The Madness of George (Guardian) [View All]

[kskiska]

The Bush campaign was once happy to use 'angry' as a term of abuse - but that was before the US public met Furious George, writes US political blogger Markos Moulitsas


The evolution of George Bush's persona over the past few weeks is startling for even the most casual observers. Only a short while ago, Bush was a strong, decisive leader and Kerry was a weak, flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal. The Bush campaign expected those images to carry them through the November elections: it had cost them more than $200m (£112m) to build those caricatures and they had every reason to expect a solid return on their investment.

But those images were built on a carefully crafted stage. Despite all the flaws in the US electoral process we still force the candidates to exit that bubble a handful of times during the election, and it is some credit to the system that those three 90-minute debates can still determine the fate of an election. This year, they have helped introduce the nation to Furious George.

Bush's political operators have worked overtime to make "angry" a pejorative term this political cycle. They wielded the "too angry" attack against Howard Dean in the primaries, when it seemed Dean would be the Democratic nominee, and it helped destroy Dean's candidacy. Republicans again shouted "too angry" to discredit Al Gore's series of impassioned anti-Bush speeches earlier this year.

The "too angry" claims successfully marginalised the content of those speeches - blistering indictments of an incompetent administration. But what happens when your best attack line is a double-edged sword?

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,15139,1325454,00.html