Replies

What is the 'evidence' if it isn't a poll? Just curious.

I covered that, If you want to call people contacting the White House directly a poll, so be it.

As for dancing around the what I was implying, I said that any President that made decisions rejected by the American people without good cause could be compared with a dictator. This includes President Bush just as much as any former or future President.

Now the question is whether or not President Bush meets that standard. My answer to that is, "No". President Bush is not a dictator.

JaJ, until I know otherwise, I credit you with meaning well, but your "dictator vs. a representative of the people comments" require a response.

Any U.S. President is elected by all the people, but he is elected to be the Chief Executive of America and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Once he is there, his duties do not include: to follow (You prefer "rethink"...how do you know he hasn't?) what polls, call ins, chatter, demonstrations, emails, letters or whatever say he should do.

Or else deserve to be called a dictator.

Words such as dictator have very specific meanings.

Any duly elected government official does not become "a dictator" by disregarding or going against public opinion when making good faith judgements in their capacities as elected officials. Such is totally within the scope of their legal duties.

It's when they go outside the scope of their legal duties that they could become a dictator. Suppose they were committing crimes, whether felonies or against the Constitution, in doing what they decide. Suppose they refuse to concede an election if they lose one, and try to stay in office. Suppose they give illegal or unconstituional orders to subordinates, whether civilian or military. etc.

They could turn into dictators, by the specific meaning of that word, by those acts, but never by disregarding public opinion.

I think you might have in mind a loose meaning of dictator, in that a person might have an arrogant and authoritarian mindset, to such a point that you might say, that man is a "dictatorial type", not meaning it literally, but a figure of speech.

Conceding that limited point, I reiterate that the literal meaning of calling a nation's leader "a dictator" for proceeding against public opinion does not square with the specific meaning of that word.