I'm not so sure anymore. Other than web boards like this I don't hear many people publicly criticizing Bush. It's like people are so mentally lazy and so completely lacking a civic mindset, that they don't care what Bush does... Given how Bush and his policies have shaken out, I don't see anywhere near the amount of public disgust I would expect from a truly thinking, demanding population.
I see instead people resigned to the attitude that "well, he's 'strong' on defense and my taxes are lower so I'll just overlook the rest".
Reasonable, of course. But check out Josh Marshall's latest post on the Bush advertisements. With Bush averting responsibility for anything, the ads may not even work.
Beaten his opponents? What, twice? Once for Gov of TX, once for the presidency?
You do have a good point, though. The left has consistently underestimated Bush as a candidate. This is, of course, the way his last campaign worked. There was simply no way he could lose the expectations game. Conversely, there was no way Gore could win it, since he was quickly labeled as a "smarty-pants" and a "knowitall." I'd love to see the Kerry team try to raise the expectations of Bush in this election.
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
Just because the man is mentally about as sharp as an egg, doesn't mean I don't recognize that the GOP campaigning machine is a powerful group to be reckoned with. My original point is that if this guy had to stand on his own intellectual merits and not memorize ad slogans and debate tactics, he wouldn't have a prayer.
As for God help us, I mean to say, what's this guy going to do in the next four years if he really believes the American people are behind him? How much more arrogant and dangerous will his foreign policies become? How many more Patriot Acts to "keep America Safe"?
Just a general sentiment here... one of fear basically. Fear more than loathing.
PS - Mods, how about we kill the fekking GOP ad banners?? You shouldn't be placing those on AI pages at all, unless you can figure out a way to place Democrat banners on the same page every time.
There you go again. Bush does not interview well and doesn't always speak well. That doesn't make him stupid. I often laugh at some of the things he says, but there is no question in my mind that this guy is intelligent. Further, one must realize that being President is not entirely about intellect. Not at all. It's about the ability to make decisions and set a direction and strategy. These are Bush's strengths. Bush obviously has the intelligence to surround himself with some very intelligent (some brilliant) people. We'll see how Kerry fares in that area.
You peeps better realize that attacking the President with regards to his stumbling words and seeming stupidity creates the impression that the Democrats are all a bunch of anti-people people
It is the coup that worked: his false stupidity is his false 'just down-homeness' that people identify with
It is this kind of strategy that has turned the party-in-favor-of-big-business into "the party for the people" . . . . how can anything be more absurd!!
but it worked: Rush Limbaugh spouts out how Democrats are elitists and people have eaten it up
(that sounds eletist, but since people have indeed eaten it up- it is also correct)
they buy into the down-home image and forget the fact that Bush and ALL of his crew (except powell) are Bid business honchos (I mean BIG business) and spoiled silver spoon east coast money Economic-Royalists!
and everytime that you attack Bush for being "stupid" you play into that strategy and his constituency sees him more and more as just some rancher-in-jeans 'who is not-so-good-with-words but knows the damn land'
By now, I think the American people can separate platitudes from policy. Since it's clear the new advertisements focus on platitudes rather than the President's record, one has to wonder whether the new round of ads would be effective. What about his leadership? What specifically has the President done? What specifically has his economic policies accomplished? The people want to know.
Well, yes...the ads focus on platitudes. But honestly, Bush can get away with that. Hear me out:
Bush, like him or hate him, has been anything but vague. There is a lot of disagreement about what he's done...from taxes to the war to the gay marriage issue. However, his stance on all of these issues and many more is extremely clear. Also clear is the fact that he has aggressively pushed for and won legislation for tax cuts, education reform and a prescription drug benefit. NOW AGAIN, don't misinterpret me here: I'm not suggesting you agree with these iniatives, but there's no question that Bush campaigned on them, then followed through. True, he may face questions about results (specifically regarding the employment figures and WMD), but the fact that he took decisive action on both is not in question. My point? Bush;s positions are clear, even if many people find them abhorent.
As for Kerry, he has a problem. I ask again: What is he running on? Nearly every "position" he outlines begins with the phrase "The Bush administration". The only position I've see him take is on rolling back tax cuts on people making 200,000+ dollars a year. On many issues, his position is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain, from gay marriage to the death penalty for terrorists to the war, he is all over the map. He speaks well and loves to harp on Bush over jobs and "not having a strategy" to win the war on terror. While these things make great sound bytes, Kerry has NOT presented alterative plans.
