Queen George
Posted by blogolodeon2 on February 4, 2007
I am not a fan of using female labels to denigrate male phenomena. It pisses me off, and I hope the reason is obvious.
But . . . What we have here are conflicting rules to live by. I am a fan of insulting a opponent with what will stick the opponent, with the thing the enemy hates. Homophobic, mommy-hating, little-man-complex embodying, cheerleader Georgie Bush, I am convinced in my heart, would hate being called a girl above all things.
Now comes this article by Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect about how Dick Cheney has, all tinfoil accusations notwithstanding, accomplished a coup d’etat.
The article is more important than this post, and if you are reading this you must surely know your time would be better spent going to Kuttner.
Still with me? Read this paragraph from Kuttner:
If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.
Bush, Shrub, Chimpy, Clusterfuck, President Baby, The Deciderer, King George . . . the list goes on. I’ll bet Bush smirks whenever he hears the different names people call him.
But I think “Queen George” would really make him Rumplestilskin mad. So mad, that I let this be “the exception that proves the rule” — (I have never known what that means). From now on, it’s Queen George.
