monkeyinabox: look here....or you could just go through life and be happy anyway

the daily banana

Ye Old Presidential Beer Debates



2004, It's Bud versus Miller, oh and by the way it's also Bush versus Kerry. Why should I mention these two seemingly different things in the same sentence? Maybe there's more to compare than it appears at first.

Beer: A fermented alcoholic beverage brewed from malt and flavored with hops.

President: One appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of people, such as an assembly or meeting.

Going solely on these statements, they couldn't be farther from each other in relevance, but to the average American person, beer and Presidents go hand in hand. Being people of the United States of America, we have free will and choice. We can either vote with our dollars or vote with, surprise, a vote. Ultimately, it comes down to choice.

Miller Beer began their political attack on Budwiser this year. With it being the year we hold the Presidential Election, it made sense to use a political theme for their advertisements. Miller had TV spots with mock debates of a man and a Clydesdale horse. Bud fought back with talking iguanas proclaiming Miller Beer wasn't even American. It's not like this was anything new, but this year it actually prompted me to think about how this relates to the Presidential Election.

Miller Beer seems to market themselves that Bud is the only opponent, and for all it matters in the large scale of domestic beer sales, it's probably true. Budweiser seems to think they are the best, and only respond when Miller Beer attacks them. As a distinguished beer drinker, neither Miller nor Budweiser is something I would classify as beer. Technically it might be beer, but if I want a beer to drink, it's certainly not Miller or Budweiser.

Being in Oregon I seem to have an abundance of very good microbreweries within close proximity. Without a doubt, the best is Deschutes Brewery with beers that make Miller and Budweiser about as relevant as Kool Aid when it comes to beer. However, Joe Consumer who knows nothing about micro brews purchases case after case of Miller or Budweiser. Maybe there is some choice in liking those beers to microbrewery beers, but I think that if everyone who drank Miller and Budweiser had a chance to compare them to Deschutes Brewery, they would never touch their old beers again.

Why is this the case? Advertising money. Simple, no other reason. If any microbrewery acquired the advertising funds to compete equally with Miller or Budweiser, it would be no contest. But the chance of that happening is about as great as Osama Bin Laden strolling up to the White House and dancing on the front lawn singing Pat Benetar’s, 'Warrior'.

Now enter politics and the Presedential Election race. To run for President it's takes a lot of funds. This is nothing surprising and if you have money, you can try to become president. Having a lot of money doesn't mean you'll win, but it gives you a chance to run and start a campaign. How many average citizens actually can run for President and really stand a chance at winning? Exactly. None. Kind of sounds like how it works in advertising watered-down domestic beer.

If Deschutes Brewery, in my opinion, is the best beer out there, then why shouldn't I also think that the best candidate for President is probably neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry? Now, I'm not going to really say George W. and Kerry are the equivalent of Budweiser and Miller beer, but I'm betting that there is someone out there who has all the skills required and could do a better job, but you won't see this candidate on the ballot this year and you probably won't any year, much like how Deschutes Brewery will never top Budweiser or Miller Beer in sales, or win the President of Beers election.

So, remember you do have a choice and it doesn't always have to be between Budweiser and Miller.

Posted by monkeyinabox ::: |


Jesse Thompson said:

I think that the private citizen who, if they chose to run for president, would not only stand the best chance of winning but would do a fairly decent job of it would be Harrison Ford. As an actor he is semi-retired, he is lavishly wealthy yet fairly frugal, he is self-deferential and pretty highly respected. He is old enough to have been around the block, yet young enough to serve public office without it overwhelming him for decades on end.

One of the great things about an actor as a politician is that we, the american public already "know" them pretty well. We've watched their careers blossom and evolve for decades in hollywood. Their reputations have been as acid tested as anyone's can by in the tabloids.

Also, Dramatic actors have the personal presense it takes to influence a political situation. Eg, If you are negotiating a trade agreement with the prime minister of Brazil or kerzekstan or something, you might get your way with a well researched pile of statistics, but you will definately get your way if you have charm and charisma, or if you can portray your position interpersonally rather than simply talking about it.

Soo.. Harry for Prez! :)