jackson, was almost 70. Life expectancy around 1800, even for an upper-class white male, was well short of 40 years old; state-of-the-art medical technology included leeches, bleeding, and blistering. Even in 1900, U.S. life expectancy was only 47. In real terms, McCain’s a spring chicken in comparison with every president in the first half-century of the republic, who most people think generally did a pretty decent job.
Comment by MEB — May 16, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Since JenV asked, Ronald Wilson Regan was the best president over the last 50 years and much longer.
Comment by mert — May 16, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Life expectancy doesn’t mean anything. It is just an average. Some humans die at birth and others live to 100+ years old. Life expectancy is more a statement of medical ability than anything else.
Comment by mert — May 16, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Some Muslim countries might POTENTIALLY (nice weasel word) have a problem with a woman negotiating with them. Does that mean we shouldn’t elect a woman as President, or should we take the whole of her record and weigh that against any possible negative repercussions?
Comment by Sam — May 16, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Wow. I’m just fascinated every time someone claims that Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents ever. He is, you may recall, the man who claimed that trees cause air pollution and under whose watch ketchup was declared a vegetable.
I have never understood the admiration for this second-rate actor.
My admiration for this web site, on the other hand, is unabated and QUITE understandable.
And much as I love my aged parents, I am the chauffeur when I’m in their town! Yikes.
Ageist? Perhaps. Survivor? Absolutely.
Comment by Theresa — May 16, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Let us also not forget the other pitfall of being somewhat past the hill at the start of a presidency:
ONE TERM.
He knows he’s not going to serve 8 years, he knows he doesn’t want to, that 4 years in the WH is taxing enough and will age him faster, and that he wouldn’t get re-elected at 76. A blunder in the first term (calling Sunnis the Shia again, for instance) will call his mental acuity into question (again), and the second campaign trail will be about nothing but his age.
And there are few things more fearsome than a one-term President who knows he or she has nothing to face in the re-election process. These people fear no falter. These people have the luxury of behaving any way, knowing they have impunity for Round 2. And here is where the age matters, because he won’t run for a second term because he’s too old. And a one-term McCain is a whirling-dervish of disaster just preparing to spin.
Comment by Tiffanie — May 16, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
A pic of John “Mc Cane” using a cane.
Comment by That's "Mr. Gook" to you. — May 16, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Well, Ronald Reagan managed to do an amazing amount of long-term damage to this country, especially considering how he was going senile during his 2nd term, so if that’s the standard by which you judge “best”, well then I suppose you are right. If not, I just don’t know how to help you.
Comment by JenV — May 16, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
I would HATE to see McCain in office next year, but I will say this. The President Emeritus of my company was 95 when he passed away last spring. To the day he died, he was more sharp, well spoken and intelligent that most of us hope to be at the height of our youth. When he spoke people we captivated. The day before he died he held an audience captive as he extemporized for 45 minutes on the state of our industry and his hopes for our NPO.
I know older people are at greater risk, but let’s not count them out until they are really out. One of our greatest resources in this world is the kind of perspective and passion that can only come from those who are long of tooth and old of age.
Comment by Anon — May 16, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
The bout with melanoma, and refusing to release current medical records, is pretty troubling too.
Comment by Dub — May 16, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Ronald Reagan is an excellent example of why we should think twice about electing an elderly President.
While his doctors claimed his Alzheimer’s disease really began when he fell off a horse after leaving offset, it just doesn’t happen like that, and many independent sources observed Reagan acting shockingly senile while in office. But they couldn’t report it; it was the cold war and it would have emboldened the Commies. Pretty scary when the supreme leader is senile, and the public doesn’t even know about it.
Anyway, you’d better hope that McCain appoints experienced advisers with outstanding judgment, in case the same happens to him.
But also remember that you don’t elect advisors, you elect a President. The politically inexperienced George W Bush promised experienced and mature advisers back in 2000. Instead we got the worst team of advisers in American history: insane warmonger Cheney, “cakewalk” Rumsfeld, Condi the toady, company man Powell, and hundreds of heckuva job Brownies.
