Proof that there should be a mandatory basic skills test for President

[cainxinth]

Fark posted a link to this calendar ( http://www.bushcalendar.com/examples/example1.htm) of Bush quotes. Here are a few choice selections:

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power to power the power of generating plants."

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it."

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."

And the most frightening of them all:

"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something."
-When asked in an interview to name something he's not very good at

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

[tomndebb]

Sorry. I think that he is an intellectually lazy (as opposed to stupid) tool of big business, but a propensity for tripping over his own tongue should not be a statutory barrier to office. If he can get the vote of five Supreme Court justices, he gets to be president. Let it go and move on.

[Lobsang]

No. He's an idiot.

[Hickory6]

I'm just happy to to have someone in there who knows what the meaning of "is" is.

It's also nice to finally have a Vice President who's figured out that he is HIMSELF a "controlling legal authority."

[Max Harvey]

The worst was "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." Not the mangled syntax so much, but that it was a blatant lie. He doesn't know how hard it is to feed a family.

[friedo]

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."


What's wrong with that? There are two continents full of countries that the US imports things from that are not, in fact, overseas.

Although I suppose most things from South America go by boat.

[Lobsang]

When you put your pedantic head on there is nothing wrong with the statement friedo

But I assure you bush wasn't refering to the fact that some imports come from land-bordered countries. he was in fact being stupid.

[hansel]

Originally posted by cainxinth
"More and more of our imports come from overseas."In fairness to the Shrub (who I think is nearly too stupid to be president), there's nothing stupid about this line. Canada and Mexico are huge trading partners for the U.S.; Bush's assertion means simply that the balance of imports is shifting away from those two.

Or did you think that Canada and Mexico are somehow "overseas"?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How about when he asked the president of Brazil, "Do you have black people too?" This was not just garbled syntax or a malapropism, it was a dumbass thing to say.

[cainxinth]

Sorry I managed to mangle that as well, it should read:
"It's clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."

[pkbites]

I wonder when he's going to tell the Germans that he's a Jelly Donut? Or refer to former President Hoover Heever. Or pick a dog up by it's ears. Or bonk someone in the head with a golf ball while falling down an airplane companion way.

C'mon, every President has done/said goofy shit. Give the dork a break.





















Hey, I helped put him there, I can make fun of him!:p;)

[cainxinth]

"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something."
-When asked in an interview to name something he's not very good at

That's not just goofy shit, thats our most important public policy figure telling us that reading indepth public policy isn't one of his strong points. Is the Whitehouse drawing up fow charts with pictures and cue cards for him?

[cainxinth]

*flow charts

(some nights nothing goes right)

[SPOOFE]

But I assure you bush wasn't refering to the fact that some imports come from land-bordered countries. he was in fact being stupid.
Yeah, I can make uneducated conclusions and not ever consider the possibility that I might be wrong, too.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
How about when he asked the president of Brazil, "Do you have black people too?" This was not just garbled syntax or a malapropism, it was a dumbass thing to say. Or maybe it wasn't said at all. From Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/brazil.htm):

This items sounds like, at best, a second-hand account recounted months after the fact, one which to many seems a little too perfectly ironic in that, of all the people present at the meeting, it has Condoleezza Rice intervening and fixing up Bush's embarrassing inquiry (a black woman with superior knowledge coming to the aid of a "racist" white man in trouble).

[...snip...]

So, what this issues boils down to is a non-specific, single-source item, one which the Washington Post has the White House dismissing as "total crap." Lacking anything more to go by, we have to leave this one in the "undetermined" column.Regarding the rest of them, whether he said them or not, it will be difficult ever to top this classic from Clinton: "That depends on what your definition of is is."

[Shodan]

I also heard the "imports from overseas" remark attributed to Quayle.

Regards,
Shodan

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Regarding the rest of them, whether he said them or not, it will be difficult ever to top this classic from Clinton: "That depends on what your definition of is is."

That wasn't really a mark of stupidity, that was a shamless attempt to cover his ass.

[Gyrate]

What irks me about this whole "How stupid is Bush?" debate is not the argument about whether a few ineptly worded remarks are evidence of intellectual weakness, but rather that, having been characterized as the Forest Gump of the White House, every time he manages to walk and chew gum at the same time without falling over someone uses it as evidence that he's got the brainpower needed to be president.

There is a lot of ground on the intelligence scale between "vegetable" and "Einstein", and just because Bush isn't one doesn't make him the other. I have serious doubts about his ability to understand the requirements of his post to the degree that he needs to, but I don't think he's incapable of basic day-to-day bodily functions.

Frankly, given that the US may be going to war for the purpose of gaining votes for the Republicans and oil rights for George's cronies, whether or not the President can form a coherent sentence is not high on my worry list right now.

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by cainxinth
"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something."
-When asked in an interview to name something he's not very good at

If those books are written anything like some of my college textbooks, I'm not suprised.

[Sofa King]

If he can get the vote of five Supreme Court justices, he gets to be president. Let it go and move on.

I think tomndebb should be President. That's just beautiful, man.

[xenophon41]

I think tomndebb should be President.
I second the nomination and move that the question be carried to committee. All in favor?

[Early Out]

What's distressing is the feeling I get that, were it not for family money and, more important, connections, GWB would be selling Winnebagos in Waco.

[Sofa King]

Oh, the heck with that. Let's just throw it into court and settle it straight away.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Michael Ellis
If those books are written anything like some of my college textbooks, I'm not suprised.

I don't know what books you're reading but my political science course work has been invaluable and enlightening. We aren't assigned textbooks, we mostly read the actual documents in question. I ask again, what the hell is Bush reading, Cliff's Notes?

[Michael Ellis]

Originally posted by cainxinth
I don't know what books you're reading but my political science course work has been invaluable and enlightening.

I've had a couple of texts that define the concept of "by experts, for experts."

Enlightening as they were, they weren't exactly 'sit down and read by the fireside' books.

[Guinastasia]

What about during his campaign:

"They (I'm assuming he means the Democrats, but I could be wrong) want the federal government to take care of Social Security-like it's some kind of federal program!"

Jesus wept.

[SPOOFE]

I note that a lot of the quotes attributed to President Bush automatically assume that he was being 100% serious, and is devoid of a sense of humor.

But, then again, I never saw a lot of those aforementioned quotes live, myself.

[pesch]

Yep, he's dumb all right. A real simpleton. A fool who runs against a popular vice-president who had an eight-year headstart, yet in the end was unable to win his own state. A nitwit who stands up to the racist and corrupt in the United Nations and tells them that they should either stand behind their own resolutions about Iraq. A clown who doesn't listen to the yammering of pundits ("Afghanistan will be our next Vietnam."), proceeds at his own pace, and gets the job done. An idiot who maintains a 60 percent approval rating.

Yes, I don't agree with his domestic policies. He shouldn't be sitting on Reagan's papers and Cheney's minutes of the meetings with all their energy buddies. I wish he'd clean out the State Department officials who let in Atta and his boys, and recently awarded themselves bonuses for services to the country.

Stupid? I don't think so.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by pesch
Yep, he's dumb all right. A real simpleton. A fool who runs against a popular vice-president who had an eight-year headstart, yet in the end was unable to win his own state. A nitwit who stands up to the racist and corrupt in the United Nations and tells them that they should either stand behind their own resolutions about Iraq. A clown who doesn't listen to the yammering of pundits ("Afghanistan will be our next Vietnam."), proceeds at his own pace, and gets the job done. An idiot who maintains a 60 percent approval rating.

Do you think the guy who beat Gore and the guy with that approval rating is the same guy making all those calls, or just a pretty face with a good last name and a charismatic buddy quality? I had the chance to hear William Saphire speak about the President and Iraq. Saphire loves Bush, likened him to Reagan who he's also fond of, but mentioned that from where he's sitting it seems like Rumsfeld is running the show and Cheney is backing him up, Powell is the devil's advocate and Rice has no real opinions of her own, she just acts as a translator to Bush. Saphire was a lot kinder with his words, but that was his message.

If you think the conservative worldview is the way to go Bush is you're guy no doubt about it, but it will take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that there is more than a dozen watts behind those glassy eyes. I had to accept that even though I liked much of Clinton’s policy choices the man was still a lying pervert; maybe you should accept that even though you like many of Bush’s policies the man’s not the sharpest crayon in the box.

