Expecting Decorum of Bush = Derangement

I'm not sure what to say in response to John Cole, a blogger with whom I've exchanged many friendly emails and to whom I've spoken on the phone about a variety of issues. I always considered Cole one of the more respectful and judicious bloggers on the right. But something I wrote seems to have sent him over the top:

"[I]t does appear that some people (in this case, Daou), are deranged when it comes to the President. They may have a whole host of reasons to be angry at Bush (I sure do), but it doesn’t make them sound any less nuts when they write things like this.

So let’s clear some things up- Bush didn’t taunt a blind man. He playfully teased a reporter in a press conference about wearing sunglasses. Bush did not know (nor did Peter Daou, I wager), that Wallsten is legally blind."

What's odd is that the opening line of my post says this:

"Let me first say that Bush may not have known he was talking to a legally blind reporter when he engaged in this exchange..."

The post goes on to discuss something that I think is important to note about Bush's conduct as president, namely, his eagerness to clown around with reporters at the most serious occasions:

"Bush's clownish banter with reporters - which is on constant display during press conferences - stands in such stark contrast to his administration's destructive policies and to the gravity of the bloodbath in Iraq that it is deeply unsettling to watch. This may be impolitic, but wouldn't refraining from frat-style horseplay be appropriate for this man?"

I stand by that statement, and I challenge Cole to explain why it is appropriate for Bush to behave that way every single time he appears before the press.

As far as BDS, here are my thoughts on it:

"What exactly is Bush Derangement Syndrome? Is it the bitter feeling ordinary Americans feel when they see an administration trampling on civil liberties in the name of protecting them from an enemy it failed to defend against the first time around? (An enemy who must have watched in glee as an American city drowned while the federal government chased its tail.) Is it the outrage at a "leader" who has presided over the collapse of America's reputation? Is it fury at a White House that dishonors our military by launching a war based on blatant deceptions? Is it the resistance to the breakdown of the rule of law? Is it the refusal to wade into the ethical swamp of human rights violations in the name of fighting terror? Is it disgust and disbelief at reporters who act as administration stenographers? Most importantly, is Bush Derangement Syndrome a worldwide epidemic? After all, Bush is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the American public, and by a vast majority of the world's inhabitants.

Perhaps Bush Derangement Syndrome is what afflicts rightwing bloggers, eager as they are to defend policies so clearly antithetical to genuine conservatism that it would be grimly amusing if the stakes weren't so high. Members of this administration - hiding behind a tattered veil of self-ascribed nobility - are doing what so many other people in positions of power do: they are abusing that power. And rightwingers who should know better that to enable it do so out of sheer hatred for liberals, a hatred stoked by the Limbaughs and Coulters and Hannitys of this world and exacerbated by lily-livered mainstream reporters who willingly weave rightwing storylines. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders would rather focus-group cheap slogans than grab the bull by the horns and lead America out of this mess."