Is George W. Bush REALLY stupid-or is it an act?

Great Debates
21

NPR (yes, NPR!!!) did some studying into the basic claims of the President-Elect’s stupidity. I don’t know if anyone else feels this way, but they are generally quite liberal with their reporting.

They found out this:

  1. Bush hid his application for Yale from his parents so they wouldn’t influence his getting in. By the way, it is possible they saw “Bush” on the app. and just let him in, but there is no real evidence of this.

  2. He got average grades at Yale and went on to Harvard to get his masters.

  3. His father would not be the one who would have gotten him into Yale, since his father was not very high in the government in the 1960’s. His grandfather would have had to do the work for him.

Interestingly enough, NPR could give no answer as to why people always say, “Bush’s father got him into Yale”, but they don’t say, “Gore’s father got him into Harvard.” Gore’s father was much more influential than Bush’s during the time they went to college.

That’s it for NPR, but I found it rather interesting. Both Gore and Bush are daddy’s boys. I believe that Bush is quite intelligent and that this can be seen in his INFORMAL interviews. He is very bad in front of the camera, unlike Gore who is passionate and a very good speech maker. To me, it seems like people in America(the same who watch Survivor) are ready to call someone stupid and inadequate just because they don’t make good speeches. I believe that for every flub Bush has said, there is probably a Gore one also.

The same people who think Bush is dumb think Gore is boring; both these things are totally false and are merely inaccurate stereotypes.

22

People say Bush is dumb because, when he speaks on television, he seems to roundly lack the kind of knowledge that is expected of a President [or even a grown man].

You say he isn’t dumb because he ran a successful campaign and half the nation voted for him.

1: He did not run his campaign. People like Rove and Hughes ran his campaign. They ran a very good campaign. A lot of money was spent. Daly did not run Gore’s campaign very well at all.

2: Less than half the nation voted for him. Look at the popular vote. Remove your blinders re: Florida. The US Supreme Court decided who the next president would be, and they did so along party lines. And even then, statistically, there really wasn’t a winner, since the margin of victory was exceeded by the possible margin of error.

3: Most of these people did not vote based on intelligence.

I really don’t think what college or prep school a candidate went to 20-30 years ago has any bearing on their competence to run a nation. Doubly, you can’t say he graduated from Yale with honors, can you?

Regardless, why can’t Bush supporters instead point out how smart he is by illustrating how well he runs Texas now?

Maybe it’s because Texas has one of the weakest governorships in the nation, and also the highest execution rate.

What else has he done with success? I hear he didn’t make much of a fortune with oil…

As for how well Bush does in informal interviews…

When he has to meet with the leaders of the world, industry, the economy and this country, his responsibilities can hardly be described as informal. The Middle East peace process [as an example] is not like a Rolling Stone interview. He will be required to knowledgeably take an active role in hot issues where his simple, boy-next-door charm and appeal will not serve this country. It’s a command of the facts, issues and realities that would best serve us. Who cares how down to earth and charming he is if what he says is being translated into French or Arabic or Hebrew?

Time and again, he has proven that his knowledge of current events is not adequate. Thankfully, he will have a Cabinet and a staff to do his thinking and speechwriting for him. But I fear that isn’t enough.

If he cannot order his thoughts and deliver them verbally, so as to comport himself as the kind of leader who inspires confidence, then obviously, he is lacking in many abilities. Abilities which a president ought to possess.

Most of the so-called evidence for his “intelligence” listed in previous posts only shows that he isn’t an absolute cretin. Major league baseball teams, aptitude tests, elections, there is nothing in that list which truly inspires confidence in contradiction with how he comes across whenever he speaks.

And I don’t feel that any of those so-called qualifications make him smart enough to be able to handle his new job.

  • Toiletduck
23

This is absurd.

Texas has a high execution rate, yes. And I am an ardent opponent of the death penalty. But it’s fair to say that in Texas, the death penalty represents the will of the people of Texas, as codified into law by the Texas legislature. These facts are not probitive in the least of his intelligence, or lack thereof - unless you are going to contend that any intelligent person will automatically eschew the death penalty - a position I have not found to be so.

How else is Texas’ governorship ‘weak?’

