A surprising focus on Senator Marco Rubio’s shiny, stack-heeled ankle boots, first noted in a Twitter post on Monday by a New York Times reporter, has grown over the last few days into one of the weirder firestorms of the presidential campaign.
Senator Ted Cruz’s communications director, Rick Tyler, wrote on twitter: “A Vote for Marco Rubio Is a Vote for Men’s High-Heeled Booties.” “Rubio has those cute new boots and I don’t want to be outdone,” Senator Rand Paul said before an appearance on “The View.” Carly Fiorina posted a Twitter message with a picture of her own pair of high-heeled boots, with the message “Yeah, @marcorubio, but can you rock these?”
"Bootgate" has eclipsed any other fashion story of the election thus far, including any fashion story related to the two female candidates, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina.
This fashion story highlights an important lesson about the wardrobe of male politicians.
Looking back at the party’s last debate, six of the eight male participants wore almost exactly the same outfit: red tie, white shirt, and dark two-button suit.
On the one hand, this means if you stay within the expected norms, you pretty much ensure that your clothes remain off the table as a subject of conversation and criticism. There is a reason, for example, that Presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all wore shoes by the same shoemaker, Allen Edmonds, for their inaugurations.
On the other hand, however, it also means that when any variable is changed it can provoke an outsize reaction, including broad analysis of the rationale behind the choice.
A candidate can either choose to embrace your point of difference, or retreat back into the straitjacket of familiar dress.
While on the campaign trail Thursday in New Hampshire, Rubio called the talk about his boots "craziness."
Rubio's footwear, to a certain extent, conveys his message of himself as the face of the new American and surprising clothing choices can work to a candidate's advantage if properly strategized. For example, Rick Santorum's use of the sweater vest in the last election. It began as an object of mockery, but Santorum managed to make it into something of a signature. He wore the vest so much that the campaign began selling Rick Santorum vests on his website for supporters to wear!
Do you think the discussion about Rubio's boots is blown out of proportion or do you believe that fashion plays a role in the candidacy of a President?
If you were Marco Rubio how would you react to this situation? Would you make it a joke? Would you continue to dress "out of the norm" or play it safe?
Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/rubios-boot-choice-draws-curiosity-jabs-from-republicanrivals.htmlAdvertisement
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/marco-rubio-calls-focus-his-boots-craziness-n492276
5 comments:
This sounds pretty silly to me. While I do not think that making fun of fashion choices is out of bounds for political candidates, those boots are pretty nice, certainly not enough to warrant complaining. What this really shows is Ted Cruz's lack of fashion sense, something he sorely needs to make up for his unfortunate natural appearance. All in all, I think this is just fun banter between candidates. The real deplorable figure here is the media trying way too hard to make a big deal out of it. Calling it an uninspired, overdone name like "bootgate" is indicative of how crazy the media is during the presidential races. It seems as if these "journalists" read every presidential tweet with ferocity, hoping to find something juicy to blow out of proportion.
After reading his quotes, I though Rubio was trying to pull a Christie and yell at Americans for paying attention to anything that isn't ISIS to appear as the "no-nonsense" candidate, but the video was more like watching a some guy trying to tell jokes at the comedy club. Honestly, his delivery and timing were not bad. I even slightly smirked at my computer screen! Funny guy. However, the real story here is the evident lift in those boots. Why is Rubio wearing boots clearly designed to make him appear taller when he is listed at 5'10" on his Wikipedia page, and has said himself that he is 5'9"?
Check out this photo: http://www.northescambia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Romney-047.jpg
Mitt Romney is supposedly 6'2". If this is true, I would peg Marco Rubio to be at 5'6" or 5'7".
So he's insecure about his height, what's the big deal? There's nothing wrong with wanting to be/appear a little taller. We're all guilty of that. It might not be a big deal, but I've already launched into this, so I'll see it through.
Bear with me here.
"Why is Marco Rubio lying?" you might ask. He's lying because he is both insecure of his height and very sensitive to the importance of the presidential image, and height, while entirely superficial, could be more important than we have considered. A president under 6'0" has not been elected since Jimmy Carter. He was about 5'9". People often vote for and support someone who, in their eyes, projects an image of strength. The election of 1960 and the Kennedy-Nixon debate is a classic example of this. The sickly and shady-looking Nixon looked like a leper juxtaposed with the youthful and virile Kennedy. The voters care about a confident image. Marco Rubio is hugely sensitive to this, as demonstrated by his almost-too-well-rehearsed answers endemic to his public efforts and his charming, playful response to the boot fiasco, a response that he certainly ran-by his campaign managers.
Image is important to presidential candidates, and Marco Rubio, his boots, and his subsequent response are only indicative of the pervading superficiality in our politics. So, if I might provide an answer to your question, Mr. Rubio, no, people have not lost their minds. It's been this way since the beginning.
I think it is very interesting that the shoes of a presidential candidate are what the media is focusing on. When learning about the four different types of voters, my group was assigned the no issue content voters. When working on this presentation i thought it was absolutely absurd. How could 22% of the voters decide their vote based on nothing more than appearance? Yet this issue highlights how the media plays an instrumental role in deciding what the public focuses on in regard to the candidates and also how they emphasize these trivial aspects of the candidates. So much of this race has become dependent of appearance rather than policy. If people started taking the time to actually consider Trumps wall building policy rather than his flappy hair, or Rubio's immigration policy rather than his "man heels," there might actually be a real difference in how the candidates are currently ranking. Yes, the media does point out the aesthetic attributes of candidates, but they do that because they are catering to to the publics desires. As a society we need to start focusing a little less on the latest candidate fashion trends and a little more on the actual content behind our candidates' ideas.
I think Rubytuesday makes an interesting point. I would have never saw the boots as an attempt to appear taller. If that really was his intention I think it was a good idea to do that. The media has made image increasingly important over the decades. Appearing taller and more confident would be to Rubio's benefit. If I was Rubio I would continue to dress out of the norm and create his own signature. Individualism may leave an impression on voters. However,I do think the media has blown the situation out of proportion. I don't believe the boots should be that big of a deal.
If people are going to be voting based on this type of issue, then we are in big trouble. I do not think that this will necessarily play to his advantage or disadvantage because I do not think that anybody will vote for anybody based on their shoe choices (I could only hope). However, if I were in Marco Rubio’s shoes (no pun intended), I would choose not to wear them because I would not want the shoes to be a distraction from my message and aspirations for presidency. This is an example of how the media can truly set an agenda for the public opinion. I am surprised that this is even a news story. It seems silly to me.
Post a Comment