Kings

[poliphilo]

George Bush reminds me of those useless late-18th century kings, George III and Louis XVI. He has no instinct for leadership; he has to be told what to do. "Say, Mr President, don't you think it would be a good idea if you flew down to the Delta and put in an appearance?" "Awww...do I have to?"

A natural-born leader would have been down there, mingling with the refugees, just as soon as it was safe to fly.

Sooner or later every dynasty throws up a man unsuited to the job.

George III was a successful farmer and Louis XVI had a talent for watchmaking and George Bush- if left to his own devices- would have cut the mustard (just)in the lower levels of middle management.

Did they tip the tea into Boston harbour for this? I think not.

Comments

[sovay]

George III was a successful farmer and Louis XVI had a talent for watchmaking and George Bush- if left to his own devices- would have cut the mustard (just)in the lower levels of middle management.

And that would have been far, far safer for pretty much everyone else on the planet.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

George Dubya is a feckless aristo of limited intelligence with an addictive personality and a record of underachievement. In a properly functioning democracy someone like him wouldn't get within sniffing distance of real power.

[sovay]

Do you see me arguing?

[philtration.livejournal.com]

I agree. This man being elected not once, but twice is a low point in our history. I only hope that this tragedy will wake up the people of this country and never again let silly campaign promises and 10 second sound bites on the nightly news elect our leaders. This man makes Richard Nixon look repsectable and I thought that I could never say such a thing.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Richard Nixon was horrible, but he was in control of what he was doing. He was a master of the art of politics.