Comment by theo — May 16, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
I believe this website is based on immaturity. If you vote the way you judge the world, we’re all in trouble. While you were making your point of McCain being old, you forgot to say WHY that is a problem. Give us some concrete examples. You just let every other moron you thinks like you to fill in all of the missing pieces of your disparaged statements. So what is your point? Do you work for Obama?
Comment by Joseph Randick — May 16, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Mr. Rendick,
I believe, in my post titled “Ageism”, I did lay out a few examples of why someone’s age could potentially play a part in their ability to effectively carry out the office of President. In addition, other posters also presented cogent arguments (I particularly liked whomever pointed out the reality of McCain being a one-term President.)
I have no official role with any candidate.
Thanks.
Comment by admin — May 16, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
#28 -
Make no mistake - I’m certainly not suggesting that an older person is automatically a bad candidate… I’m instead suggesting that, since real potential pitfalls exist, there’s nothing wrong with making it part of the electoral dialogue.
Comment by admin — May 16, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
What did President Regan do? Rebuilt the military after it was gutted by Carter, who was one of the most pathetic Presidents ever. Brought an end to the Cold War, and his tax cuts sparked of one of the longest running periods of economic growth this country has seen.
Comment by mert — May 16, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
On the face of it, I suppose it’s funny (for a whil e anyway) to find things older than a given old presidential candidate. I think it would be more to the point, however, to find things that are less ignorant than John McCain, who apparently doesn’t know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni, thinks making a song about bombing Iran is funny, and who has stated that he doesn’t know much about economics.
Comment by Rachel — May 16, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
What did Reagan do? He bumped the national debt from about half a trillion dollars to over four trillion, and who knows where that money went because he did nothing for our infrastructure. H gutted the powers of the USDA, gutted the powers of OSHA, deregulated the media (did you know it used to be that news was required to serve the public good? Well, Reagan took care of that, and look what the media is like today) trickle-down economics (they must have built a dam somewhere), Iran-Contra, God knows how many dollars wasted on his ineffective drug war, to name a few. Reagan started a legacy of greed, a legacy of mega corporations, a legacy that eventually allowed criminals like Rove, Cheney, & Bush Jr. into the Whitehouse.
Comment by JenV — May 16, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
I agree that if McCain were to be elected it would be bad for the country. Clinton (if she somehow were to be nominated) would be worse. Obama would be a freakin’ disaster. My vote in November will be not so much for McCain, but against socialist policies.
Comment by mert — May 16, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
I had to dig back far to find this, but on quotations around war hero:
“it has nothing to do with his servive [sic] but rather his incessant need to remind people of it at every turn….”
In this case, perhaps the same joke could be done achieved without quotations? As it is now, it gives the impression you’re taking the legitimacy of his status into question, as some people do.
I’m not voting for Mccain for the record, I’m voting Obama.
Comment by Ryan — May 16, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
It’s reasonable to treat McCain’s age as a factor in one’s voting judgment, as age is correlated with all sorts of salient characteristics. It’s equally reasonable to treat Obama’s relative youth as a factor. Some say he’s too young, not experienced enough. Some say his youth is a plus, bringing new ideas, fresh hope. Ageist? Not at all.
Ageism, like sexism or racism, isn’t just making a judgment on a characteristic people can’t control. It’s making an unfair judgment. Although one could be ageist about McCain or Obama, the mere consideration is not proof of bias.
Comment by William — May 17, 2008 @ 2:14 am
Just a suggestion:
Israel is younger than John McCain - being created by the UN in 1947 (looked it up on Wikkipedia so it must be true). I did start trawling for other countries and independent states which are younger than McCain, but then remembered I have finals next week…am sure there are a few though.
Comment by Nic — May 17, 2008 @ 4:01 am
If he served two terms in office John McCain would be 80 when he left the White House. Maybe it’s because I’m British but I can’t help but think of another octagenerian public figure… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
Comment by Matthew Watson — May 17, 2008 @ 6:36 am
Ralph Nader is 74, and he is the best (although faint) hope we have in this election.
Comment by duskwalker — May 17, 2008 @ 8:38 am
[...] John Riley wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNow, does all this mean that John [...]