In short, I think people will "want to know" about the challenger's positions. Bush's aren't clear enough?
You peeps better realize that attacking the President with regards to his stumbling words and seeming stupidity creates the impression that the Democrats are all a bunch of anti-people people
It is the coup that worked: his false stupidity is his false 'just down-homeness' that people identify with
It is this kind of strategy that has turned the party-in-favor-of-big-business into "the party for the people" . . . . how can anything be more absurd!!
but it worked: Rush Limbaugh spouts out how Democrats are elitists and people have eaten it up
(that sounds eletist, but since people have indeed eaten it up- it is also correct)
they buy into the down-home image and forget the fact that Bush and ALL of his crew (except powell) are Bid business honchos (I mean BIG business) and spoiled silver spoon east coast money Economic-Royalists!
and everytime that you attack Bush for being "stupid" you play into that strategy and his constituency sees him more and more as just some rancher-in-jeans 'who is not-so-good-with-words but knows the damn land'
Interesting post. Particularly about "anti-people" people. I would say though, that the Democrats are quickly losing their "working man's" base over the past few years. I do think there are MANY "elitist liberals" in the party...who then turn around and fight for the poor working class schlub. John Edwards, perhaps the most "down home" of the candidates in the primaries, is worth about $36 million. Shall we discuss Kerry's background?
(on a side note, I find Edwards' "Two Americas" speech very amusing. In one breath he's campaigning as the self-made son of a millworker, in the next he's talking about the have-nots being unable to break into the "other, rich person's America". Interesting).
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
And he had to overcome seemingly insurmountable difficulties to accomplish all of this? Feel free to go on as long as you'd like, but I'd suggest that you focus on his political acumen prior to 9/11 before there's hoisting and petards involved. Two tax cuts: was there any serious opposition? The midterms: he masterminded it? NCLBA: de-funded, no? Medicare: again, serious opposition? Iraq: jury's still out, especially considering 200-odd people died on the eve of the signing of the constitution?
My point, in terms of responding to you on a side-point of yours, is that I don't really see him as ever having been *politically* tested. He ran a lackluster campaign against a cardboard cutout of a candidate--with the blessing of the RNC and a seemingly endless amount of funding. The Dems got their teeth kicked in in the 2002 midterms (largely on the bootheels of 9/11, but the fact that they we're in incredible disarray didn't help) and the Reps. took congress. So far, he's been able to get just about whatever he wants because of *that*, not because of some individual fortitude or intelligence.
This admin has proven time and again that when they are challenged or embarrassed they will put reporters in the doghouse (the grand dame of the press corps, Helen Thomas, only recently got out). They keep the president out of the spotlight as much as possible (how many vacations is it now?). The allow others (i.e. George Tenet) to take the fall whenever it is politically expedient.
If there's one thing that this president is good at, I would argue, it's somehow invoking 9/11 at every imaginable opportunity. And that, in the end, is both cheap and the politics of fear.
Now, back to the point: is he smarter than most people think? You bet. And that's by design.
There you go again. Bush does not interview well and doesn't always speak well. That doesn't make him stupid.
Intelligent people know what they are supposed to say. Bush doesn't. When he says "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again," it's because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Here is my take for those of you that want to waste their time reading:
Bush isn't the smartest...he is an average person. People relate to that, but I personally don't want an average person running the country like I don't want an average person running my bank, or anything even remotely important. I like the superior ora that Gore gave off. He however decided that acting like a robot was a good thing... knowledge of a robot is good, movement of a robot is bad...plus he has an odd way of talking, you know...all those things were bad for him. Kerry...I don't know, I like him, hopefully he has a chance, but Bush has massive funding that may crush Kerry. Wow I got really off topic from what I wanted to talk about, and it's my bed time Goodnight
Here is my take for those of you that want to waste their time reading:
Bush isn't the smartest...he is an average person.
THAT is what drives me insane about Bush. He is the ANTITHESIS of an average person, and yet, for some reason, people look at him/listen to him and say "Hey! He sounds like a normal guy!"
Bush, like him or hate him, has been anything but vague.
In short, I think people will "want to know" about the challenger's positions. Bush's aren't clear enough?
SDW is absolutely right of course (no, seriously).
Against a demonstrable, powerful orthodoxy only equally powerful thinking really has a chance to carry the day.