[cainxinth]

sorry that was a little intense, its been a long day.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally posted by cainxinth
sorry that was a little intense, its been a long day.

Also a tad embarrassing to read (said the ardent Shrub-disdainer).

It's Safire.

[cainxinth]

What can I say, I have perpetual foot-in-mouth disease. I apologize. However, could you tell me what was embarrassing about the opinion, or were just refering to the faux pas.

[Zoe]

I kind of think that coherence should be a requirement for being the leader of the free world. Is that too much to ask?

[chula]

cainxinth, I think your post made perfect sense. Except for calling Bill a pervert. If enjoying blow-jobs makes you a pervert... well, I guess I don't have to finish that sentence. ;)

[Early Out]

Originally posted by chula
If enjoying blow-jobs makes you a pervert...

...then the Islamic fundamentalists have already won!

[Baldwin]

I wonder when he's going to tell the Germans that he's a Jelly Donut?

That's another myth. (Which I could swear had been covered in the SD, but I can't find it.)

Probably a lot of stupid sayings have been falsely attributed to Bush, but I've heard him enough to find signs of genuine dimness.

When Bush was a candidate, you'll recall a reporter quizzed him on world leaders, and George didn't do too well. When asked if he knew the name of a particular leader, he testily replied, "No, do you?" This shows both ignorance and lack of wit, since he was setting himself up for one of two replies: "Yes, it's So-and-So", or "No, but then I'm not telling people I'm qualified to be leader of the free world."

[In Conceivable]

So, Bush said a few stupid things. Slipped up a few times during a public speech. He would fail a basic skills test. See his stupid quotes.

cainxinth does that mean you think Al Gore is stupid too?

http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html


"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.

Gore called The Washington Post's executive editor to tip him off on an ''error'' in the paper. ''I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down on the front page of the paper,'' Gore said. (Source: Florida Times Union 4/3/98 )

Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took place in a Buddhist temple: "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist temple."

"When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."
(Source: NY Times, 08/12/00)

Oct. 25 2000 JACKSON, Tenn. (Reuters) — Criticizing Bush's Social Security privatization plan at a rally in Tennessee, Gore said, "He is proposing to privatize a big part of Social Security and he's proposing to take $1 trillion, a million billion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund and give it as a tax incentive to young workers."

"Who are those guys????"
Al Gore, pointing to the busts of George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, during a tour of the museum at Monticello prior to the 1992 inauguration.


Or how about Clinton?


"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
President William Clinton addressing the people of Philadelphia, May 28, 1993

"The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." President Bill Clinton, campaigning October 17, 1996


My point is that everyone says stupid things sometimes. Try making several public appearances/speeches a day. Get someone to record them. See how many times you make a mistake.

If you are going to call the man stupid find a real reason.

[Sauron]

You know, it would be refreshing if political idealogues from either end of the spectrum wouldn't be such blatant examples of the very problems they choose to examine in the leaders they lampoon.

cainxinth, if you're gonna harp on verbal statements by Bush and hold them up as examples of his inability to lead the country, then perhaps it would behoove you to pay more attention to what you write on a message board. Presumably you have more time to compose your thoughts than a man speaking extemporaneously, so the multiple mistakes in your posts blunt the message you're trying to send.

I'm not normally a stickler for grammatically correct writing on the boards, but if you're gonna make fun of someone else for doing essentially the same thing, make sure your excrement is in order first.

[cainxinth]

Sauron,

a) I'm not the President of the most powerful nation in the world
b) I don’t have speechwriters and aides who work furiously to make me sound good
c) I'm speaking off the cuff on a public message board, not making a public address or answering questions from the press

I spelled Safire with a ph, it was stupid, so sue me. In all truth I don’t even read his column that often, I prefer Friedman and Dowd as you can imagine. I went to see Safire speak because I thought it would be valuable to hear the hawk point of view from an intelligent and accomplished person, much of the reason I discuss politics here. And, if you think you have seen the last embarrassing mistake from me, think again, but like I said, at least I have no plans to run for office.

In Conceivable,

I would argue that his deficit spending scheme is boneheaded, but I already said that I don’t believe it's entirely his scheme. If that is the case then Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't pick him out for his critical thinking skills, they chose him because he could win and because he wouldn't throw any curveballs at them, much less upset their policies.

Also, Gore has written a 400+ page book on public policy that has received some quite favorable reviews. Bush is telling us he can't even read one. And, are there many other Clinton and Gore verbal gaffes? Bush has been in office two years and they already managed to fill a daily calendar!

[Shodan]

cainxinth -

If you are allowed to attribute quotes to people that they never made, it takes no time at all to fill up a calendar.

Yes, there are lots more Clinton and Gore gaffes. And Ford, and Bush Sr., and Nixon, and Johnson, and every other President.
"No sane person wants the war (in Viet Nam), and the President doesn't either." - Hubert Humphrey, 1965

These people talk for a living. It isn't possible to speak for a full day and not make some mistakes, for anybody. If the press wants to make you look stupid, they can, and they will.

Perhaps we can invoke a version of Gaudere's Law here, but apply it to verbal gaffes instead of spelling mistakes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sauron]

Originally posted by cainxinth
a) I'm not the President of the most powerful nation in the world

Granted. However, in this thread you aren't questioning Bush's ability to be President (at least not directly); you're pointing out mistakes he's made in public appearances. As an analogy, you're saying that Bush had his zipper down during a speech while your pants are around your ankles. Tend to your own garden before trying to pull up weeds in someone else's.

b) I don’t have speechwriters and aides who work furiously to make me sound good

I'm guessing (and I freely admit this is a guess) that the remarks you've attributed to Bush were made during question-and-answer sessions, or were otherwise somewhat extemporaneous. One can be a brilliant deliverer of speeches (not that I'm saying Bush is) and yet fall flat when engaging in the give-and-take of repartee. So saying Bush has a stable of speechwriters is a moot point if he wasn't giving a speech at the time.

c) I'm speaking off the cuff on a public message board, not making a public address or answering questions from the press

What, so it's okay to be sloppy in your communication skills? As has been pointed out here multiple times, on these boards all we have as a guideline for dealing with others is what's written on the screen. If you're going to point out inconsistencies in someone's skill at delivering a message, you'd better make sure you don't suffer from the same deficiencies.

As information, I don't agree with many of Bush's current actions or policies. I've got no problem with lancing the festering boil of idiocy. But you're mashing the blackhead of banality. It's trivial. Give it a rest.

[cainxinth]

Alright, I was taking cheap shots at Bush, and doing a poor job of it at that. I'll let it rest, but I am still amazed that some people think he's an intelligent person.

[december]

Originally posted by cainxinth
"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something." cainxinth, it's been pointed out that Republican leaders are often called stupid. The standards are ever-shifting, but the conclusion is the same: George W. Bush with degrees from Harvard and Yale is "stupid" because he sometimes makes verbal gaffes and "doesn't like reading a book on public polcy." Ronald Reagan, who did like reading books on public policy and who gave radio addressess on the topic, is stupid because he went to a little-known college. Yale Law School graduate Gerald Ford is stupid because he looks like a Big Ten football lineman. (He was an outstanding one.) Dwight Eisenhower, who led the free world to victory in Europe in WWII, was stupid because he smiled a lot and didn't say too much. Having a stupid Republican is handy, so there's always a convenient target for what were called moron jokes when I was a kid.

Also, believe it or not, some leaders choose to appear stupider than they are. E.g., Eisenhower biographies show that although he maintained a bland demeaner and spoke vaguely, he was a shrewd and cunning political strategist. That shouldn't be surpirsing, givin his success as a military leader. I have read that in his first political race in Texas George W. Bush was hurt by his Ivy League background. I believe he also sets out not to appear overly smart.

In the past Republicans tried the same thing with Harry Truman. It boomeranged. Truman's down-home image helped his popularity. I believe that history will give high marks to "stupid" Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and George W. Bush.

[cainxinth]

december, I think your reading a little much into what I said. Who said anything about Republicans in general. I was referring very specifically to Bush.