Mr. Clinton, in 1992, was woefully unprepared in the foreign policy arena, at least to the same rough order of magnitude as Mr. Bush is now. I grant you that Mr. Clinton had a charm and exuded an air of confidence, even then, that Mr. Bush does not; still, as far as basic foreign policy experience and knowledge, he did not shine either. Yet I, no fan of Mr. Clinton’s, will admit that he ended up handling himself well in this area.

  • Rick
24

Yeah, but Clinton is a smart guy.

(runs)

25

I would say that Bush is not stupid. He is, however, intelectually lazy, and not interested in academics.
I mean, the guy didn’t know that Social Security was a FEDERAL PROGRAM! THAT is just embarassing.

26

Rick: You’re seriously saying that the Texas governorship is not a weak post, relative to the powers vested in the state legislature and in the governors of other states? C’mon…

27

You shouldn’t toss around a word like ‘absurd.’ You clearly do not yet know why I brought up Texas’ execution rate. But I’ll take your response as an indication of your curiosity.

<quote> Texas has a high execution rate, yes. And I am an ardent opponent of the death penalty. But it’s fair to say that in Texas, the death penalty represents the will of the people of Texas, as codified into law by the Texas legislature. These facts are not probitive in the least of his intelligence, or lack thereof - unless you are going to contend that any intelligent person will automatically eschew the death penalty - a position I have not found to be so.

How else is Texas’ governorship ‘weak?’ </quote>

The mention of Texas’ death penalty record does not have anything at all to do with George W’s intelligence. It has to do with the relative power of the Texas governorship. So, since you’ve asked:

Are you actually aware how much power in Texas is held by the legislature as compared to its Governor?

Are you aware that as Governor, his hands are tied, preventing him from stopping a single one of those executions. George W could not pardon a convict on death row against the wishes of the legislature even if he wanted to. This is why I raise the death penalty in Texas.

Because every single one of those deaths, at the behest of the court, is outside the sphere of influence of Texas’ Governor. This is one of the few states where a Governor is unable to grant unilateral pardons.

<quote> Mr. Clinton, in 1992, was woefully unprepared in the foreign policy arena, at least to the same rough order of magnitude as Mr. Bush is now. I grant you that Mr. Clinton had a charm and exuded an air of confidence, even then, that Mr. Bush does not; still, as far as basic foreign policy experience and knowledge, he did not shine either. Yet I, no fan of Mr. Clinton’s, will admit that he ended up handling himself well in this area. </quote>

Sofa King’s reply was rather eloquent on this point. But I will elaborate.

I was not referring to Bush’s foreign policy experience. I was referring to how he’d handle the experiences he’s about to have as the 43rd President.

His defenders on this thread have said he does well in “informal” interviews. I was responding with the notion that his obvious lack of “formal” intelligence will be to our detriment.

So, since you raised a comparison to Clinton, I will use it.

Clinton is eloquent, intelligent and a political wunderkind. Bush isn’t, isn’t, isn’t.

We may be unable to predict the results of having a President so lacking in intellectual faculties, but I think a lot of us are cringing.

After all, he couldn’t even properly rig an election in his brother’s own state…

  • Toiletduck
28

Say it ain’t so.

Bush is…very bad in front of the camera, unlike Gore who is passionate and a very good speech maker.

Bush is not a very impressive speaker, true. But he does exhibit human qualities, unlike Albert, who when told to deliver a “stump” speech takes the advice FAR too literally. I once saw him speaking informally with reporters and it was like an entirely different, informal and pleasant individual peeking out of the shell.

All of this chatter about Bush the dullard reminds me of the people who “knew” Gerald Ford was a klutz based on his tee shots straying into galleries and a slip or two deplaning from Air Force One. Ford was actually one of our most athletic and physically fit presidents. Bush can be derided/detested for his views if you wish, but he is not a dope.

29

no, but he can grant a reprieve. can other governers pardon convicted murderers at will?

30

Yes.

  • Toiletduck
31

I believe the word is “probative.”

32

Bush isn’t, isn’t, isn’t.

Well, as long as we are elevating the debate to the highest possible level of eloquence and all…

Bush may or may not have done a great job in Texas. The people of Texas did think he did a good enough job to vote for him for the presidency (he carried his home state, as you may be aware).

