Meztiso

A lifelong Democrat that will occasionally vote Republican in order to punish them (the Democrats) for failing to provide me with candidates I find even minimally acceptable (to illustrate the level of my Party "loyalty", or the lack thereof) I have been fairly comfortable in my belief that George Bush III was a faint and inadequate shadow of his father thorughout his entire Presidency.

But last night while channel surfing I stumbled upon an interview of Preseident Bush by Wolf Blitzer (whom I detest) and was quite surprised.

Rather than the dull, "average" mouthpiece for the Neo-Conservatives, I discovered the President to be intelligent, articulate, very focused on National Priorities and not at all shy about ignoring Blitzers perpetual attempts at redirecting the discussion away from whatever message the President was making (which coincidentally was directly reflective of the questions Blitzer was asking.

I was VERY surprised. Also, to discover that his (for lack of a better way to say it) "emotional" center regarding the war in Iraq was exactly where mine is. As a former Marine, I become very concerned when they (in particular) are sent out on a dangerous and controversial mission (such as the war/occupation of Iraq) due to the possiblity of changing political winds negating whatever sacrifices they may be asked or ordered to make.

Given the "dicey" nature of the political & military situations regarding Iraq, President Bush seems (to me, at least) to be the very ideal of what I would have wanted in a President had I been sent to do this particular mission 20 years ago.

Very comforting to know that President Bush has the correct levels of awareness, expertise and concern for the American Warriors overseas, no matter what other opinions I may have of him in other political contexts.

- Rant on Blitzer Begins ...

A hyperactive, white-haired gadfly buzzing around the President like an incessant insect buzzing a constant drone complicated questions, as if demanding simple, one-word answers. And when the expected answer didn't come, another long drone would instantly begin. The only short answer that was appropriate for this bug was a hard "SLAP!" and the instant creation of the bloody smear of his soon-to-be forgotten remnants.

- Rant Ends ...

The President REALLY wanted to give full and complete answers to important and complicated questions, and while not "patient", he politely ignored the insect's buzzing (until there came a lull), said "excuse me" and then the President continued with his full and complete answer. Made me feel good to be an American.

Finally, I have noticed two instances in the last week where major media is referring to the President as "Mr. Bush". Once on CNN, and once on the national feed (ABC, I think) to my local AM talk radio station.

Has anyone else noticed this. Is this a "new" thing, or has it been happening all along. Even as a Democrat I am bothered by this, and what it may mean.

To disrespect the office of the Presidency in such a manner (much less the President himslef) particularly in a time of war, and to do so in such an underhanded and "subtle" manner (most people lack the ability to notice or interpret such things) really make me nervous.

Kremlinologists (students of the old Soviet Union) would analyse certain indicators in the Soviet media such as this, as they were sometimes predictors of where the political movements were going. They also demonstrated the power the Soviet media had (at the time) over the both the Soviet people, and it's government.

It bothers me to see parallels to that old and repressive regime, and I wonder not only if anyone else notices these things, but also if there is anything that can be done about it, given the "one-way" nature of mass-media.

bruiser

They've been using "Mr. Bush" ever since he became President. You shouldn't be surprised.

bry623

That's because he didn't really win in 2000.

Cellus

Ouch bry, why do you say that?

*pries open can of worms*

bry623

The politcal scene loves worms.