Lieberman now in the running for 2004 -- And?

[/ Gump mode ] Well, the President, he does a lot of public speakin’. An’ it stands to reason he should be able to speak without trippin’ all over his own tongue all the time, like Dubya does. Not that I’d ever say anything against the President… [ / Gump mode ]

Some of the things Dubya has said in public are truly ridiculous boners that reveal a very, very limited intelligence. I despise Lieberman, but I’m sure he’s much more intelligent than Bush. Gore was MUCH more intelligent than Bush. Better human being, too. He’d have made a much better President, given the chance.

A lot of people would make a better President than Dubya.

Cite, please - and not links to ‘Bush SUXORS’ sites, but something comparing their performance on intelligence test, school grades, or some other measure of intelligence. Also, something comparing Clinton’s and Bush’s intelligence by the same standards would be very interesting, since you’d presumably say Clinton was a better president than Bush.

It seems to be based on just ‘I don’t like Bush, he fumbles his words, so he’s an idiot’? That was kind of amusing 2 years ago, but it gets a bit tired and doesn’t really have much to do with who’s the better president. It also doesn’t, as I’ve said before, really address the issue of how that intelligence would affect their ability to do the job, but just getting to some convincing evidence of who’s actually smarter would be interesting.

If the best argument the Democrats can come up with is ‘Our guy gives better speeches’, I might actually vote for Bush out of spite.

Cite, please. Well, provide a definition for ‘Better human being’ first, I suppose. Again, I’d also like to see the same Better Human Being definition used to compare Clinton and Bush.

Like always, you don’t appear to be saying anything positive about Lieberman, but just something negative about Bush. Does anyone have anything positive to say about any of the Democratic candidates and how they differ from Bush, or is it all BUSH SUCKS, THIS GUY DOESN’T SUCK AS MUCH!

By what, taking the exact same stance on the issues but giving better speeches? That’s not what I’m asking for when I’m asking for substantive differences.

First off – did you actually just ask for a cite on Gore being a better person than Bush? Somebody needs to review the difference between belief and opinion.

Now for the cites on Gore’s being smarter. This article lists Gore’s and Bush’s SAT scores, the only side-by-side comparison I could find. Apparently he’s never taken (or released data about) an IQ test; estimates online that I could find ranged from double-digit scores to a more likely 119, with no estimates approaching Gore’s 133. Gore graduated from Harvard cum laude (although he had a bad sophomore year, he greatly improved during the last two years). Bush graduated from Yale a solid C student (note that I’ve not verified the link; it could be a hoax – but Bush has claimed while making a joke to have been a C student at Yale).

So, on SAT scores, Gore wins. On grades as an undergraduate, Gore wins (although admittedly not by that much). On IQ scores, we’ve got no clear results, although the wild-ass-guesses for Bush put him significantly behind Gore.

Satisfied?
Daniel

DanielWithrow, your academic comparison between Bush and Gore left out graduate school. Their academic differences after college were far greater than the differences in their undergraduate results or SATs.

What were Bush’s grades in grad school? Was he also working as a reporter and running a homebuilding business while he was in grad school? Did he leave grad school in order to campaign successfully for a seat in Congress?

There’s a reason I left out grad school: at that point, the two men’s lives diverge so significantly (one has done a tour in Vietnam, the other hasn’t; one is working real jobs, the other isn’t) that they’re no longer comparable.

But if you really, really want to, you can put Gore’s lack of a graduate degree as a single data point that runs counter to everything in my post.

Daniel

And I’ll point out that when Larry Elder says, “Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school,” he betrays his bias. Why should that be unsurprising – because Gore is a Godless Heathen? Bullshit.

If he’d said, “Not surprisingly, Bush did not receive a degree from the school of rhetoric,” or even, “not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the drama department,” he would’ve had a point. But there’s no legitimate grounds to suggest that Gore’s Christian faith is insincere.

Daniel

If you make a claim in GD, you should be prepared to back it up. If someone had a cite for Bush torturing babies to earn money for college, fine and dandy. If it’s all “I don’t like Bush, therefore he’s a bad person” then it’s really rather patehitic to use that to try to convince someone that Lieberman is better. If I said ‘Well, Charles Manson is a better person than Clinton’, I would expect to be called on the comparison, especially somewhere like GD.