Pingback by test » Blog Archive » Ageism. — May 17, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Given that McBush can’t seem to remember the things he said 48 hours ago, his age is certainly a fair issue.
I actually think an age maximum for a first-term president would be a good constitutional amendment.
Comment by Craig Hickman — May 17, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Mert,
You obviously don’t know the definition of socialism. Socialism means state control of the means of production. State ownership of industry. NO ONE IN AMERICAN POLITICS ADVOCATES THIS (except for a tiny, tiny fringe in socialist parties with no power)
Seriously, I understand if you don’t like your policies. I think you are wrong but I understand. But for right wingers like you to throw around the word socialism without knowing its definition is really the height of willful ignorance.
Comment by Jason — May 17, 2008 @ 10:59 am
#39,
well said.
Comment by admin — May 17, 2008 @ 11:18 am
#38,
you’re right - i could probably lose the quotes and it would mean the same… without running the risk of it also taking on a second and unintended meaning.
Comment by admin — May 17, 2008 @ 11:19 am
One of the main reasons why the framers put in the 35-year minimum age was to protect against a democratic monarchy. They were afraid that the nation would be susceptible to nepotism and elect the previous presidents son as the next president based solely on name familiarity. So they set the age to 35 in order to stop one family from constantly running for president. Kind of backfired in the last few years though.
Comment by corey — May 17, 2008 @ 11:41 am
It’s important to remember that the last President nearly as old as McCain developed Alzheimer’s disease in office. That was not good.
Imagine it’s 3AM and the President has Alzheimer’s. Only the absolutely stupidest people would be OK with that.
Comment by Mark Cuthbertson — May 17, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Thank you for taking my suggestion into consideration.
Comment by Ryan — May 17, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
[...] The Huffington Post News Editors wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt… mean that John McCain would AUTOMATICALLY be a bad President JUST because he’s 72? Of course not (he’d be a bad President for a whole host of other reasons!), but I am saying that it’s reasonable to make the subject of his age - and … [...]
Pingback by My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Ageism. — May 17, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
My daughter, Cheri Clark, sent me this link. I am 62 and she is going on 44. She started smarter off about my age until I reminded her she ia only 18 years younger than I am. As far as John McCain goes, I saw his mother and she looks good enough to run the country. I raised money for and organized 17 buses of WWII Veterans and loved ones to DC in 2004 and I had trouble keeping up with them, the oldest being 96. They don’t have a lot of the ailments the younger crowd have and are still taking care of their own affairs. (and by the way some are having affairs.) They still sing, dance and outthink people half their ages. So since John McCain is just a kid to them, it doesn’t matter if most things are younger than him. Like a lot of things in life, he seems to improve with age. Besides, it was his generation and older who created all the cool things of which they are older!!! Gotta go, I have to go teach my grandkids how to jitterbug and twist, if they can keep up with me! Sandy Hart
Comment by Sandy Hart — May 17, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
#52,
thanks for writing - i appreciate your comments. you’ll notice, however, that i never once say on this blog that his age precludes him automatically from being a good president… i do think, however, there is nothing wrong with making it part of the electoral dialogue.
Comment by admin — May 17, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
State control of health care seems pretty socialist to me.
Comment by mert — May 18, 2008 @ 1:11 am
Well, socialist or not something has to be done because health insurance as a for-profit enterprise doesn’t appear to be working. Prices keep going up and quality of care keeps going down. Only the rich can afford it (or those who can get it through work) and if the prices rise much higher, there won’t be any customers left to keep the insurance companies in business.
Comment by JenV — May 18, 2008 @ 2:33 am
What are all these old people doing on the internets? I wish their grandchildren would stop typing for them.
Comment by Gudrun — May 19, 2008 @ 2:02 am
“I am saying that it’s reasonable to make the subject of his age - and all that it entails - part of a dialogue about his qualifications…”
But you’re not adding to any “dialog”; you’re basically just making fun of the fact that he’s an old fogey.
If it was the Democrat who was 72 and it was Republicans making fun at his expense, I’m sure both sides would stake exactly the opposite positions.
