<div style='font: 11pt "Comic Sans MS"; text-align: left; '>The question is, "Can he do the job better than the other candidates?" I mean, are we so raised on the concept that a politician must be photogenic and personable to be effective that we totally forget that the most effective Presidents, Presidential candidates, and leaders we've ever had were the biggest assholes <I>because</I> they knew how much better they were than everybody else?
Whether you <I>like</I> a person should have absolutely no bearing on choosing a leader. Hell, I can put the nicest, most likeable person up in the President's office, but if he can't do the job, then screw him, no matter how many babies he kisses. I mean, shit, let's put Mickey Mouse up for President, everybody likes him! (Though personally, I'd choose Bugs because at least he knew how to fight back.) You look at the qualifications, you look at the past record, you grade the person on that, and that's it. What you see personality-wise should never count because politicians try to make themselves look friendly and personable anyways, and any reasonable voter would look past that facade and look at what they <I>do</I>, not what they say they do. Nader got to where we was by letting his actions speak for him; he's not a nice person - he doesn't have to be.
Bush, OTOH, has to be likeable and personable because he's a fucking tyrant and hypocrite.</div>
-<br><FONT SIZE="1">The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not a romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.<p><B>- H.L. Mencken</B></FONT>