stupidest president - you can't be serious

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

IzzyR has a point; the media do tend to portray public figures, especially politicians, in the dimmest possible light.

About 10 years ago I was a member of a symposium on strategic reconnaissance (don’t ask) and our guest speaker was…Dan Quayle.

Before he started his introductory speach everyone was either making “Quayle” jokes or expressing anger or amazement that anyone would deliberately ask this doofus to come speak to our group. Imagine our amazement when Danny proved not only to be a witty and articulate speaker, but someone who was also well informed on a wide variety of issues. He handled the question & answer period with skill and poise. All-in-all he was NOT the same guy we’d all learned to sneer and laugh at while watching the evening news.

Ever since then I’m VERY careful about making character judgements about public figures based on their media image. I’m sure there’s a lot more substance to them than you are lead to believe.

42

Quayle is the unfortunate victim of the media’s tendency to pick up on a certain trait and play it to death. Remember Gerald Ford? By far one of our most athletic presidents, but he slips and falls once, and suddenly every bobble and fall becomes SNL and Tonight Show fodder for days. It looks as though Bush, like Quayle, will be forever known for his verbal slipups. I’m sure that if we look through all of Clinton’s thousands of speeches we’d find dozens of similar mistakes–like the time he cobbled together posterity and prosperity and said “prosterity”–but because he has a reputation as a good public speaker, the media ignore such things.

Pretty much all politicians have some negative trait for which they are remembered, even if they were no worse than anyone else in this regard. Reagan slept through meetings and was forgetful, Gore was a pathological liar, etc.

43

Even more significant is this line from the 10th edition of that dictionary:

“The plural construction is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several publishers mandates it.”

In other words, the more common plural use is an artifact of publishing rules. In my experience, very few people use data with a plural noun when speaking.

But enough of this hijack. Back to the Quayle bashing…

44

It’s amazing how little we remember. George W. Bush has not even completed six months in office yet, but many here have already decided his term in office will not be a good one. Let’s think back 8 years. Our then-new president, Bill Clinton, was rebounding from one gaffe to another. Remember his executive order to allow gays in the military? Turned out he was in direct and obvious violation of the Constitution. What about Waco? Does anyone think that was handled properly? Bush’s daughter tried to use a fake ID. How does that compare to the travel office scandal or Whitewater? Few presidents have come out of the gate running. Two who did are FDR and Truman and they are remebered as great men. Does that mean that the rest are not?

I think that the original question in Cecil’s column is an insult to the American electorate. I don’t think we have ever elected a stupid President. Some have been great men and some weren’t quite up to the task, but I hardly feel that any of them could be in any way considered stupid.

45

He has a good sense of humor regarding “The Potatoe Incident.” My proof? I am the proud owner of a dictionary autographed by Mr. Quayle, purchased at a charity auction for the Noah Webster house… No, he didn’t underline the word “potato.”

46

Okay, lay off the “potatoe”. I’ve made that mistake myself (though not in a spelling bee). Come on, it’s very easy. Consider

  1. Potatoes is spelled with the e.

  2. The word “toe” is spelled with an e, to emphasize the long o sound instead of an oo sound (the word “to”).

  3. Hi Opal!

  4. Many English words end in silent e to emphasize the final vowel is a long sound instead of short sound.

Given those arguments, it is not unreasonable to think there might be a silent e on the end of potato - potatoe. So what’s the big freakin’ deal?!

Regarding presidents, it is often assumed that if a President was not particularly noteworthy (no giant wars, no national crises to oversee), then he must have not been very bright. Maybe he was just fortunate/unfortunate enough to live in boring times.

47

[Opus1 is correct. To prove it, look at those who claim Quayle and Bush are stupid because they’re not good speakers. How many of these people have said that Reagan, an outstanding speaker, was brilliant?

48

In an effort to keep this discussion light-hearted…

http://www.ilovebacon.com/noway/062601b.shtml

It’s just a funny (real) photo. Check it out.

49

Regardless of whether Opus1 is correct to not, the argument “If A means B, then not A means not B” isn’t logically sound. It’s called Denying the Antecedent. Also, I don’t believe that the argument is that they are stupid because they are poor public speakers, it’s that they’re poor public speakers because they’re stupid.

50

I would say that brilliance is irrelevant to public-speaking ability.

Reagan was relying on his experience as an actor. Being a good public speaker does not necessarily mean you are brilliant. It could just mean you are comfortable speaking to a large number of people and are capable of reading out loud. (Presidents don’t memorize their speeches, let alone write them. They simply read them from teleprompters.)

To me, “brilliant” means great problem-solving ability, great insight and intuition. I don’t think Reagan had any of that.

51

To me, “brilliant” means great problem-solving ability, great insight and intuition. I don’t think Reagan had any of that. **
[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmmmmm…I’m not sure Mikhail Gorbachov would agree with you.

52

I remember laughing my ass off at a Quayle quote:

I love San Diego. I grew up in Arizona.

Too bad they never printed the whole thing which I read later:

I love San Diego. I grew up in Arizona and my family visited there often.

A good example of how the media portay things incorrectly.