[Zoe]

Sure, anyone can flub lines and say stupid things when under pressure. But I think that it is very possible that the President's advisors discourage him from having many press conferences because he is really not very bright and screws up in the worst way. His mistakes aren't just slips of the tongue. I could overlook that. But I think it goes a lot deeper.

As for how he got through Harvard and Yale, I do not know. Maybe he had infuential friends. Maybe he cheated. But I do know that it doesn't speak well for either of those universities.

I agree that Eisenhower was not a stupid man. But I don't think that he came across as being stupid -- just down to earth.

original quote from december:
Ronald Reagan, who did like reading books on public policy and who gave radio addressess on the topic, is stupid because he went to a little-known college.

No, that's not why he was stupid.

[Asylum]

Originally posted by Zoe
As for how he got through Harvard and Yale, I do not know. Maybe he had infuential friends. Maybe he cheated. But I do know that it doesn't speak well for either of those universities.Or, maybe, possibly, he went to class, studied and did well enough on the tests to get passing grades. Wacky, off the wall possiblility, but hey, maybe.

[Zoe]

Original quote by Asylum:

"Or, maybe, possibly, he went to class, studied and did well enough on the tests to get passing grades. Wacky, off the wall possiblility, but hey, maybe."

Yeah, and maybe he was on a spy on a secret mission in the Middle East during the time that he was AWOL from the National Guard. ;)

[Max Torque]

Originally posted by Asylum
Or, maybe, possibly, he went to class, studied and did well enough on the tests to get passing grades. Wacky, off the wall possiblility, but hey, maybe.

Or maybe about half the grades given out at Harvard are As or A-minuses (http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/11/22/harvard.grades.ap/) and 91 percent of Harvard's 2001 class graduated with honors (http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/19/harvard.grade.inflation.ap/). To me, that says that good grades are not necessarily an indicator of good performance, but getting mediocre grades in such a system is absolutely frightening.

[december]

Originally posted by Max Torque
Or maybe about half the grades given out at Harvard are As or A-minuses (http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/11/22/harvard.grades.ap/)... getting mediocre grades in such a system is absolutely frightening. Max, you didn't read far enough in your cite. It says, "a steep increase from just 10 years earlier". The current grade-inflation system was not in effect when W was an undergraduate.

BTW Gore's grades were even worse than Bush's. So were McCain's.

[Mtgman]

What you've just witnessed is the classic Straw Man execution as only december can manage it. No one, in this entire thread, was drawing conclusions along partisan lines. In fact, the discussion was pretty much the opposite. People pointed out that people in general, politicians of every stripe, look dumb sometimes. The OP was being refuted along the best kind of lines when trying to fight ignorance. The assertion that a basic skills test should be mandatory for Presidents on the grounds that a current President commits verbal snafus was failing miserably under counterpoints like Shodan made "These people talk for a living. It isn't possible to speak for a full day and not make some mistakes, for anybody."

Then december comes in here and repeats the same arguement he's losing in Great Debates at the moment (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2550371#postid=2550371). He's decided there is a common belief that "Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots" and he's railing against it at every opportunity. Since no one he's been conversing with on the SDMB seem to be supporting the proposition he's arguing against, he's off base here. The "common myth" he's so annoyed with doesn't seem to exist, yet he posts things like his post in this thread.

He's kicking the stuffing out of those straw men though!

Enjoy,
Steven

[clayton_e]

Originally posted by In Conceivable
My point is that everyone says stupid things sometimes. Try making several public appearances/speeches a day. Get someone to record them. See how many times you make a mistake.

If you are going to call the man stupid find a real reason.

We all say stupid things, but Bush seems to have said way more than his share of them or there would not be books of them published (btw I find those books very amusing/sad).

And my favourite "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"

[Asylum]

Originally posted by clayton_e
We all say stupid things, but Bush seems to have said way more than his share of them or there would not be books of them published (btw I find those books very amusing/sad). Yeah, but does that make him an idiot and/or unfit to President? There are plenty of verifiable reasons to think Bush is a poor President, so instead of trying to make him fit your* unverifiable conceptions why not harp on those instead?

Regardless of what mtgman says, there's an undercurrent of partisanship in this whole thread in spite of people trying to disprove this poplular insult using reason. I'm sure there are exceptions but I honestly think people believing Bush is an idiot is primarily based on left-wing biases just as I think that people believing Clinton was going to turn the White House into a drug den was primarily based on right-wing biases.

*"Your" being general not specific.

[Skid Row]

{sort of a hijack}

Son of a Bush was skewered on "The Daily Show" the night following his ascension:

Clip of Dubya: I was not elected to serve the democratic party or the republican party.

Jon Stewart: You were not elected.

Priceless!

{You may now return to the thread.}

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Mtgman
The OP was being refuted along the best kind of lines when trying to fight ignorance. The assertion that a basic skills test should be mandatory for Presidents on the grounds that a current President commits verbal snafus was failing miserably under counterpoints like Shodan made "These people talk for a living. It isn't possible to speak for a full day and not make some mistakes, for anybody."

I did mention Bush’s aversion to scholarly reading as indicator of his lack of intelligence. That’s no gaffe. Also, it seems no one refutes that Bush isn’t the mastermind behind the game plan he’s been playing. I’m sorry but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the President can read and determine his own foreign policies.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Asylum
there's an undercurrent of partisanship in this whole thread in spite of people trying to disprove this poplular insult using reason. I'm sure there are exceptions but I honestly think people believing Bush is an idiot is primarily based on left-wing biases just as I think that people believing Clinton was going to turn the White House into a drug den was primarily based on right-wing biases.

People believed the Clinton Whitehouse was a house of ill repute because the man was a lying scumbag that took advantage of an intern. There is no partisan fallacy there. Likewise, people think Bush is the village idiot because he isn't extremely knowledgeable about most policy issues, nor does he claim to be. For Christ’s sakes, one of his campaign promises was to surround himself with people who did know what the hell they were doing.

[Shodan]

...it seems no one refutes that Bush isn’t the mastermind behind the game plan he’s been playing.
Anyone can make up accusations about Bush, and many do.

You need to present some evidence that Bush isn't in charge of foreign policy. All that stuff about the burden of proof, you know.

And a calendar of quotes, some of which have been attributed to various politicians for the last forty years, does not constitute evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

[cainxinth]

Well we've already ruled out the calendar, that leaves my second premise, that Bush is merely an instrument to his administration. I offered William Safire as an expert witness, and I mentioned Bush's campaign promise, but there's probably more evidence if I dug further. But, in the reverse, can you prove that he is running the show?

[Asylum]

cainxinth, I was referring to the whole "didn't inhale" deal before he actually came into office. Rebublicans tried to use that as a an example of his lack of morals and the Dems played it down. The roles were reversed on Bush's DUI.

Both situations involved events that happened years ago and both sides tried to spin it to their benefits based on partisan politics. I have no doubt that's the motivation for most people trying to prove Bush has a low IQ. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[december]

Originally posted by cainxinth
But, in the reverse, can you prove that he is running the show? Bush recruited and selected his foreign policy team. IMHO Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are outstanding. That didn't just happen.

The "Galloping Meatball Theory" suggests that if a meatball gets a top job, s/he will choose assistants who are also meatballs; they will choose meatballs for their assistants, etc., and pretty soon you've got meatballs galloping throughout the organization. This theory has examples in the private sector and in government.

Bush's choices reflect very well on Bush himself.

BTW I'd rather have a President who sets good overall goals and has a strong staff to carry out his decisions. Compare this approach with Jimmy Carter who edited his subordinates' memos or Lyndon Johnson, who personally picked out bombing targets in Vietnam. These Presidents "hands on" approaches led to foreign policy disasters.

[cainxinth]

So the fact that his cabinet is composed primarily of chums of his father (who is very acomplished and quite intelligent) had nothing to do with it?

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Asylum
I have no doubt that's the motivation for most people trying to prove Bush has a low IQ. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I normally never do this, but cite?

[Asylum]

You have to be kidding me. After you read these cites I'd like to see some cites proving he has a low IQ.

