Sore losers damaging the party?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon!

So in the aftermath of Tuesday's presidential election, I have found amusement in the ramblings of the more nutty Romney/Republican supporters.

Donald Trump has provided me with some real belly laughs, calling the result a travesty (fair enough, he's rich enough to have a lot riding on the result, and is entitled to his opinion) and calling on people to march on Washington (kind of scary to be honest).

Then there's the Christian fundamentalists convinced Obama is the antichrist, and shooting there mouths of left right and centre, not to mention those claiming they'll move to Australia. Hours of entertainment, even though I suspect many are just people trolling.

But what does this do for the Republican Party? From my perspective as a Brit, where the party is more important than the person, I do worry it's discrediting the moderate majority by making the lunatic fringe appear more significant in it's presence, an issue I understand dogged Romney from the outset, giving him an uphill battle.

And it's not just the right wing. In 2000 when Bush got in, there was quite the hooha about Florida, and frankly widespread allegations of electoral fraud (hanging chads anyone?)

To keep this playful, rather than overly serious, please state your feelings on the patented Mystery Industries facepalm-o-matic, a 1-10 scale, with a 1 being 'Just embarassing themselves' and 10 rating being 'there goes 2016 and 2020'. And remember to discuss, just try to avoid personal attacks on our fellow posters. Opinions are personal, and should never be called outright wrong!

[Learn2Eel]

Afternoon!

So in the aftermath of Tuesday's presidential election, I have found amusement in the ramblings of the more nutty Romney/Republican supporters.

Donald Trump has provided me with some real belly laughs, calling the result a travesty (fair enough, he's rich enough to have a lot riding on the result, and is entitled to his opinion) and calling on people to march on Washington (kind of scary to be honest).

Then there's the Christian fundamentalists convinced Obama is the antichrist, and shooting there mouths of left right and centre, not to mention those claiming they'll move to Australia. Hours of entertainment, even though I suspect many are just people trolling.

But what does this do for the Republican Party? From my perspective as a Brit, where the party is more important than the person, I do worry it's discrediting the moderate majority by making the lunatic fringe appear more significant in it's presence, an issue I understand dogged Romney from the outset, giving him an uphill battle.

And it's not just the right wing. In 2000 when Bush got in, there was quite the hooha about Florida, and frankly widespread allegations of electoral fraud (hanging chads anyone?)

To keep this playful, rather than overly serious, please state your feelings on the patented Mystery Industries facepalm-o-matic, a 1-10 scale, with a 1 being 'Just embarassing themselves' and 10 rating being 'there goes 2016 and 2020'. And remember to discuss, just try to avoid personal attacks on our fellow posters. Opinions are personal, and should never be called outright wrong!

The last thing Australia needs is more racist idiots (no offence to anyone who is Christian, not saying all Christians are necessarily racist, just those mentioned in Mr Mystery's post).
Multiculturalism may be spoken of as one of the great attributes of our society, and whilst that is certainly true, there are still too many stubborn and/or foolish people that create tension between the many and diverse communities we have here.

On the subject at hand, there was a similar backlash when Julia Gillard was re-elected instead of Tony Abbot. Listening to the radio, the most common words I heard were how Labour may have won this one, but they won't win next time, or people who complained that Gillard was elected only because she would become the first female Prime Minister in Australian history. Really, I think some people just take politics way too far. It is all nice and good to have a preference for one party, but after hearing some of the personal attacks that come out of elections - even from average citizens or people who I otherwise know to be quite civil - I really think a lot of people should restrain themselves a bit.

I'm firmly in the camp of 'pick the best option', not 'pick who I like'. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people don't care about what is best for their country and will blindly vote for certain political parties simply because of a sense of loyalty. It isn't hard to realize lots of Australians don't understand the implications of management at the federal level, for example.

As far as the presidential election goes, I'm not too well versed on what either candidate would have brought to the role, and who would have been backed by a better support staff. However, when I learned that Romney was against pro-choice policies, I put my stock in Obama. As much as I understand both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, I'm still firmly of the belief that the women who carry the babies are the ones who should decide, not politicians who have probably never had to bear children themselves.

[Mr Mystery]

Thing is, I'm reliably informed by other posters that although pro-life, Romney himself is also pro-choice politically.

