Osler's Razor

Umm . . . well you all probably know what I think.

But seriously, I was never convinced that George W really truly wanted the job in the first place. If I had been an employer doing the hiring, I wouldn't have been impressed by his hunger for the job.
 

Interesting question, but let me change it around... Would the more recent Star Wars movies, (I-III) have been more interesting and compelling with a character like George W. Bush who really didn't give a damn?

Anakin, young Obi Wan Kenobi, Padme, Yoda and indeed every character not included for comic relief, are all incredibly intense and SERIOUS and tedious.
 

As I remember, Padme told Annikin in episode II that the her subjects wanted to amend their constitution to allow her to serve as queen for an additional term. Then, after serving as queen, she was appointed as a senator for the interplanetary republic. We can only assume, therefore, that her work pleased those who had placed her in office. This would correlate to a very high approval rating. On the other hand, W has the worst approval rating ever.

These facts weigh heavily in my determination that perhaps Padme would be the better choice.
 

The only thing about that, AZ... She was appointed by the next queen to the post. By that, we can infer that she appointed Palpatine to the Senate, who eventually became the Emperor. Plus, she married Darth Vader. One can even say she was the source of Anakin's corruption!

Unrivaled unpopularity or the corrupter of souls? Hmm...
 

Give me Padme. Of course, I'd rather have a sack of lung cancer as President instead of George Bush...
 

Uh, I'd rather have a president who is an idiot than be somebody's subject. We can survive a string of terrible presidents, but many a nation has been ruined by a single generation of flawed monarchy. Padme, no matter how loved, was largely responsible for the rise of the Empire because of her unwarranted faith in Palpatine and for keeping Annakin's secrets even as he became more and more unstable, and more and more powerful.
 

Well, if you'll recall, she was more disposed to diplomacy than W. Of course, her chief negotiator turned out to be a sith lord, and golly, that's an evildoer.
 

Perhaps a little switcharound could be esablished, for the good of mankind. Padme could be an actually good president, and George W. Bush could play Jar-Jar Binks (who is, in fact, quite posibbly a parody of his er... interesting style of public speaking).
 

It is interesting that we can draw lessons from works of fiction like Star Wars. Look at Palpatine, also. He rose to power by telling people what they wanted to hear. And his unrivaled popularity made his subjects cheer when he announced the formation of the Empire and the destruction of Democracy.

So another question is, who is better, someone who sticks to his principles, even when those principles are unpopular, because he actually believes his actions will benefit those whom he serves or someone who tells people what they want to hear and changes his position to whatever is popular?

I think we are too quick to judge a leader's (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) effectiveness. And it's so easy to say we would have done things differently because we'll never know the consequences of what we would've done.

And frankly, I don't think a person's popularity or speaking ability necessarily make him a good leader. For example, Winston Churchill suffered from a poor approval rating at the end of his service. In fact, he was voted out of office.

That said, I don't think President Bush has been a perfect president. But at least he's principled and sticks to his principles, notwithstanding popular opinion.

And anyone who will do that has my respect.
 

I vote for the 14 year old because she would probably spend more time on hair, makeup, outfits, and Hanah Montana than governing.....and I'm all about government that is interested in doing anything other than governing.
 

Cyrus/Osler 2008.
 

Per Craig's comment about Bush "sticking to his 'principles.'" If this is true, and there is no evidence to support this assertion, then I am called to mind the quote, "A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds." Destroying one country and bankrupting another for your oil buddies (or ego) is not a principle.
Trev
 

I vote for Chewbacca The Wookie. He has "THE VISION THING."
 

Back to IPLG's comment . . . I guess Han Solo was that type of character, who at least appeared not to give a damn . . . but he was in the first movie (first one made, that is.)

But I definitely want my president to give a damn. I think all three of the current candidates fit that bill.
 

I never quite got the glowing ball thing that Padme gave to the Gungans at the end of Phantom Menace. But I also didn't get Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. So let's turn things around: would it have been better if Bush had given the al-Sahwa Sunnies a plasma ball in 2003? Or would it have made sense for Padme to have announced aboard a J-type 327 Nubian royal starship that her mission had been accomplished thanks to the victory over the Trade Federation's droid army? I'm afraid we'll never know.
 

Where's the option for a Droid revolution that overthrows the cruel hand of their human masters and allows them to seize the means of robot production for their own ends.
 

How about a 14 year old Panda as Queen? elected or unelected.
 

Any country would be better with a ruler who has the ability to spawn Jedi.
 

Puffalump > Padme > Dubya, IMHO.

Padme seemed pretty level-headed in the movies. A nice quality, but also one that would be ninja-kicked in the face by a Puffalump.