You’re a Democrat; McCain is a Republican; he’s old; you can get away with making fun of that; but because making fun of some physical characteristic goes against any decent person’s mores, you’re forced to come up with this crock of a rationalization.
Comment by Sandra Winshippe — May 19, 2008 @ 8:52 am
I’ve done a lot of thought on this topic and I honestly believe that I would have the same reservations about a Democrat.
Would a Democrat have other qualities that might offset some of my concerns? Probably - but I would still be concerned about a lot of the points this blog raises.
Thanks for writing.
Comment by admin — May 19, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Average of age at ascension of the last 4 elected Democratic Presidents is 49, Republicans 62. Oldest of the last four elected Democrats was LBJ 55, youngest Republicans GWB 54. And remember the all age issues in Robert Dole’s campaign in 1996? he was born in 1923.
“Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head” ~ Francois Guisot (1787-1874)
Thanks for the hilarious blog.
Comment by Bret — May 19, 2008 @ 10:33 am
I am a democrat and I oppose McCain for President, but I do not think it is appropriate to try and make his age a meaningful part of the dialogue.
It is fair for insurance companies and deparments of motor vehicles to make generalizations about age because they need to evaluate the risks of a large number of people, but it is not necessary to apply generalizations about age when evaluating a single person, in this case McCain for president. We can evaluate McCain based on McCain - his policies, his character, his health, and many other items.
I think it is fair to evaluate his health and medical history and make that a part of the discussion and he should make his medical records open to the public, as should all candidates. The position of president is too important to not allow full view of any and all details relating to the individual that might impact his ability to fulfill his duties.
Comment by Daniel Clark — May 19, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
to Bret, any quotes about Republicans or Democrats from more than 75 years ago are meaningless. It was Republicans who were anti-slavery and Democrats who were pro-slavery….the parties were VERY different back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
What’s hilarious to me about these comments is that the ‘admin’ had to wonder aloud who the guy was talking about being the ‘best president’ and being McCain’s age. There’s only been one President of McCain’s age, and that’s Reagan. If you don’t even know that, how on Earth can you feel qualified to run this site?
This site is dumb, in my opinion. Ageist and useless. I’d also like to point out that many of the items in question are also older than Hilary Clinton and older than almost all other possible candidates in both parties….except Obama. At a cursory glance, these things include Scrabble, Velcro, and Scientology.
I hope someone starts a website called “Things Obama Did Not Experience” The list would include things which happened before Obama was born up until say age 7. Things like WWII, Korean War, Civil Rights Movement….you know, things that might Actually be Relevant to a Presidency as opposed to when Cheerios was first marketed.
- Cranky 28-year-old who’s already sick of all the old jokes
Comment by Rachel C — May 19, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
i think the reason the founding fathers didn’t put an age maximum is because people generally didn’t live that long (into their seventies and eighties) way back when the constitution was written. i definitely agree that john mccain is WAAAY too old to be president. hurrah for obama!
Comment by caryn — May 19, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
[...] there’s an interesting discussion of ageism on the Things Younger Than McCain site. While I agree with some of the concerns about McCain’s age, I think it overlooks the [...]
Pingback by The Talent Show » Things Younger Than McCain — May 19, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
You say that one reason it’s fair to consider age is because McCain could possess a “possible lack of ability to relate to the issues and concerns of the vast majority of younger Americans.” That should be scratched off your list — because just as McCain has a chance of not relating to young Americans, there’s reason to think Clinton might not be able to relate to male voters of a certain age group, or that Obama would not be able to relate to the concerns and needs of old white people. Sound silly? You’re right — and it is. Some of your other reasons for justifying the site are valid, but this is definitely not one of them.
Comment by Jen — May 19, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
I totally agree with #64. In fact I read the post + 5 comments, then skipped down here to post my comment without reading the rest. I glanced up and saw that Jan made the exact point I was going to.