Though this is part of my question. When the most attention your party gets is via wibbly nutcases, it's hard to be heard as an individual, regardless of how fringe said loonies are!

[DarkLink]

Yes to that last statement.

And this: http://www.popehat.com/2012/11/06/popehat-official-post-election-day-reaction-guide/

[Wildeybeast]

Trump is a grade A moron. That business about Obama's birth certificate was just laughable. Since you've got so much money, why not just it give it to a charity of BO's choice anyway trump and prove you are the bigger man? And don't get me started on that farce with the gold club in Scotland.

[Mr Mystery]

Dude needs to learn that Scotland doesn't get pushed around.

But anyway, closing in on the topic again, to those who favoured or voted Republican, do you feel the reaction of some has done more damage than the defeat itself? By what I've seen, Romney himself has been perfectly gracious about it, but again that seems to get lost amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain quarters.

[DarkLink]

That happens in plenty of elections. This particular one has just been a little more divisive and partisan than most. If Obama had lost we'd be commenting on how liberals were lamenting how racist and anti-women and how psychotic America is for electing a guy who wasn't black, wasn't 100% pro-choice, is rich (conveniently ignoring that Obama is rich as well), and is one of those crazy religions that are so bad (though that would be merely implied, because it's not politically correct to single out a religion like that directly, unless you can slap the terrorist label on it).

The media does profit from entertainment, after all, rather than actuality. It's rants like these that get publicity and page views. Rush Limbaugh is so successful because he's not a political commentator, he's an entertainer, and he's very good at basically trolling.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't get why it's been so divisive. I mean Obama's first win? Sure, I get that. But this one?

DL, I understand that you're a libertarian for the most part. Do you feel the conservative fiscal ideal was buried beneath the rantings of the religious right this time? Again from the perspective of a Brit looking in, the US appears to be splitting into the very liberal and the very conservative. And apologies for the potentially powderkeg statement, but do you feel this is caused by America slowly starting to lose it's prominence on the world stage to up and coming economies?

[wittdooley]

I don't get why it's been so divisive. I mean Obama's first win? Sure, I get that. But this one?

Because Obamas first term was such an abject failure by most objective accounts that were he a business CEO he'd have been fired by his shareholders.

[interdictor]

Because Obamas first term was such an abject failure by most objective accounts that were he a business CEO he'd have been fired by his shareholders.

It's amazing how often I hear the word 'objective' in places it doesn't belong.

As for being CEO of a company - is it a reasonable company? Because he would've been given stewardship of it during it's worst economic turmoil in history, and asked to fix it's deficit without being allowed to secure new revenue streams, and having an officer group that was admittedly more interested in seeing him replaced than making changes necessary to support the health of the company.

In this scenario, he revolutionized that company's healthcare system, increased the number of people it employed, and managed to secure better wages for everyone, even under those harsh restrictions. He removed the company's greatest adversary from...the market...and continued supporting our already enormous - security force? This metaphor is getting wild, but basically, he's been a friend to the military, a friend to big business, and a friend to the working class. All the relevant numbers are trending in the right direction, the international scene is satisfied, and because of his successes, he's gained ground amongst that same group of officers - meaning he's poised to do more, with less resistance. If I'm a shareholder, and for this particular metaphor, I am, he gets my vote. Heck, he got my vote. I take the long view.

President Obama has been heroic in a terrible time - the House has been an anchor that prevented even basic governance for much of the last two years. Make sure your frustration is in the right place.

And that is supposing, for one instant, that this election had anything to do with the economy - and not the rights of women, the civil liberties of the LGBT community, and the protection of our working class elderly. This was about civil decency. About ensuring our leadership was speaking for us all. Don't be on the wrong side of history, and don't buy the hype.

[DarkLink]

DL, I understand that you're a libertarian for the most part. Do you feel the conservative fiscal ideal was buried beneath the rantings of the religious right this time? Again from the perspective of a Brit looking in, the US appears to be splitting into the very liberal and the very conservative.

The religious right, as far as is relevant to your question, is all about social conservatism. They might also be fiscally conservative, but it's not directly related to their religious beliefs the way that, say, opposition to gay marriage is. Sometimes it's related, but generally it's a different category of politics.

