Paraphrasing Tejota, W’s successes in school, in business and in politics were all due to luck. I bet his luck will rub off on the whole country now that he’s President.
That will be fabulous if it works out that way. Shall we rename the country ‘Bush’ to take maximum advantate?
By the way, have you ever read Larry Niven’s Ringworld. He has some interesting thoughts about being associated with a lucky person. To summarize: If the luckiest outcome for W personally is harmful for the country, then god help the country…
tj
december, I get the feeling that you’re not really reading my posts. For the last time:
I described Bush’s successes in a number of areas:
Well, you made assertions (or rather, you took over Bluesman’s assertions) that Bush’s successes in these areas should be considered evidence of his high abilities and intelligence. I don’t think your arguments are convincing.
bilingual,
See Tejota’s comments on this subject.
graduated a top college,
With a record so undistinguished that according to a 2000 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Mr. Bush sometimes jokes on the campaign trail about how little work he did in college, as a history major, and about his mediocre grades. Apparently, they were not good enough for the University of Texas law school, which rejected him two years after he graduated from Yale.”
To my mind, getting into a prestigious college via family connections and doing little work and making mediocre grades once you’re there simply don’t constitute evidence of outstanding ability or achievement. It doesn’t make the man dumb or incompetent, but it doesn’t make him an extraordinary talent, either.
graduated top B school,
Where his grades were also described as “middling”. The point is simply that his actual academic performance gives no indication whether his prestigious degrees mean that he’s really highly qualified or simply highly connected.
made millions in business,
Nobody’s denying he made millions. The criticism of this point, from other posters as well as myself, has been that his wealth was gained from cozying up with politically influential connections rather than by business acumen. That may be your idea of an admirable achievement, but I repeat, it isn’t mine.
elected Governor with huge vote,
No, elected Governor with 53% of the vote; re-elected as an incumbent with a much larger margin.
elected President.
Sort of.
*You minimized each of these achievements, mostly by alleging that his fortunate family background deserved the credit. *
Right. Judging by his record, he’s achieved little or nothing that the average man couldn’t achieve if he’d been born George H. W. Bush’s son.
*Two questions for you:
- Given W’s fortunate background, are there any achievements that could lead you to think well of him?*
Sure there are. My point is simply that he doesn’t appear to have any significant achievements that are independent of the advantages provided by his fortunate background.
2. I’ve provided 6 reasons for believing in W’s competence. What are your reasons for doubting it?
I never said he was incompetent—not in the literal sense of being unfit to hold office, certainly. I just don’t think his record indicates that his competence is any higher than average. And I can’t understand what you mean by asking for my reasons for thinking so—sheesh, those reasons are all I’ve been talking about for the duration of this thread!
Paraphrasing Tejota, W’s successes in school, in business and in politics were all due to luck.
Luck? What I read Tejota as mostly saying was that Bush “excels at working the old-boy network to his own advantage.” You’re not paraphrasing, you’re simply distorting.
I bet his luck will rub off on the whole country now that he’s President.
Or at least the part of it that’s already wealthy and powerful: they’re the ones whom Bush’s policies seem clearly aimed at benefiting. The rest of us, alas, may not get so lucky.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**…My point is simply that he doesn’t appear to have any significant achievements that are independent of the advantages provided by his fortunate background… I never said he was incompetent—not in the literal sense of being unfit to hold office, certainly. I just don’t think his record indicates that his competence is any higher than average. [/B
[QUOTE]
Compare the achievements of Mr. Gore, born with similar advantages.
- Mono-lingual
- Graduated a top college (with worse grades than W’s)
- Dropped out of Vanderbilt Law and Vanderbilt Divinity Schools
- Didn’t try going into business (and had no great success as a reporter.)
- Failed to carry his own state in 2000.
- Received a majority of the popular vote in 2000.
I think W’s record looks pretty good in comparison.
Surely I am not the only one who has heard of the “gentlemen’s B”? A friend of mine who is a Harvard graduate let me in on this policy that is rather commonplace in the Ivies - if you show up to every class, you get an automatic B, no matter what you score on your tests. He used this policy to swing a B in physics, where he otherwise would have received an F and been placed on probation.
