There is an OP-ED by Kristof in yesterday's New York Times. In invokes our need for a leader who can "get down to basics" and go "mano y mano" with a problem that we're having:
As Stephen Colbert observed about the oil spill: “We know if this was Reagan, he would have stripped to his skivvies, put a knife in his teeth, gone down there and punched that oil well shut!”
But let’s be realistic. Most presidents just won’t look that good in their skivvies. And some may accidentally swallow the knives. Thus, the need for a handsome king and queen to lead photo-ops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10kristof.htmlI have what I think is a pertinent suggestion and some questions: If we can't afford both a Queen and a King then maybe we can just hire one or the other as needed any any given time; kind of like Great Britain's de facto standard! Oh, if a candidate were a bisexual could they be both King and Queen? Oh, you know a lot of people are going to ask that question! What do the rest TSer's think? One or both? Hereditary or elected? Any suggestions as to who might make a good figurehead amongst our current crop of celebrities?