This means that even if Kerry wins -- and my 8-Ball tells me he will -- the prevailing orthodoxy in the land of the US will ultimately carry that country in that direction, as the Democrats don't have a definable counterpostion.
The big problem is that the US has shifted so far to the right, anything that looks like a counter-orthodoxy is shot down as unpatritiotic or a danger to security or threat the moral fibre of the US. A real orthodoxy in the US right now would look revolutionary (even pathetically cerntrist policies). They've managed to turn 'liberal' into an insult for God's sake.
Yeah, Bush is brilliant. Besides scraping through with an impressive 25% in his pilot's test, barely knowing to speak English, and failing to find oil in Texas and having to be bailed out in the biz world a couple of times by daddy's connections, I agree.
And he had to overcome seemingly insurmountable difficulties to accomplish all of this? Feel free to go on as long as you'd like, but I'd suggest that you focus on his political acumen prior to 9/11 before there's hoisting and petards involved. Two tax cuts: was there any serious opposition? The midterms: he masterminded it? NCLBA: de-funded, no? Medicare: again, serious opposition? Iraq: jury's still out, especially considering 200-odd people died on the eve of the signing of the constitution?
My point, in terms of responding to you on a side-point of yours, is that I don't really see him as ever having been *politically* tested. He ran a lackluster campaign against a cardboard cutout of a candidate--with the blessing of the RNC and a seemingly endless amount of funding. The Dems got their teeth kicked in in the 2002 midterms (largely on the bootheels of 9/11, but the fact that they we're in incredible disarray didn't help) and the Reps. took congress. So far, he's been able to get just about whatever he wants because of *that*, not because of some individual fortitude or intelligence.
This admin has proven time and again that when they are challenged or embarrassed they will put reporters in the doghouse (the grand dame of the press corps, Helen Thomas, only recently got out). They keep the president out of the spotlight as much as possible (how many vacations is it now?). The allow others (i.e. George Tenet) to take the fall whenever it is politically expedient.
If there's one thing that this president is good at, I would argue, it's somehow invoking 9/11 at every imaginable opportunity. And that, in the end, is both cheap and the politics of fear.
Now, back to the point: is he smarter than most people think? You bet. And that's by design.
Cheers
Scott
1. Tax Cuts: There was plenty of opposition....they still passed.
2. He campaigned HEAVILY for the midterms. He helped accomplish what no Republican President had in 100 years.
3. NCLBA: De-funded my ass. My God...look past the headlines on moveon.org and find the facts. The federal education budget has increased 40% since he took office. He has asked for increases up 70% in specific areas like Title 1 reading.
4. Medicare had MAJOR opposition and barley passed. Are you kidding? But, once again Bush got his way. That's the point.
5. Iraq: He got the vote and has pushed on despite criticism. I agree that it depends on how things go until the election....but that's the "results" part I was talking about. He still did what he wanted.
Your last point: Helen Thomas? Are you shitting me? She's is the very definition of "extreme liberal". And she's actually been out for YEARS. for the past several years she's worked for what amounts to a tabloid. She's not even a real journalist anymore.
Intelligent people know what they are supposed to say. Bush doesn't. When he says "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again," it's because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
One of the most intelligent men I know (a teacher of mine) often forgets stories, common sayings, etc. Does that make him stupid? But please...go ahead and believe Bush is stupid.
Yeah, Bush is brilliant. Besides scraping through with an impressive 25% in his pilot's test, barely knowing to speak English, and failing to find oil in Texas and having to be bailed out in the biz world a couple of times by daddy's connections, I agree.
He *is* the least-intelligent POTUS in memory, and quite possibly ever.
How you can get to be a candidate even and not know the name of the president of Pakistan is staggering. "No Harald," you say, "That's not stupidity, that's just ignorance!"
No, it's stupidity. It's wilful lack of intellectual curiosity to a degree only possible by not being aware that that's a useful fact to know. And there are plenty of others.
One of the most intelligent men I know (a teacher of mine) often forgets stories, common sayings, etc. Does that make him stupid? But please...go ahead and believe Bush is stupid.
I guess the following was just because he "doesn't interview well:"
Quote:
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"_
Bush: "No, can you?"_
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"_
Bush: "Yeah, Lee."_
Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"_
Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"_
Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."_
Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected, not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent."_
Hiller: "Can you name him?"_
Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."_
Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"_
Bush: "The new prime minister of India is - (pause) No."_
Then Bush hit back._
Bush: "Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?"_
Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for President."_
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
I'm not so sure anymore. Other than web boards like this I don't hear many people publicly criticizing Bush. It's like people are so mentally lazy and so completely lacking a civic mindset, that they don't care what Bush does... Given how Bush and his policies have shaken out, I don't see anywhere near the amount of public disgust I would expect from a truly thinking, demanding population.
