It seems like people are pretty comfortable joking about McCain’s age. I’ve seen a number of jokes posted here, mainly gleaned from David Letterman and other irreverent talk-show hosts, implying that McCain’s age makes him both incompetent and stupid. Is this acceptable in public discourse, or is it the same as other types of sterotyping? What makes judging someone’s competence/intelligence/usefulness by their apparent or actual age more or less nefarious than other types of discrimination? It seems that age-baiting (if you will) has almost emerged as sort of a beneath-the-radar strategy in anticipation of the general election. Is this fair? Just wondering.
Please share widely!
I think it is a fair discussion to have. Unlike “other types of discrimination” there is some basis in fact that there is a physical decline that comes with age.
<
p>There is no doubt that Ronald Reagan was not his sharpest in the final years of his administration and the previous oldest president, William Henry Harrison, died of pneumonia one month into his term. McCain would surpass the average life expectancy of an American male less than half-way through his first term in a job that takes a significant toll on much younger men.
<
p>My father is 74, pretty active and in good health. But my Dad would also be the first one to tell you that he could not work 12 hour days, weekends, go on 7-stop international tours and answer that “3am call” for four years.
Seriously. Republicans have people to do that.
or in the nexy go-round, maybe huckabees
hopefully he’s finally ready to retire from the business of creating Hell on Earth.
He’s a pup. I guess that makes him a cannibal.
<
p>
<
p>In fact I think I see some golden retriever between his teeth now.
he uses golden retrievers for floss. but they do leave a fluffy residue.
That’s the hemmorhoids kickin’ up.
have you ever tried passing an entire golden retriever?! some compassion, here, please!
It is fair game to use any “senior moments” against McCain. Any and all times when he slips up (probably due to age) are grounds for identifying a pattern. I’m all for that.
<
p>But there’s a risk in assuming such problems exist inherently due to his age. We have enough to work with that we don’t need to make such an assumption, I think.
when they hit 70, rather than merely retesting them. Well said.
in another post:
<
p>
anyone. It’s hard to take the moral highground when you’re in the gutter with everyone else. It’s smacks of the “do as I say, not as I do” thing, and I think people loathe hypocrites more than anything else.
stem from a real discomfort people do have at not being able to personally check the guy out for lack of senility. mccain himself has heightened the discomfort by plainly stating on more than one occasion that he can’t remember his stance on this or that kinda major thing. when it comes to mccain, i think a lot of the age jokes should be interpreted as whistling in the dark.
In the case of the comedians quoted, it’s good clean fun; it’s their job to get a laugh and they don’t worry too much about how.
<
p>In the case of the bloggers discussing McCain’s age, you’re damn right it’s fair game; it’s acknowledging the human condition. Don’t be so damn moral that you forget common sense.
Did anyone see that?
…just like it’s fair to have questions about the effects of having used illegal narcotics.
is a youthful 57. So, at least in terms of likelihood that the VP will take over, it is at least as likely that the black guy will die before the movie ends than the old white guy. Well, actually I don’t think that’s true, I don’t think that was true 50 years ago, but those days are gone. But in terms of senility, that’s more likely to hit the old guy. He ought to make some promise that he will give up the office if he gets alzheimers, rather than try to fake it.
<
p>btw, does anyone know who Charles Julius Guiteau or Leon Frank Czolgosz are? I’d never heard those names before.
I meant that was true 50 years ago, but those days are gone.
Okay if McCain were a liberal Democrat aged 72 and in active and good health while supporting him, I would want him to vow to just one term and nominate a damn good successor as the VP nominee.
<
p>Look at Ted Kennedy a fairly active and arguably healthy 76 year old, had a seizure or a stroke because he is old. My grandmother was even healthier than Ted Kennedy (no years of alcohol abuse, she ate really healthy, no prior heart problems) and had a stroke at 78 and just suddenly went from healthy to dead. These problems are a lot more common for the elderly. Ronald Reagan for all his faults was one of our more vigorous Presidents, but by the time he left office, Alzehimers which just happens to strike old people a lot more frequently had already started to seep in. And he was 77 leaving office.