The last few elections, probably starting with political opposition to the war on terror, has slowly escalated into a non-cooperative political environment. That inability to unite the nation is fundamentally the greatest failure of our President and Congress over the last four or so years. It might continue, or it might reverse. Since we just came off an election, partisanship is at a local maximum. If Obama and Congress can figure out how to work together a little bit, that will do more to solve all of our problems than probably anything else.



And apologies for the potentially powderkeg statement, but do you feel this is caused by America slowly starting to lose it's prominence on the world stage to up and coming economies?

It's not that we're losing prominence, more that we're becoming a sort of first amongst equals, for lack of a better term. We weild the most military and global political power of any western nation, and so while the west had a firm grip on the highest standards of living and biggest economies, America was kind of the alpha male once we beat Russia.

Now that some non-western nations are starting to catch up, we're naturally losing a bit of our ability to do whatever we want. Since we also happen to have a big recession right now, we're stumbling while, say, China is growing.

[wittdooley]

It's amazing how often I hear the word 'objective' in places it doesn't belong.

As for being CEO of a company - is it a reasonable company? Because he would've been given stewardship of it during it's worst economic turmoil in history, and asked to fix it's deficit without being allowed to secure new revenue streams, and having an officer group that was admittedly more interested in seeing him replaced than making changes necessary to support the health of the company.

In this scenario, he revolutionized that company's healthcare system, increased the number of people it employed, and managed to secure better wages for everyone, even under those harsh restrictions. He removed the company's greatest adversary from...the market...and continued supporting our already enormous - security force? This metaphor is getting wild, but basically, he's been a friend to the military, a friend to big business, and a friend to the working class. All the relevant numbers are trending in the right direction, the international scene is satisfied, and because of his successes, he's gained ground amongst that same group of officers - meaning he's poised to do more, with less resistance. If I'm a shareholder, and for this particular metaphor, I am, he gets my vote. Heck, he got my vote. I take the long view.

President Obama has been heroic in a terrible time - the House has been an anchor that prevented even basic governance for much of the last two years. Make sure your frustration is in the right place.

And that is supposing, for one instant, that this election had anything to do with the economy - and not the rights of women, the civil liberties of the LGBT community, and the protection of our working class elderly. This was about civil decency. About ensuring our leadership was speaking for us all. Don't be on the wrong side of history, and don't buy the hype.

All that stuff in the last paragraph? The stuff about "civil decency". It doesn't matter if the economy of our country continues to remain in shambles. And he's hardly been a friend to big business. We're be a "friend" to big business we'd have seen a larger increase in employment than we have.

[Nabterayl]

Afternoon!

So in the aftermath of Tuesday's presidential election, I have found amusement in the ramblings of the more nutty Romney/Republican supporters.

Donald Trump has provided me with some real belly laughs, calling the result a travesty (fair enough, he's rich enough to have a lot riding on the result, and is entitled to his opinion) and calling on people to march on Washington (kind of scary to be honest).

Then there's the Christian fundamentalists convinced Obama is the antichrist, and shooting there mouths of left right and centre, not to mention those claiming they'll move to Australia. Hours of entertainment, even though I suspect many are just people trolling.

But what does this do for the Republican Party? From my perspective as a Brit, where the party is more important than the person, I do worry it's discrediting the moderate majority by making the lunatic fringe appear more significant in it's presence, an issue I understand dogged Romney from the outset, giving him an uphill battle.

And it's not just the right wing. In 2000 when Bush got in, there was quite the hooha about Florida, and frankly widespread allegations of electoral fraud (hanging chads anyone?)

To keep this playful, rather than overly serious, please state your feelings on the patented Mystery Industries facepalm-o-matic, a 1-10 scale, with a 1 being 'Just embarassing themselves' and 10 rating being 'there goes 2016 and 2020'. And remember to discuss, just try to avoid personal attacks on our fellow posters. Opinions are personal, and should never be called outright wrong!

I don't know anybody, inside the Republican party or out, who takes Trump seriously. I think most Americans believe that Trump is (i) first and foremost in the business of keeping his name in the papers, and (ii) a dick. (Side note: I have reason to believe that they're right about (ii). As a young attorney I worked for a very high-powered real estate lawyer who was glad to fob Trump off on another law firm, because he was that much of a dick as a person. For a real estate lawyer to voluntarily give up Donald Trump as a client, he'd have to be a seriously objectionable man.)