Comment by Aaron — May 20, 2008 @ 12:17 am
There seems to be a large factor missing from some of the above arguments: This site is really funny. I mean, I laugh my ass off reading this site, and I think that counts. If someone were to publish 100 reasons McCain is too old to be president alongside : 100 reasons Obama is too black to be president & 100 reasons Clinton is too woman to be president, I would gladly read and laugh at each one. Does it make such things ageist, racist, and sexist? Well, probably. Does it make me ageist, racist, and sexist? No. In fact, I’m adamantly not any of the three. I think we need to separate what makes us laugh from our beliefs - not everything that we find funny reflects who we are. I find farting funny, does that make me fartist? Let’s embrace our differences, have a sense of humor, and enjoy websites that provide entertainment, while not looking for bigger meaning behind the words.
Comment by Chris — May 20, 2008 @ 2:41 am
to Rachel, it is merly a coincidence that “republican” in Guizot’s quote and the Republican party in the US today both refer to right-wing politics. Guizot was a French statesman and was not refering to Republicans in the US at all. The quote has been restated many times, most famously as “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no head.”
Comment by Bret — May 20, 2008 @ 8:02 am
They absorb less vitamins, too.
Comment by Dave — May 20, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
#67 Bret:
I’ve often seen that quote attributed to Winston Churchill, which is odd, because he was a Conservative in his youth, and became a Liberal later in life.
Comment by wintermute — May 20, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
What draws the line between ageism and just good, clean giggles… The presumption of incompetence based on age. I do agree that there are a number of people on the planet who would make incredible presidents at a very elder age. It does depend on how much a person chooses or is forced by circumstance to “act their age.” John McCain is a little of each of these. Considering what is going on in the country…doesn’t anyone want, for just a second, to step into the aged mind of a man whose yearly routine once involved morbid torture in a foreign country? The personality defects that cultivates in a person? The disadvantages this old person has that many others his age don’t?
Y’know, before assuming his age is the only turn-off about his age.
Comment by AJ — May 21, 2008 @ 1:44 am
From the Pew Center for the People and the Press…
26% - McCain’s Age Problem
With a win in November, John McCain would become the oldest first-term president ever, and to combat doubts about his age — when asked in February of this year, a quarter of registered voters (26%) said they think he is too old to be president, and this proportion rises to nearly a third (32%) when voters are informed that he is currently 71 years old — his campaign has decided to make his medical records available. While the vast majority (72%) say they do not think McCain is too old to be president, a February 2007 Pew survey found that about half of Americans (48%) say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate in their 70s. In general, McCain’s age is of greater concern to older voters than it is to younger voters. Just 24% of voters under age 35 themselves believe that, at 71, McCain is too old to serve. But among voters who themselves are of retirement age, 40% say that McCain is too old.
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=531
Comment by Lisa — May 22, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
The reasons why I oppose John McCain: his voting record, his stance on issues like abortion, gay rights, religion and the ‘proper place’ of women, his nasty temper, the fact that he called his wife a c*** and his age. Oh, I’m so shallow and uninformed. woe is me…
Comment by Solitary — May 22, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Everybody get back on subject.
John McCain is older than Mr. Magoo.
Comment by Kamachanda — May 24, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
MEB,
Andrew Jackson, a good president? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey all, VOTE NADER 2008, and if you mention stealing votes or every vote counts, I’ll bite your effin’ head off. Vote for who represents you, not because this one shouldn’t win or that one shouldn’t win. This is a damn democracy built on revolution and freedom. Live up to your murdering founding fathers dreams and kill some Indians for god’s sake. No, Rev. Wright: not god damn America… God save America. ‘Cause we fucking need it.
Comment by Corran — May 28, 2008 @ 5:47 am
By the way, love your blog. And I love all of you. especially, Wright.
Comment by Corran — May 28, 2008 @ 5:49 am
I agree with the original post, for reasons literally barraged upon you on this page. The main reason I commented was for this:
mert, if you honestly believe Reagan is the best president of the last 50 years (Reaganomics killed my dad’s business, btw), why’d you spell his name wrong?
Comment by John — May 28, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Of course when the constitution was originally written, the average life expectancy probably wasn’t that much older… perhaps they were showing a preference for those in the winter years?
(this may have been mentioned… but there are far too many posts to read through before making a quick pedantic point!!)
Comment by Steve — May 29, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
The age of retirement for the federal government is 65 years old.