So, we have a 150 point SAT score difference, which doesn’t really say much. Gore got “one D, one C-minus, two C’s, two C-pluses, and one B-minus,” in his sophmore year, and did worse than C-student Bush in grad school, but there are excuses for it. The IQ test bit is just someone making a wild-assed guess, it’s patently absurd to use ‘these guys think bush is dumber than Gore’ to show that Bush is actually dumber than gore, and if we use the estimated IQ of 119 vs 133 that’s not even a standard deviation of difference, which IIRC is about the smallest difference that’s really meaningful on an IQ test.

Overall, the evidence points to at best a minor advantage for Gore over Bush in the field of intellect, and no one has explained how that marginal difference makes one candidate a better choice thn the other.

No. No one has explained how this alleged intelligence difference, especially one supported by a 150-point SAT score difference, ‘crappy, but marginally better than the other as long as you ignore grad school’ grades, and guesses at IQ that amount to less than a standard of deviation of difference would make someone a better president. That’s rather key, especially in light of the fact that you’ve excused Gore’s worse grad-school grades by saying that he was doing too much at once - the president does often have a busy schedule, after all.

Rather interestingly, no one has applied the same standard to Clinton. Was he smarter than Bush (and the current Democratic contenders) by these standards? Since I expect that you like Clinton better than Bush, it would be rather interesting to run the same comparison on Clinton and Bush, as well as the current contenders. Further, no one has applied the test to Lieberman-Bush (or anyone else currently in the running), which was the claim I asked for support of.

Look, if when asked ‘why should I vote for this guy’ all anyone can come up with is stand-up-comic bits (‘Bush is SO dumb, when…’) instead of reasonable comparisons and comparisons that show no substantive difference like ‘well, my guy gives better speeches! Elect him and you’ll get the same stuff done, but with better public speaking!’, you’re not going to convince anyone outside of your own buds.

That’s already been covered as far as Bush vs. Gore’s intelligence. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush was a Yalee legacy student who coasted by on Daddy’s influence.

But you know if you can’t sit down and listen to the three men give speeches and get some idea of their relative intelligence, you just aren’t paying attention. Gore and Clinton could both speak extemporaneously on any number of subjects without a lot of difficulty. Bush trips all over his own tongue whenever he speaks. It’s really no contest if you’re at all objective about it.

Just go to Google and do a search for “Bushisms.” You’ll find sites with hundreds of ludicrously bad speaking by Bush. They guy is an IDIOT. Really.

As has been pointed out, this is a silly request.

Yes. I believe that most democratic candidates would do a better job of minimizing the effects of recession and getting us back on track for economic recovery than Bush, because they don’t have ideological blinders than make them see only benefits for the wealthy as worth bothering with. I think most Democrats would do better against al-Qaeda and Saddam because they’re smarter and less obsessed about them on a personal level (no Daddy issues). I think most Democratic candidates would be more focussed on health care issues and on protecting social security. I think most would have a considerably less cavalier attitude about our civil liberties than the Bush admin. does. They might ask us to make sacrifices in the aftermath of 9/11, but they’d keep them short term. I have no such feeling about Bush and his buddies.

The exception is Lieberman. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about civil liberties and he’s a tool of big-money interests. He’s about as bad as Bush in every respect.

How’s that for substantive?

The SAT score difference is highly significant – Bush scored around the 84th percentile in math, compared to Gore’s somewhere around the 97th percentile. In verbal, Bush scored around the 70th percentile, compared to Gore’s somewhere around the 84th percentile. Go to this pdf for an explanation.

The IQ scores, as I said, were a wild-assed guess. While the highest guess for Bush is within a standard deviation of Gore’s score, this doesn’t meant he difference is meaningless (except inasmuch as it’s meaningless because it’s based on a WAG). One of us is misunderstanding the significance of a standard deviation in this respect: while 16% of the public has an IQ of 116 or above, 2% of the public has an IQ of 135 or above. That puts Gore much closer to the top of the IQ distribution than our highest WAG places Bush.

In any case, I only included the WAG about IQ scores because you asked for an intelligence test, and I was trying to be thorough. I recognize that this is weaker than an SAT score comparison or a college-career comparison.

You focused on Gore’s sophomore grades, while ignoring his cum laude graduation. Why?