As for the various flavors of far-right vilifying Obama, I think DarkLink is right that that will die down as the election becomes less proximate. And I think people tend to recognize that, too - nobody takes those people's claims about Obama seriously except for themselves. That's a serious electoral challenge to any right-wing candidate, of course, Romney included - but does it discredit their moderate ideological brethren?

Sadly, I have to give a qualified yes on that one. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is among the most liberal regions of the U.S. A depressing number of people I know genuinely don't understand how any rational person could hold to the Republican viewpoint. Part of this is their own ideological bias, but I'm convinced that a lot of it has to do with the dearth of intelligent, level-headed, civil, and articulate Republicans in this area. The fewer ILCARs you know personally, the more you form your impression of the party based on its most visible members - who tend to be its least level-headed, civil, and articulate. Even if you know those people are crazy, they still block ILCAR arguments and personalities from making it into the media, depriving you of the ability to "get to know" ILCARs by proxy. It's inevitable, in those circumstances, that your opinion of the party as a whole should suffer, to the detriment of the national discourse.


DL, I understand that you're a libertarian for the most part. Do you feel the conservative fiscal ideal was buried beneath the rantings of the religious right this time? Again from the perspective of a Brit looking in, the US appears to be splitting into the very liberal and the very conservative. And apologies for the potentially powderkeg statement, but do you feel this is caused by America slowly starting to lose it's prominence on the world stage to up and coming economies?
I'm a federalist, not a libertarian, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I certainly feel that Romney's fiscal message got buried as he tried to prove that he was socially conservative enough to satisfy the religious right. I don't mean that it was buried in the sense that it wasn't present, but I do think that it took enough time from hammering away at the "I know what I'm doing economically" message that was his primary competitive advantage to (i) neutralize that advantage in significant part, and (ii) allow the campaign to be defined as about something other than the two candidates' respective economic expertise.

[DarkLink]

A depressing number of people I know genuinely don't understand how any rational person could hold to the Republican viewpoint.

I once mentioned I didn't like Obama the day he was first elected while in a lab, and this one other guy in the class gave me the most condescendingly stunned look I've ever seen. Not that I really cared, but in retrospect I probably would have called him out on being a dick were it to happen to me now.

[Mr Mystery]

I kind of understand. Thanks to the nutty Obama haters (not saying you hate him in case anyone wonders!) who make race an issue, it's quite easy for his more rabid supporters to slap you with a racist label.

[wittdooley]

I kind of understand. Thanks to the nutty Obama haters (not saying you hate him in case anyone wonders!) who make race an issue, it's quite easy for his more rabid supporters to slap you with a racist label.

I really wish the rest of the world was privy to how hateful the left can be, especially in regards to those that are religious. Sadly, the mainstream American media doesn't let all of that make the air.

And FYI, there are plenty of people on the left that made a very large deal in 2008 stating that folks were racist if they didn't vote for Obama. They didn't do it this year because hey had the, if you don't vote for Obama you're a homophobe misogynist as well as a racist.

[Mr Mystery]

And therein of course lies the problem of extreme wingers.

The left are portrayed as pot smoking morons, demanding something for nothing, and in the US as communists. The right? Well pretty much covered already in this thread. And naturally, such extremists do exist and are very easily found by the media, as they tend to be extremely vocal in their opinions.

Being a definite lefty myself, those demanding daft things embarrass both me, and my political views. Yet being largely moderate my views don't make as compulsive viewing.

[Nabterayl]

Although it isn't the topic of this thread, I think it's true that the extreme wing of any party tends to discredit it, at least in certain circles. I think that tends to be more the case in communities that tend towards one philosophy and have little contact with intelligent, level-headed, civil, articulate adherents of another. Most discrediting, I think, boils down to one flavor or another of "people who hold that philosophy are bad people" (whether because they're perceived as patently stupid, freeloading layabouts, racists, whatever - they're all just flavors of "bad person"). The best antidote to that is to actually be know - or better, be friends with - people who hold the opposing philosophy. You can be friends with somebody and disagree with their political philosophy, but it's a lot harder to be friends with somebody and think that their political philosophy makes them a bad person - and once you've satisfied yourself that one person who holds that philosophy is not a bad\\patently stupid\\freeloading\\racist\\whatever person, it's a lot easier to believe that maybe their co-believers aren't, either. I think you tend to see people saying "the left is" or "the right is" <insert bad thing here> mostly in communities, or from people, who don't have a lot of ILCAR friends of opposing philosophies.

