Junto Boys

BUSH’S ANGER IN DEBATE II

Pundits seem most interested in Bush's insistence on responding to a Kerry point over Charles Gibson's direction. I've seen the clip many times now and can't make out if Gibson was trying to move on or if he was going to give Bush a moment. Either way, Bush wasn't going to take no for an answer. It's supposed to say something about his temperament, I think. Bush lost control!

We're living in a culture of big organizations. These organizations seem to value temperance over truth a little too much. Professionals are supposed to conduct themselves in certain dignified ways meaning that calm liars aren't wrong they just have a different point of view. But angry men who value truth are little too scary to be trusted. The calm ones are trusted with promotion. The vocal ones are held back.

Many professional politicians like Kerry have spent their lives kissing up to the power elite to get ahead. They're much more interested in the power than policy. They can calmly argue any point that they think has traction regardless of its real merit. After all, its part of the game they play to increase their power. Kerry has the luxury of indifference because he isn’t held accountable for anything. Think about all of the things he is now proposing as a Presidential candidate. How many of these ideas did he introduce as bills in his 20 year Senate career?

Bush was a businessman that was coaxed into politics and thought he might make a contribution and go back home. He has a boss’s point of view. When something is wrong he gets angry because he has ultimate responsibility. We’ve all seen this behavior in our own bosses. They don’t suffer fools or liars gladly.

It’s the overriding reason that Bush’s response to terrorism was so dramatically different than Clinton’s. Clinton loved the power and liked to use it, but he never accepted any responsibility for his actions or the results of his policies. Clinton felt more entitled to lead because of his brilliance. You never got the idea that he was bothered by anything more than his legacy.

Does anyone think that Kerry has a burning desire to get the terrorists? The fact that his statements and voting on terrorism have changed according to the politics of the time gives me the feeling that terrorism is just another political hurdle to jump in order to get a better job.

I don’t think Bush gives a damn what historians or the Washington elite think. He has his own standards and goals, namely killing terrorists. Even if Kerry says he's for exactly what we want him to be for, can we be sure that those issues will even be on his radar by inauguration?