Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and GWB cannot be determined yet. Until we can objectively look at what they accomplished in light of history we can’t start to make a pure decision. A true call on those guys will remain moot until we are long gone.
OTOH looking back we can say Harding had one of the most horrible administrations and Harrison didn’t last long enough to matter. Grant wasn’t too wonderful, either, but if you’re going to argue drunken traffic accidents you need to include Pierce.
I’d like to agree, since I’m comfortable with public speaking.
However, my wife, a Prof at a Medical School, with dozens and dozens of publications, is quite uncomfortable as a speaker. She doesn’t win teaching awards, but anyone who knows her realizes how intelligent she is.
How many of the brilliant SDMB posters aren’t good public speakers?
Hmm, the old partial quote trick. I did not say that all his mis-statements were the product of late night comedians, merely that many of them were. This was also noted by snopes. I also said that many of them made sense in context. I don’t know the context of any of these quotes, but for most of them its easy to see how they might be used in a way that made sense. E.G. “If we don’t succeed [with in this particular initiative that I am now promoting], we run the risk of failure [in the larger issue that I am discussing].” So Quayle thought the US was part of Europe? Maybe JFK was a moron. He thought he was a Berliner. Context is everything.
(As an aside, I remember watching the Reagan/Mondale debate with my sister many years ago. Mondale had a habit of pausing in mid-sentence. At one point, the moderator asked him if he would describe himself as “born again”. He responded thus “I don’t know. If I was born again. But I do know. That I was born.” At this point my sister and I burst into hysterical laughter. After several seconds, Mondale went on “into a Christian family”.)
The canals on Mars thing is a goof-up.
Anyway, my larger point was that most politicians are prone to the exact same type of mis-statements. I’ve heard numerous such mis-statements, and I don’t follow politics that closely. But in most cases, they don’t get highlighted and collected into lists of idiotic statements because they are not the “story line” about that politician. If you consider the thousands of speeches that Quayle made after his VP selection, and the fact that everything that could be remotely skewed as a mis-statement was immediately seized on by the press and political opponents, I don’t think the amount shown is nearly out of the ordinary.
Ain’t no “trick”, IzzyR. If you’re familiar with snopes, that’s not their style. Those aren’t “partial quotes”.
Also, your defense that “well, his quote could have meant…” is pretty hollow (not to mention unsubstaniated).
JFK didn’t “think he was a Berliner”. He was referring to Berliners regaining their pride. You were joking, right?
“canals on Mars is a goof-up”? I’ll say.
Also, you didn’t address either the “low voter turnout” or the “pollution” quotes.
Bottom line is, no “remotely skewing” of quotes is required to show Quayle was lacking in the brains department. His quotes, plus his academic record, support this. You claim that “most politicians are prone” to Quayle-type goofs. Where’s your proof of this claim? I’ve already presented mine about Quayle.
Try thinking outside of your right-wing box for a second and face reality: You’re defending him because he’s a Republican. Why is it not possible that there’s a Republican out there whose smarts aren’t up to snuff?
I am quite familiar with snopes, and was not accusing them up taking partial quotes. I am quite unfamiliar with you and it was with regards to you that I was referring. You implied that I said that all Quayle mis-statements were the product of late night comedians by quoting the first half of a paragraph, and leaving out the rest, in which I said
Unsubstantiated, yes. Hollow, not. If you take a single sentence out of a speech and consider it on its own it is often difficult to discern the correct meaning. Any judgements about how silly such a sentence is are invalid.
Not at all. You make my point for me. JFK did not think he was a Berliner. But he said “I am a Berliner”. To look at these words and ignore the context of what JFK was saying would be a mistake. So too with Dan Quayle. You interpret his words to mean that he thought the US was physically a part of Europe. I say he more likely meant that the US was closely integrated with Europe i.e. that the US and Europe formed one unit.
I don’t know, and anything I say would be unsubstantiated guesswork, as you’ve noted. I thought one example would suffice.
In the pollution example, DQ may have been referring to one specific type of pollution that was being dealt with and calling this “pollution”, and may have contrasted this with general all-purpose impurities that were being ignored. The low voter turnout sentence was probably a way of changing the wording, leading up to adressing the issue. e.g. “A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls. And fewer people going to the polls means that fewer people see the need to participate in our democratic…” blah blah blah. But this is all speculation. The complete speech would tell, one way or another.
Don’t have any. This has merely been my observation from following politics.
I recall having read about Quayle before he became VP. He was considered a rising star as a senator. If he was a dumb as his later critics would have it, this should bhave been apparent early on. I also don’t think it is possible for a moron to be selected as VP candidate. Why would GWB wan’t to saddle himself with a dolt on his ticket? Spin, by contrast, is dificult to predict.
Also, those who followed his actual career as VP know that he was an influential voice on policy issues in the Bush administration. But hey, maybe all the Republican’s “smarts aren’t up to snuff”.
Actually IzzyR, what you said was (BTW, you left this critical part out when you quoted yourself):
Full quote. Happy now? My point: urban legends or comedian’s jokes (your claim) they are not. They’re real.