Comment by Eric — June 6, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
“Black people are different because they don’t need sunscreen” = not racist
“Elderly people are different because they may lose their mental faculties” = not ageist
Comment by Oracle — June 7, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
And some women are different because they don’t look that good in pantsuits = not sexist.
Comment by Lou — June 11, 2008 @ 4:46 am
[...] point of this site, as I’ve explained previously, is to raise awareness of McCain’s age in the context of how it might affect his ability to [...]
Pingback by This oughta get the youth vote out in droves. | Things younger than Republican Presidential candidate (oh, and did I forget to mention war hero?) John McCain — July 15, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
[...] Diatribes Ageism A day in the life of a middle-class [...]
Pingback by The top 25 posts. | Things younger than Republican Presidential candidate (oh, and did I forget to mention war hero?) John McCain — July 31, 2008 @ 7:45 am
It is ageism, plain and simple. I don’t like McCain, won’t be voting for him, but your reasons for thinking age is an issue are ridiculous. If perhaps you had some training on the issues of the aged, then it would make sense. Given your list, however, it appears you have no medical knowledge of such issues, nor any background in developmental psychology. If you had such credentials, then we could talk about this. (For example, memory issues are not a normal part of aging.) So it’s funny, and I like the joke parts, but thinking age matters is the same as thinking race or gender matters. Sorry you’re a bigot. I hope the people who you deal with when you are older are better informed and better educated.
Comment by Ann — August 1, 2008 @ 11:45 am
#74
This is a damn republic.
Comment by Dan — August 1, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
#83, it is well acknowledged that the Presidency is one of the most stressful job on the planet. Just look at Clinton, a much younger man, at the beginning of his presidency and then 8 years later for an example. It is not just the fact that he is 72 years old now that is a concern, but what impact of the job will have on him that is my concern.
If anyone votes for McCain, they need to keep in mind that statistically, they are actually electing his VP as the President. Because chances are McCain won’t make it to a reelection campaign.
And isn’t it interesting that he hasn’t announced his VP, knowing that most thinking people already have the issue of his life expectancy at least in the back of their minds?
Comment by cynmac — August 1, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Number 83 is correct. I heard the creator of this say on NPR that he had the idea for this on the way to work at an Obama rally. He then claimed he had no political motivation, that he just did it for the humor! Hmmmm.
He also claimed that this isn’t ageism because he believes age makes a difference. “But I was able to come up with reasons why age - - - could be a factor - - -” Isn’t that what racists and sexists say? They know those “other people” are not as sharp or evolved as them, so they are right, they say. So since the founder of this blog “knows” he’s right, it isn’t ageism. Hmmmm.
How about a blog of all the great things people over 72 have done and invented?
Comment by Marie Dunn — August 29, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
#86,
i doubt you’ll be returning to see if there were any replies to your post but let me just say for the record that you got me a little wrong. sure there’s a political motivation - i didn’t say that there wasn’t - but i feel that i’m using humor as a way to bring up the subject in a light-hearted and accessible way.
and i think that many, many people over the age of 72 are absolutely capable of doing wonderful and productive things. but i just don’t know if running the country necessarily has to be one of them.
Comment by admin — August 30, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
I whole-heartedly agree with #87.
Also, about the socialist thing? The US of A is a country where different types of government and policies were all smashed together to make the one we have now (Senate and House of Reps). And I think we have some every day things here that may be considered “socialist”.:
-United States Postal Service
-Libraries
-Fire Stations
-Police ect ect…
I’m not advocating for socialism by any means, but just pointing out that government controlled anything is not the end of the free world.
Comment by Christina — September 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
If you’re concerned about illness, would you care about a candidate with a family history of a deadly disease (but not the disease itself), like cancer?
If you’re concerned about stamina, would you care about a president in poor physical shape, like Taft?
If you’re concerned about the ability to relate to “younger Americans” … heck, I don’t even know where to go with this. I don’t think *any* president has ever been half-decent at relating to the youth of this country.
I think this site is hilarious, and I wouldn’t take offense to it even if I was McCain, but it’s a fine line you walk, trying to defend age discrimination in presidential candidates.
Comment by John — November 2, 2008 @ 5:35 pm