Daniel

Oh, sure – I can say positive things about John Edwards. The man is squeaky-clean, honesty-wise. He’s got a great record of holding companies accountable for skeezy behavior by suing their pants off. He’s got a great environmental record, including a 100% rating by the Sierra Club. His economic plan (including a $500 tax rebate to poor families to offset heating bills and ending the Republican tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy program) sound mostly good to me. He’s a strong proponent of cyber privacy.

He’s got some issues I disagree with, sure – I would be a lot happier if he weren’t such a hawk. But I think he’s got a lot of great points, too.

Daniel

I think the most convincing evidence of Gore’s intelligence is the election. He was the vice president during a time of unprecedented prosperity and peace. He ran against an inexperienced and inarticulate candidate who had a drunk driving conviction he was trying to hide. Yet despite all of these advantages he still figured out a way to lose. To me that is strong evidence of Gore’s intelligence.

“Shodan, maybe you’ve forgotten that OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE GOT MORE VOTES LAST ELECTION?”

Gotta love those democrat districts where more than 100% of registered voters turn out to vote (Philadelphia, St. Louis…) or places like the U of Wisconsin where kids run around bragging about being able to vote for Gore 8 times, or the Democrat operative busted for paying bums with cigarettes to vote for Gore. What about all those illegal aliens that you got signed up through that motor voter act?

Ok, lefties, lets have a little quiz on FACTS. Not opinions, FACTS. I’m sick and tired of hearing that Bush is dumb and Gore is a genius.

  1. Bush did his undergrad at Yale, Gore at Harvard. Who posted the highest GPA? (answer: Bush)

  2. Who received an MBA from Harvard? (answer: Bush)

  3. Who flunked out of law school? (answer: Gore)

  4. Who flunked out of Divinity School? (answer: Gore)

I realize this doesn’t matter to you lot, but I’m just tired of seeing you kiddies posting this garbage and acting like it’s true. Perhaps you should step outside your “hate Bush no matter what” point of view, and you might see a man who generally cares about what he is doing, and tends to speak more from the heart than from prepared statements. It isn’t the slick used car salesman who stumbles on his words, its the man who is trying to tell it the way he sees it. I guess you guys think people that stutter should be institutionalized too. If you were capable of being objective, you would see that there is no one more biased, bigoted or prejudiced than a liberal.

lets face it, short people don’t become presidents.

neither do fat people.

american people are not smart enough to actually think, they need a tall, white, non-jewish, low-fat candidate if he is to have a chance.

:::cough cough:::Martin Van Buren:::cough cough:::

:::cough cough:::Grover Cleveland:::cough cough:::

Grover? Howzabout Herbert Hoover! Story has it that Hoover was reported to have just returned from horse riding. A wag asked “How’s the horse?” I mean, when he sat around the White House…

I asked for a comparison using the same standards. If you’re going to use “Bushisms” as the standard for measuring Bush’s intellect (which you do), then use “Clintinisms” for Clinton’s - and bear in mind that there are (or maybe were, I don’t know if they get kept up) pages upon pages of absurdities said by Clinton. I don’t really think that they show anything of significance, but you’re the one who came up with the standard, not me.

Let’s apply your standards to some other people, Bush can speak far better than Stephen Hawking on any subject, thereforeBush is far smarter than Hawking by your intelligence test. Hmm… maybe you’re testing speaking ability at best, and probably just whether you like the candidate, and not intelligence? And I certainly remember Clinton tripping all over his own tongue whenever he spoke, perhaps you’re the one not being objective - not that it really matters, since you still haven’t shown that intelligence is correllated to speechmaking, or how the ‘intelligence’ shown by speechmaking is significant in choosing one candidate over the other.

“Bush says Bushism’s, therefore Bush is dumb” (or “Clinton says Clintonisms, therefore Clinton is dumb”) is plenty of evidence for a comedy act. It is not, however, of any worth when making a serious political argument, such as the kind you need to make to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with you of the value of a particular candidate.

It’s only a silly request if your original comment was a worthless comment. It’s hardly “silly” to ask what someone else is using as a standard of ‘better person’, or to ask for evidence that one person really is better than another one. If the original comment really just means ‘Ohh, I like him better than Dubya’, why not be honest and just say that in the first place?

