Fair enough.
IOW, he gets credit for not butchering that particular C&P job. Mine, how the Republican standards have fallen lately.
Yep. Impressive.
Bush was in the oil business and then in the baseball business. He did make millions of dollars in his businesses. Your unsupported claim that he made most of it in the baseball business, rather than the oil business, doesn’t contradict my statement.
No doubt Bush was aided by having connections to power and wealth. But, so was Al Gore. In terms of the current debate, the priviledged Bush had more success outside of government than the privileged Gore.
I have read that this was a normal allocation, since Bush was the Managing Partner. He ran the business, while other owners were just passive investors. Naturally he got a larger return. Note that he made money for the other owners, as well as for himself. Bush even had to borrow the funds for his 1%, since he didn’t have the capital himself.
Then maybe Bush was smart enough to get into the baseball business at the right time. Whether or not making money was this simple, the bottom line is that Bush did it and Gore didn’t do it.
BTW I have a lot of respect for anyone who starts or buys a business, rather than just look for a job working for somebody else. It shows a willingness to work hard and to take responsibility for all parts of an endeavor.
George W. Bush’s "luck"
Bush’s adversaries would argue that just by good luck, Bush:
– graduated from Yale
– earned an MBA from Harvard
– made millions of dollars in private business
– beat a popular and capable Texas Governor, Anne Richards
– won a landslide in his Gubinatorial re-election
– won the Presidential nomination
– won the Presidential election
– rapidly defeated the Taliban
– got Congressional approval to attack Saddam
– got Saddam out of power rapidly,
– got Congress to pass a big tax cut
– helped Republican Senators and Congressmen to a rare off-year election victory in 2002
Do you really think this was all luck?
Impressive that this statement stands up to scrutiny, while the others in the OP have less of a lifetime under the microscope. Impressive in that Atreyu used that very cite to debunk the OP’s assertation, when it in fact supported it. Do not cast me in the same light as The Republican or december if I can show that someone is correct in a statement after someone else intimates they are wrong.
Nevertheless, you claimed he “made millions of dollars in the oil business and the baseball business.” This is false. He made millions in buying and selling a baseball team, and he lost his shirt repeatedly in the oil business.
Understatement of the year, amigo.
Apples and oranges. Gore’s been in politics since the 1970s, and only spent a few years in the private sector. Dubya’s only been in politics for ten years.
Sure. But how did a guy with such a terrible business record suddenly get to be the managing partner for a MLB team? He got that deal entirely because his Daddy was in the White House at the time–a “sweetheart” deal by any stretch of the imagination.
“Luck”? You’ve got to be kidding me. Outside of winning the who’s-your-daddy lottery, luck had nothing to do with it.
I don’t believe that anyone would seriously think that either Bush or Gore was the sharpest knife in the drawer. Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in history against an eminently beatable opponent. I don’t think Bush is as dumb as a lot of people think, he’s just got that “deer in the headlights” look about him when he’s responding to questions. In his element, he can give a fine speech, as evidenced in the post 9/11 address to Congress. But his ad lib abilities pale in comparison to Clinton and even to Gore and in that respect, he gives the appearance of dullness.
As far as grades go, who cares? Your college grades depend more on your personal motivation at that time in your life than they do on intelligence. I’m less concerned what a 19 year old Bush or Gore accomplished than I am with their present agendas.
Bush has been lucky in some respects- he’s lucky that his substance abuse history has been sealed, and he’s lucky that his failure to complete his National Guard obligation has never been pursued.
I believe it is a stretch to claim the tax cut as an accomplishment. Getting Congress to gut the treasury to buy votes is hardly difficult.
I still think the current US foreign policy shows little insight into world affairs or diplomacy. If Bush isnt dumb… he certainly is ignorant (as in doesnt know) of a lot of stuff and was a bad choice for president in a time of crisis.
I agree his grades might have little relevance now… but the way I see it he was never smart nor sucessful. How he got so far might be a mix of his name, money and some good advisors.
How smart is that?
To continue Rashak Mani’s slight hijack, one thing that strikes me is that many of the people who seem to have the highest opinion of Bush’s overall record are people who also believe that subtle diplomacy and consensus-building is somehow wasted on the rest of the world. No cite for that; just an impression. I am also fairly sure from what I’ve seen of Bush’s behavior is that he a highly provincial person; while I would argue that this is a severe detriment in the foreign policy area, obviously a lot of people here in the US are provincial enough as well that they don’t care.
To directly address the OP’s premise, in this case the time when it might have been profitable to question the apparently mediocre academic records of both Bush and Gore would have been much earlier in their careers; certainly before the 2000 election. At this point, their career records are far more important than academics, as would be the case for most 40-50 year old professionals.
I see them as polar opposites, actually.
(1) Gore is very smart, very intellectual, and very bad at public speaking. He strikes me as one of those folks most comfortable behind a keyboard, pontificating deeply on a complex issue, but turns into a tongue-tied nerd the moment he steps into sunlight.
(2) Bush is of average intelligence, is accustomed to getting by life without much effort, but has a very folksy manner that makes him a great public speaker. He’s got an “aw shucks” demeanor that makes people comfortable to be around him, often to the point where they don’t notice he’s speaking nonsense.
My impression, anyway.
I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say, rjung. However, I think in terms of IQ, Gore compares poorly to Clinton. The two men, Gore and Bush, do function entirely differently. As you say, Gore is a details oriented guy who needs to understand things completely. I see Bush as a “big picture” kind of guy who doesn’t care much for details. Both types can be effective leaders providing they surround themselves with the right people.
Bush failing the inpromptu pop quiz on leaders in world trouble spots didn’t do much for his perceived intelligence:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/
- and he has made a lot of dopey mistakes while speaking, the one that jumps to my mind is the use of the word “crusade” while discussing military action in the middle east. I’m sure I can find a lot more…googling…
this one might fit the bill: http://dumbpresident.com/
Phrases like “the misunderestimated me” don’t help - but I don’t know how legit these quotes are. I do remember a bunch of flubs during the election run up though.
There is room for debate?
At least Gore isn’t obviously stupid. I didn’t watch the debates. After seeing Bush on TV for about 10 minutes I had to vote for Gore. I would have voted for Nader but he couldn’t possibly win.
And Nader seems to radiate boredom.
Hail to duh chief.
Dal Timgar