I willing to tolerate a lot if someone in Washington could just make up their goddamn mind. It’s why I hate the current lefty group. What the hell is the point of a non-binding resolution? That kind of limp shit should never be tolerated from LEADERS. Let the electorate ’send messages’. Leaders should lead. Find a principal and stick with it.

So a sort of pseudo-backlash. It would already occur anyways given the state of 2008, but combined with what else has been going on, America wants some decisiveness. America loved Bush when he was decisive, even though they didn’t particularly agree with what he wanted, like “Islam is a religion of peace”. They kept their disagreement below bellow level, because they did favor decisiveness.

Which sort of brings back to the point. I think what most people in the US wants is someone to dump on their enemies. Perhaps justification for why Bolton is popular amongst Americans but unpopular amongst the DC crowd. Bolton doesn’t make deals, he doesn’t appease, so politicians cannot control him, and if they can’t control him then they might as well try to stymie Bush, his boss.

I like it to the Shia backlash. After a couple of years of getting stepped on and told be “calm”, eventually things will crack. Eventually the patience of folks will disappear, if not naturally, then artificially due to enemy attacks.

I think at the root of all the debates about honest Presidents and what not, is that people don’t want the President to be their enemy, they don’t want him to work at cross purposes to him. So since a dishonest President is a hard nut to crack concerning whether he is working for you or not, naturally people want an honest person. But then the Islamic JIhad showed their cut, all over. The quality of being mean and hitting the enemy hard, now overcomes any personal fear simply because people know that if the President has to focus all his energy rage on the enemy, he might be more lenient on his countrymen.

So on that basis, Bush’s approval would be a lot higher if he killed more terrorists in public and burned their bodies, regardless of his soft domestic behavior towards Democrats, Plame, Wilson, that other guy, Sandy, and etc. But if the President doesn’t give Americans the red meat, people begin to question what good he is, what “has he done for me lately”.

People want to hurt their enemies and reward their allies. It just so happens that in politics, their “allies” include themselves. So long as a President doesn’t tell a lie, but also doesn’t tell the whole truth, I think people in the US can tolerate him if he uses that trait to blow up the enemies of the US, humiliate them, and make them beg for mercy. I think people will tolerate a lot, for that end.