Substantive differences, not campaign rhetoric. How they would handle the recession is not all that relevant since Bush will clearly lose hands-down to whoever the Democrats pick if the recession isn’t over by 2004, but you could at least tell us what the candidates would do differently and how we could expect their actions to help the economy. More significantly, will these ‘recover plans’ be implemented if we’re out of the recession and what effect would one expect them to have then?

What would be the actual difference in their handling of Al Qaeda and Saddam, and what is the evidence that Bush’s handling of the war is affected by “Daddy Issues”? Talking about “Daddy issues” and “our guy is smarter” may be real popular at the DNC, but it’s not convincing to anyone who doesn’t already believe you.

“Focussed” is so vague, it could mean almost anything. What would be their policies on health care issues? What would be their policies on “protecting social security”? How much real impact would their focus have when congress is the one who will need to vote on actual changes for either one?

“You think” is not exactly substantive. What evidence supports the Democrats having a less cavalier attitude towards civil liberties, and what explains the Democrats in congress voting for pretty much everything Bush asked for? I mean, you are talking about a party that went in for the DMCA, and has a bad record on 1st (Lieberman and Tipper, CDA, “campaign finance reform”), 2nd (do I even need an example?), 4th (Asset forfeiture and other fun in the drug war, enhanced surveilence and police powers for homeland security), and 5th (More drug war fun) amendment issues. The difference needs to be more than “well, we’ll require a warrant for a cavity search” for me to consider it substantive.

Pretty weak. You’ve got a lot of stuff that will only fly at a Democratic rally, and some "I think"s and “Focusseds” that show what you like but not really anything of substance.

Based on what evidence? I’m sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and claiming to have found an honest politician is about a 9 on the extraordinary list. While this kind of thing plays well to the sort of people who are going to vote for whoever the Democrats pick, for anyone else a claim that God himself stepped down and endorsed your candidate is probably more believable.

What policy differences would this lead to with him as president, especially in light of the large amount of corporate contributions he’s gotten in the past and will likely get for a presidential campaign?

What policy differences can we expect based on this - for all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it’s not like Bush is seeking to disband the EPA?

It sounds like campaign rhetoric to me. Where are the specifics to this “$500 tax rebate to poor families”, and the details of the ‘tax-breaks-for-the-wealthy program’? Hell, didn’t Bush give out a big across-the-board tax rebate a while back - is the difference that Bush’s was across the board, while Edward’s will be only up to $X, or something more substantive?

How did he vote on the DMCA, the various Homeland Security measures, and other cyber privacy related bills? By substantive differences, I don’t mean ‘gives speeches about’, but ‘does something about’.

Moving on to the intellect bit…

BTW, none of you have even started to explain how this alleged intelligence gap makes a difference in which candidate one should vote for. So although I find it amusing to point out the really broken logic in your comparisons, even if I accept that Lieberman, or Edwards, or whoever is smarter than Bush, it wouldn’t matter because you haven’t even provided an explanation (much less a convincing argument) of why someone would want to vote for one candidate or the other on the basis of whatever intelligence difference you believe exists.

Cite, please. I’m not aware of ANYONE who knows much of anything about testing in general who believes that the SAT works as an intelligence test.

Someone made up the IQ number that you used, and I pointed out that it’s within 1 standard deviation of the number you had for Gore, which means it ain’t all that big of a difference. We’re not even getting into whether these IQ scores came form a the same test, or even tests calibrated to the same standard, just that the number you came up with doesn’t show that much of a difference.

Honestly, I can’t believe that somoene is actually using exact numbers by saying “X% of people do better than that score” when the score is a WAG in the first place. The score was pulled out of someone’s ass, it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to treat it as an exact measure.

You focused on Gore’s cum laude graduation while ignoring his undergrad average. Why? You claimed that the two candidates lives ‘diverged’ at the point where Bush does far better in school. Why? You… well, you get the picture. I picked a piece of illustrative text from the source you cited, complaining that I didn’t focus on one particular other thing is silly when you haven’t even told me what the data is supposed to mean.

I am a lefty, and I’m getting tired of all this “Bush is a dummy” and “Bush is a bad president” stuff. This is a recipe for disaster: We thereby underestimate our enemy.

By any objective standard, Bush is a very good President, insofar as he is stunningly effective at getting what he wants and implementing his agenda. He wanted his tax cut for the rich. Done. He wanted to fly in the face of history and pick up seats for his party in a midterm election. Done. He wants this war on Iraq. He’s going to get it. Ditto for the wrongheaded economic stimulus plan, and who knows what-all else.