Haj

53

*Originally posted by jab1 *
I would say that brilliance is irrelevant to public-speaking ability.

Now if we can only get the message to those who thing that Bush’s public speaking weakness means he’s not brilliant…

Reagan was relying on his experience as an actor…Presidents don’t memorize their speeches, let alone write them. They simply read them from teleprompters.

This may be true in general, but Reagan was a great speech-writer. Just read his essays. He could have written all his own Presidential speeches, but he used his time fro more important functions.

He gave many speeches from index cards. On one occassion, his cards becasme totally disordered. He nevertheless gave his usual outstanding speech.

**To me, “brilliant” means great problem-solving ability, great insight and intuition. I don’t think Reagan had any of that. **

jab1, What is your evidence that Reagan lacked great problem-solving ability? This is The Straight Dope.

Reagan did solve some great problems – inflation, recession and the cold war. If you read his writings, you will discover that he read widely about issues, thought about them, and made his own decisions.

Protesilaus wrote**…the argument “If A means B, then not A means not B” isn’t logically sound. It’s called Denying the Antecedent.**

I was exaggerating for effect. However, consider the logic. If poor speakers are stupider than average, doesn’t it automatically follow that good speakers are smarter than average? Perhaps Prot really believes that poor speakers and good speakers are both stupider than average – if they’re Republicans.

54

What did Reagan have to do with helping the economy or ending the Cold War? By most measures, the economy was stronger under Carter and Clinton. I’ve heard Republicans argue, in all seriousness, that the economy was bad under Reagan because of delayed effects of Carter’s policies, and that it was good for Clinton due to delayed effects from Reagan and Bush’s policies.

And the Cold War… If any one man deserves credit for ending the Cold War, it’s Ray Kroc. If you insist on naming a politician, then it’s Gorbachev. What did Reagan do?

55

All of you attaching such superlatives as “worst ever” and “dumbest ever” to Dan Quayle should track down the book Bland Ambition.

56

*Originally posted by Chronos *
What did Reagan have to do with helping the economy or ending the Cold War? By most measures, the economy was stronger under Carter and Clinton.

I agree that the ecomony did very well indeed under Clinton. Under Carter, we had a combination of recession and very high inflation. {b]Chronos**, you must be much younger than I not to remember it.
And the Cold War… If any one man deserves credit for ending the Cold War, it’s Ray Kroc.

Cute. However, the cold war was deadly serious. Read about it from the standpoint of the generations of Europeans unlucky enough to be under the control of Russian Communism.

**If you insist on naming a politician, then it’s Gorbachev. What did Reagan do? **

Actually some credit for winning the cold war while avoiding nuclear armegeddon goes to every President from Truman to Reagan, but Truman and Reagan get more credit than the others. JFK is also noted for his defence of Berlin. Eisenhower set up the Mutally Assured Destruction system, which was often mocked, but which succeeded.

What Reagan did was to oppose communism verbally, setting a moral tone. His reference ot the “evil empire” was correct; they were an evil empire. Believe it or not, during the 1950’s through 1970’s, there were many in the West who saw communism as the moral equivalent of democratic capitalism. There was much talk about “coexistence.” There were leaders who espoused a system that would include elements of communism.

Reagan also engaged an ABM-Systems race that the Russians couldn’t afford and IIRC supported anti-communists in various countries.

57

Yes, I realize just how serious the Cold War was. That’s why I, in all seriousness, mentioned Kroc. The fundamental (though certainly not only) difference between capitalism and comunism was economic, and it was economic factors which resolved the conflict. The people of the former Soviet Union decided that they wanted McDonalds’ burgers, and Gap clothes, and all the other trappings of a capitalist society… Or at least, they decided that they wanted to have those options. Certainly, McDonalds didn’t stand alone for capitalism, but I think it’s safe to consider them symbolic of the whole movement.

The ABM defense… Russia couldn’t afford it, but then again, neither could we. You’ll notice that we still don’t have a missile defense. And let’s not even get started about MAD: The reason that we didn’t start throwing nukes at each other was that it didn’t work. There have been times when both countries have been “certain” that the other side had launched, but did not retaliate.

58

Reagan’s way of setting a moral tone was to support murderous regimes like those in El Salvador and Chile.

And to state that anyone killed by those regimes were obviously communist.

59

I’m sorry Chronos, but your last two replies have left me totally speechless. While I’m sure you are a highly intelligent and educated person, I’m afraid that your view on the Cold War is both naive and in total contradiction to established historical fact. I can only assume that you learned this skewed view from some grad school professor.

I realize that I open myself up to criticism by not supporting my statements with facts, but I don’t have the inclination to write a dissertation on the topic right now, and that’s what it would take to refute your statements. However, I will say that I served as an Army Intelligence officer throughout the 80’s and into the early 90’s. I studied communist doctrine extensively, and trust me, our differences were a LOT more significant than simple economics. Had the communists won the Cold War instead of us, your ability to purchase Big Macs or shop at the GAP would have been the least of your problems!!

60

It’s interesting to note that MAD was designed under the Eisenhower administration with the assistance of John Von Neumann – arguably the smartest person who ever lived.