<
p>McCain will be an 80 year old President if elected, and thats assuming he will survive the most stressful job in the country, a job that killed middle aged Presidents like Warren harding, FDR, basically killed LBJ (he died three years out of office at 65). Do we want someone who has a higher probability of dying at any moment? Someone who might be demented or senile when they have to push the button? I have strong reservations about a two term McCain just on the basis of his age.
by the way, peter, we just passed the one year anniversary of jerry falwell’s death. we are STILL waiting for you to fulfill your promise to write an appreciation. are you beyond enough of the
crocodilecrippling grief yet that you can do that now?it first catches up with people of age in a lack of stamina and a diminishing of the ability to concentrate. These factors will show up if the candidates have a series of high-profile debates. The McCain “misspeaks” will almost assuredly highlight this inexorable demise in the days to come.
Four of those Presidents were assassinated, so the average age of Presidents who died of natural causes was almost 64.
<
p>Guiteau assassinated James Garfield and Czolgozs assassinated McKinley. What is the deal with assassins with three names?
the middle names were essential to prevent confusion with all the tens of thousands of other Americans with the same first and last names.
<
p>Duh.
Is it ageism if, in the 21st century, I absolutely don’t want someone for President who’s never used a computer besides “Oh have Dave write them back about that”
<
p>Cause, taking away the ideological parts, doing the job of president means running a tight ship in an office and having a reaaallllly good BS detector for people trying to snow you. A guy who’s likely never personally sent an email, ever, isn’t gonna be able to do either of those things.
but
<
p>
<
p>has absolutely nothing to do with computer skills.
He regularly jokes about it on the campaign stump, most recently last night on Saturday Night Live. (Sorry no video, the clip I found on Youtube had been pulled.)
They have spent at least 6 months dragging our (presumptive) candidate through the mud, calling him an appeaser (though they don’t know what that means), terrorist and worse, and we’re wringing our hands about whether their candidate is getting awfully close to his expiration date???
<
p>Come on people, we’re playing touch football and getting tackled.
Lets fix that.
Dems lose is that people see no clear differences in political brands because Dems keep falling for the sports analogies and don’t rise above the crap to demonstrate Dem values. It’s seen as hypocrisy. In this case, why should it be necessary to use ageism when there are thousands of other reasons why the man should not be elected? I say rise above the muddy football field. Reagan certainly didn’t get trounced on the age issue. Why the hell do you think now is any different?
to suggest the fact that McCain’s potential health problems could get in the way of his Presidency. He’s 72 – and about to take on one of the most stressful jobs in the world. That’s not ageism, that’s critical thinking.
<
p>Ageism would be deciding all Seniors should just go to nursing homes, or be treated like kids. It would be thinking your elderly mother just didn’t know any better, or had no real rights. I don’t see any Democrats doing that.
<
p>Furthermore, Reagan did suffer some for his age: one of the few groups that voted against Reagan both times were Senior Citizens. Furthermore, as others pointed out, age certainly didn’t help America in that case as Reagan began slipping into Alzhiemer’s during his second term. Obviously, age is not going to beat McCain, but it’s certainly going to be a deciding factor for some people in this election – and given what we know about people who do age (which is a lot) that’s an absolutely right, fair and proper concept.
what exactly do you disagree with? That Srs. voted against Reagan? That voters are going to take it into account – and have that right? That considering someone’s age as a piece of the puzzle in how they’d perform as president is a relevant question? How is that not a relevant question?
<
p>Aging is a fact of life; that’s not an ageist statement, that’s just a fact. Unfortunately, because we can’t stay young forever, there are some consequences to aging. Not everyone has as many of them as others, aging very well. I believe McCain to be one of those people and don’t consider it an important metric in my decision to not support him. However, that doesn’t mean age couldn’t or shouldn’t be a part of the decision-making process in some voter calculations, especially those who are otherwise on the fence.
he does that quite fine on his own… (he graduated 3rd worst in his class.)
<
p>Age does call into question his competence, though. Reactionary speeds down, energy level down… a 72 year old just can’t do the same things as someone in their 40s or 50s. Let’s not forget, too, that being a President should be an extremely stenuous, 24/7 job. Is a Senior Citizen who’s had health problems in the past up for the job? That’s a valid question – not ‘ageist.’
