I gotta agree... the Shrub, a demogogue? Maybe at 3:42am while he's sound asleep!

I think the Shrub would like to see himself as the benevolent dictator of the all-powerful US Christian oligarchy. It hasn't happened yet, but the progress in that direction has speeded up considerably in the past couple of years. It makes all those cautionary political tales like "The Handmaid's Tale" and "Revolt in 2120" look possible in my lifetime. But most days I have faith that Americans are still, down deep, the kind of rebellious cusses that won't stand still for it.

I don't think Shrub himself is dangerous, but he is a dangerous tool. Because he's perceived as not-too-bright, the Bush administration gets away with not being taken too seriously while they go about actually using the power of the Executive branch. As long as the administration is seen as basically harmless and inept, they can get away with being very, very dangerous. And any time they get caught screwing up, Shrub can get all bashful and use a bunch of made-up folkisms until you can't stand to listen to him speak another word. "We'll forgive you is you just shut up."

I think you underestimate the machinations of political power in this country if you think that the President himself is that powerful. The office *could* be wielded by a person who was charismatic and used the position to exert genuine power, but the nomination process of each political party weeds out the ones who won't toe the line properly. It also, I think, weeds out the best and brightest -- the ones who might be able to think in fresh and creative ways.

I have mixed feelings about this. Our system very carefully preserves the status quo -- as the system of checks and balances fails and Congress gets progressively weaker, and the judiciary appointment process becomes about political connections instead of allowing judges the freedom to make non-partisan choices -- the election process has grown more complex and has stepped in to serve as ballast. The boat will only rock so far unless it gets deliberately tipped over.

And while those of us on either side of the political spectrum might disagree about the radicial/reactionary changes we might want to make... do we really want to take the risk that the OTHER side might get their leader in the big house instead? :)