White House Bio (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.C'mon. Even if he got "Gentlemen's C's" I find it hard to believe that not only would Yale pass him, but Harvard would hand him a masters degree. There's a bit more effort involved in post-graduate work that someone with a low IQ would have trouble doing in a normal school, if not a an Ivy League institution. The arguments brought against his education are what I find the most staggering: it's Ivy League, they do wash people out, and if Bush was an idiot they would have washed him out, Congressman father or no.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm)Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics. They don't usually let people with low IQ's fly jets in the National Guard. And please don't give me any crap about him having the lowest acceptable grade. I'm sure the cut off point is above the moron level.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/advanced.htm)* again. This is an article about Gore's education, but it talks about Bush's SAT score.Bush's 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 mathNot stellar, but far above moron, and dare I say it, at least above average.

Now. How about some cites proving Bush has a low IQ?

*I couldn't get the link to work right, so if you wish to view the article type in "verbal 566" and set the dates searched to include March 19, 2000. It's $2.50 to read the article. Or you could just search the web where there are numerous less reputable sources that'll cite the same information. I just went for the big guns.

[Asylum]

You have to be kidding me. After you read these cites I'd like to see some cites proving he has a low IQ.

White House Bio (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html)He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School.C'mon. Even if he got "Gentlemen's C's" I find it hard to believe that not only would Yale pass him, but Harvard would hand him a masters degree. There's a bit more effort involved in post-graduate work that someone with a low IQ would have trouble doing in a normal school, if not a an Ivy League institution. The arguments brought against his education are what I find the most staggering: it's Ivy League, they do wash people out, and if Bush was an idiot they would have washed him out, Congressman father or no.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm)Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics. They don't usually let people with low IQ's fly jets in the National Guard. And please don't give me any crap about him having the lowest acceptable grade. I'm sure the cut off point is above the moron level.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/advanced.htm)* again. This is an article about Gore's education, but it talks about Bush's SAT score.Bush's 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 mathNot stellar, but far above moron, and dare I say it, at least above average.

Now. How about some cites proving Bush has a low IQ?

*I couldn't get the link to work right, so if you wish to view the article type in "verbal 566" and set the dates searched to include March 19, 2000. It's $2.50 to read the article. Or you could just search the web where there are numerous less reputable sources that'll cite the same information. I just went for the big guns.

[cainxinth]

>>it's Ivy League, they do wash people out, and if Bush was an idiot they would have washed him out, Congressman father or no.<<

You are obviously not very familiar with the state of university education today. Sure they wash kids out, but not students that make big financial donations or are connected to important people (like say the head of the CIA). Those kids can get into and graduate from Ivy’s with no difficulty. I know kids who never even took their SAT’s, who couldn’t name all 50 states, that have graduated from UPenn and other top schools.

>>They don't usually let people with low IQ's fly jets in the National Guard. And please don't give me any crap about him having the lowest acceptable grade. I'm sure the cut off point is above the moron level.<<

Since when is high IQ correlated to the ability to fly a plane. All you need is a pilot’s license and Bush barely got that.

>>Bush's 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 math<<

I can’t prove it’s the case for Bush, but many wealthy students get tutored for the SATs. For $1000 the Princeton Review with guarantee 100 to 150 point increase. It’s a big controversy because it puts lower class students at a disadvantage. The really wealthy can spend upwards of $20,000 in private tutors for a single standardized test. Given Bush’s elitist upbringing, and his grooming for success in business and politics it’s likely he was tutored, and he only managed to break 1200.

[cainxinth]

>>Now. How about some cites proving Bush has a low IQ? <<

Is Our Children Learning? : The Case Against George W. Bush by Paul Begala (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743214781/ref=ase_scottsupakbaldmo/002-0352874-5017672)

He was a poor student who somehow got into the finest schools. He was a National Guardsman who somehow missed a year of service. He was a failed businessman who somehow was made rich. He was a minority investor who somehow was made managing partner of the Texas Rangers. He was a defeated politician who somehow was made governor. You can hardly blame him for expecting to inherit the White House.

"Is Our Children Learning?" examines the public life and public record of George W. Bush and reveals him for who he is: a man who presents the thinnest, weakest, least impressive record in public life of any major party nominee this century; a man who at every critical juncture has been propelled upward by the forces of wealth, privilege, status, and special interests who use his family's name for their private gain.

A Texan, political analyst, strategist, and partisan, Paul Begala has written a devastating assessment of the Bush brand of politics.

Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush by Molly Ivins, Lou Dubose (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375757147/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-0352874-5017672)

"Youthful political reporters are always told there are three ways to judge a politician," write Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose in Shrub. "The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record." The record under scrutiny in this brief, informative book belongs to one George W. Bush--dubbed "Shrub" by Ivins--governor of Texas and 2000 presidential hopeful. These two veteran journalists know how politics are played in Texas and they've done their homework, writing a comprehensive examination of Bush's professional and political life that's a lively read, to boot. And if the title alone doesn't convey their particular slant, perhaps the following caveat from the introduction will: "If, at the end of this short book, you find W. Bush's political résumé a little light, don't blame us. There's really not much there. We have been looking for six years."

Beginning with his admission to the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War (where he bypassed a waiting list of about 100,000), the authors go on to deconstruct his losing congressional bid, his failed career as an oil executive, and his role as managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, revealing how he was helped every step of the way by wealthy and influential friends of the family. Ever popular, Dubya has always been good at rounding up powerful players to bankroll a variety of ventures, including political campaigns. For this reason, explain the authors, along with his lineage and social status, Bush's primary allegiance is to the business community. While his speeches may deal with the "entertainment issues" of "God, guns, and gays," Bush is a "wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America," they write. They further point out that Texas ranks near the bottom of the nation in terms of a number of social categories, such as poverty, health insurance for children, and pollution, spearing the governor for his less-than-compassionate conservatism.
Shrub is not a complete Bush whacking, though. The authors laud the governor's record on education, in which he has managed to raise standards, push local control of schools, and launch a successful reading campaign. They also cite his wooing of the Hispanic vote and his ability to bridge the gap between the Christian right and the economic conservatives within the Republican party as evidence of true political acumen, though they maintain he lacks a penchant for actual governing: "From the record, it appears that he doesn't know much, doesn't do much and doesn't care much about governing." Bush has admitted that he dislikes reading, particularly about policy issues, and that he hates meetings and briefings, causing the authors to wonder, "The puzzle of Bush is why someone with so little interest in or attention for policy, for making government work, would want the job of president, or even governor."
The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder by Mark Crispin Miller (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393041832/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-0352874-5017672)

Miller, a New York University professor of media studies, has fashioned a devastating compendium of President George W. Bush's grammatical gaffes, syntactical shipwrecks, mind-boggling malapropisms and simply dumb comments. Page after page (after page) of quotations, suggests Miller, reveal that Bush is a man who, while not stupid, is prodigiously illiterate and woefully uneducated. Further, and compounding the problem, Bush could not care less about these shortcomings. How then, Miller asks, and this is his larger concern, did someone in Miller's opinion so obviously unqualified to be president convince so many voters that he was? Miller's answer is, in a word, television: Bush succeeded on TV not despite his "utter superficiality," but because his superficiality blended seamlessly with the vacuous culture of the tube. It was not simply that Bush's handlers were able to manipulate his image, attempting to construct out of his ignorance an anti-intellectual "good ole boy" persona, but that news professionals in the medium were all too willing to go along with this ploy. They went along because the pundits of TV have become, according to Miller, increasingly right-wing, thus natural Bush allies, but also because they no longer care to talk about substance, preferring instead discussion of "likability" and other attributes of pure image. While Miller is sometimes vague in his arguments, he has produced a sharp-edged polemic questioning the wisdom of how we elect our leaders. As President Bush has said, "It's not the way America is all about."

[cainxinth]

The Irregular Times (http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html)

Bush's advisors won't allow him to make un-scripted appearances. Unlike presidents before him, George W. refuses to hold regularly-scheduled press conferences in which he has to answer unanticipated questions from reporters.

…ignorance of the basics of history. In February, for example, Bush lectured the Japanese parliament about how the United States and Japan had been allies "for a century and a half", when in fact, the US and Japan have only been allied since after World War II, which ended just over 50 years ago. You'll also remember how when he was campaigning to be President, Bush had no idea who the President of Pakistan was, even though the military coup in Pakistan had recently been front-page news.

he got below average grades in college and spent half of his adult life as a drunk, and some say a cocaine addict.