<
p>Of course, with a 72 year old, there’s also the greater chance of a catastrophic health event taking place – strokes, heart attacks, etc. Many of those things are survivable when treated quickly, but not all of them are easy to recover from. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that McCain isn’t exactly the spitting image of health. He’s had to deal with things like cancer, etc. in the past. Doctors want to know your medical history for a reason…
<
p>I’m not saying age alone justifoes McCain being defeated, but it’s certainly a valid factor for voters to base decisions on. Interesting factoid: there’s only a few groups of people who voted against Sunny Sunshine Ronald Reagan both times he ran for President. Senior citizens was one of those groups… they thought he was too old to be running for office.
Should Ted Kennedy think about packing it in?
he is not running for prez.. not a valid comparison.
He’s not running for President. Furthermore, in the Senate, there’s less of a concern. First, he’s 1 of 100. Second, we have a fairly quick process for replacing a sitting Senator. So, in terms of Senators, I’m perfectly fine with party elders hanging on, so long as they think they can make a difference and be effective. Certainly, Kennedy’s done that… he’s one of the most effective Senators in the building. I’ll let him – and any Republican or Democratic Senator – make up their minds on that. Yet, ultimately such a question is left up to the voters, in which I’m only one voice amongst millions of Bay State citizens.
asks a pertinent question. Why shouldn’t Teddy be the brunt of the exact same ageism? If y’all are going to agree that it’s a legitimate argument to use against someone in that age bracket, then you have no right to defend Teddy if he’s attacked the same way. It’s a double edged sword and it’s unnecessary to use it. President, senator or congressperson, all are jobs that require awareness and the ability to react. Seniors are abused and disrespected all the time in our culture, why add to that?
that the urgency is the same for senators vs. presidents. can you give me an example of a time when the national security rested on the quick reaction time of a random senator?
that’s the point and I don’t think using ageism is justified. Alzheimer’s is not limited to those over 60. It can begin at ages far younger in a small percentage of cases. I think using age as a disqualifier is lame and can be harmful in the long run. Teddy doesn’t have his finger on the button, but he is responsible for reacting to legislation that is critical to national defense, and his vote can make the difference. If Dems set the precedent for using age as disqualifier, it can be turned against them. I don’t agree with any culture that disrespects seniors. We miss out on wisdom by dismissing the experiences of those who have served this country (and there are people who will be angered at the use of ageism). I think Dems will lose votes and prove themselves to be hypocritical by continuing with the argument. There are far better ways to make the point that McCain is a poor candidate.
i certainly didn’t. to me, advancing age is just another possible red flag that needs to be check out and hopefully ruled out. i in no way advocate putting an upper age limit on candidates. but i do think it is important to look at all the potential problem factors with each candidate. for mccain, one such is advancing age. if you feel that he is one of the lucky ones untouched by age in a way important to serving as president, then tell us how you reached that conclusion so that others who do think this is an important factor to consider can move on to his bigger and better failings.
I’m failing to make the point. I used the word “disqualify” as in voter’s shouldn’t “disqualify” his abilities based upon age. I’m tired of the broad brush strokes used in “isms” and all of the assumptions about age. I’ve got an 87 year old aunt who could argue circles around most bloggers on BMG. She still walks two or three miles a day and maintains her own home. She’s not unique. I don’t think McCain’s age should be the issue. His abilities should (which happen to suck). Just like Farnkoff’s example above with driving abilities, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that my 87 year old aunt can’t drive as well as I can (I’ve had to follow her, and I couldn’t believe how well she drives at her age). I have reached no such conclusions about McCain and I’m not voting for him because he’s the worst choice. I will not participate in the ageism stuff, and I think it’s detrimental for Dems to focus on age to such an extent.
and we get it. We just disagree with it.
<
p>I have an 82 year old grand mother who can’t walk to her bathroom without getting out of breath. Both cases are anecdotes and shouldn’t be considered a part of the argument, but here’s something that can’t be considered an anecdote: age takes a toll on everyone and makes them more susceptible to things like heart attacks and strokes.