[wittdooley]

And therein of course lies the problem of extreme wingers.

The left are portrayed as pot smoking morons, demanding something for nothing, and in the US as communists.


Disagree a bit here. Because much of the American Media is slanted to the left, in the US the left is presented by that medal as the level-headed, intelligent, articulate, progressive party. Very little of the questionable things that someone on the left does hits the news. Case in point: the Benghazi situation. All of the info and media coverage has been effectively suppressed until now, after the election, where the proverbial Shyte is hitting the fan.

Another one always interesting to me is th fact that Obama is a pack a day smoker. All while his wife is championing healthy lifestyles. Always amazes me more isn't made of this in the US.

[Nabterayl]

Disagree a bit here. Because much of the American Media is slanted to the left, in the US the left is presented by that medal as the level-headed, intelligent, articulate, progressive party. Very little of the questionable things that someone on the left does hits the news.
Witt is of course entitled to his opinion, but to offer another American right-wing point of view (though it sounds like Witt and I don't have exactly the same type of right-wing politics), I disagree with the highlighted bit. Maybe we just read (I don't get my news through video or radio) wildly different media; I don't know. At any rate, I don't think the left is presented as level-headed, intelligent, or articulate. I certainly don't think the extreme American left is portrayed in a way that their moderates look any better than the extreme right does ours.

On the subject of party characterizations, I'm not quite sure I agree with your characterization of the left-wing stereotype as regards America, Mystery. I think the modern American left is vilified as (i.e., its extremists make their entire half of the political spectrum look like) jaw-droppingly naive, more than freeloading something-for-nothing types. These are the people (well, the caricatures of people) who don't understand that social services are extraordinarily expensive, yes, but they're also the people whose patriotism is threatened by the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency assassinates people, are surprised that civilians die in war, and simply don't believe that the religious mindset is a real thing.

[DarkLink]

And therein of course lies the problem of extreme wingers.


That's why I so often sound defensive about Republicans when someone posts something about how X Senator said something vaguely misogynistic because cherrypicking quotes from extremists and/or taking things out of context is a poor representation of how the majority of the group feels. Usually. Sometimes they totally deserve whatever criticism they walk into, though. Potential misogyny aside, how stupid to you have to be to, as a politician, actually say "Legitimate Rape" in public.

And while the general consensus is that most major media, except maybe Fox news, has a liberal bias, radio talk shows are pretty solidly conservative.

[Mr Mystery]

So just how big an issue in religion in the US?

Again, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, it seems to be fairly make or break for politicians. Is this just another example of a skewed presentation, on account it's entertaining rather than newsworthy, or is it genuinely a significant concern for many?

[Psychosplodge]

So just how big an issue in religion in the US?

Let me re-phrase that.

Could someone get elected in the US without mentioning their being a christian of one sort or another?

Even if they are religious and chose to keep it private. would it stop them being electable?

[Wolfshade]

There are certain states which makes it illegal for non-Christians to hold some elected positions.

[Psychosplodge]

They can't do that, it's against the first amendment/unconstitutional.

[Wolfshade]

I am sure that someone posted a link/picture depicting that previously

[wittdooley]

Let me re-phrase that.

Could someone get elected in the US without mentioning their being a christian of one sort or another?

Even if they are religious and chose to keep it private. would it stop them being electable?

I Don't think being Mormon helped mitt romney, lets just say that.

@Nab --> I'm not saying I agree with those sentiments, but I do believe that the Democratic Party is presented as more "rational" and "educated" than the Republican Party. They're also presented as being more charitible, despite the fact that the numbers speak a very different story.

[Psychosplodge]

I am sure that someone posted a link/picture depicting that previously

I think it was me :D
But apparently federal law is higher than state law? (<--Is that right?)

[Gotthammer]

It is technically impossible in six states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States) to be elected to office if you are not a theist, however the Supreme Court has upheld that such laws are a breach of the first amendment.

