Poppycock. There are conservatives that I have a lot of respect for that are bright and capable people. Bob Dole would have made a fine president, though Clinton was still the right choice. There are intelligent conservative commentators like George Will and then there are simpletons like Rush Limbaugh. Reasonable liberals (and no, that’s not an oxymoron) recognize that we don’t have a monopoly on intelligence.
Questioning why anyone would vote for Bush is not tantamount to saying Bush is an idiot.
True. Nor is it tantamount to saying all Pubbies or conservatives are idiots.
As a few of us pointed out in another thread - the character traits and abilities it takes to get elected are almost completely opposite of those character traits and abilities that it takes to be a trusted, successful, and respected leader.
Ohhh the irony :rolleyes: . Very smart of you to catch that. Although, you do know that being “the party of the people” (i.e. wanting to enact legislation that helps people) is not logically inconsistent with having a low opinion of their intellect. (Not that I’m saying that this is the Democrats’ stance, just that, even if it were, it is not logically inconistent)
And, of course, let’s not forget the supremely consistent Republicans:
- We’re for God, but let me have my guns dammit (Jesus loved guns)
- We’re for states’s rights, but if your state legalizes marijuana, the Feds are gonna but you.
- …
Since you quoted and repeated the nonsense that Evil One said, let me simply repeat my reply to him. Maybe you’ll get it this time.
Where did I say that?
Evil One said: “People on the left desperately want to believe that he is an idiot. Why? Because they think he must be because he doesn’t agree with them.”
I mentioned that people on the left regard some people on the right as smart, even though they disagree with them. This disproves the assertion that people on the left regard everyone who disagrees with them as stupid, and the corollary to this is that the statement “people on the left think Bush is stupid because they disagree with him” is false.
Got it?
That sounds painful. 
It have been “bust you” 
That *should * have been: "It should have been ‘bust you’ " :smack:
I’m no expert in military jargon, but it seems to me that one prerequisite for being called a fighter pilot ought to be, you know, being in a fight.
What makes Bush such a frightening figure to some is their assessment of him as a cretinous puppet who is manipulated by other, far more intelligent minds. These puppeteers might come across just as prickly or wonkish as Kerry to “the masses”, and hence Bush makes an excellent populist front. His lack of intellectualism, curiosity, and skepticism about those he considers loyal allies greatly facilitates his marionette status; he cheerfully does what he’s told, and with evangelical moral clarity, plows his way forward without the hindrances of self-doubt or serious consideration of alternate views.
I’m not sure if I buy the description above, but do think, given what we’ve seen, that it’s the most charitable description of Bush (with a nod to jshore). If he’s really a lot smarter than that, the borderline sociopath I suspected he was when I first heard of him publically mocking the pleas of Karla Faye Tucker (another born-again Christian) is the more accurate assessment.
Well, you know, I consider it treating people with more contempt when one says silly and misleading things to them, when one repeatedly tries to deceive them, and when you purposely try to run the government in a more secretive manner.
I don’t so much have contempt for most people as I think that many of them are simply very busy on other aspects of their lives and don’t prioritize many hours of time a week to study up on political issues. And, I really do think it takes a large investment of time (plus learning / knowing the right resource to look and, in many cases, having the educational background to be able to evaluate various claims, statistics, science, etc.). This is particularly true when such an active and pervasive attempt is made to deceive people as has been made by the current administration.
Bush is an idiot when he hears Kerry say things like this:
and offers the following as a direct response:
Way to put words in Kerry’s mouth :mad:
That is dishonesty, not idiocy.
I’ve read (can’t remember where) that deception is a good measure of sophistication (the etymology of the word suggest this very observation). In other words, you have to be smart to be a good liar.
Of course, if there are lies, is it Bush who is smart, or the putative puppeteers? If one accepts the possibility Bush is a puppet of sorts, it’s a tricky thing to discern where he ends and the strings begin.