<
p>Does that automatically mean anyone over the age of 70 should be eliminated from consideration? Absolutely, positively not. However, it is one factor among many, because no matter how healthy McCain is (and he appears to be very healthy), it’s a fact that he’s much more likely to have a sudden catastrophic health issue now than he was in his 30s or 40s. It’s not ageist for someone to take that into consideration; it’s rational that people at least take a second look and consider his health and VP choice, because it’s more likely he won’t be able to complete his tenure than it would someone in his mid 40s.
<
p>There’s only one POTUS and any time that POTUS has to go, for any reason, it’s a very large strain on the country. I’m sure all of these issues came into play when sr. citizens voted against Reagan both times, despite the fact that Reagan won by wide margins. Surely they weren’t ageist? LOL
to disagree. 😉
or if it is in the top ten, then the Democratic nominee has a pretty big problem.
no. I said, for some voters, that may influence their decision. Furthermore, I even said that, for me, it hasn’t. I’d be voting against McCain if he was 35 or 100. I suspect most Democrats and many independents would agree, especially given McCain’s health care plan nightmare, Iraq and many other issues. However, age certainly was an important issue to Senior Citizens, who voted against Reagan both times, despite the fact he was popular with most of the rest of the country. So, as I said, to some voters, age will come into play – even if the decision is easier, based on other reasons, for the rest of us.
but I’ll say it time and time again: big differences exist between the Senate and the POTUS. I’ll also go on record saying I disagree with Massachusetts con law which requires justices on the SJC to retire at a certain age, because it’s inherently different than being President. I don’t think age should necessarily rule someone out from running for President, but voters are certainly justified to explore that issue, because it doesn’t come without merit – point in case, as I mentioned (and it wasn’t rebutted), Sr. Citizens were one of the few groups that voted against Reagan both times.
<
p>Furthermore, pointing out that younger people can get Alzheimer’s (or other diseases) is a straw man. It can’t be denied that things like Alzheimer’s, strokes, heart attacks and others happen far more frequently after people turn 70 than before it. We have to make rational arguments and I’ve yet to see one that would make me conclude that it’s inappropriate for voters to take age into account, as one of many issues, when voting for President: certainly, if the opposite were true – and Obama were in his mid 30s instead of 40s, I bet a whole lot of people would be making a different age-related comment, which honestly would have far less merit than what’s currently being discussed.
Can we examine the issue of age related ability to perform with our Supreme Court Justices?
<
p>Being able to strenuously examine complicated cases that potentially impact hundreds of thousands of people, our current society and future society requires highly developed and functioning cognitive skills.
<
p>Why are these appointments for life? What is the litmus test for good behaviour? An absence of dementia?
<
p>I would like to suggest that the higher arguement is about skills, performance and judgement not a chronological number.
<
p>Lest, we forget, GW Bush was an idiot as a young man. Age and the stressors of the presidency have not altered that fact.
The most senior SCOTUS judge must resign every four years. That guarantees that each POTUS makes one pick. Sure, he or she might have to make more, but by ensuring that the most senior* resigns after 36 years of service, you help to make sure that the eldest of the old get cycled out before health becomes an issue.
<
p>It isn’t perfect, but it would result in a more predictable schedule of SCOTUS picks, and maybe that would be a good thing.
<
p>
<
p> * in tenure, not age, though there is a correlation
i haven’t thought through the ins and outs yet, but on the face of it i like it. at the last it could keep more of the electorate engaged since each election was important regarding the scotus.
its not clear if the electorate should have such a close direct connection with the SCOTUS. In fact we do, but it’s not clear that we should.
<
p>It’s a bit like breakfast cereal. Some folks buy the cereal and bonus, a prize in the bag. Some folks buy the cereal for the prize.
could make a pick at any time, or choose not to refill a seat, or do a whole number of things… we just so happen to tie ourselves to tradition. Personally, if I were alive back when FDR were President, I’d have been rooting for his efforts at packing the court. Even though his threats were just that – threats – they served the purpose and convinced several SCOTUS justices to retire.
you consider the quaint Judiciary Act of 1869 which set the number of SCOTUS justice to be nine.