I see instead people resigned to the attitude that "well, he's 'strong' on defense and my taxes are lower so I'll just overlook the rest".
Reasonable, of course. But check out Josh Marshall's latest post on the Bush advertisements. With Bush averting responsibility for anything, the ads may not even work.
Originally posted by midwinter
Beaten his opponents? What, twice? Once for Gov of TX, once for the presidency?
You do have a good point, though. The left has consistently underestimated Bush as a candidate. This is, of course, the way his last campaign worked. There was simply no way he could lose the expectations game. Conversely, there was no way Gore could win it, since he was quickly labeled as a "smarty-pants" and a "knowitall." I'd love to see the Kerry team try to raise the expectations of Bush in this election.
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
Originally posted by Moogs
Just because the man is mentally about as sharp as an egg, doesn't mean I don't recognize that the GOP campaigning machine is a powerful group to be reckoned with. My original point is that if this guy had to stand on his own intellectual merits and not memorize ad slogans and debate tactics, he wouldn't have a prayer.
As for God help us, I mean to say, what's this guy going to do in the next four years if he really believes the American people are behind him? How much more arrogant and dangerous will his foreign policies become? How many more Patriot Acts to "keep America Safe"?
Just a general sentiment here... one of fear basically. Fear more than loathing.
PS - Mods, how about we kill the fekking GOP ad banners?? You shouldn't be placing those on AI pages at all, unless you can figure out a way to place Democrat banners on the same page every time.
There you go again. Bush does not interview well and doesn't always speak well. That doesn't make him stupid. I often laugh at some of the things he says, but there is no question in my mind that this guy is intelligent. Further, one must realize that being President is not entirely about intellect. Not at all. It's about the ability to make decisions and set a direction and strategy. These are Bush's strengths. Bush obviously has the intelligence to surround himself with some very intelligent (some brilliant) people. We'll see how Kerry fares in that area.
It is the coup that worked: his false stupidity is his false 'just down-homeness' that people identify with
It is this kind of strategy that has turned the party-in-favor-of-big-business into "the party for the people" . . . . how can anything be more absurd!!
but it worked: Rush Limbaugh spouts out how Democrats are elitists and people have eaten it up
(that sounds eletist, but since people have indeed eaten it up- it is also correct)
they buy into the down-home image and forget the fact that Bush and ALL of his crew (except powell) are Bid business honchos (I mean BIG business) and spoiled silver spoon east coast money Economic-Royalists!
and everytime that you attack Bush for being "stupid" you play into that strategy and his constituency sees him more and more as just some rancher-in-jeans 'who is not-so-good-with-words but knows the damn land'
Originally posted by ShawnJ
By now, I think the American people can separate platitudes from policy. Since it's clear the new advertisements focus on platitudes rather than the President's record, one has to wonder whether the new round of ads would be effective. What about his leadership? What specifically has the President done? What specifically has his economic policies accomplished? The people want to know.
Well, yes...the ads focus on platitudes. But honestly, Bush can get away with that. Hear me out:
Bush, like him or hate him, has been anything but vague. There is a lot of disagreement about what he's done...from taxes to the war to the gay marriage issue. However, his stance on all of these issues and many more is extremely clear. Also clear is the fact that he has aggressively pushed for and won legislation for tax cuts, education reform and a prescription drug benefit. NOW AGAIN, don't misinterpret me here: I'm not suggesting you agree with these iniatives, but there's no question that Bush campaigned on them, then followed through. True, he may face questions about results (specifically regarding the employment figures and WMD), but the fact that he took decisive action on both is not in question. My point? Bush;s positions are clear, even if many people find them abhorent.
As for Kerry, he has a problem. I ask again: What is he running on? Nearly every "position" he outlines begins with the phrase "The Bush administration". The only position I've see him take is on rolling back tax cuts on people making 200,000+ dollars a year. On many issues, his position is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain, from gay marriage to the death penalty for terrorists to the war, he is all over the map. He speaks well and loves to harp on Bush over jobs and "not having a strategy" to win the war on terror. While these things make great sound bytes, Kerry has NOT presented alterative plans.