Now, let me clarify: Just because I think he’s an effective President shouldn’t be read as me saying he isn’t ultimately a destructive President. I disagree with almost every single one of his policies and political objectives. I think he is actively damaging the country. I believe that, while he honestly considers himself to be doing the right thing, his life experience is so sheltered and his upper-class worldview so staggeringly myopic that his definition of “the right thing” is objectively, and terribly, wrong.

But, again, that should be considered separately from whether or not he is a “good” or “bad” President. Bad Presidents, I say, are incapable of getting anything done, right or wrong. Jimmy Carter meant well, but aside from that one monumental treaty, his administration spent four years lurching awkwardly from one priority to another without ever making any progress on anything. That’s a bad President.

Bush is getting almost everything he wants (even if I may strongly believe that what he wants is exactly what the country doesn’t need right now). From a purely objective standpoint, that makes him a good President, in terms of his effectiveness in wielding his reins of power. To deny this, to continue insisting on labeling him incompetent and stupid, is to set ourselves up for catastrophe in 2004. Mark my words.

Now. Regarding Lieberman.

He was on Conan O’Brien the other night. While I can appreciate the strategic intent of this, and his attempt to counter his image as a humorless, self-righteous prig, I must say that such an attempt can really only be pulled off by somebody who is not, in fact, a humorless, self-righteous prig.

Look at Al Gore, for example. For whatever unknown reasons, he chose to present himself on the national stage as an oily automaton, distant and arrogant and devoid of wit or compassion. Those horrible sighs of condescension during that one debate, for example, go down as one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade. But then he goes on Saturday Night Live, and he shows he gets it. He gets the joke on himself. If he’d done that two years ago, he’d be President now.

Lieberman clearly picked up on that, and tried a similar approach, bandying witticisms with the goofy late-night comic. It started off well, with a comparison of Irish vs. Jewish guilt, but Lieberman just plain dropped the ball. Conan kept feeding him stuff, and Lieberman couldn’t figure out how to play. He just comes off as self-important and, I don’t know, cold, like they’ve been keeping his soul on ice and trundling it out only for public events, rendering him sluggish and insensitive.

He doesn’t have a chance. Partly this is because I’m cynical enough to think the U.S. hasn’t progressed enough to really be willing, collectively, to elect a Jewish leader (which makes me sad and angry). Hell, some of our most beloved public figures — Walt Disney, for one — were unapologetic anti-Semites, and that doesn’t appear to have impacted their reputations to any measurable degree. And how about those recently released Nixon tapes, huh?

But beyond that, he just doesn’t play on TV, which, unfortunately, is a key measure of electability these days. He may be smart. He may have the right mix of conservative, hawkish views to counter the patronizing Northeast Ivy League vibe that will send much of the South scurrying for an alternative. But he just doesn’t feel human. He feels like one of the benevolent lizard people from V.. He feels like Flukeman in a suit.

If November 2004 turns out to be Lieberman v. Bush, I have no idea how I’ll vote. Hold my nose and mark the D? Or go with a third party? I really don’t know. Odds are, I’ll probably pull a Margot Kidder and turn up the next morning shivering naked in a hedge with no memory of the previous night.

Obviously, I’m not looking forward to it.

So, do you have a list of what policies any of the Democratic candidates would follow, and how they differ from Bush’s policies? I mean, if you think he’s “destructive” and disagree with virtually everything he’s doing, then surely you’re looking for a candidate who will run different policies, not just the same policies but with a different team jersey and a few minor differences.

This is another thing Democrats should stop doing, whining that people don’t like their candidates because of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc. They should try to run a candidate on his strengths, not run some pathetic (and doomed) attempt to guilt trip people into voting based on skin color, religion, or gender. It’s generally bad form to come up with an excuse for why you lost the race before it even started, especially when it’s such a transparently false excuse - perhaps running a less radically religious candidate (do either Clinton or Bush refuse to work on Sunday?) would work.

I don’t think the US has ‘progressed’ enough to be willing, collectively to elect a fundamentalist Christain who holds Christian beliefs as strongly as Lieberman holds his Jewish beliefs, though I’m not “sad and angry” about that. And I’m really confused, because I thought the left was all against letting religious radicals run the government - or is that only if they have the other team jersey?