I concur with DDG and Sam that the semantic discussion is getting a bit tiresome. But since it’s always fun, I thought I’d go ahead and point out another example of Sparticus’ lack of reading comprehension.
Oddly, Sparticus wrote this right under my quoted text, which read “Rice is not a concert pianist, but she is very, very close.” Heck, I even italicized the “not.”
Then he keeps digging:**
Again, Yo-Yo Ma saying you can play is like Michael Jordan saying you’ve “got game.” You may not be good enough to be in an NBA starting five, but you’re good enough to be respectable in the eyes of the world’s best. Hence my words: NOT a concert pianist, but nonetheless “very, very close.”**
Again, one wonders: was the hole in the Murrah Building a “huge indictment” of Clinton’s NSA?
What an excellent point about the Murrah Building. Did the government have lots of warnings about that sort of thing by the group that did it? No.
It took me a very long time to come to the conclusion that the government really blew it badly with respect to 9/11. I was among the people who thought for at least 6 months that there was no way they could have known or done anything. But the government knew a lot more than the public about the risks and the intentions of Al Queda, and some of that information has come out slowly. That doesn’t change the fact that the terrorists are the ones to blame, but it bodes badly for a government supposedly having the integrity and responsibility for what happens on its watch. This coupled with the styming of an independent failure investigation are unfortunate.
But back to the topic at hand, brilliance of politicians. Rice does not have an accomplishment that would lead me to say she is brilliant. I am not denying her this compliment simply because she is on the other side, but rather because she hasn’t done anything brilliant. I’ve offered Nixon and Kissinger as examples. How about Bill Clinton? Outmaneuvering his political opponents at every turn for 8 years, and overseeing a good economy, peace in Ireland, etc. Brilliant. Hillary, not yet brilliant.
No, you sure can’t. OTOH it is fair to label I am Sparticus as an isolationist. Traditionally isolationism has meant staying out of foreign wars. E.g., in World War I
First of all, if you read my post, I referred to Clinton “ten years ago,” before he was president. You really have problems with reading comprehension, don’t you?
Let’s run through your list:
Outmaneuvering his opponents. This equals brilliance? By that standard, Ronald Reagan was also “brilliant,” but somehow I suspect you’d disagree with that assessment. I could list other names, too, including LBJ and, indeed, George W. Bush.
Peace in Ireland. Please. First of all, you’re confusing Bill Clinton with George Mitchell. Second, the Good Friday Agreements have hardly been an earthshattering success. Third, if we’re going to talk Clinton foriegn policy, let’s include the Middle East talks, the failure of which led to the current intifada.
Overseeing a good economy. By this standard, Eisenhower was “brilliant” (N.B.: Eisenhower may well have been brilliant, but no one’s going to cite to landmark domestic economic policies to prove it). Presidents exert considerably less influence on the economy than they take credit for. Clinton was just in the right place at the right time.
Look, I tend to agree that Clinton was the Michael Jordan of American politics in the last century. I’ve heard his retail political skills described as better than LBJ, which should stagger the imagination of anyone who has read up on LBJ. I don’t like his policies and I don’t like the sleaze factor he carried with him, but I do respect the man’s political skills. I would describe him as a “brilliant politician,” but not a “brilliant policymaker.”
Condoleeza Rice is not a politician. She is a foriegn affairs/national security expert. She has written extensively in her field of expertise, and her work has been cited favorably by other experts in the field. She is brilliant in her field, in much the same way that Charles Alan Wright was brilliant in his.
Judging only by results, compadre - the old peace and prosperity stuff, ya know. Of course, that could just be an incredible streak of luck.
Van Cliburn is a better piano player than Condoleeza Rice. Perhaps, using Sam’s criteria, he’d be a better Secretary of State. I’m inclined to think so, too, actually. She might or might not be as good at the ivories as Harry Truman was, so it’s hard to judge her qualification to be President that way.
Get a grip. No, folks, it isn’t “intelligence” that matters at that level, even if you can define the word; it’s worldview. Hers is based on the Cold War, requiring an enemy and willing to create one if necessary. That makes her doomed to failure. It doesn’t matter how carefully one builds a house on sand.
Aw, Dewey, I see I must accept your criteria and debate only the points you want or I can’t read too? No, I find your points unworthy of consideration for the most part. In the meantime, have you now acquainted yourself with how Abraham Lincoln volunteer for military combat service (didn’t actually see action) twice during the Blackhawk Wars? Still think Lincoln and FDR are warmongers for defending wars others started? You really do have a problem confronting reality, don’t you? I don’t respond to most of your garbage because it is irrelevant. Like the piano stuff, more on that amusement later.
