Beautiful women get all the breaks;
except in politics.
Forty year old Sofia Vergara is the highest earning woman on television. According to the linked article,
Vergara made $19 million over the past year, with $7 million coming from her hit show “Modern Family” and $12 million from endorsement deals.
Forbes calls Vergara the biggest Hispanic crossover star since Desi Arnaz, and says companies who want to reach the $1 trillion Hispanic market are clamoring for Vergara. KMart alone is paying her $7 million for her eponymous clothing line.
“The truth is out that we’re in this country and we’re taking over,” Sofia told Forbes. “To see people paying attention to the cultural changes … is fantastic.”
Might Ms. Vergara’s obvious attractiveness be a factor in her success? Could that even be possible? As I said in a PJ Media article in January of last year, Sarah Palin is also quite attractive and that was detrimental during the 2008 presidential campaign when she was Senator McCain’s running mate. Attractive females are not, and cannot be, competent. Intelligent? Don’t be foolish; ask Tina Fey. Maybe Governor Palin could have done better had she shaved off all her hair (there couldn’t possibly be a functioning brain cell under all that pretty stuff), worn horn-rimmed glasses and dressed like a bag lady. Gravitas is what’s important (such as Vice President “Plugs” Biden is highly regarded for having, for example. Or President Obama, well known for . . . . well, it must be something really good). As noted in my earlier linked article,
The silly demented girl still doesn’t even know the meaning of some simple English words — such as defeat. Not only that, she’s pretty, dammit. No effective female politician can be pretty and have gravitas too and besides, she’s religious and isn’t a Democrat! She is also, according to a Newsweek star, a “borderline lunatic.” Roseanne Barr says she is “loon and I think she’s kind of a traitor.” Not only that, those who think otherwise are the “dumbest people on Earth [and] … on the government dole.” (Ms. Barr later apologized for her remarks about Mrs. Palin’s ignorant supporters, who had been duped.)
Saturday Night Live is among the front rank contenders for first prize in the modern humor category — and Tina Fey (a.k.a. Sara Palin) gets first prize at SNL. Sarah Palin was an almost perfect butt of jokes; still, maybe someone even better might come along later; how about another pretty white female opposed not only to abortion but also to masturbation? Maybe someone who as a teenager had dabbled in witchcraft? Nah, that wouldn’t be possible.
Poor demented girl, she has not become better over time. According to this article at Politico,
Liberal bloggers crowed over reports that Sarah Palin had not yet received an invitation to the Republican National Convention later this year.
“Something tells me we won’t have the lost Madonna of the Teabagger WASPs to kick around much longer,” read one sharply worded post at Balloon Juice. “She probably wouldn’t have reached her sell-by date so quickly if she weren’t such a completely predictable liar.”
“Sarah Palin played a HUGE role in bringing down John McCain’s run at the presidency. We can only hope that Mitt Romney makes a similar mistake, even if it only means letting Palin speak at the convention. Give the woman as much rope as she wants, as far as we’re concerned. It’s been far too long since Tina Fey had a good laugh,” John Aravosis wrote on AmericaBlog.
So much for Governor Palin. She is still far too attractive to succeed in the sphere of politics. Helen Thomas? Some might find her less than attractive and she was reasonably popular in political circles for a long time. Maybe it was her gravitas, or something like that. How about Secretary Clinton? It’s rumored that she might try (again) to become our president. She’s . . . . well, she’s Hillary Clinton and if President Obama were to get out of the way she might have a good shot at the Democrat nomination. She’s a bit scary, but that’s probably to her advantage.
Perhaps some day we will see more “people paying attention to cultural changes,” which as Ms. Vergara says, is “fantastic.” Will they pay more, or less, attention depending on the physical attractiveness of the presenter? House Minority Leader Pelosi might do a good job upon her retirement from the Congress; she could easily find ways to prevent her physical attractiveness from becoming a distraction.
Having unattractive presenters might well make our many hours of watching television more enlightening and therefore more enjoyable. Wouldn’t it? Be honest, now. Well, O.K. We would then turn off the tube and pull out our checker boards or the latest issue of Playboy. We, at least males of the species, like to see beautiful women — provided that they are not doing or trying to do anything that requires thought or common sense or that suggests possession of more than average intelligence and competence. When they try to speak with intelligence and understanding, a “war on women” ensues even though I’ve never heard it called that. Why can’t the pretty little things just be satisfied with free stuff like condoms, birth control devices, abortions and lots of other cool stuff? Why can’t they just stay in their place on the
Stepford Happy Plantation? Isn’t that what females are meant to do? Many have shown that that’s the path to success in the entertainment media and in it’s close kin, the political media.