i frequently, no always, refer to the current president as
Tsar George. there are reasons for this.
while working on my B.A. i majored in History. my main focus was on
constitutional history, but since i was also taking Russian Language classes, i took a number of classes dealing with Russian history. one of my Russian teachers actually was a member of the Romanov family and had gone into exile; so she had fascinating stories. i was entranced by the years leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and it's precursor in 1905. in my opinion the entire fault can be laid at the feet of the Romanov's.
there is a quote about
Tzar Nicholas II that explains my feelings on the point:
In reality, he was a weak and indecisive man dominated by his wife and isolated from the socio-economic problems of his own country.
though no one can attest to Barbara Bush being dominating, the rest of the quote hits home about the last eight years.
the only thing i see Tsar George being decisive about in the last eight years was going to Iraq. there is another parallel between George II and Nicholas II in this:
The Russians had no contingency plans for a partial mobilization, and on 31 July 1914 Nicholas took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilization. Nicholas was strongly counselled against mobilization of the Russian forces but chose to ignore such advice.
sound familiar?
so, hopefully, you can see why i have referred to Mr. Bush as
Tsar George Bushanov. not because of the autocracy he tries to enforce but because as George Santayana said,
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." [i even have it at the top right of this website...]
you may also be able to tell my connecting
Dick Rasputin as Tzar George's sidekick. you can read about
Grigori Rasputin and see the parallel's.