<
p>That damned separation of powers should prohibit the POTUS from doing anything other than nominating a SCOTUS justice replacement when one of the nine is no longer serving…
<
p>so I’m pretty sure a POTUS can’t pick “at any time” — like when there’s already nine justices on the court.
A POTUS can nominate a potential justice at any time. He or she would still have to go through the whole confirmation process, but it’s absolutely, positively constitutionally acceptable if a President were to do so. You’ll note Article Three Section One has no mention of how many justices can serve at a time, only that they can serve indefinitely ‘in good behavior.’ Hence FDR’s threats to add at least 6 more to the nine way past 1869. It was more a threat than anything, and it probably wouldn’t have sailed through the Senate back then, but it certainly gave a fright to the then conservatives on the court, because suddenly a great sum of them retired…
<
p>I don’t think an Obama or Clinton administration should bat an eye when it comes to protecting this country’s constitution and hopefully scaring off a few conservative members from the bench. I wouldn’t want to see a bench much larger than 9 members, but if it means tacking on 2 more to protect a women’s right to choose or the rights of minorities to have equal protection under the law, then it’s well worth the potential firestorm it could cause – which would hopefully come to pass, as it did in FDR’s administration, with conservative members of the court retiring early. Consider this power another check and balance, because that’s exactly what it is.
…if a President nomonates, and a senate confirms, your additional six justices – do you see Roberts swearing them in? Because I don’t think they can take a seat on the Court until they ARE sworn in….
if they aren’t “in good behavior,” no? Otherwise, what’s to stop a chief justice from swearing in any justice from the other side of the aisle?
<
p>Ultimately I would hope that neither a POTUS nor a SOTUS would violate the law requiring the number of justices be nine. Dot the eyes and cross the teas first… with a Democratic HOROTUS and SOTUS and POTUS, it wouldn’t be that hard to just change the law*. Why violate the law?
<
p>
<
p> * yeah yeah a filibuster in the Senate, whatever.
I don’t know how many times I can repeat that…
feel free to take it up with FDR =p
i do.
<
p>But don’t confuse my words online for actual advocacy for 6 more justices. I don’t want any more justices. However, a carrot/stick approach to getting a few of the conservatives to retire isn’t a bad idea in my book. The Republicans have made far worse threats – such as the ever-popular “nuclear option,” this one is just an oldy-but-goody, less nefarious version from the Democratic Playbook that I like better.
certainly =p
<
p>PP, you know both you and I are partisan beasts…
The law does limit the number of SC justices to nine. FDR submitted a bill that, had it become law, would have changed that limit. The bill sought to allow the President to add an additional justice if a current justice over age 70 refused to resign. (Talk about ageism….) Six of the justices at the time were 70+, so the immediate effect would have been the addition of six justices, making 15 total. It was no mere threat; FDR pushed the bill hard, but it ultimately did not pass, so the nine-justice limit remains in effect.
This is the most serious discussion about McCain’s age I’ve seen on this site, and all it took was someone to point out the systematic verbal abuse against everyone in the country above the age of 70. Suddenly its not “ooo haha! he invented the wheel!”; it’s “I have serious concerns about his ability to govern in such a stressful job at his age.”
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to see the making-fun of old people stop. I’m glad.
anyone on this site make fun of McCain’s age. I’m not saying that hasn’t happened, but if it’s so common, surely you can link 3-4 examples of it, from 3-4 different posters?
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showD…
<
p>enjoy!
they didn’t seem very serious to me. I think they need to be more vindictive to be ageist, otherwise I could see vastly harsher jokes on the Daily Show…
About Hillary’s gender or Obama’s race?
on who, how and what it’s coming from. I find Chris Rock and the Chappelle Show frequently funny; the Bruno character is hilarious on HBO; Kathy Griffin can make me laugh. All of these acts use stereotypes in their jokes, but they aren’t trying to be malicious about it. Often times, these kinds of jokes actually push boundaries and force people to question their beliefs and ignorance.
<
p>Then again, I’ve never been a part of the PC police. As long as someone’s not trying to be mean spirited and/or malicious, I tend to let it go. Comedy is always about getting as close to the line as possible without going over it. I don’t think anything you linked to went over the line.