He apparently is pretty fuzzy-headed about the economy and basic mathematics. Last year, he was insisting that his tax cuts combined with increased spending would ensure the continuation of a budget surplus. To professional economists, that idea seemed to be kind of stupid. They said so, but George W. Bush dismissed their criticism. Now, it turns out that Bush has admitted that he was wrong, and that the United States will have budget deficits for the next decade because of his fuzzy math.

He said he appointed Thomas White to be Secretary of the Army because White had great business experience at Enron. Bush said he wanted Thomas White to run the Army like he ran his business. The problem is, White's former employees say that he was dishonest and helped to set up fake partnerships that eventually led to Enron's bankruptcy. White responds that he had no part in the illegal fraud because he wasn't really in touch with the operations of the division he was supposed to be in charge of. So, either White is either a criminal or grossly incompetent.

He has no understanding of basic scientific concepts, and even worse, he makes up science in order to support his own policies. He doesn't understand the basic science of global warming, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning, abstinence education, contraception and missile shield research. Time and time again, he's gotten the science wrong on these issues, even though the correct information was readily available. We're in the 21st century now, and we need a President who is well-educated and able to critically evaluate the science behind public policy. When it comes to scientific literacy, George W. Bush gets a failing grade.

[tomndebb]

cainxinth, I'm afraid you're simply not making your case. He may be a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America and the laziest thinker ever to sit in the Oval Office, but your attempts to portray him as stupid are simply not persuasive. For example, it is not true that Since when is high IQ correlated to the ability to fly a plane. All you need is a pilot’s license and Bush barely got that.To fly a military jet (even a gold-card-exemption-to-combat-service military jet) one has to pass a rigorous course that includes a lot of high-level math. The Air Force would get in a lot more trouble for letting some congresscritter's kid wipe out a subdivision by being incompetent to calculate fuel and weight ratios than they ever would by simply flunking an idiot, however well-connected.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Asylum
...it's Ivy League, they do wash people out, and if Bush was an idiot they would have washed him out, Congressman father or no.


Things may have changed since then, but back when GWB was an undergrad, the toughest thing about an Ivy League school was getting in. There were precious few folks who flunked out. The diploma on my wall is proof positive of this assertion.:D

I can't honestly speak to the situation in grad schools at the time, having not experienced it first-hand. Still, I can't help but think it was pretty much the same as the undergraduate environment. In fact, I knew some grad students who couldn't be counted on to keep themselves fed and clothed without a keeper, yet they got their degrees.

Please note that my point here is limited: I'm only saying that pointing to GWB's college degrees doesn't really provide any proof that he's not a slobbering moron.

[cainxinth]

My bad about the planes.

But even though I can't prove it, it still seems likely that Bush glided through his National Guard duties with as much help from his father's cronies as every other challenge in his life. He was missing from the NG for a whole year that is still unaccounted for, who knows what other shenanigans went on. I don't think he's lazy either. He has shown he is very willing to work hard to accomplish his goals. He'll use any handout, loophole, or boy's club trick at his disposal to get what he's after.

One of my friends from high school that has severe learning disabilities just got back his LSAT scores today. He got a 166, which is a fabulous score and places him in the 93 percentile. He didn’t get that score because he is a natural test taker or intellectually gifted, but because he worked his ass off for two solid years to prepare and utilized the system to get an un-timed test. I don’t think that makes his score any less representative of his ability than any other test taker, but it isn’t evidence that he’s a particularly bright person. Bush’s accomplishments are only marginally exceptional, and from all accounts he managed them in spite of his intelligence not because of it.

[Early Out]

Pointing to GWB's SAT score actually supports the proposition that it was only money and family connections that got him into Yale. A score of 1206 wouldn't have gained him admission unless he was also a world-class athlete, a nationally recognized artist, or was in some other way exceptional. That kind of score may be above average, but for admission to an Ivy League school in those days, a 1206 would have been the kiss of death.

[Gyrate]

I'm not sure any of this is particularly relevant to his qualification to be POTUS anyhow. I know lots of people with above average IQ (and SAT) scores whom I wouldn't trust to run a Burger King, let alone a country.

But yes, anyone who thinks that degrees are awarded exclusively on the basis of academic ability wasn't paying attention at school. Where there's money (or the potential to get money) involved in some way, universities are often quite happy to bend the rules pretty severely.

[Justhink]

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious...
If you wanted to bomb Arabs and give yourself a trillion dollars wouldn't it make sense to have a scapegoat so blatantly obvious as to not even require the pointing of a finger?
I mean seriously~! We can't prove Bush is an imbicile, but it sure seems like it. We can prove that Bush was elected, but aparently he's the president. We can't prove that Bush is an addict or greedy, but even if he is, so are most of us; and he's an imbicile to boot (but we can't prove it). The moral of the story is; life is absurd, but the rules are the rules. If Bush wants to bomb Iraq, gas Seattle and strike cozy deals with chums; that's his peropgative. Not only because he is the president, but because he's a dumb one; and it's rude to get angry at dumb people - we need tolerance in America.

It seems that his media persona acts as a tool to dissipate anger into genuine concern for the plight of really dumb people who are followed because of ritual (they have rights too!! the law is the law); and to act as a weapon of psychological terror towards well, really just about anyone - including the countries and resources of interest. It's kind of a frieghtening aspect to think of Sadaam over there pondering how to engage with such a powerful country when it's being led by bigoted impulse absent reflection. It also places blame outwardly, by laying out such a stack of seemingly transparent cards. I would guess that Bush is serving his function quite well.

-Justhink

[south333]

In my opinion, the President needs to know how to speak properly. The President is supposed to be someone that comforts the nation, expresses anger or remorse when necessary, and does it all with at least a bit of style. In the past, President's have been able to give a good speech without grammar and syntax criticisms the following day. This is not the case with Bush. It’s not even that he is not using a large vocabulary; George W. Bush just doesn't have a decent understanding of the English language. I cannot fathom how someone with such a poor understanding of the language could become the President of the United States or how he passed through English courses in college. I do not think that the President should be a great speaker, although someone in his position (who recognizes that he is not good at public speaking) should at least use prepared speeches written by professionals on the White House staff.

[Sam Stone]

Jeez, you Democrats just won't let go of this, will you? You just HAVE to pin a label on the opposition. Republicans are either stupid (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Quayle, Bush II), or evil (Nixon, Bush I).

Let's look at the facts. George W. Bush:


Scored 1206 on the SATs, which at that time put him in the 88th percentile. These scores were not much worse than the 'brilliant' Al Gore's, and significantly better than the 'brilliant' Bill Bradley. They indicate an intelligence not at genius level, but significantly above average. Maybe 120 or so.
Managed to get a degree from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard, despite the fact that he was known at the time to be a party animal. If you show me a slacker who got C's like Bush, or an earnest student who got C's, like Gore, I know which one I'd think was more intelligent.
Scored 95% on his officer's candidate test.
Qualified to fly the F-102. I've found a couple of anti-bush web pages that try to make the claim that he was put in a 'safe' airplane because he couldn't handle the newest ones. The fact is, the F-102 was a handful to fly, and dangerous as hell. Bush was more likely to be killed during his 3500 hours of flying the F-102 than if he had been drafted into a combat assignment in Vietnam. For the record, most people who try to qualify for flight training the forces wash out. Of those that do qualify, only the best make it into fighter jets. If Bush was a lousy pilot, he would have spent his Guard service on the ground, or flying in the right seat of a light transport or something.
Beat a popular incumbant to become governor of Texas.
Was re-elected as governor of Texas.
Beat the likes of John McCain to become the Republican presidential nominee.
Soundly tromped all over Al Gore in their three presidential debates.
Beat Al Gore to become president, despite Gore having all the natural advantages.
Has become one of the most popular presidents in modern times.


Against this evidence, we have the carping of the liberal hit-squad of Paul Begala and Molly Ivins, and a bunch of out-of-context quotes and outright fabrications.

Anyone who removes their partisan blinders and judges Bush objectively should be able to see what he is - a competant man of slightly above average intelligence, who has good communication skills, excellent political instincts, and knows how to surround himself with good people.

