Oct 16
arrogant or cocky?
Posted by madameblogalot at 10:36 am in Uncategorized

As I was driving today, I was thinking about why I like neither the Democratic nor the Repulican candidates. Of course, I think the two parties have gotten too close to being the same, and that they do nothing but play a big, mean game. So that, I don’t like. Even though I did not get to see last night’s debate, I have seen those two candidates on TV and saw part of a PBS documentary on the two a couple of nights ago. I did learn some interesting things about both of them, some things that I could actually respect about both of them. But when it comes down to it, I don’t want to vote for either one. Among other reasons (things they stand for, believe in, vote for), they are both too arrogant and cocky.

That got me to thinking about the difference in those two words. And yes, I do think there is a difference. Although they may have the same underlying meaning and we can and do use them interchangeably, I think the feeling they convey is different. I guess in my mind “arrogant” is used for someone who is acting “uppity” and “cocky” is someone who is acting like a bully. The connotation of the words may be a little different, but in the end, they turn me off just about the same. So when I see one candidate acting arrogant and one acting cocky, I don’t care to listen to either one of them.

I have been considering another conservative candidate. I like the party’s stance and I did vote for this party’s candidate four years ago. I got an email from this year’s Constitution Party candidate yesterday. In it he talked about not wasting a vote and why he believes voting third party is not a wasted vote. I agree with most of what he said. But in it, he did make a “barb” towards one or both of the major candidates. That really got my ire up. I mean, if he is supposed to be better, why is he stooping to one of the same tactics. Never mind that it was only a small one, never mind that it could be excused as a joke, it was still there. I am wondering if it takes a bit of over-self-confidence (arrogance, cockiness) to even run for President….

arrogant or cocky? has 9 Comments

RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback
  1. familyfunandfaith wrote:
    October 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    It seems to be almost irresistible to want to tear someone else down rather than build a case for ourselves. Maybe it is simply easier.

  2. madameblogalot wrote:
    October 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    I guess. why though is that the way the game is played? UGH!

  3. Shelly wrote:
    October 19th, 2008 at 5:14 am

    Funny, I’ve been thinking about some similar things recently, but nothing to do with the elections. It’s more been prompted by some things I’ve read. I put a post up about constructing a good argument recently — perhaps that is in line with what fff says above. It’s easier to tear down than to actually THINK and put a good case together.

  4. Montucky wrote:
    October 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am

    Personally, I don’t believe either of those traits are even significant in a presidential candidate. The trait that the major parties are looking for when they choose a candidate (and don’t think for a minute that we the people choose them) is submissiveness. Whoever is finally designated as the “winner” becomes simply a program manager for the party that got him into power and the big money interests that are behind that party. That’s mostly why there are no real issues discussed or debated in the final campaign.

  5. madameblogalot wrote:
    October 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    shelly, yes, I read that post and have thought about it some, but not commented on it…will try to

    montucky, wow! that is true! maybe this answers my question of why Alan Keyes has never gotten the nomination…well, it is another angle to think about! is there any way to get away from this system? would it really matter if we did?

  6. Montucky wrote:
    October 20th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    While I abhor the politics and practices that are prevalent today, I really don’t think the system is what needs to be fixed: it worked relatively successfully for many years. What I think is broken is the moral and ethical status of our culture. When we have to, year after year, enact new legislation and create new laws to control activity that is clearly against the better interests of society as a whole and spend half our time debating exactly what those interests are, we’re like a freight train that has jumped the tracks and gone off down a dirt road: there’s no good end to come of it and it can’t be corrected by waving flags to try to get it to take a different dirt road. I keep waiting and hoping to see a political leader address that, the issue of our culture.

  7. madameblogalot wrote:
    October 20th, 2008 at 9:15 am

    I agree with you Montucky, and I know many people who do. but it seems as if we keep voting for folks who do not address these things anyway, as in voting for the lesser of two evils. there are actually a couple of guys running who say they will address at least some of the things you point to, Alan Keyes (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party). But there are many folks who are too scared (for lack of a better word) to vote outside the two parties, thinking it only helps to elect the “other guy”. and those two guys are probably more conservative than what most folks want to vote for…

  8. Montucky wrote:
    October 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am

    Any change in the system is going to be difficult. I independently of any parties, but this year the Montana Republican party went way out of bounds. Instead of holding a primary, the party elite had their own caucus and gave the Montana electoral votes to Romney (2 days before he withdrew his candidacy). I have been telling everyone, especially the local Republican candidates that after the party did that, I will not vote for a Montana Republican candidate for anything and it seems to be getting a little attention.

  9. FamilyFunandFaith wrote:
    October 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Montucky’s comment about what is wrong is so exactly right. I just read a strong article on the matter in the latest Think magazine.

Leave a Comment