Bush the Blogger

The president is more frustrated than ever. Washington Post:

President Bush finds the world around him increasingly "unacceptable." In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems "unacceptable," including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions. [... A] survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence. In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes "unacceptable" or "not acceptable" as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. [...] Through a spokesman and then in a televised statement, he declared North Korea's claimed nuclear test "unacceptable" before and after it occurred Oct. 9. But he could also be heard on Jan. 9 lecturing students at an elementary school in Glen Burnie, Md., that their recent scores on math and reading proficiency tests were "unacceptable." [...] Bush's use of the term "reflects in some ways his frustration with a world that doesn't seem as amenable to his policies as he would like them to be," said Stanley A. Renshon, a political scientist at the City University of New York. Bush "has strong views; he believes in doing what is right. All of those things give an emotional force to his response" to events he often sees and describes without nuance. [...] Bush's targets expanded from 2003 to 2005 to include nine condemnations of "unacceptable" actions by Iraq and Iran, as well as the Social Security system and the administration's own response to the Katrina hurricane. This year, he has hurled the term "unacceptable" at actions by Iraqi insurgents and police, at supporters of a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and at a U.S. law making the degrading treatment of detainees a war crime. North Korea's planned firing of a missile was unacceptable, Bush said June 29; after Pyongyang fired several missiles July 4, Bush again labeled the action unacceptable on July 7 and July 10. He also deemed unacceptable the country's starving of its people, its use of concentration camps and its claimed nuclear test. Using such a categorical term is not that surprising after a policy setback, according to Steven Kull, a political psychologist who directs the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. Some people deal with failures, Kull said, "by intensifying an authoritarian posture and insisting that their preferences are equivalent to a moral imperative." [...] Moisés Naím, the editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine, said there is a relationship between "how strident and extreme" the language of many leaders is and how limited their options are. For Bush, Naím said, "this comes at a time when the world is convinced he is weaker than ever." Many foreigners think the United States is losing Iraq and are no longer in awe of U.S. military might, Naím said, and at home, Bush is so weak that Republican candidates are wary of appearing with him. "The world has noticed," Naím said. "What is happening is that a lot that was deemed unacceptable [by Bush] now has become normal and tolerable."
As his party is about to lose Congress and his popularity sinks to amazing lows, Bush finds himself immitating a curious species, railing against the wind like a crazy op-ed writer, or as we call it in 2006, a blogger.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hint: all you need to do

(#448)

is post the link in your diary and you can save everyone from having to read the same story twice: once in the flesh, than again with your ellipses and spin.

Since you've seized on Bush's use of the word "unacceptable" as being very significant, I wonder if you have tried Googling "Howard Dean Bush unacceptable" to see how often the Big Boss Man of the DNC has used the same term. Maybe you can show your work here %^>

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

Hint: the blue block of text

(#449)

is colored that way to signal that it comes from the linked source.

As for you trying to get me to do something for you: no.

Who are you? nt

(#464)

xxx

I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!

harley ? nt

(#468)

xxx

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

Yes?

(#470)

xxx

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

R U

(#472)

Username? Wait a tick... I just saw that Username answered a tech question over on another thread so he can't be you...Or could he?

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

I am he

(#475)

As you are he as you are me and we are all together. But I'm not 'username.'

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

Worst haiku doggerel ever?

(#557)

Username speaks not

Of who he truly is, but we here know

Fall rains bring out the mud.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

I am Elagabalus

(#480)

and you are Harley.

bad guess

(#756)

Let's see, some technical knowledge and hates Bush. IP aka jacob is my bet.

I think it's fun to guess the new identities. Take a crack at yours truly if you like.

Please don't take this question the wrong way,

(#1235)

but are you involved in the reproduction, fertility or development of sheep? If so, you might be this guy.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

Read my comment again

(#504)

You're wasting pixels by quoting extensively from the article you've linked to, and most here will simply read it. I for one am not interested in what you choose to leave out. We're big boys and girls and have a long enough attention span to read a whole WaPo article without you giving us the Reader's Digest condensed version.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

But it's the emphasis that can be put on the pulled quote,

(#513)

you might get bogged down in the unessentials.

