Howard Bush or Muskie Moment, Part II

I'm always impressed with the Marvin's prescience. Back in January he wrote about Dean's post-Iowa "meltdown." What's interesting is how easily his January post can be made applicable to Dubya's St. Louis debate performance (particularly his audience hectoring and near Gibson takedown):

Did you hear/see [George Bush's] Smackdown moment [during] the [St. Louis debate]? I heard it on the radio. NPR was playing snippets of the top three candidates, and I was halfway paying attention. Then came this [persistent] screaming, and I glanced at the radio. "That was [George Bush]?" I wondered.

People are talking about it. A short article in [Reuters] quoted [George Mason] political scientist who labeled it ["angry"]. [cut]

Seriously, I think that this is worth 5-7% in the [election]. It's as if [Bush] tried to confirm every stereotype the public has about him by going tomatohead up there. He really IS mean, people are thinking.

Senator Edmund Muskie's bid for the White House ended when it appeared as though he was crying while taking questions from reporters about his wife's mental illness. Muskie, I think, always insisted that he wasn't crying; the snow was getting in his eyes. [Bush's angry] pump up the volume performance may well have ended his [chances] for the same reason; voters don't like to see emotional instability in their Chief Executive, even in this post-I feel your pain era.

But hey, when God closes one door; he opens another. [Bush] may yet have a vibrant future in the WWF.

Do I think Bush's angry performance has made this election a cakewalk for Kerry? Of course not. But the key point is what Marvin wrote in January: "Voters don't like to see emotional instability in their Chief Executive."

Emotional instability.

Describes George W. Bush precisely.