Granted. However, in this thread you aren’t questioning Bush’s ability to be President (at least not directly); you’re pointing out mistakes he’s made in public appearances. As an analogy, you’re saying that Bush had his zipper down during a speech while your pants are around your ankles. Tend to your own garden before trying to pull up weeds in someone else’s.
I’m guessing (and I freely admit this is a guess) that the remarks you’ve attributed to Bush were made during question-and-answer sessions, or were otherwise somewhat extemporaneous. One can be a brilliant deliverer of speeches (not that I’m saying Bush is) and yet fall flat when engaging in the give-and-take of repartee. So saying Bush has a stable of speechwriters is a moot point if he wasn’t giving a speech at the time.
What, so it’s okay to be sloppy in your communication skills? As has been pointed out here multiple times, on these boards all we have as a guideline for dealing with others is what’s written on the screen. If you’re going to point out inconsistencies in someone’s skill at delivering a message, you’d better make sure you don’t suffer from the same deficiencies.
As information, I don’t agree with many of Bush’s current actions or policies. I’ve got no problem with lancing the festering boil of idiocy. But you’re mashing the blackhead of banality. It’s trivial. Give it a rest.
Alright, I was taking cheap shots at Bush, and doing a poor job of it at that. I’ll let it rest, but I am still amazed that some people think he’s an intelligent person.
cainxinth, it’s been pointed out that Republican leaders are often called stupid. The standards are ever-shifting, but the conclusion is the same:[ul][li]George W. Bush with degrees from Harvard and Yale is “stupid” because he sometimes makes verbal gaffes and “doesn’t like reading a book on public polcy.”[]Ronald Reagan, who did like reading books on public policy and who gave radio addressess on the topic, is stupid because he went to a little-known college. []Yale Law School graduate Gerald Ford is stupid because he looks like a Big Ten football lineman. (He was an outstanding one.) Dwight Eisenhower, who led the free world to victory in Europe in WWII, was stupid because he smiled a lot and didn’t say too much. [/ul]Having a stupid Republican is handy, so there’s always a convenient target for what were called moron jokes when I was a kid. [/li]
Also, believe it or not, some leaders choose to appear stupider than they are. E.g., Eisenhower biographies show that although he maintained a bland demeaner and spoke vaguely, he was a shrewd and cunning political strategist. That shouldn’t be surpirsing, givin his success as a military leader. I have read that in his first political race in Texas George W. Bush was hurt by his Ivy League background. I believe he also sets out not to appear overly smart.
In the past Republicans tried the same thing with Harry Truman. It boomeranged. Truman’s down-home image helped his popularity. I believe that history will give high marks to “stupid” Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and George W. Bush.
december, I think your reading a little much into what I said. Who said anything about Republicans in general. I was referring very specifically to Bush.
Sure, anyone can flub lines and say stupid things when under pressure. But I think that it is very possible that the President’s advisors discourage him from having many press conferences because he is really not very bright and screws up in the worst way. His mistakes aren’t just slips of the tongue. I could overlook that. But I think it goes a lot deeper.
As for how he got through Harvard and Yale, I do not know. Maybe he had infuential friends. Maybe he cheated. But I do know that it doesn’t speak well for either of those universities.
I agree that Eisenhower was not a stupid man. But I don’t think that he came across as being stupid – just down to earth.
Or, maybe, possibly, he went to class, studied and did well enough on the tests to get passing grades. Wacky, off the wall possiblility, but hey, maybe.
Max, you didn’t read far enough in your cite. It says, “a steep increase from just 10 years earlier”. The current grade-inflation system was not in effect when W was an undergraduate.
BTW Gore’s grades were even worse than Bush’s. So were McCain’s.
What you’ve just witnessed is the classic Straw Man execution as only december can manage it. No one, in this entire thread, was drawing conclusions along partisan lines. In fact, the discussion was pretty much the opposite. People pointed out that people in general, politicians of every stripe, look dumb sometimes. The OP was being refuted along the best kind of lines when trying to fight ignorance. The assertion that a basic skills test should be mandatory for Presidents on the grounds that a current President commits verbal snafus was failing miserably under counterpoints like Shodan made “These people talk for a living. It isn’t possible to speak for a full day and not make some mistakes, for anybody.”
Then december comes in here and repeats the same arguement he’s losing in Great Debates at the moment. He’s decided there is a common belief that “Democrats are good people; Republicans are bad people or Democrats are tolerant; Republicans are bigots” and he’s railing against it at every opportunity. Since no one he’s been conversing with on the SDMB seem to be supporting the proposition he’s arguing against, he’s off base here. The “common myth” he’s so annoyed with doesn’t seem to exist, yet he posts things like his post in this thread.
He’s kicking the stuffing out of those straw men though!
We all say stupid things, but Bush seems to have said way more than his share of them or there would not be books of them published (btw I find those books very amusing/sad).
And my favourite “Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?”
Yeah, but does that make him an idiot and/or unfit to President? There are plenty of verifiable reasons to think Bush is a poor President, so instead of trying to make him fit your* unverifiable conceptions why not harp on those instead?
Regardless of what mtgman says, there’s an undercurrent of partisanship in this whole thread in spite of people trying to disprove this poplular insult using reason. I’m sure there are exceptions but I honestly think people believing Bush is an idiot is primarily based on left-wing biases just as I think that people believing Clinton was going to turn the White House into a drug den was primarily based on right-wing biases.
I did mention Bush’s aversion to scholarly reading as indicator of his lack of intelligence. That’s no gaffe. Also, it seems no one refutes that Bush isn’t the mastermind behind the game plan he’s been playing. I’m sorry but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the President can read and determine his own foreign policies.
People believed the Clinton Whitehouse was a house of ill repute because the man was a lying scumbag that took advantage of an intern. There is no partisan fallacy there. Likewise, people think Bush is the village idiot because he isn’t extremely knowledgeable about most policy issues, nor does he claim to be. For Christ’s sakes, one of his campaign promises was to surround himself with people who did know what the hell they were doing.
Well we’ve already ruled out the calendar, that leaves my second premise, that Bush is merely an instrument to his administration. I offered William Safire as an expert witness, and I mentioned Bush’s campaign promise, but there’s probably more evidence if I dug further. But, in the reverse, can you prove that he is running the show?
cainxinth, I was referring to the whole “didn’t inhale” deal before he actually came into office. Rebublicans tried to use that as a an example of his lack of morals and the Dems played it down. The roles were reversed on Bush’s DUI.
Both situations involved events that happened years ago and both sides tried to spin it to their benefits based on partisan politics. I have no doubt that’s the motivation for most people trying to prove Bush has a low IQ. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Bush recruited and selected his foreign policy team. IMHO Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are outstanding. That didn’t just happen.
The “Galloping Meatball Theory” suggests that if a meatball gets a top job, s/he will choose assistants who are also meatballs; they will choose meatballs for their assistants, etc., and pretty soon you’ve got meatballs galloping throughout the organization. This theory has examples in the private sector and in government.
Bush’s choices reflect very well on Bush himself.
BTW I’d rather have a President who sets good overall goals and has a strong staff to carry out his decisions. Compare this approach with Jimmy Carter who edited his subordinates’ memos or Lyndon Johnson, who personally picked out bombing targets in Vietnam. These Presidents “hands on” approaches led to foreign policy disasters.