Though I'd suggest the entrie WaPo article is unessential -- not to mention that as an A Section news article it is somewhat lacking in the vaunted MSM objectivity and is about as devoid of any substance as much of what passes for "news" these days.

I'd put it about on par with the story the Brad and Angelina's security squirrel attacked a photog, the latest on Britney Spears or Madonna's adoption woes.

Slight "diagreement, Ken

(#554)

Though I'd suggest the entrie WaPo article is unessential

Actually, I'd say it's down-right unacceptable. %^>

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

I for one

(#744)

am not interested in your quoting advice.

Touchy -

(#773)

suggesting a posssible newby. But I'm not giving you advice - just pointing out stylistic shortcomings %^> A pixel saved is a pixel earned.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

Not touchy, just ignoring your "advice."

(#777)

nt

Dean's Unacceptable

(#460)

is aimed at a single, all-encompassing unacceptable -- the President himself. Mr Bush's unacceptables appear to be proliferating: NK (missile tests, bomb), Iraq (insurgents, police, cut-and-runners) Iran, Social Security, his administration's response to Katrina... It's not the use of the word that's telling (however trivially); it's the frequency of its use. And the number of contexts in which it is used.

So we can take it you approve of the things

(#476)

Bush finds unacceptable?

Okay...

How did you get from Model 62's comment

(#484)

to your assumption?

The same way I got to the possibility - not an

(#489)

assumption on my part - that you also approve of these things.

Else, why would you post the Diary; why would he make the comment. The somewhat obvious implication is that Bush's stated disapproval is somehow wrong. Since neither of you explained what or why...

It's also an easy way for me to say much ado about nothing.

Somehow wrong, or somehow impotent,

(#493)

futile, Yosemite Sam, the reaction of a man not used to confronting the fallout of his own bad decisions who finds himself now finally, after getting bailed out time and again from one failed venture after another, facing music that he can't dance to? My reading of the article: the president fulminates because he's all out of thunderbolts.

M Aurelius was probably right.

I suppose one could look at that way if one wished.

(#498)

Some parents tell their children "That's unacceptable behavior." Then they give the kid a "time out." Both the wording and the effort seem sort of silly in my book. Opinions are like armpits, we all have a couple.

I suppose Bush could've said that he approved of those things, or he could've said he was neutral on them or he could have said absolutley nothing about them -- why do I suspect that whatever he did would bring the same criticism from the same people? Many of whom railed -- correctly -- about Clinton being unfairly accused of many things...

FWIW, I'm not convinced that as many ventures as you suspect have failed; nor am I at all sure he's out of thunderbolts and I'd suggest that saying something is unacceptable is possibly more polite than saying "...that's a stupid a$* thing to do..." Texans have difficulty converting to polite society -- well some anyway; my ex-wife comes to mind...

You're arguing with the wrong person,

(#530)

I was just translating the poster (and the Post -- for who can tell the poster from the Post?) in my own words. You asked whether criticizing Bush doesn't imply condoning Bush's enemies. As ever, the excluded middle fallacy is still a fallacy. I was just trying to point out exactly why in this case. Bush talks like a guy without a leg to stand on, is the gist of the article. Whether true or not, pointing that out doesn't make one Kim Jong Il's best buddy.

Texans have difficulty converting to polite society

You're telling me, heh.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Nope, not arguing with you, merely using you as a vehicle

(#548)

to make the point. I agree on fallacies -- which is my point in all this... :)

Seems odd to me to take one of the worlds acknowledged by everyone poor public speakers and try to raise an issue over his use of words. Not sure there's any there there.

Howsomeever, as I said elsewhere, psychobabble is always entertaining.

On the Texans, forgot you were /are one, I was really thinking about my ex and her rather wealthy and prominent relatives and a few nights at the Rivercrest Country Club where the polite veneer of society got stripped away. Whoosh, did it ever. :)

0 for 2. Jordan gets it right.