Bill Clinton was arguably “brilliant” before he ran for President because he did the one thing to make his jump out of the pack (and incidentally get me to back him before the first caucuses): he hired James Carville. Not having had a long national track record, he came back from behind many times. While this might get a “brilliant” chuckle out of me in casual and partisan conversation, I’d hardly write it in a biography or opinion column. He certainly hadn’t proved it then. But his immediate injection of confidence into the economy, starting the longest run of economic expansion in U.S. history, and his record for peace talks, some of which were successful, his low unemployment rate, declining crime rate, etc. are worthy. Compared to the war, high crime, double dip recession, terror, unemployment and damn near deflation of the Bushistas, its a wonder anyone is still a republican. (But I forget, everything bad is Clinton’s fault, even though it was good during his tenure.) Let us remember, that even before the election, Cheney was out there promising us a bad economy. He and his boss have delivered. By comparison, Clinton was brilliant in his performance.
Since piano playing is now and suddenly such a high qualification for national security advisor, it seems to me that we should have a national piano competition every four years to determine who the national security advisor should be. There are many “brilliant” American concert pianists who can advise the GW on what tunes to play while New York burns and he “gets out of harms’ way”. Frankly, Rice might as well have been playing piano during the summer of 2001. Remember, August is vacation month for Republicans.
I’m not sure how you made the logical leap from “piano playing is evidence of Rice’s breadth of talent” to “piano playing should be a prerequisite for National Security Adviser.” The point of bringing up Rice’s piano playing was to demostrate she is very talented across a broad spectrum of disciplines, and thus could properly be described as “brilliant.” That particular point was not intended as a critique of her fitness for her current job.
I think Stephen Hawking is brilliant, too, but that doesn’t mean I think he should be the National Security Adviser.
There was a considerable amount of vehement assertion earlier in the thread, and you can look up by whom if you wish, that piano-playing ability in specific is an indication of brilliance in general, which is a sufficient qualification for the specific job of NSA. That is, of course, nonsense, and I’m glad you agree with me on something.
Yes, but my point was that Bill Clinton was described by a fawning press as “brilliant” during his 1992 run for the presidency. Given the strict application of that term some of you are advocating, that label would seem to have been premature at the time, don’tcha think?
(Besides – if by the time Bush is out of the White House – let’s assume a second term here – we have had sustained periods of peace and prosperity, are you gonna label him “brilliant”? Y’know, just “judging only by results compadre”?)
This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
I responded to this already, in a post below. I wrote:
I never at any point described FDR or Lincoln as “warmonger.” It is incredibly foolish of you to persist in that assertion.
I have also noted that George W. Bush has spent more time in the military and has exactly the same amount of combat experience as Lincoln.
Why you persist in this notion that combat experience is necessary to wisely wage war is beyond me. Elucidator is right on the money on this one (and boy, those are words I never thought I’d type): Being a cancer victim does not make one an oncologist. And having been a soldier does not imbue one with greater moral authority to wage war.**
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
By this standard, George W. Bush must be the smartest man ever to walk the earth, given he hired Karl “Political Jedi Master” Rove to run his campaigns. I’m sure you like Rove about as much as I like Carville, but both guys get results – and in Rove’s case, he got results running against an incumbent during times of extraordinary economic prosperity.**
Yeah, but look at the field. Paul Tsongas, God rest his soul, wasn’t exactly the most energizing guy in the world.
Besides, there are lots of guys who have come from behind or overcome setbacks; is that evidence of “brilliance”? Is Dewey brilliant for overcoming Truman? Reagan for overcoming his primary defeats in 1976 to win the nomination in 1980?**
You mean that expansion that started at the end of Bush I’s tenure? The economy is less tied to any given administration than you seem to think.**
…and some of which led to the current Intifada…**
All of which are functions of economic growth and, in some cases, changes in local governments (Rudy Giuliani springs to mind).**
I’ve never said this. In spite of my dislike for most of Clinton’s policies, he did enact some good things. Welfare reform springs to mind; yes, the Republican Congress forced his hand some, but he should still get credit for working on that legislation. **
Cheney was merely reiterating what the leading economic indicators were showing. We’d still be in the same economic boat with a Gore administration.
Stephen Hawking playing piano…now THAT would be impressive.
Elvis: I don’t see anyone claiming that “brilliance” = “should hold the job.” No one has suggested, for instance, that Stephen Hawking should be National Security Adviser even though there is general consensus that he is brilliant. Please quote whatever poster you’re referring to.
