Replies: 3 Comments

Posted by: Aaron On Thursday, April 14th

I'm not sure which parts of the movie you saw, but it certainly didn't make Bush likeable in terms of his policies and his practices. I've seen movies of Franco that made him look likeable in terms of personal charisma, but for God's sakes, that doesn't make me think any better of his policies and practices. I think that's a problem of a lot of people who like Bush - they see him as a person, not as a politician. Then they don't think about anything he does as involving politics, and take everything he says for face value.

Wow! We, the forces of Good, liberated Iraq from the Evil Men who brutally oppressed their people! We did it to spread Democracy throughout the world! ... insert joke about selling swampland in Florida here.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Tuesday, April 12th

Well, sure. Like I said, I don't think Moore's representation of Bush was anything like accurate. But it did make him seem human and even somewhat likeable, and for that reason I don't think the film did him any harm. Next to Kerry, who was not likeable, obviously a prisoner of a raging ego, and also out of touch with the public, Bush shone. As I once put it:

I'm still trying to figre out what the Democrats were thinking when nominated John Kerry. They wanted someone "electable," and chosen the least appealing candidate in the Democratic field! Why? Here's my best guess:

We can't stand this Bush guy, the Democrats were thinking to themselves. How can anyone like him? He's arrogant. Politically, an under-achiever. He's an aristocrat, a Yalie from the Skull-and-Bones, and rich, but he didn't earn the money, but got it through family connections. He governs in manner that totally contradicts his professed political principles, spending the taxpayers' money with reckless abandon. He's got this repugnant tough-guy façade. He's incapable of admitting mistakes. He refuses to be straight with the American people. His fiscal plans are full of fuzzy math. And yet people seem to like him. Hmm. We've got to outgun this guy. Who can we nominate that's an arrogant under-achiever, an aristocrat bloated with family money that he never had to earn, with a repugnant tough-guy façade, who's even more unprincipled and spendthrift, even less straight with the American people, with even fuzzier math than Bush? Hey, hey—John Kerry's our man! We'll answer a millionaire with a billionaire. And he's even a Yalie, from the Skull-and-Bones!

Posted by: Aaron On Tuesday, April 12th

I really disagree with the notion that our leaders should just be (seem like?) everyday people. Isn't the point of electing somebody to the highest office in the land that they somehow are smarter, have more wisdom, leadership ability, and strategic insight than the everyday person? There's a major difference between being a good leader in the sense of motivation and charisma than in actually making good decisions - and I'm not sure some people realize that. Speaking in a purely nonpartisan way, if I wanted someone to run a business, it would not be Homer Simpson, no matter how likable he may be. As I always tell people, I think Bush would make a great neighbor. You know, the neighbor who invites everybody over, barbecues some hot dogs and burgers, lets you drink his beer, all that stuff. But as a President... those are not the qualities that lend themselves to the well being of about three hundred million people.