No Bush is not an idiot, nor was Reagan. :rolleyes: Yes, compared to some of the presidents & other national leaders of their times, they are dim bulbs in comparison . Both men were/are above average in brainpower. Reagan, towards the end, was suffering from some age related problems, true. Let’s be charitable along those lines, OK?
Couldn’t agree with this more. Well said.
Neither GW Bush nor Ronald Reagan were stupid. I think what confuses many of you Liberals is that you confuse being smart with being an ‘intellectual’. Reagan prided himself in being plain spoken, and had ‘folksy’ charm. To some people, that translates as stupid. I think the George Bush shares the same trait, and gets called stupid for the same reason.
But there’s a reason why Reagan was called ‘The Great Communicator’. Because it takes a special skill (and intelligence) to be able to distill complex ideas and state them in ways that resonate with the public. Intellectuals pride themselves in their complexity and nuance, and speak that way.
And it doesn’t even mean they are being more complex or nuanced, just that they speak the lingo of complexity and nuance. I worked with a guy a while ago who was not all that bright, but man, was his speech thick. Instead of saying, “I read your report, and I think it was okay”, he’d say “I have given due consideration to what you have outlined in your report, and upon reflection I have to say that you did a decent job of conveying the information.” His speech was full of fifty dollar words conveying fifty cent ideas. Drove me nuts, it did.
Reagan was an intellectual. He just didn’t play one on TV. He had a degree in economics, he read voraciously and could speak intelligently on a vast array of topics. He wrote many of his own speeches, including his 1964 speech for Goldwater that is so famous it is often called “The Speech.” I have posted interviews with him from the 1970’s where he goes into great detail about economic theory, philosophy, and politics. When he gave serious interviews his comments were routinely sprinkled with quotes from historical figures, examples drawn from obscure economists, etc.
But the “Reagan is stupid” meme took hold with the public, and never really went away. Just like Bush. And as a result, the Democrats continued to get their asses handed to them by both of them, and they never seem to learn. Sounds almost…stupid.
Here’s a question for you: Is John Kerry stupid? Could someone offer objective evidence that Kerry is smarter than George Bush? Kerry went to Yale, but then wound up in Boston College. How come? Bush went on to a Harvard MBA. Bush’s career is by any measure much more successful than Kerry’s - Bush went into business, made millions from the Texas Rangers, defeated a popular incumbent Governor of Texas, won re-election in a landslide, became President, and is now heading for what looks like a second term. John Kerry left the Navy without being promoted after four years of regular service, spent a couple of years as a lawyer, and managed to get elected as a Senator. As a Senator, he has one of the most mediocre track records I’ve ever seen. And now he’s in the process of horribly blowing what should have been a very competitive race.
But I’ll bet you Dems think Kerry is a genius compared to Bush, right?
I’m not sure I want to talk so much about Kerry’s intellect, since that wasn’t part of the OP, but BC law is a lot harder to get into than Harvard Biz. Bush, you remember, was rejected from UT Law, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. Also, Bush’s record in the oil business (his family pedigree) is known to be a string of failures. The Rangers were a cash cow, and everyone knew that. Again, that’s not much of an arguing point. Lastly, it’s been argued above that getting elected Governer in Texas isn’t exactly winning the Nobel Prize (can those who feel this way elaborate?), and it’s also unclear that Bush won the last election (the answer to that question always seems to depend on who you ask). Again, this seems like a weak argument.
You may be right, though, that underestimating (or misunderestimating?) Bush’s intellect is a strategic mistake. I personally never thought that Reagan, in full command of his mental faculties, was a dummy. It’s arguable, though, that Reagan’s second term was marred by dementia.
When Reagan passed away, even the nil-nisi-bonum media reports of his life made the point that he was “not an intellect.” This is the first time I have ever known anyone to assert the contrary.
And, whether Reagan was an intellectual or not, he most definitely did not play one on TV. Jeez, did you ever watch any of his televised speeches?