(#501)

nt

Actually, you're 0 for 0 and he, as usual, goes for the

(#507)

reflexive dig. However, if you two think this is really important or proves anything at all, please drive on. Saying that Bush is unable to "do anything" is obviously sort of specious but armchair psychology is always entertaining.

As I said, Bush having used that word or approving or a neutral stance would probably have provoked the same sorts of blather from the same people.

I don't think Bush cares much either way...

Nope, I was right

(#741)

See Model 62's post above.

As I said, armchair psych is always entertaining. Still, one

(#806)

has to ask, how important in the grand scheme of things is this?

Yeah, that's what I thought, too...

It's entertaining,

(#810)

which apparently was the reaction that Jordan, Model 62, Inigo, and kenb had as well.

So are you. Sort of. Entertaining, that is. Those guys

(#814)

are entitled to their opinion as are you to yours; you folks think 'unacceptable' is important or means anything, by all means hang on to it. Advertise it. Spread it widely...

Yep, entertaining. Mildly. Not a bunch.

Once more with feeling

(#835)

you folks think 'unacceptable' is important or means anything, by all means hang on to it. Advertise it. Spread it widely...

It's entertaining. Hence a post on a website.

Yet again with more clarity;

(#873)

Glad y'all are easily entertained :)

Forgive us...

(#875)

...for assuming that the words of a sitting president should be assigned some kind of value. I realize what an obsolete, naive concept this is, but old habits die hard.

Or maybe we should get a president who means what he says and says what he means. Just a thought. And a non-partisan thought at that, since Kerry certainly would not have qualified.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

Why should you beg for forgiveness? You're absolutely

(#889)

entitled to indulge in any foolish behavior you wish to partake of...

Old habits? I think not, that's a decidedly young habit. I'll give you naive, though. Old folks know to pay little attention to what any politician says.

As for one who says what he means and vice versa; good luck with that.

In the meantime, enjoy your entertainment...

foolish behavior Ken?

(#2184)

look in the mirror buddy.

http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

You're always so quick to defend the right... pretty partisan behavior if you ask me, from someone who claims to not be partisan. I never see you taking such bold defense of the left.

No Kidding. I'm STILL waiting. :) nt

(#2187)

xxx

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

You will have a long wait. Bernard once complimented you

(#2289)

for tenaciously fighting for what you believe in. I can agree but will point out that there's a fine line between tenacity and stubbornness... :)

It's one thing

(#2191)
aireachail's picture

for us to go at each other with snark and vinegar, and in that vein, I think the use of "retarded" is OK. But posting an image of a real kid that way crosses the line, in my opinion.

We can do better than that, dontcha' think?

i don't know

(#2382)

i mean, we let timmy post here after all.

that picture's been floating around the internet for years man. take it to the pc police.

Thanks for making my point. When your version of the

(#2273)

left behave sensibly, I'll defend them -- have done so, in fact. Just doesn't happen often. Clinton bashing for example was pretty stupid, still is and I've long said so.

I've also, as you may recall, never cliamed not to have an ideological bias, you contend that is partisan, I disagree. We should be able to do that without getting silly.

stubborn

(#2380)

you're just being stubborn. you are partisan. with all due respect, and i do respect you, your "above it all schtick" gets old.

Not as old as some <nt>

(#2385)

xxx

I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!

opinions vary

(#2391)

the only one that's really important to me is mine.

Amen. Well said <nt>

(#2399)

xxx

I'm trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I don't need to hear crap from a bunch of hippie freaks living in denial! Screw you guys, I'm going home!

and also Ken.

(#2389)

you really have no idea what my version of the left looks like.

amazingly enough it would probably be a version you would vote for.

But you go to the elections with the party you have right?

The only reson I'm a democrat is because they are socially liberal, which I value highly. Fiscally I have more in common with republicans (well not THESE republicans).