[Psychosplodge]

Scary link


Respondents to a survey were less likely to support a kidney transplant for hypothetical atheists and agnostics needing it, than for Christian patients with similar medical needs.

[Nabterayl]

@Nab --> I'm not saying I agree with those sentiments, but I do believe that the Democratic Party is presented as more "rational" and "educated" than the Republican Party.
To bring it back to the OP, I think, if you judge Democrats and Republicans solely by their extremists, I think Democrats are more rational and educated than Republicans, at least right now. And, dumb as it may be, I think a lot of people do unconsciously judge parties by their extremists.


I think it was me :D
But apparently federal law is higher than state law? (<--Is that right?)
Federal law is higher than state law to the extent that they conflict. In the case of religious establishment laws, the First Amendment to our federal constitution reads in relevant part,


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

"Establishment" originally meant an honest-to-God official state religion, such as many European countries (and the UK) had in the late 18th century, but has been interpreted since to be much broader than that (case in point: obviously you cannot "establish" theism in the 18th century sense, but our federal Supreme Court still holds that laws requiring theism run afoul of the establishment clause).

Congress means the federal Congress. So obviously, if the legislature of Ohio says that you have to be a Methodist to run for office, the legislature of Ohio has not violated the First Amendment. A religion has been established, but Congress didn't do it. This remained the end of the analysis until the American Civil War, when the pro-federal victors rammed the Fourteenth Amendment through Congress and popular ratification. The Fourteenth Amendment, among other things, essentially substitutes "government" for "Congress" or "federal government" throughout the federal Constitution. This was an enormous victory for the pro-central government faction (which had existed since independence, but had never before enjoyed such popular and political ascendency), made possible only by the fact that the South had championed the cause of federalism (i.e., the principle that the central government should have limited powers, and state governments should have very broad powers). When you are the defeated rebel faction, your political arguments tend to have less weight :p

That said, it is foundational to the rule of law in any nation that derives its jurisprudence from the British tradition that a law must be obeyed until declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. So even if a law discriminating against atheism obviously violates the First Amendment (as modified by the Fourteenth), the law is still in effect until actually challenged - even if it is completely indefensible on constitutional grounds.

[Nabterayl]

So just how big an issue in religion in the US?

Again, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, it seems to be fairly make or break for politicians. Is this just another example of a skewed presentation, on account it's entertaining rather than newsworthy, or is it genuinely a significant concern for many?
I think it is a significant concern for many. Maybe not the way it's presented, though (I don't really know how it is presented overseas). You hear various arguments bandied about like America's founding principles, but I don't really think those are what drives the power of religion in American politics. What I think (and this is just my theory, as a politically right-wing, religiously fundamentalist, hopefully erudite American individual) often gets overlooked in the media is two facts: (i) there are an appreciable number of Americans who genuinely identify wisdom with the fear of [their] God, and (ii) an appreciable portion of America consists of communities where a person's religion can safely be assumed.

The first fact, I think, pretty accurately identifies the boundaries of the tolerance of the American religious vote. Most Methodists would agree that when they speak of god, they intend to refer to the same entity as, say, Baptists. Most American Protestants (and I think most American Catholics) would not agree that when they speak of god, they intend to refer to the same entity as Mormons do - notwithstanding the undisputed fact that Mormons are, historically, derived from Christian stock. If you are one of the Americans who thinks that true wisdom is founded in fear of a specific deity, it is a big deal whether a presidential candidate fears that specific deity or not. Nobody wants a president who is not wise.

The number of Americans who feel that way are a minority, but a pretty sizable one - certainly big enough to be significant in national politics if they decide to vote according to the concern just articulated. But I think there are a lot more Americans who have simply grown up in communities where most people not only make religion a significant part of their life, but happen to be coreligionists. I think a large part of this is simply how big America is; it affords more room for large religiously homogenous enclaves. At any rate, regardless of how intellectually committed these people are to their religion, conspicuous religious homogeneity is woven into their experience of America. Thus, candidates who don't appear to fit into that homogeneity (either because they genuinely don't, or because they would in person but don't care to make that a visible part of their campaign) just seem uncomfortably foreign. And nobody wants a president who is un-American.