Y’know, I’ve never seen any record of Kerry’s academic performance. Just the testimony of schoomates, in prep. school and at Yale who said he had a keen mind. I haven’t a clue how we managed to get Bush’s SAT scores, as I’ve never seen such things publicised before.
What Bush make no secret of is that he was a unimpressive student. He actually brags about it, on occasion. I think Kerry has confessed to slacking off his senior year at Yale to pursue flying and politics (though I can’t remember where I read that). Perhaps that’s why he “only” got into BC Law. Thing I can’t understand is why this is seen as unimpressive. BC, though no Ivy, is a highly regarded school. I went to a pretty competative college; yet a roomate and good friend of mine (who I later roomed with while he was a law student in DC), who graduated magna cum laude and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, because he got merely average LSAT scores, was unable to get accepted to BC Law. This friend did, however (scoring well on the GMAT) get into Harvard B-School, and turned it down to go to American for Law. He subsequently graduated second in his class and is now a junior partner in a big DC firm, making many times what I make as a pathetic biologist. My friend was a Poly Sci Major. Smart guy.
Somehow Bush, a self-confessed C student, got into Harvard Business School. Isn’t it rather obvious somebody pulled some strings for him? His Andover classmates attest to his slacking off before college, so isn’t it obvious again he was a legacy acceptee at Yale? I just don’t see how Bush looks better on paper. He looks like he always does: A beneficiary of favors given to his wealthy and influential family. His guard service is a point of contention, his business ventures a flop, his last election disputed in the Electoral College, and lost in the popular vote; how is this impressive? I’m not trying to argue Kerry, in aggregate, is better. I just don’t get how one could form an enthusastic oppinion of Bush, nor do I see how one could be thought irrational for wondering aloud if the guy is a low watt bulb. Even many of Bush’s friends who knew him when he was young thought little of his potential. He was a substance abuser and chronically lazy. He displays a lack of intellectual interest or curiosity almost unheard of in a head of state. His mangling of the English language is legendary. Is it that much of a stretch to suspect the guy is a dullard?
FWIW, I doubt his stupidity. I find it plausible Bush cultures this nitwit image, to a certain extent. As it is, people almost fall over when they realise he’s not borderline retarded. How better can one position themselves to exceed expectations? He could very well be much smarter than that, and we’d never know it. That’s the point of the debate, if you ask me.
As for Kerry, it is an interesting question. Not many pols normally talk about their report cards, but speculation over Bush’s purported idiocy make the bona fides a potential political weapon, so long as the adversary’s got the goods. Maybe Kerry doesn’t.