(note: this post is now intended for the grandparent poster, after my initial assumption that the post above was agreeing with them)

Yes, a fitting name for an elected official who took the advice of both government and public service and used laws that had been available for a century to stop the spread of a virulent disease that actually, measurably, saved hundreds-to-thousands of lives. Laws that notably took power away from him and shunted it to the state’s chief medical officer, a public service, non-elected position.

And then in a classic dictator move, a few years after releasing that extraordinary use of power and bringing things back to normal, he had the absolute gall to resign and not continue his despotic reign, talk about cheek.

“Dictator Dan”, indeed.

The problem with names like that is that they use emotions to mask facts. “Dictator Dan” is as catchy as hell, don’t get me wrong. But it focuses entirely on the man, not the methods. If you want to actually change the methods, then go right ahead and and use all the democratic processes we’ve got in place to do so, and we’ve got plenty compared to actual dictatorships.

Having the media rant against Dan Andrews in this manner only sows discontent and strife. That on its own does nothing to improve the situation, in fact, it makes it much worse.