I don’t consider a degree from an Ivy League college to be an automatic indicator of anything beyond that the person holds a degree from an Ivy League college. I’ve known enough people who have attended Ivies that are completely unable to tell their asses from their elbows to know that assuming one is brilliant and hardworking simply because they have a degree from a certain school would be a mistake.
To get back on topic, I do feel bad for him, but in another way. He gets slammed a lot for his mangling of the English language when he speaks in public. One thing is that a lot of the mistakes he makes would be indicative of someone with dyslexia - he seems to grasp a word that looks and sounds similar to the one he wants, regardless of the fact that the two words don’t usually mean anything close to the same thing. Another thing would be that maybe he is just like me, and gets nervous speaking in public. I’d hate to have people call me stupid because I flubbed a few words out of nervousness and panic.
As for the rest, well, every President has their training period, their time when they cut their teeth. Hopefully he will be able to learn from his mistakes in foreign affairs, although, frankly, I think that he has neither the nuance of language nor the grasp of foreign policy to be able to be a very respectable figure on the international front.
My statement above was intended to mean that I expect Bush to be an effective president, but predict that political opponents will attribute all the good results to luck. Confirmation comes today from Eric Alterman, liberal attack dog for MSNBC. His column about the successful negotiations to secure the return of the captive crew is entitled: “A lucky break for the president.” It goes on to “explain” how the crew came to be returned even though Bush did almost everything wrong. Link:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/557568.asp?0nm=C11M
Hmmm, counting on Molly Ivins for the definitive assessment of Dubya (with an assist from the Texas Observer in another thread) - always nice to hear from folks with no ideological ax to grind. Perhaps we can now turn to the American Spectator for the unbiased historical assessment of the Clinton years. 
To return to the OP, Bush ain’t seen nothing yet. Give it a few more months and we’re likely to have the biggest gas tax increase in years hitting home, not to mention a real live recession. Now where did that surplus go?
This subject brings back fond memories of Bill’s early days (in my house, the term “failed Clinton Presidency” was coined during the pre-inaugural period - pretty embarassing, considering we voted for him). Here’s one take on some of the early Clinton disasters (virtually all self-inflicted) and how Bush was supposed to learn from them (it doesn’t seem as if the lesson was absorbed very well).*
As to Bush’s record as Texas governor, everyone keeps pointing to what a success or failure it was. From my perspective of having been here for about 5/8ths of his period in office, I’m struck by what an invisible man he was. No notable achievements, no ground-breaking failures. Will this be his White House legacy as well? We may ultimately decide that he would have been a tolerable hands-off President during the economically soft ride of the 90s, while Clinton would have achieved more in times of abundant crisis (when he would have been more distracted from dropping his pants).
*odd thing in this article - reading the reference to the 1.3 trillion dollar proposed GOP tax cut, one wonders how the ultimate passage of a 1.29 trillion dollar cut by the Senate could be so universally viewed by the major media as a GOP defeat. Weird.
And by the way, I am still extremely pissed about Samuel Tilden being robbed of the 1876 presidential election by Rutherford Hayes. The last 125 years are null and void, as far as I’m concerned. 
Forget about gas. What about Medicare, also untouched by the tax cut. I am going to wind up paying $500 more in taxes thanks to his medical cuts. Some tax cut that is.
Make that a gas price increase.
Oh, and speaking of Molly Ivins’ record as a hopeful but not very astute political prognosticator:
Today’s NY Times confirms the line that Bush’s good results are to be deemed “luck”. An article China Policy Without Regrets" is summarized in a box as, “Bush’s Good Luck Needs Diplomacy to Match It.” A quote from the article says, “Indeed, the administration was very lucky to have the current ambassador – a Clinton holdover…” Link:
First, kids, its a “gentelman’s C” not a “B” – unless grade inflation has gotten worse since my days in an Ivy. And I’ll agree, going to an Ivy doesn’t prove much, above all for legacies --they still exist.
But, whatever.
[quote]
Well, for all that I think good old Colin needs to get some props here. After the first day or so when the big mouths without their brains in gear were shut up, I rather think the whole thing was handled cooly and professionally (in stark contrast with some other things). The team if not marble mouth should get props for a job well done.