[Justhink]

"""Beat the likes of John McCain to become the Republican presidential nominee.""""

I figured McCain was used to take attention off of the fact that Shrub shouldn't even be there.
A few days before votiing, with McCain in the lead, oops!! McCain was all of a sudden this angry person who couldn't control his temper, no evidence of this minus heresay. He's a nice guy, but unfortunately 'wounded' to such a severe degree from his torture service to our country that he's actually unfit for the office -- swoosh! Bush leaps up 40 points in the polls. The guy who barely made a healine is now the republican nominee.

""""""Soundly tromped all over Al Gore in their three presidential debates.""""""""

You mean contradicting himself left and right and talking like a schizophrenic? Yes, I observed that decisive victory first hand myself - press commentators unanimously agreed that Bush did better. That third debate was a frieghtening display IMO, not a word was uttered about the dementia displayed by Bush in that candid setting.

"""""""Beat Al Gore to become president, despite Gore having all the natural advantages.""""""""

I simply disagree here.

""""""Has become one of the most popular presidents in modern times."""""""

N-Sync has not only sold more albums, but they are also the most popular band in modern times, quite possibly all-time! Britney Spears is really making a run to catch them though! The suspence is unbearable!

"""Scored 95% on his officer's candidate test."""

How many of us here with the degree of intelligence, wealth and TIME at his disposal (to access these qualities) would have been able to miss any of the answers on that test, without doing do intentionally?

""""""""""Qualified to fly the F-102. I've found a couple of anti-bush web pages that try to make the claim that he was put in a 'safe' airplane because he couldn't handle the newest ones. The fact is, the F-102 was a handful to fly, and dangerous as hell. Bush was more likely to be killed during his 3500 hours of flying the F-102 than if he had been drafted into a combat assignment in Vietnam. For the record, most people who try to qualify for flight training the forces wash out. Of those that do qualify, only the best make it into fighter jets. If Bush was a lousy pilot, he would have spent his Guard service on the ground, or flying in the right seat of a light transport or something.""""""""""

This I don't know - his 'ADD' might actually improve his ability to play video games.

I'm not sure you could charachterize me as a liberal. If I wanted to be conservative about the last 5 minutes, I wouldn't eat anymore food, as I haven't eaten any food in the last 5 minutes.
I would conserve the stasis of time for a 5 minute loop in regards to my excecution of choice; maintaining the status quo. As a liberal, I would well, liberate myself from the desire for food and still starve to death. If voting were even a fraction of a transparent process, it might actually matter whether these parties possessed their own uncontradictory constitutions; however, it does become a moot point, when people can't observe the voting process.

-Justhink

[Sam Stone]

I have no idea what your last paragraph said.

Now, just for fun, let's apply the same analysis to Gore:


Scored 1366 on his SATs - better than Bush, but by no means genius level.
Average marks in college - no better than Bush's. Mostly a mix of C's and B's. And for the 'environmental' Senator he portrayed himself to be, it's interesting to note that he scored a D in natural sciences.
Attended Vanderbuilt divinity school, where he received 5 F's out of 8 courses he took before dropping out.
Managed to get into Vanderbuilt law school despite his stellar performance in divinity school. Racked up a packet of C's and worse before dropping out completely. During the same period, Bush completed a Masters from Harvard.
While much has been made of Bush's post-schooling business career, it should be noted that Gore never had one. He went straight from school into government with no real-world experience to speak of.
Wrote Earth in the Balance, one of the worst, error-ridden popular science books in memory.
Despite having 8 years of experience in the White House, managed to look incompetant and disconnected when debating George Bush


So do I think Gore is stupid? Nope. He's pretty bright. Unlike some of you, I don't put on my partisan blinders when trying to evaluate people. I could give a rat's ass that Gore dropped out of school. And C's in college could mean anything from not being bright to being brilliant but not giving a shit about the course you're taking.

The fact is, the two men are virtual twins. Both were born into power and prestige. Both of them had influential fathers in government. They scored similar marks in school, took similar courses. Bush went into private life, Gore straight into government. Both of them wound up competing for the same job.

Yet some people insist on characterizing one as a drooling idiot, and the other as one of the most brilliant men around. What nonsense.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Attended Vanderbuilt divinity school, where he received 5 F's out of 8 courses he took before dropping out.

This proves that Gore is a genius. Anyone who gets A's in divinity school would be "rationality challenged." ;)

[Asylum]

Cainxinth, your cites are somewhat lacking. The titles alone make me cringe when it comes to considering their objectivity. There is also the problem that for your first three cites you're quoting the synopses of books which begs the question of what the actual content of what's inside. Of course that's not the big problem with them, none of them say he's an idiot, just a poor politician which is a separate debate. Your third cite even says "Bush is a man who, while not stupid. . . ." "Not stupid." Doesn't help your argument much.

As for your last cite, those guys are living in their own little world. They claim his advisors won't let him hold press conferences and yet they don't say where they got this information from. If they're referring to sitting down in front of a large group of reporters and letting them have at him Bush has given one of those sessions already in this term and Clinton gave none in his second. Seems to be to the SOP for recent Presidents not to have large Q and A's and not due to advisors not allowing them.

They take his words and twist them to fit their perceptions. For example they claim that he's too stupid to understand the difference between Methodist and Episcopalian theologies simply because he said he didn't know the difference. It obviously never occured to their closed minds that he could be happy with his religion and just never went out of his way to compare to other ones. Not stupid, common. Shortsighted maybe, but not stupid.

They hammered his selection for Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, on the basis that he worked for Enron, the poster child for business corruption. The only problem is that White became Secretary of the Army on May 31, 2001 and the brouhaha with Enron didn't come to light until the fall of 2001. In order for this move to be a demonstration of Bush's stupidity they need to show that Bush knew about Enron's problems when he appointed him. This one kills me because they hammer Bush on history and yet themselves seem ignorant of recent history.

For the record I don't like Bush and wouldn't mind if he was out of office. I just don't see any evidence that he is stupid specifically because of so see much evidence to the contrary.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Jeez, you Democrats just won't let go of this, will you? You just HAVE to pin a label on the opposition. Republicans are either stupid (Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Quayle, Bush II), or evil (Nixon, Bush I). Excuse me, Mr. Pot? There's a call for you from Mr. Kettle -- something about coordinating wardrobes?

Anyhow, I just thought I'd pick up on this comment:

Has become one of the most popular presidents in modern times.

Let's not forget how much of that is in relation to 9/11 and the continuing level of crisis, prolonged, IMO, by the Bush administration via the "War on Terrorism", the fighting in Afghanistan and persistent harping on the Iraq threat. Look at Giuliani -- he was hardly Mr. Popular before the event, and suddenly he was seen as a paragon of strong leadership just because he managed not to offend anybody in the aftermath of the tragedy. Bush's popularity is (IMO again) driven far more by circumstances and his administration's spin thereon than by his ability to formulate and implement coherent policy or by his gravitas as a statesman and leader.

He's also (IMO as always) humiliated the country in the eyes of the rest of the world through his foreign policies and become an embarrassment to Americans everywhere, although I suppose for those Americans who don't think outside the boundaries of their own county or state, that's not such a big deal.

[Skid Row]

Talk about not getting over it!

Lets not forget one fact: Al Gore got more votes than Dubya. Indisputable. For eight years the extra-chomosome crowd babbled on and on about how Bill Clinton didn't get a majority of the votes in either 1992 or 1996. But, at least he got MORE VOTES THAN THE GUY WHO CAME IN SECOND!!!

Jesus H. Christ in a Chicken Basket! I'm not saying I would prefer Gore, but good Gawdalmighty at least understand that Son of a Bush came in second in the popular vote and won the electoral college. At worst, Dubya is an illegitimate president who lost the popuar vote in Florida but had it handed to him by a corrupt brother/governor and secretary of state with willing accomplices in the SCOTUS. At best, he was the second choice of a majority of American voters but the winner in the electoral college. Neither one sounds like a hook upon which to hang one's political hat.

Time will tell how he is perceived. With what he's done to the economy already and the potential economic harm a war with Iraq would cause, his re-election would be proof positive he's not a moron. Anyone that can overcome the first two years of this tragedy and win a second term is a genius.