And we’re still waiting for your “numerous examples of non-Quayle politicians goofing up in the exact same manner that Quayle did.”
Not at all. Your sweeping statement is the invalid one. You are attempting to “discern a correct meaning” by fabricating an apologist’s “explanation” for Quayle’s goof-ups. And the Mars and NATO quotes are not single sentences.
Again, why is not possible for you to accept that this man was an embarrassingly poor speaker?
**
**
Well then, without any proof, your point is mere idle speculation.
**
It *was *apparent, to many in the GOP (and I never said he was a moron). Bush Sr. (“GWB” is his son, BTW) was advised against his decision. Why did he saddle himself with Quayle? Because he was trying for the younger vote and the female vote, which he hoped Quayle’s boyish good looks would appeal to. Weren’t you “following politics” when he announced his choice?
One reason for the goof-up is that astronomers were so slow to 'fess up, when they discovered that there were no canals, as explained by Cecil: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_102.html
I “left this critical part out” when I quoted myself because this was the part that you had quoted. I did not deny saying this, merely denied that this was the totality of what I said. Your edited excerpt suggested otherwise, which enabled you to falsely imply that I was contradicted by the appearence of some quotes in a reliable source. IOW (in case this is not clear) I never suggested that all strange-sounding statements from Quayle were invented by late-night comedians, which is what you implied. Not good form.
The rest of your points are do not seem substantive, and I am content to let things rest here.
Umm, okay, let’s look at that. No canals on Mars, accepted in scientific circles by 1971 or so. Quayle makes his statement in 1989, as head of the National Space Council.
I mean, come on. I knew the canals story when I was a youngster. Quayle should have known better.
Which was still before DQ was born. And astronomers “'fessed up” that Earth and Mars were in significantly different orbits several centuries ago… Fellow named Tycho Brahe, perhaps you’ve heard of him? And, of course, even if Mars were in the same orbit as Earth and had liquid water, that still wouldn’t imply that it had free oxygen or a breathable atmosphere.
Errr… Brahe didn’t have the Earth orbiting anything at all. If you count him as putting Mars in a different “orbit” from the Earth, you can also count Ptolomy and, for that matter, Ug, the caveman who first noticed that the red thing in the sky moved.
Me, I’ve been able to name the nine planets in order since I was six years old.
I think the point was that this was one of the most famous gaffes in history. In German, proper nouns do not have articles in front of them. Also, there is a common noun “berliner” in German, which means “jelly doughnut.” It’s a good thing Kennedy wasn’t in Frankfurt, Hamburg or Vienna (Wien, in German).
My vote goes for Millard Fillmore with one disastrous term and a run on the Know-Nothing ticket to his, um, credit.
Popular belief, but wrong. Kennedy was in fact grammatically correct. He did not say “I am a jelly doughnut,” funny as this is to repeat (and display on numerous humor websites). What he said was (translated into English), “You will again be proud to say, ‘I am a Berliner’”
So it’s not a gaffe, as you claim, at all. Especially since he wasn’t in Frankfurt, Hamburg or Vienna. Berliners knew what he was saying, and applauded his remarks.
And thank you, Chronos, for your succinct remarks about anyone living in this century, but… something tells me people will continue to make excuses for Quayle…
And thank you, Chronos, for your succinct remarks about anyone living in this century, but… something tells me people will continue to make excuses for Quayle…
–Who was the creep who lost to Mr. Quayle?
To the best of my knowledge, “Ich bin ein Berliner” is not a correct translation of “I am a Berliner”, because “Berliner” (German) doesn’t mean “Berliner” (English). However, it doesn’t necessarily mean a pastry, either. To a German ear, what he said translates most precisely as, “I am a Berlinish”, which is not quite grammatical, but its meaning is plain enough.
As saoirse and John W. Kennedy have said, “Ich bin ein Berliner” does not exactly translate to “I am from Berlin”.
Example: From what I learned in high school:
“Ich bin Schweizer” would mean “I am swiss”, but “Ich bin ein Schweizer” would mean “I am a man from Switzerland”. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
What sentiment was Mr. Kennedy trying to express? Was he trying to say “I feel like I understand what you’re going through?” Or did he mean “The USA will support the freedom of West Berlin as if you were one of our own?”
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-09-2001 at 12:26 PM]
All I know for sure is that JFK got an enormous cheer when he delivered that line, so I think it’s safe to assume his listeners thought highly of it. He was not ridiculed. So either it was grammatically correct or his listeners did not mind that it was incorrect.
Depends on what is meant by “essentially the same orbit”. Compared to Mercury and Venus, not hardly. Compared to Neptune and Pluto, much closer.
Question: if Mars were the size of Earth, could it sustain a thicker Earthlike atmosphere, and liquid water? If the atmosphere were built up, could it sustain liquid water at the current size?
Not to be a Quayle apologist, but context is important. That description is incredibly stupid - unless perhaps you’re looking at it in a particular context. I’m not saying Quayle was using that context - I don’t know. Just showing there is an excuse for someone living in this century to make that statement, and it not even be “wrong” for the meaning.
