Steve Vaillancourt, I've disagreed with him a few times on this very site but there are times he's correct too.
He's not a nice person for claiming Kuster is "Ugly as sin" but I'm finding that the media, as it often does, is focusing on a rude comment instead of the over all point he was trying to make.
A Republican New Hampshire state lawmaker has called a Democratic congresswoman "ugly" and said the GOP opponent in her November re-election race is one of the most attractive women in politics.
Manchester Rep. Steve Vaillancourt called U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster "ugly as sin" in a blog post last week and compared her to a drag queen.
Reading that you would think he had no other point then to blast Kuster for her looks. I read this and another article someone had shared out on facebook before going to his column to see what he'd actually said and was shocked that he would make such an attack based on looks alone.
He came off rude and a little childish in his statements but his over all point was that we have a lot of uninformed voters in this country that do vote based on looks instead of facts.
Whether it's a large percent or not is debatable but it is a fact there are people who vote like this. I've seen it first hand on more than one occasion.
In a local election in Merrimack I was having a discussion while holding political signs on election day with some of those heading in to vote. One male voter pointed out some of the physical traits of a woman running for school board and flatly stated he was voting for her so he could see more of her on public access. When questioned about political views, since she was new to the Merrimack political scene, he openly admitted he had no idea where she stood on issues but again confirmed how attractive she was.
And it's not just male voters either. I have witnessed first hand female voters bragging that they voted for Scott Brown or Barack Obama because of the fact they were "studs".
There are people who voted, both for and against, Obama because of the color of his skin. And there are voters who will support female candidates over male solely based on gender alone.
It would be nice to dream of a world where people are not judged by their looks, color of their skin or gender but there are people who can't see past the surface.
In Kusters case there are a lot of valid reasons to toss her out on her butt.
- Her record of supporting high spending and higher taxes, she voted no to prioritize spending if the debt limit should be reached (2013)
- Her support of the failed stimulus
- Her vote against using US troops in Iraq against ISIS in June 2014 (H Amdt 908)
- Her record of voting against gun rights
- Her support of using tax dollars to fund abortions
- Her stance against the 1st amendment by supporting forcing churches to pay for birth control
For informed voters there are plenty of reasons not to support her, her looks are not one of them. Sadly though, people will vote on looks. They will vote on gender. They will vote on a lot of things that may actually put someone in office who is opposite their own views.