"Well, Bush is an idiot."

[BarnOwl]

So declared Ed Schultz, as he appeared on Hardball last night.
You wanna see it?

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Ed+Schultz%3A+"Bush+is+an+idiot."&search_type=

[Napier]

I was watching Hardball and saw this. Chris Matthews did come down on him for saying that, on the principle that saying things like that stops the debate and doesn’t contribute anything useful, and also opined that Bush is not stupid.

I see Chris’s points and can’t disagree with confidence, but still find it all too easy to think that Bush is indeed an idiot. Perhaps the middle ground is that he is remarkably incurious, inflexible, and intolerant of dissenting opinion.

[BarnOwl]

@Napier

I was watching Hardball and saw this. Chris Matthews did come down on him for saying that, on the principle that saying things like that stops the debate and doesn’t contribute anything useful, and also opined that Bush is not stupid.

I see Chris’s points and can’t disagree with confidence, but still find it all too easy to think that Bush is indeed an idiot. Perhaps the middle ground is that he is remarkably incurious, inflexible, and intolerant of dissenting opinion.

I agree.

But I often wonder what world leaders’ unvarnished opinion is of Bush.

[Boyo_Jim]

Really, whether or not Bush is an idiot is still a matter of debate? Maybe he doesn’t fit the definition of idiot that was in the old text books – a mental age of 3 years or less – but surely by an common standard, I would have thought this was beyond doubt. I peg him as about a 10-year-old.

[Baraqiyal]

It sounds like Matthews made a huge gaffe when he said (paraphrasing from memory) “… instead he went somewhere else to settle an old score with Barack Obama”.

[Napier]

>what world leaders’ unvarnished opinion is of Bush

Yes, how about when he snuck up behind Angela Merkel and started massaging her shoulders? I’ve seen people be less squeamish about getting hornets stuck in their clothes.
>"… instead he went somewhere else to settle an old score with Barack Obama".

I thought I was the only one who noticed.

[Robot_Arm]

@Napier

Perhaps the middle ground is that he is remarkably incurious, inflexible, and intolerant of dissenting opinion.

That’s what I’ve always thought. After “filp-flopper” was hurled as an accusation at John Kerry, it seems to be politically unwise to learn something new and change your mind. Bush’s foolish consistency predates that by decades, though.

I remember an interview a few years ago where Bush mentioned some books he was reading, and there was nothing that you would associate with an idiot. (I found one online reference that mentions The Stranger, by Camus.) But I just don’t get the sense that he reads to learn anything new; I think he reads to look for support for what he already believes.

Nothing is ever his fault; we’re on the right track and nothing needs to change. And if some policy doesn’t generate the right results, someone must have done it wrong. Let’s try it again, it’ll work this time.

That’s not quite the same as being an idiot.

[SmartAleq]

I think he’s more of a classic sociopath than an idiot, although it will never be argued that he’s an intelligent man. He’s also a pandered-to and protected sociopath so he’s never had to learn how to disguise his lack of empathy with attention to the rules–he doesn’t think any of the rules apply to him.

I think the better quote would’ve been “Bush is a total cunt.” I’d pay MONEY to watch somebody say THAT on “Hardball!”

[BarnOwl]

@Robot Arm

That’s what I’ve always thought. After “filp-flopper” was hurled as an accusation at John Kerry, it seems to be politically unwise to learn something new and change your mind. Bush’s foolish consistency predates that by decades, though.

I remember an interview a few years ago where Bush mentioned some books he was reading, and there was nothing that you would associate with an idiot. (I found one online reference that mentions [iThe Stranger*, by Camus.) But I just don’t get the sense that he reads to learn anything new; I think he reads to look for support for what he already believes.

Nothing is ever his fault; we’re on the right track and nothing needs to change. And if some policy doesn’t generate the right results, someone must have done it wrong. Let’s try it again, it’ll work this time.

That’s not quite the same as being an idiot.

No, but tried again and again, it fits one definition of insanity.

[RTFirefly]

@Boyo Jim

Really, whether or not Bush is an idiot is still a matter of debate? Maybe he doesn’t fit the definition of idiot that was in the old text books – a mental age of 3 years or less – but surely by an common standard, I would have thought this was beyond doubt. I peg him as about a 10-year-old.

He’s been very successful in accomplishing the goals of the GOP’s base. Huge tax cuts, reduced government oversight of business, big subsidies for business, conservative activist judges and Justices…calling Bush an idiot is to judge him by the standards of how we believe the world should work, and not by the standard of the sorts of differences he almost surely wanted to make.

The only thing that surprises me about Bush, looking at him from this vantage point, is how little he seems to care about what happens to the GOP after he retires. I guess he figures that it’ll be awhile, perhaps decades, before the Dems get that 60-seat majority in the Senate, and until then, the Senate GOP will keep his legacy intact.

[Boyo_Jim]

@RTFirefly

He’s been very successful in accomplishing the goals of the GOP’s base. Huge tax cuts, reduced government oversight of business, big subsidies for business, conservative activist judges and Justices…calling Bush an idiot is to judge him by the standards of how we believe the world should work, and not by the standard of the sorts of differences he almost surely wanted to make.

The only thing that surprises me about Bush, looking at him from this vantage point, is how little he seems to care about what happens to the GOP after he retires. I guess he figures that it’ll be awhile, perhaps decades, before the Dems get that 60-seat majority in the Senate, and until then, the Senate GOP will keep his legacy intact.

I diagree. Just because this things happened on his watch doesn’t mean he was instrumental im making them happen. He had a Republican Congressional majority in his first term, a bunch of handlers and advisors who didn’t need any direction from him, and a flock of political appointees who preceeded to politicized the entire Executive branch of government in an unprecedented manner. He is a “boy king”.

Re the GOP. I don’t think he understands the party either, in the sense of competing branches. I think he’s done all his advisors have asked, because he sees the neocons as the “real” heart of the Republican party. Everyone who doesn’t share that philosophy is a dupe or an enemy.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Robot Arm

I remember an interview a few years ago where Bush mentioned some books he was reading, and there was nothing that you would associate with an idiot. (I found one online reference that mentions The Stranger, by Camus.)

Really? Bush was reading a book predicated on the senseless killing of an Arab?

I’m being boggled right about now.

Daniel

[E-Sabbath]

Huge profits for the oil companies…

I’m just horribly concerned about what the hell he’s after with this Palestinian State thing. He’s not apt to get it, and he’s working really hard on it.