I saw this on
Americablog and it intrigued me enough to go read
the entire article.
In short it talks about how President Bush and, to a lesser extent, President Clinton declared things "unacceptable" as their political shit hit the proverbial fan.
[...]a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.
In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes "unacceptable" or "not acceptable" as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. They number 37 so far this year, as opposed to five in 2003, 18 in 2002 and 14 in 2001.
More below.
This next quote I think sums up the Bush presidency as well as the attitudes of most Republican pundits. Emphasis has been added
Using such a categorical term is not that surprising after a policy setback, according to Steven Kull, a political psychologist who directs the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. Some people deal with failures, Kull said, "by intensifying an authoritarian posture and insisting that their preferences are equivalent to a moral imperative."
To put it into further psychological terms, they are conflating their wants with needs and and lack the patience to get what they want through the normal processes.
The article also mentions Bill Clinton's use of the word when he began his troubles and it reflects a different set of priorities.
Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton -- often pilloried by Republicans as irresolute -- also labeled many events "unacceptable" or "not acceptable," particularly after the political tables turned against him. When Democrats controlled Congress in 1994, for example, he used those terms four times, according to transcripts of his public comments. In 1995, after his party lost control of both houses, Clinton used the terms 20 times; his annual usages thereafter fluctuated between eight and 22, but they totaled only 86 percent of Bush's usage in a comparable six-year period.
So, what did Bill Clinton call unacceptable? Mostly the social ills of America.
Clinton also used the label in denouncing poverty, crime, discrimination against women, inadequate health care, school violence, racial disparities and the actions of medical insurance companies. Abroad, he labeled as unacceptable the behavior of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein unacceptable on four occasions.
Go read the whole thing. It's an interesting analysis that can be applied to any leader to find out just how strong they are, even before polls begin to reflect it. The more they find something "unacceptable" the weaker they are.