In short, I think people will "want to know" about the challenger's positions. Bush's aren't clear enough?
Originally posted by pfflam
You peeps better realize that attacking the President with regards to his stumbling words and seeming stupidity creates the impression that the Democrats are all a bunch of anti-people people
It is the coup that worked: his false stupidity is his false 'just down-homeness' that people identify with
It is this kind of strategy that has turned the party-in-favor-of-big-business into "the party for the people" . . . . how can anything be more absurd!!
but it worked: Rush Limbaugh spouts out how Democrats are elitists and people have eaten it up
(that sounds eletist, but since people have indeed eaten it up- it is also correct)
they buy into the down-home image and forget the fact that Bush and ALL of his crew (except powell) are Bid business honchos (I mean BIG business) and spoiled silver spoon east coast money Economic-Royalists!
and everytime that you attack Bush for being "stupid" you play into that strategy and his constituency sees him more and more as just some rancher-in-jeans 'who is not-so-good-with-words but knows the damn land'
Interesting post. Particularly about "anti-people" people. I would say though, that the Democrats are quickly losing their "working man's" base over the past few years. I do think there are MANY "elitist liberals" in the party...who then turn around and fight for the poor working class schlub.
(on a side note, I find Edwards' "Two Americas" speech very amusing. In one breath he's campaigning as the self-made son of a millworker, in the next he's talking about the have-nots being unable to break into the "other, rich person's America". Interesting).
Originally posted by SDW2001
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.
And he had to overcome seemingly insurmountable difficulties to accomplish all of this? Feel free to go on as long as you'd like, but I'd suggest that you focus on his political acumen prior to 9/11 before there's hoisting and petards involved. Two tax cuts: was there any serious opposition? The midterms: he masterminded it? NCLBA: de-funded, no? Medicare: again, serious opposition? Iraq: jury's still out, especially considering 200-odd people died on the eve of the signing of the constitution?
My point, in terms of responding to you on a side-point of yours, is that I don't really see him as ever having been *politically* tested. He ran a lackluster campaign against a cardboard cutout of a candidate--with the blessing of the RNC and a seemingly endless amount of funding. The Dems got their teeth kicked in in the 2002 midterms (largely on the bootheels of 9/11, but the fact that they we're in incredible disarray didn't help) and the Reps. took congress. So far, he's been able to get just about whatever he wants because of *that*, not because of some individual fortitude or intelligence.
This admin has proven time and again that when they are challenged or embarrassed they will put reporters in the doghouse (the grand dame of the press corps, Helen Thomas, only recently got out). They keep the president out of the spotlight as much as possible (how many vacations is it now?). The allow others (i.e. George Tenet) to take the fall whenever it is politically expedient.
If there's one thing that this president is good at, I would argue, it's somehow invoking 9/11 at every imaginable opportunity. And that, in the end, is both cheap and the politics of fear.
Now, back to the point: is he smarter than most people think? You bet. And that's by design.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Perhaps Kerry is going to run on the campaign "Anything but Bush"
hahahaha. Unfortunatlely for Kerry, that's what a lot of his support is based on.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There you go again. Bush does not interview well and doesn't always speak well. That doesn't make him stupid.
Intelligent people know what they are supposed to say. Bush doesn't. When he says "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again," it's because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
Bush isn't the smartest...he is an average person. People relate to that, but I personally don't want an average person running the country like I don't want an average person running my bank, or anything even remotely important. I like the superior ora that Gore gave off. He however decided that acting like a robot was a good thing... knowledge of a robot is good, movement of a robot is bad...plus he has an odd way of talking, you know...all those things were bad for him. Kerry...I don't know, I like him, hopefully he has a chance, but Bush has massive funding that may crush Kerry. Wow I got really off topic from what I wanted to talk about, and it's my bed time
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Here is my take for those of you that want to waste their time reading:
Bush isn't the smartest...he is an average person.
THAT is what drives me insane about Bush. He is the ANTITHESIS of an average person, and yet, for some reason, people look at him/listen to him and say "Hey! He sounds like a normal guy!"
Do not fall into this trap.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush, like him or hate him, has been anything but vague.
In short, I think people will "want to know" about the challenger's positions. Bush's aren't clear enough?
SDW is absolutely right of course (no, seriously).
Against a demonstrable, powerful orthodoxy only equally powerful thinking really has a chance to carry the day.