Clinton is eloquent, intelligent and a political wunderkind.

I’m curious, then, for you explaination of Gore’s failure to secure the presidency. VP during the longest (peacetime)economic expansion in history, full support of his party and the President, who is apparently a “political wunderkind”. Why didn’t Clinton use that “political wunderkind-ness” to help out Gore? Why wasn’t it a blow out, as all of the democrats of my acquaintance believed it would be?
1: He did not run his campaign. People like Rove and Hughes ran his campaign. They ran a very good campaign. A lot of money was spent. Daly did not run Gore’s campaign very well at all.

So, you are willing to concede that Bush hires better?

33

In spite of my earlier smart-assed remark, I’m very curious about one of Vinnie’s specific questions. Does anyone know Bush’s IQ?

People Magazine used to be pretty sly about sliding in the IQs of famous folks, especially politicians. I remember that Norman Schwartzkopf scored an impressive 150+ and John Sununu rates an astounding 180+. Somewhere on this message board it was stated that Gore is in the mid-130s. Has anyone spat out a number for W.?

I’m not impressed with IQ as a benchmark of success or ability. But I do see IQ as an indicator of how quickly and thoroughly one can analyze and act in certain situations. Bush may very well be a fantastic delegator of power, but when the early warning radar is screaming, the embassy in Pakistan isn’t returning calls, and repeating radio messsages are coming in from the orbit of Saturn, which guy would you really want to be glancing over at the Football?

34

>>I’m curious, then, for you explaination of Gore’s failure to secure the presidency.<<

Gore is not Clinton.

>>VP during the longest (peacetime)economic expansion in history, full support of his party and the President, who is apparently a “political wunderkind”.<<

Since it was peacetime and all of that, Gingrich attempted a Republican coup of the government with his Contract with America. Clinton responded by moving to the middle. He beat down Gingrich and won again in '96, and spent nearly every subsequent moment fighting off Republican-led witchhunts. ThisGate, ThatGate. Even an impeachment to boot.

The best thing Gore could do was separate himself from that image.

Which is ironic, since Bush got off scott-free as a convicted felon and confirmed cocaine abuser. Ironically, if the media had done anything but ignore all of Bush’s past proclivities, it would have been exactly the kind of sweep Democrats expected.

I nearly puked when I watched debates where Bush maligned Gore’s integrity as a person and a leader and Gore had to take the high road when he very easily could have said “Look, George, we all know you were a nose-king. Why don’t we talk about that?”

>>Why didn’t Clinton use that “political wunderkind-ness” to help out Gore? Why wasn’t it a blow out, as all of the democrats of my acquaintance believed it would be?<<

I explain above why he had to distance himself from Clinton. At the Convention he said “I am my own man,” and that was important to the race.

Because many people in this country are simply too stupid to see through scandal. CNN did a poll the week of the primaries about who the best and worst presidents were felt to be. The best presidents included Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and Reagan. The worst included Nixon, Clinton, and Reagan.

The journalist added that most people could not identify any specific event, law or political activity with the Washington or Jefferson administrations.

That Bush was able to rob an election where nearly half of the nation actually voted for him does not validate him as an intelligent person any more than it validates Americans as intelligent people.

In fact, it only serves to disparage the notion of intelligence in American voters that they could be hoodwinked by such empty charm.

I have brought up that Bush lacks in formal intelligence. This still has not been addressed.

>>So, you are willing to concede that Bush hires better?<<

You’re desperate for any concession at all, eh?

What exactly does it mean to hire better anyway?

Does his choice of Mr. Rove, that slippery eel of a man, as his political strategist make him better suited to be our president? I’ve heard people say that when Mr. Rove is speaking, you must assume that he is lying.

Can you even say that Bush won the election because he made better choices? Or perhaps it was interference like Katherine Harris?

Take Orange Cty, where thousands of Gore votes were deep-sixed. Orange Cty’s Chief Executive was nominated as Secretary of Housing today.

If you’re going to try to win points by suggesting that Bush is more qualified than Gore to be president because he hires better, we might as well just face facts and whip out their schlongs.

Who’s got the tape-measure?

[Gore is the taller man. I wonder who has bigger feet.]

