What should we do with Bush?

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by WGJ

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

- H.L. Mencken, from a notorious 26 July 1920 essay in the Baltimore Evening Sun.

Your problem is that you do not have a king who holds ultimate power, but in fact has no power. Having a King, means that no one else can take on the power of bull$hit. Think about it.

[WGJ]

Trevor:
"Your problem is that you do not have a king who holds ultimate power,"

Plato addressed that issue 2500 years ago, with the concept of the philosopher/king. Supposedly the intense training in the various aspects of philosophy, like mathematics, ethics, reason and logic would allow the king to rule wisely and in the best interest of the society as a whole, and not be corrupted by power.
Perhaps if Tom DeLay, Libby, Rove, Rummy et al had majored in philosophy the Republican party might be somewhat less corrupt... doubtful. Bush has a Harvard MBA and look at what a successful businessman he's been.
People, called priests, supposedly deeply committed to a power even higher than money, God, can't seem to keep their hands off kids. "Power corrupts."

The latest research shows that groups ostensibly make better decisions than individuals. Our problem is we have a participatory democracy. Way too many people don't participate. Too lazy to get off their fat asses, engage in the political process, study the issues and actually vote. We Americans take a great deal for granted. What's new?
Good night and good luck,
WGJ

[Trevor]

You have not thought about it. The point is the King/Queen has no power as such, but gets all the lime light. No one else can therefore do so and use it as a political advantage.

Originally Posted by WGJ

you posses an astonishing range of knowledge and a superb sense of humor.
But Bush will never get a medal from the Russians, as Eletrophil pointed out his administration's working overtime to piss them off too.
WGJ

Aw...shucks... thanks

Actually the idea isn't as far fetched as it might seem at first glance. One of the major problems in Russia right now is a feeling in the general public that they have lost their status as a real world power. The old-school Communists are building on that emotion, recalling the glory days when the USSR was a true force to be reckoned with. Thus Putin is trying to get involved in various world events to show not only that he can be a statesman but that Russia can still be effective and play a major role in world events while remaining a pseudo-democracy. Russia has already become very involved in its neighbouring countries and is extending its sphere of influence wherever it can.

If Bush were to actually start another cold war and military build-up, then the old-guard Communists can capitalise on that (pun intented ), saying that they were right all along about the deviousness of the capitalistic, imperialist West. They are already using Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of Western Imperialism, and Iran is also touted as the next expansion point. Bush is in effect making Putin's job much harder which is one reason why Russia is starting to revert back to a more authoritarian style of government.

Putin has clearly shown that he doesn't want any trouble with the USA. When 9/11 happened and all the US military went on high alert, Putin actually stepped down the alert level of all Russian forces and made sure the USA knew about it. Over the last few years, though, Putin has been forced by domestic issues to start taking on a harder stance against Western policies. He's started making overtures to China, and is working more closely with the EU. The EU, of course, depends on Russian oil quite a bit, so has a pretty big reason to stay on good terms with Russia.

So if in the end Bush assists the old Red Communists in gaining power in Russia, thereby helping Russia get ever closer to the old-style USSR type of government, then he deserves that star, don't ya think?

[WGJ]

I don't agree. Tony Blair's taken plenty of flack for supporting our gov't positions. Besides we already have a filthy rich figurehead. Cheney, Rove and Rummy run the gov't. Haven't you noticed that when Cheney gets a hard on, Bush stands taller?
WGJ

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by WGJ

Haven't you noticed that when Cheney gets a hard on, Bush stands taller?
WGJ

BWA HA!!

Good one!!

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by WGJ

I don't agree. Tony Blair's taken plenty of flack for supporting our gov't positions. Besides we already have a filthy rich figurehead. Cheney, Rove and Rummy run the gov't. Haven't you noticed that when Cheney gets a hard on, Bush stands taller?
WGJ

You obviously do not have a clue as to what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Trevor

Your problem is that you do not have a king who holds ultimate power, but in fact has no power. Having a King, means that no one else can take on the power of bull$hit. Think about it.

You have not thought about it. The point is the King/Queen has no power as such, but gets all the lime light. No one else can therefore do so and use it as a political advantage.

I'm not quite sure I'm getting it, but here's my stab at it

Both New Zealand and Canada have Queen Elisabeth as our official Head of State. She has no real power in the daily running of our countries, yet she has the ultimate power to disband Parliament. She mostly plays a symbolic role, yet her impact on our politics is often understated and misunderstood. The daily running of each country is by the Prime Minister, who in both cases is usually the leader of the party which has the most seats and is not directly elected by the people, but asked by the Queen to form the government.

Germany has a similar figure in the form of their President who is the official Head of State yet plays a mostly ceremonial role. He is not elected by the people but by a specially convened Federal Convention. The Convention is made up of not only the full Federal Parliament but also an equal number of special State delegates appointed by each State parliament who are not necessarily politicians but can be anyone. Traditionally, the President stays out of daily politics and holds no allegiance to any particular Political Party. The real power in Germany is the Chancellor.

The USA, however, has no such symbolic position. The President is directly involved in the running of the country, is a member of a Political Party, and is also responsible for most of the pomp and ceremony that goes on. Thus he gets a lot more of the "limelight" than either the German Chancellor or our Prime Ministers. The US President can capitalise politically on his unique position, unlike many other leaders, including Blair who plays second fiddle to the Queen.

Hmm.... I'm still missing something. Could you expand a little? I'm honestly trying to think this through, but I need a bit more of your thoughts to truly understand what you're saying.

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Bipa

I'm not quite sure I'm getting it, but here's my stab at it

The US President can capitalise politically on his unique position, unlike many other leaders, including Blair who plays second fiddle to the Queen.

Hmm.... I'm still missing something. Could you expand a little? I'm honestly trying to think this through, but I need a bit more of your thoughts to truly understand what you're saying.

You do understand exactly what I am saying and have stated so above. i.e. the president CAN capilise on what is BS and does exactly that. This provides an undesirable advantage

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Trevor

You do understand exactly what I am saying and have stated so above. i.e. the president CAN capilise on what is BS and does exactly that. This provides an undesirable advantage

But Trevor, the president would never do such a thing because he's a good God fearing man!!!

OUTLAW SEX!!!!! It's evil.

[RojoRocket]

Originally Posted by Noir

But Trevor, the president would never do such a thing because he's a good God fearing man!!!

uh huh.

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ (turn it up!)

Glenn

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

uh huh.

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ (turn it up!)

Glenn

Whoa! That was good!! That deserves a thread to itself.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

uh huh.

http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ (turn it up!)

Glenn

Bushie's right!!!! He loves his wife. He loves his country. He loves Jesus. That's all that matters!!!

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by Noir

But Trevor, the president would never do such a thing because he's a good God fearing man!!!

OUTLAW SEX!!!!! It's evil.

GOD ??? must fear him !!!!!

[Earthworm]

Thankfully no one read this thread title as, "What should we do with bush?"

I say F*** it