Hunting is a qualification for the presidency?

I’ll never understand exactly why the GOP field of candidates always has to have a hunting photo-op. Is this supposed to make them more manly? Do GOP voters think, “Gee, that guy took down that bear in 2 shots…He’d be great negotiating trade with Bolivia!”? If that’s the case, then my departed Grandfather would have made a terrific president…well before he became a preacher, that is. ;P My grandfather was a huge hunter. Judging from the heads on his wall and the packed freezer, I think the only animals he didn’t hunt was reptiles. Still…I fail to see how this proves any credentials for the presidency.

Is it like a “he’s a person” sort of thing? If that’s the case, I’d be much more impressed to see these guys go into a grocery store with $100 and have to feed a family of 4 three healthy meals in a week. And do it under an hour…because you got drop off the dry cleaning and pick up the kids from school. After that, I want to see them get the 7 yearold car tuned up, do 4 loads of laundry, help 2 of the kids with homework, cook dinner and put the kids to bed. Before 9pm.

For whatever reason, Mike “I’m huntin’ wabbits” Huckabee (you must click for the sheer Elmer Fudd-ness of the image) did his prerequisite hunting photo-op today, naturally mocking Romney as that seems to be his latest gag. He said:

“Maybe it will show that I certainly understand the culture of being outdoors,” he said of the expedition. “It’s not something we had to go out and get a primer in. It’s very much ordinary to me.”

Still not quite an explanation on how this qualifies him for the presidency. Look, Cheney hunts in privately stocked enclosures for “sport” and shoots a guy in a face. I’m sure at one time he was brave enough to actually be out in the open with the evil grimace of a possum staring him down, but it’s clear those days are long gone. Does shooting fish in a barrel make him more presidential? Or was it the shooting a man in the face and having the victim apologize?

More importantly, why don’t Democratic voters insist their candidates take the time out for a hobby or sport to show how they’re keepin’ it real? Why don’t we feel the need to watch our candidate do something most of us don’t do to prove they’re qualified to lead? Do Democratic voters (those few that seem to pay attention, that is) actually look at the candidates goals and background in making a decision?

Every election season, the papers are always printing random pointless photos of candidates tossing some kind of ball. Then the men with the microphones, who were probably raised only to play golf or tennis, dissect the photo as if something important can be gleaned from a nanosecond caught on film. As if we should care.

Maybe what we should do is have our candidates do some kind of DDR battle for the nomination. Scratch all the debates (there’s only like 4 million of them left) and get Microsoft and Gameworks to sponsor a debate. And next October, instead of having the 3rd debate, the eventual party nominees have to go up against this guy:

That would speak to me.


7 thoughts on “Hunting is a qualification for the presidency?

  1. It’s quite simple actually.

    If you hunt, you presumably use a gun. If you use a gun, you are perceived as less likely to try and restrict gun use (i.e. you’re more likely to take a strongly supportive stance on the 2nd Amendment). Since a large portion of the Republican base is made up of 2nd Amendment literalists, this is an appealing quality.


  2. I think its just pure identity politics. And that like most things identity politics, it doesn’t particularly make sense outside the context of determining group membership.

    Democrats make our candidates go hunting in the general election, though maybe not this time!


Comments are closed.