This means that even if Kerry wins -- and my 8-Ball tells me he will -- the prevailing orthodoxy in the land of the US will ultimately carry that country in that direction, as the Democrats don't have a definable counterpostion.
The big problem is that the US has shifted so far to the right, anything that looks like a counter-orthodoxy is shot down as unpatritiotic or a danger to security or threat the moral fibre of the US. A real orthodoxy in the US right now would look revolutionary (even pathetically cerntrist policies). They've managed to turn 'liberal' into an insult for God's sake.
Oh, and Bush is definately a dumb-ass.
"Weapons of MATH destruction". lol
Two words: Karl Rove
Originally posted by midwinter
And he had to overcome seemingly insurmountable difficulties to accomplish all of this? Feel free to go on as long as you'd like, but I'd suggest that you focus on his political acumen prior to 9/11 before there's hoisting and petards involved. Two tax cuts: was there any serious opposition? The midterms: he masterminded it? NCLBA: de-funded, no? Medicare: again, serious opposition? Iraq: jury's still out, especially considering 200-odd people died on the eve of the signing of the constitution?
My point, in terms of responding to you on a side-point of yours, is that I don't really see him as ever having been *politically* tested. He ran a lackluster campaign against a cardboard cutout of a candidate--with the blessing of the RNC and a seemingly endless amount of funding. The Dems got their teeth kicked in in the 2002 midterms (largely on the bootheels of 9/11, but the fact that they we're in incredible disarray didn't help) and the Reps. took congress. So far, he's been able to get just about whatever he wants because of *that*, not because of some individual fortitude or intelligence.
This admin has proven time and again that when they are challenged or embarrassed they will put reporters in the doghouse (the grand dame of the press corps, Helen Thomas, only recently got out). They keep the president out of the spotlight as much as possible (how many vacations is it now?). The allow others (i.e. George Tenet) to take the fall whenever it is politically expedient.
If there's one thing that this president is good at, I would argue, it's somehow invoking 9/11 at every imaginable opportunity. And that, in the end, is both cheap and the politics of fear.
Now, back to the point: is he smarter than most people think? You bet. And that's by design.
Cheers
Scott
1. Tax Cuts: There was plenty of opposition....they still passed.
2. He campaigned HEAVILY for the midterms. He helped accomplish what no Republican President had in 100 years.
3. NCLBA: De-funded my ass. My God...look past the headlines on moveon.org and find the facts. The federal education budget has increased 40% since he took office. He has asked for increases up 70% in specific areas like Title 1 reading.
4. Medicare had MAJOR opposition and barley passed. Are you kidding? But, once again Bush got his way. That's the point.
5. Iraq: He got the vote and has pushed on despite criticism. I agree that it depends on how things go until the election....but that's the "results" part I was talking about. He still did what he wanted.
Your last point: Helen Thomas? Are you shitting me? She's is the very definition of "extreme liberal". And she's actually been out for YEARS. for the past several years she's worked for what amounts to a tabloid. She's not even a real journalist anymore.
Originally posted by giant
Intelligent people know what they are supposed to say. Bush doesn't. When he says "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...... (long pause) shame on you. Fool me ?(long pause) can't get fooled again," it's because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
One of the most intelligent men I know (a teacher of mine) often forgets stories, common sayings, etc. Does that make him stupid? But please...go ahead and believe Bush is stupid.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Yeah, Bush is brilliant.
"Weapons of MATH destruction". lol
Two words: Karl Rove
Very original. Keep believing that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Very original. Keep believing that.
He *is* the least-intelligent POTUS in memory, and quite possibly ever.
How you can get to be a candidate even and not know the name of the president of Pakistan is staggering. "No Harald," you say, "That's not stupidity, that's just ignorance!"
No, it's stupidity. It's wilful lack of intellectual curiosity to a degree only possible by not being aware that that's a useful fact to know. And there are plenty of others.
The guy is a doofus. Give it up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
One of the most intelligent men I know (a teacher of mine) often forgets stories, common sayings, etc. Does that make him stupid? But please...go ahead and believe Bush is stupid.
I guess the following was just because he "doesn't interview well:"
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"_
Bush: "No, can you?"_
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"_
Bush: "Yeah, Lee."_
Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"_
Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"_
Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."_
Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected, not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent."_
Hiller: "Can you name him?"_
Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."_
Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"_
Bush: "The new prime minister of India is - (pause) No."_
Then Bush hit back._
Bush: "Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?"_
Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for President."_
And this is just the beginning.