Don't Blame Me - I Voted For Zappa

[KSO]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!!!!

Let's get something straight, once and for all: the goddamned motherfucking popular vote outcome DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Not only that, BUT IT NEVER HAS FUCKING MATTERED and as long as it's the United STATES of America, rather than the United PEOPLE of America, IT NEVER WILL FUCKING MATTER.

Jesus Christ, can we move on, please?

[Skid Row]

S'matta KS?

Can't handle the truth?

[Skid Row]

S'matta KS?

Can't handle the truth?

Factually, of course you're correct.




...but so am I.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by jr8
Let's not forget how much of [Bush's popularity] is in relation to 9/11 and the continuing level of crisis, prolonged, IMO, by the Bush administration via the "War on Terrorism", the fighting in Afghanistan and persistent harping on the Iraq threat.

...Bush's popularity is (IMO again) driven far more by circumstances and his administration's spin thereon than by his ability to formulate and implement coherent policy or by his gravitas as a statesman and leader.

He's also (IMO as always) humiliated the country in the eyes of the rest of the world through his foreign policies and become an embarrassment to Americans everywhere, although I suppose for those Americans who don't think outside the boundaries of their own county or state, that's not such a big deal.

My thoughts exactly, articulated far better than I could have managed.

[Justhink]

I regards to the event of 9/11, the hit of 50 billion dollars and 3000 lives seems insignificant to a 1 trillion dollar windfall from the treasury and the capacity to claim a 95% approval rating to do it, change the privacy laws and to bomb Arabs on top of it. Again, I'm not understanding how Bush's bumbling and illigitaite presidency is counter-productive to the execution of this plan?

A trillion dollars can buy a lot of hushed mouths. If this weren't enough you have stock payer consolidation of 600 million protected by the Enron bankruptcy (cannibalize Enron to pay for the election), untold billions from the tobacco tax and untold billions from the gas tax increases which made so much sense given the rolling black-outs three weeks after Bush stepped into office.

You might be looking at a good slice of around 1.5 - 2 trillion bucks here for a measly 4 years worth of embarassment, not to mention legislation which bascially assures that you can't be caught.

And, you rolled out the red carpet on any furture administration to have the same type of advantage by declaring a "war on terror", in effect diverting civilian access or necessity for some sense of political transparency.

I'm not saying Bush is necesarily smart, but I'm not understanding how this is a disadvantage given the events since he took office.

I just see a bunch of guys with these huge smirks that they can't wipe off their faces, while relishing in their roles of telling everyone how they should think and what they should/ should not can / cannot look into or say.

In fact, 'everybody' in that administration just seems to be smirking all the time; why?

I would suggest this as a much more plausible answer, given the tools at administrative disposal to either make the system more efficient in terms of global depopulation or public interest and access to the political process. The paper-work can't be stacked THAT high!

-Justhink

[Sam Stone]

And the thread skids off the tracks into the pit of the tinfoil hat people.

[Justhink]

"""""And the thread skids off the tracks into the pit of the tinfoil hat people."""""

And you know this how? I'll admit to this being a conspiracy. How exactly is your declaration a fact? If the conspiracy outlined were true (it certainly seems plausible); do you have a vested interest in it not being true? Does it negate the value of gossip you've been using to achieve relationships or actually threaten your very financial stability and capacity to fashion a livelyhood?

What interest do you have in debunking something so offhandedly? Does it violate every axiom of reason and rationality that humans require in order to survive? Would simple steps taken to analyze the situation deprive the U.S. of international security measures and make us vulnerable to hostile take-over of another country? Does it suggest something about the system structure itself which articulates a boundary which has been crossed between communication and citizenry?

Is it not in anyones interest to consider how a formulation like this can exist to such a degree that plausibility, opportunity, precidence and motive can all be accounted for?

What makes that possible? How does that exist? What is causing that loophole? Why would someone consider those loopholes as something to be of interest, to challenge, to inquire about? Why do people believe stuff like this in the first place, what allows that level of cynicism to emerge and how does it illustrate a violation of boundary?

These questions become much more acute when one considers the genetic revolution occurring, and the tangible benefits that will seek to further divide the haves and the have-nots.

Does it bother you on top of all of this that companies can register DNA sequences that foster intelligence as a trade secret patent blocked through defense department clearance to retrieve them; assuming you could even get far enough in the court process to determine that a trade secret patent is even involved, or that it even is registered in the defense department?

What makes you trust people so much Sam?

-Justhink

[calm kiwi]

Some of you may enjoy this site. Some of you will hate it.
www.toostupidtobepresident.com

[Asylum]

Jesus, this thread's gone off it's rocker. Why don't we all just agree that it's dead and let it sink.

[Asylum]

At the very least because I think I've racked up a personal record for typos in one thread. "It's?" *sigh* My HS English teacher would be ashamed.

[cainxinth]

Relax Justhink, you're as likely to convince Sam Stone that Bush is a dim witted puppet to a corrupted administration with a misguided sense of justice as he is of convincing us that Bush is a bright and talented public servant with highly evolved morals and a vision of peace and prosperity for all in the 21st century.

But, we might as well be civil about it. The other option is to get upset and focus on the conflict not its cause. To assume conflict is inevitable and harmony is impossible. Which, as you said, is precisely what Bush is doing. He's focusing America on the actual event of 9/11, the fear, the pain, the lost innocence, the need to be as strong and united now as any time in our history. All the while we are distracted from questioning why radical Islamists instigated a War with us. The enemy has been made faceless and mindless. There is no rationale behind his action; it was simple animalistic hatred and jealousy. Their way of life cannot coexist with ours so they need to wipe us out. These are the lies Bush has made his administration fat on. This is the legacy he chose for himself, or more likely was chosen for him.

In reality the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and want to coexist peacefully with the West. They hate America all right, but not for the reasons Bush justifies his war with. They hate America because of the failing state of their societies after 100 years of Western imperialism in their lands, and specifically American intervention in the last 50. Oil was too important for developed nations to trust to democracy, and they created autocracies that they had powerful influence on. To hell with the people. What are a few ignorant nomads for the safety of billions of people? If there is no oil, there is no progress; no progress and capitalism fails, which could lead to chaos, anarchy, and possibly even, gasp… socialism. The arithmetic was easy, billions versus millions, we win they lose. So we installed fucked up regimes that sold us oil a real friendly prices and gave our some of our money back to us in exchange for our world famous military hardware. They gave financial “aid” to billionaire ruthless despots who cemented their hold in the region and its oil. Then administration after administration upheld the status quo and watched on, as the Middle East became the war torn, impoverished, pile of rubble it is today.

There are a lot of other grievances that have been tacked on, but I feel strongly that this is the fundamental rationale for Islamic revivalism and terrorism in the world today. I'm open to correction by any dopers that are very familiar with a Muslim community. Sam and Asylum can call us names all they like, but until they can provide a more believable story that has some backing I’ll stick to this one. The last post in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140007) has links to the references for my story.

[december]

Getting back to the OP, see what the UK's ultra-liberal Guardian says about Bush's skills (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,830255,00.html).The natural

George Bush is a dim-witted cowboy who cheated his way into the White House. Well, that's the popular view on this side of the Atlantic. But as he joins the US President on the campaign trail for tonight's crucial midterm elections, Jonathan Freedland gets a very different impression

...But Bush's 35-minute address, a tweaked variation on the standard stump speech he's been giving across the country, gives a clue as to why Dubya is still enjoying approval ratings healthily above 60%.

For one thing, he delivers it well. It's a surprise, given the satirists' depiction of him as a linguistically challenged dunce, to see him speak fluently and without so much as a glance at any notes. And hearing him at length is different from seeing a soundbite on the news. It will break liberal hearts to admit it, but he's good.

[Asylum]

Cainxinth, grow up. You started this thread about how Bush didn't have any basic skills and all I've done is argue against that. Contributing to a hijack of the thread doesn't make your position any stronger. Not my fault if you can't provide cites that aren't blatantly biased and contradictory toward your OP.

And in case you missed it I'll say it again: I don't like Bush. And also for your information I'm fully aware of the West's crappy treatment of the Middle East over the years and here's proof. (http://bb.bbboy.net/straightdope-viewthread?forum=8&thread=16) I do think the issue is more complicated then you're implying and there are several points you make that I'd argue against but the basic jist I agree with.