Nor, it appears do you have any idea what my version

(#2507)

of the right looks like. I based my comment on your attack dog comment style; if I lumped you in with the fringe, my apologies.

I go to elections and vote for the person I think best (or vote out the incumbent if it's a toss up or less) regardless of party.

I'm probably as socially liberal as you, though I may watch my language a little more closely in public. And I don't go out of my way to hack people off. Well, usually...

Fiscal moderate -- but I'll grant you these "Republicans" are something else. Nutty, I think is a good word...

As for the below, call it what you will, I dislike both parties about equally. As I said, I've never denied being overall right wing in ideology.

Oh, And I have no above the fray delusions, not one -- but I do try to be fair, ideology not withstanding...

No -nt

(#506)

nt

That's not the point...

(#515)

Approval and acceptability are not opposites. One can disapprove of something.

"Unacceptable", however, means that there is a state of affairs which cannot stand. It requires in order to have any meaning, that something be done about it. What is bush going to do about North Korea? Nothing. Hence in practice it is darned acceptable.

Bush renders himself shrill by claiming so many red lines when few in fact are as real or absolute as he seems to pretend.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

Thank you for the tutorial, I was certainly unaware of the

(#521)

difference between disapproval and unacceptability. I hope all the many parents -- and teachers -- in the US are aware of this distinction and realize that they are in fact telling our children that normal childlike behavior is totally beyond the pale, will not be tolerated and the punishment will be death if it again occurs?

Bush renders himself many things, all politicians do -- shrill is only one such thing. Politics seems to bring about a lot of pretensions of all sorts. One could also say politics engenders shrillness in fact.

The current thread being an example...

The DNC's "Plan":

(#503)

"Anybody But Bush." It keeps Dean and his acolytes from having to enunciate something coherent (always tough for him in any context) so it can be reviewed, critiqued and countered before the election. Instead, it's "We hate Bush with an irrational passion, and we're betting you do, too. Vote for us and we'll figure out how we're going to run the country if and when we're elected." IOW, it's The Plan again.

Didn't work for Kerry, didn't work for Dean, but maybe third time lucky.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

It seems to be working

(#509)

The Dems are in a pretty good position three weeks away from the election. Say what you will about the DNC, but they seem to be doing something right.

Also, anyone who expects an issues-oreinted campaign against the current crowd of Repubs is expecting too much.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Anyone who ever expected

(#522)

an issue-oriented campaign from the Dems is expecting too much, apparently.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

In 2006...

(#525)

...I would agree. Maybe we can look forward to an issues-oriented race in 2008. My guess would be we probably won't get one. I don't think the tribal political atmosphere currently in the country is going to dampen too much in the next two years, but hope springs eternal and all that.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

I think we'll get it

(#542)

only if we persistently demand it. I am not a fan of the Dems, But I'm objective enough to see many screw-ups and deviations from the basic principles of the Republican party by the present people in office. (A long list could follow, with Ted Stevens near the top.) I'll listen to an opposition platform that's meaningful and substantive, but it has to be more than "We're committed to get out of Iraq, and we'll come up with (or tell you) our plan after you elect us."

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson

That's the scariest thing about current politics:

(#571)

voting out the nitwits currently claiming to represent the GOP could well be taken as a mandate by their counterpart nitwits across the aisle. Whereas what I suspect most of us want at this point would be to get some grownups in charge for awhile. I have no idea how to resolve this issue except to say that it's a corollary of Ken's pendulum theory: you can't stop the pendulum from swinging back in the direction it was pushed from.

M Aurelius was probably right.

What's worse?

(#494)

Bush using the word "unacceptable" a lot, or the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons?

How about Bush being unable to do anything

(#497)

but fulminate about how unacceptable it is.

I do not think that word means what he thinks it means, etc.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Ack!

(#700)

He did it again. (See the first paragraph.) Gee, I wonder if the Post didn't sort of highlight that quote, just for giggles . . .

That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.

Hmmm

(#701)

This could make for a great new drinking game...