The game continues...
Andrew Sullivan's latest comparison of Bush to a world leader is here: Bush is Churchill.
It's not technically an entry into the "Past Presidents Game" since Winston Churchill was a statesman in the United Kingdom. The comparison is also pretty lousy given that Churchill's deep reservoir of unpopularity after World War II might have been created during the Gallipoli campaign of World War I. Churchill, if I remember correctly, also switched political parties twice, which isn't exactly a textbook way to make friends and influence people.
Sullivan is starting to look a little passive-aggressive towards Bush in his hunt for metaphors that make Bush sound like a loser, although I probably would come across the same way if I were selling articles to Time magazine on a regular basis. But is the list of relatively mediocre presidents to compare to President Bush so exhausted that we have to start looking to foreign leaders to make a decent comparison?
It's not technically an entry into the "Past Presidents Game" since Winston Churchill was a statesman in the United Kingdom. The comparison is also pretty lousy given that Churchill's deep reservoir of unpopularity after World War II might have been created during the Gallipoli campaign of World War I. Churchill, if I remember correctly, also switched political parties twice, which isn't exactly a textbook way to make friends and influence people.
Sullivan is starting to look a little passive-aggressive towards Bush in his hunt for metaphors that make Bush sound like a loser, although I probably would come across the same way if I were selling articles to Time magazine on a regular basis. But is the list of relatively mediocre presidents to compare to President Bush so exhausted that we have to start looking to foreign leaders to make a decent comparison?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home