In the midst of a useful post on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of bringing back the word "Fink," (especially to describe Kings), the Anchoress writes some sentences that bear repeating:
So, by my lights, anyway, a king may be a fink, but not a president. A president, after all, must answer to his electorate.
That’s true, isn’t it, that a king rules, while a president leads? That a king demands service, while a president serves?
Hmmmmmm. Feels like lines are blurring, doesn’t it?
True: President Obama is the president, and not a king.
True: President Obama holds majorities in both houses of congress, and will soon own the SCOTUS as well.
True: President Obama has 32 “czars” working for and reporting directly to him, absent congressional oversight or accountability.
True: President Obama owns the press, who will do anything for him.
True: A president without checks and balances to rein him in or overrule him, with powerful minions answerable only to him, and with control of most information venues is a president who can decide he’s going to just do as he damn pleases, is an unprecedented sort of president.
True: A president who can arbitrarily decide to take taxpayer money by the greedy mittsful, without at least giving them a receipt – why, that’s a president who is barely acting like the leader of a republic at all. That’s a president who is acting more and more like…well…kinda like king.
And as we all know, “The King is a Fink.”