And please don't imply that I've participated in name calling when with a brief check it's obvious that I haven't.

Nice job vilifying me and trying to change the topic while issuing a call for civility.

[Tejota]

Not surprising. Many illiterate people have very good memories. There's some evidence that Bush is dyslexic, which would mostly likely mean that he reads slowly if at all.

As such, the notes wouldn't be much use to him. But he would be quicker than average at memorizing a speach, which in the long run is an asset, because he could then deliver a stock speach 'without notes' and while making eye contact with the audience at all times.

Delivering from memory, rather than composing his own thoughts, would use different areas of the brain. It's unsurprising that he would not have fluency problems when working from a memorized speach. His fluency is a cognitive problem, but delivering a speach from memory, really isn't a cognitive process.

Doesn't mean he isn't a dim-wittited cowboy who cheated his way into the office. You would need to se him actually hold a conversation to dispell that stereotype.

[Early Out]

Thought experiment: imagine GWB facing question time in the House of Commons. Now wouldn't that be a spectacle?!

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Asylum
I do think the issue is more complicated then you're implying and there are several points you make that I'd argue against but the basic jist I agree with.

Could you elaborate?

And please don't imply that I've participated in name calling when with a brief check it's obvious that I haven't.

Sam oh so wittily referred to me as a tin foil hat person, and you backed him up with, “Jesus, this thread's gone off it's rocker.”

Nice job vilifying me and trying to change the topic while issuing a call for civility.

That was not at all my intention, and I apologize if that’s how you interpreted it. I was just defending my position. And yes you’re right there aren't many impartial sources that can scientifically verify that Bush is a fool and puppet. But, that doesn't mean it isn't so, or that anyone who thinks its possible is a conspiracy theory nut.

[Sam Stone]

cainxinth:

Sam oh so wittily referred to me as a tin foil hat person, and you backed him up with, “Jesus, this thread's gone off it's rocker.”


Did not. I called JustThink a Tinfoil-Hat person. Evidence for the prosecution:


I regards to the event of 9/11, the hit of 50 billion dollars and 3000 lives seems insignificant to a 1 trillion dollar windfall from the treasury and the capacity to claim a 95% approval rating to do it, change the privacy laws and to bomb Arabs on top of it. Again, I'm not understanding how Bush's bumbling and illigitaite presidency is counter-productive to the execution of this plan?

A trillion dollars can buy a lot of hushed mouths. If this weren't enough you have stock payer consolidation of 600 million protected by the Enron bankruptcy (cannibalize Enron to pay for the election), untold billions from the tobacco tax and untold billions from the gas tax increases which made so much sense given the rolling black-outs three weeks after Bush stepped into office.

You might be looking at a good slice of around 1.5 - 2 trillion bucks here for a measly 4 years worth of embarassment, not to mention legislation which bascially assures that you can't be caught.


I think that means that Bush and his cronies are skimming off a couple of trillion dollars. Somehow, the treasury is involved. And I think Enron was milked by the Bush administration or something. To be honest, I'm not sure. I didn't quite get the part about Bush causing the rolling blackouts in California, or how the Tobacco Tax fits into the conspiracy. I'm sure it makes sense to someone.

[Gyrate]

I thought JustThink was referring to the Big Tax Rebate -- IOW, saying that Bush was buying approval by giving cash back to the electorate, at the expense of exacerbating the national debt. But I don't understand the middle paragraph at all -- I think there are some unwritten assumptions there that JustThink takes as given and the rest of us don't.

[Asylum]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Could you elaborate?I could but I won't. Not trying to sound snide but that's the sort of question that quickly goes into a GD, and I don't post in GD often simply because I don't have the time. Furthermore debating the West's culpability regarding its treatment of the Middle East is not why I entered this thread.Sam oh so wittily referred to me as a tin foil hat person, and you backed him up with, “Jesus, this thread's gone off it's rocker.”I wasn't backing up Sam's comment, I was making one of my own. If you go back and look there were something like ten posts immediately preceding mine that had nothing to do with the OP and covered pretty varied ground. That's what I was referring to when I said this thread had gone off its rocker.That was not at all my intention, and I apologize if that’s how you interpreted it. I was just defending my position. And yes you’re right there aren't many impartial sources that can scientifically verify that Bush is a fool and puppet. But, that doesn't mean it isn't so, or that anyone who thinks its possible is a conspiracy theory nut. That's my point cainxinth, you were getting defensive about a position that had nothing to do with the OP and then accusing me of belittling your position on it when I never said one word about it. You wanna take this thread in another direction, fine. Just don't ignore my arguments and then toss me in with the opposing side of a debate that I never entered.

And as for there not being any cites that scientifically verify if Bush is moron, there are no cites that scientifically verify that there are green men living on Mars. Maybe that's becuase there aren't any and because Bush isn't an idiot. It's like I said before, the evidence overwhelming supports the conclusion that Bush is of at least average intelligence if not above. The largest evidence I've seen in support of Bush being an idiot is that he misspeaks in public, and the counter argument to that was pretty well covered on the first page of this thread.

[cainxinth]

Listen, I already apologized for misinterpeting your standpoint. I did not realize that when you said "this thread has gone off its rocker" you were refering to everyone knocking Bush except me. Lets get back to the question at hand: Is Bush a fool? You claim "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary, but I still haven't seen it. Here is a recap of the evidence in favor of the proposition.

1. All politicians make verbal gaffes now and again. Bush has a higher propensity for them than most as catalogued by NYU professor of media studies Mark Crispin Miller in a well recieved book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393322963/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/002-0352874-5017672?v=glance&vi=reviews).

2. Bush told an interviewer for “Talk” Magazine that he was not very good at reading in-depth public policy books. There are plenty of jobs where that isn’t a cause for concern, but President of the United States isn’t one of them, and while it doesn’t prove he’s an idiot, it certainly doesn’t speak highly of his intellect
(cite (http://www.bushcalendar.com/examples/example13.htm)).

3. NY Times columnist and Bush proponent William Safire told a chapel full of people at Syracuse University that Bush is a quick study that lacks the ability to grasp deeper understanding of the issues he has to make decisions on. He also said that he suspects that Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are really running the country right now, Powell is just there to keep a foot on the brake, and Rice is Bush’s glorified translator. Every president utilizes their advisors, but Bush is utterly dependent on his. He isn’t now and likely never will be competent to make big decisions without his cabinet. Even during the campaign he was open to the public that he lacks the knowledge and experience to run the country and would surround himself with people who were competent for the job.

4. Bush holds fewer press conferences than any other President.
Where Mr. Clinton had given 73 news conferences at this point in his presidency — most jointly with foreign leaders and other officials — Mr. Bush has given 36, said Martha Joynt Kumar, a professor at Towson University who tracks the White House communications operation. George Herbert Walker Bush had given 61 in his first 21 months (cite ( http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/whkeepsagrip.html)). Bush chalks it up to a need for greater secrecy post 9/11, but here is a Salon piece ( http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/30/thomas/ ) dating back to march of 2001 discussing the unusual infrequency of his press conferences at that time because he wasn’t yet “comfortable” with the press. As a political candidate surely he was familiar with the harsh grilling of a seasoned press corp. But as president he could finally turn down press conferences. I don’t think it takes a huge leap of faith to say the guy is not at ease with people asking him difficult questions. It’s not because he’s shy, most reports say he’s quite affable and charming. It’s because like reading big books on public policy, answering tough questions is not one of his strong points. Which also doesn't speak highly of his intelligence.

5. CNN correspondent, author, and Washington insider Paul Begala has documented Bush’s careers in school, business, and politics, and makes the case that Bush is, “a man who at every critical juncture has been propelled upward by the forces of wealth, privilege, status, and special interests who use his family's name for their private gain.” Bush got into Yale with a 1206 on his SATs, was never investigated for being AWOL a full year of his National Guard duties (scanned photocopies of his record can be found here (http://www.awolbush.com/)). The full depths of his corporate misdeeds while working for big oil are still being unraveled ( this ( http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/2002/Bush_Harken.html) is a nice collection of stories released so far).