  • Toiletduck
35

::Ponders briefly::

After careful consideration, and a review of all the evidence, George is clearly and obviously as dumb as a brick, posesses the social awareness of a slug, and shares humanitarian talents with Hitler.

Just how comfortable do you feel with him in charge of… well, everything?

36

As much as I loathe to defend the man, Bush is NOT a convicted felon. His DWI, or DUI (what’s the difference?), was a misdemeanor back then. Too bad for the rest of us.

37

Didley, Didley, Didley, my old friend . . . You make a logical point. But it is a well known fact that in business and in life people judge you by your grammar and the words you use. For a Yale graduate and a Harvard MBA to sputter and stall and STILL form sentances that make even a butcher of the Queen’s English such as myself wince is intolerable.

If W. were to speak like he does in public in a job interview, he’d get laughed out of the office! Lack of poor grammar either bespeaks lack of intelligence or education. We know he’s got the education . . .

38

I’m REALLY not trying to rip Bush or the Republicans. But I still have questions . . .

Well he comes from an elite family.
**

Dad or Grandad got him in.
**

Would have been a war hero had North Vietnam invaded Texas.
**

That IS impressive.
**

That has never won a World Series or even made it to the ALCS.
**

Would have never won the first time if his name was George Smith instead of Bush.
**

He didn’t run it. His campaign was a vast conspiracy by Dad to repudiate 8 years of the administration that toppled him in 1992.
**

Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power in grave danger of being taken over by Muslim extremists, that actually is disturbing.
**

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have southern accents and frankly I don’t think either of them are idiots.

39

Excuse a foreigner for butting in… but I had to laugh when I saw the repititious postings about “You have to be smart to be elected President…” – insofar as I (and a large part of the world) can tell, the most important prerequisite for winning the Presidency is not intelligence, but enough money to win the primaries. The question you should be asking yourself is what worthy candidates couldn’t afford membership in that millionaires club you call the primaries.

40

ToiletDuck,

I’m not desperate for any concession at all. You have two mutually exclusive pieces of evidence 1) Bush is an idiot 2) an awful lot of people voted for him. You need to explain 2, in order for 1 to make sense. My response is that, well, if he’s so stupid, imagine how bad the other guy must be.

To which you respond; it is obvious. Democracy is flawed to the core, because people are stupid. This is obvious, because your guy lost.

You then go on to respond that Bush won because he cheated. He outmanuevered your guy in a court of law. He manipulated public opinion to the point where more people thought Gore was a sore loser, than thought that bush cheated.

You claim that this is because Bush’s handlers were better than Gore’s. You refuse to follow that to its obvious conclusion (that Bush is better at surrounding himself with good people than Saint Gore is). Instead its one conspiracy after another.

You may not be aware of this, but the president of the US does not run the country by himself. There are a vast number of people that he HIRES. His first opportunity to HIRE people and to prove that he can HIRE people well is the campaign. Gore did a bad job. Bush did a good job. I refer you to your post where you say:

**He did not run his campaign. People like Rove and Hughes ran his campaign. They ran a very good campaign. A lot of money was spent. Daly did not run Gore’s campaign very well at all. **

Why is it, again, that Gore’s overwhelming native intelligence didn’t led him to HIRE BETTER? In fact, why didn’t Gore’s overwhelming intelligence let him run the campaign by himself? I mean, he’s so much smarter than Bush and all…

Posters have addressed your mistaken belief that Bush lacks native intelligence. He outscored Gore on every formal measurement of intelligence (grades, the SAT). He went to two ivy league schools. He, by the facts that YOU present, outmaneuvered Gore in spite of Gore’s advantage. He understands the American people (the ones you so loathe, above) much better than Gore did. Bush managed to work well with a democratic legislator, while Gore did nothing but antagonize Congress.

Do you mind terribly, if, in the future, when posters here talk about how open and loving the democrats are, I refer them to your post where you say:

In fact, it only serves to disparage the notion of intelligence in American voters that they could be hoodwinked by such empty charm.

Two other small things:

a) Bush is not a convicted felon.
b) Nearly a quarter, not a half, of the people eligible to vote voted for him. Roughly the same number as voted for Gore.