Monday, May 08, 2006
Gipper for Prez
Question: If you could decide to have Ronald Reagan’s corpse replace George Bush right now, would you do it? Granted, the people working in the Whitehouse would probably be the same guys; and Rove & Co would probably still be his handlers. But Bush would be out of the picture. Would that help? Does Bush play some role in preventing his handlers from screwing us over even more? Would it just be more of the same? Or is Bush screwing up his handlers in the way that a popular deadman couldn’t? Would Reagan’s aura somehow sway the conservative movement into a healthier direction; or would they merely abuse it by doing everything the exact opposite as to how it should be done? Would you vote for a dead Reagan?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I don't think the decaying corpse of Reagan would help but maybe Reagan's astrologer?
Although it isn't constitutionally required, I believe any president should be alive at the time he takes office and at all times while he holds office.
So, no, I would not vote for Reagan's rotting dead body. Then again, I wouldn't vote for him if he were alive, either.
You tangentially bring up an interesting point, though:
Is it acceptable to have a president--Bush--who though technically living shows brain activity barely above that of a dead body?
I think not.
Let's have a president who is alive both physically and mentally.
I might also add that it would be nice to have a president who was emotionally and morally more mature than a 6 year old.
The corpse of Reagan? No.
A re-animated, brain-eating Zombie Reagan? Sure.
No, but I'd vote for Zombie Joseph Beuys
Is he embalmed? I believe there's a Constitutional requirement that Presidents can't smell like rotting meat. Look it up.
It would hardly matter as Cheney would still be running things.
Post a Comment