Is Bush Still Too Dumb to Be President?

[IJ Reilly]

You can't run a country on horse sense.

Jonathan Chait

July 16, 2006

WAY BACK when he first appeared on the national scene, the rap against George W. Bush was that he might be too dumb to be president. As time passed, questions about Bush's mental capabilities faded away.

After 9/11, his instinctive rather than analytical view of the world seemed to be just what we needed, and Americans of all stripes were desperate to see heroic qualities in him. (As Dan Rather announced at the time: "George Bush is the president; he makes the decisions; and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.")

On top of that, Democrats decided it was politically counterproductive to attack Bush's intelligence. Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council said in 2002, for instance, that calling Bush dumb "plays directly into Bush's strength, which is that he comes across as a regular guy." And so, for most of the last six years, the question of Bush's intelligence has remained off the table.

Oh, sure, a few of us have brought it up from time to time, but we have generally been dismissed out of hand as wacky Bush-haters. By 2004, the question had been turned around completely. Democrats had almost nothing to say about Bush's lack of intellect, while Republicans joyfully and repeatedly attacked John Kerry as an egghead. Anti-intellectualism was triumphant.

Yet it is now increasingly clear that Bush's status as non-rocket scientist is a serious problem. The problem is not his habit — savored by late-night comedians — of stumbling over multisyllabic words. It is his shocking lack of intellectual curiosity.

Ron Suskind's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," paints a harrowing picture of Bush's intellectual limits. Bush, writes Suskind, "is not much of a reader." He prefers verbal briefings and often makes a horse-sense judgment based on how confident his briefer seems in what he's saying. In August 2001, the CIA was in a panic about an upcoming terrorist attack and drafted a report with the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." When a CIA staffer summed up the memo's contents in a face-to-face meeting with Bush, the president found the briefer insufficiently confident and dismissed him by saying, "All right, you've covered your ass, now," according to Suskind. That turned out to be a fairly disastrous judgment.

Bush loyalists like to dismiss Suskind's reporting, but it jibes with the picture that has emerged from other sources. L. Paul Bremer III's account of his tenure as head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority depicts Bush as uninterested in the central questions of rebuilding and occupying the country.

Video of a presidential meeting that came to light this year showed Bush being briefed on the incipient Hurricane Katrina. His subordinates come off as deeply concerned about a potential catastrophe, but Bush appears blase, declining to ask a single question. And of course there was the famous 2001 incident in which Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed to Bush a story of being given a cross by his mother. Bush invested deep significance in the story. "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy," he told reporters. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Bush's supporters have insisted for the last six years that liberal derision of the president's intelligence amounts to nothing more than cultural snobbery. We don't like his pickup truck and his accent, the accusation goes, so we hide our blue-state prejudices behind a mask of intellectual condescension.

But the more we learn about how Bush operates, the more we can see we were right from the beginning. It matters that the president values his gut reaction and disdains book learnin'. It's not just a question of cultural style. The president's narrow intellectual horizons have real consequences, sometimes cataclysmic ones.

It's true that presidents can succeed without being intellectuals themselves. The trouble is that Bush isn't just a nonintellectual, he viscerally disdains intellectuals. "What angered me was the way such people at Yale felt so intellectually superior and so righteous," he told a Texas Monthly reporter in 1994.

When I went to college at Michigan, I occasionally played pickup basketball with varsity football players. They obviously felt athletically superior to me. I didn't resent them for it — because they were.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait16jul16,0,4605120.column

[steamboat26]

Still too dumb? When was he ever smart, or even close to normal intelligence?

http://www.webworkit.com/weblog/images/bush-monkey.jpg


The monkey is smarter than him!

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I'm sure we've all seen the chimp pictures. But if you read the piece I think you'll find the question being raised is not really about intelligence, per se.

[zimv20]

indeed. bush is simply a product of this country's anti-intellectualism. beyond the bush administration, this is a hurdle the country must clear or else it will be the end of the US as we know it.

and fwiw, i don't think we can clear it.

[Thomas Veil]

As time passed, questions about Bush's mental capabilities faded away.It's Bush's mental capabilities, such as they were, that have faded away. But anyhow.

Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council said in 2002, for instance, that calling Bush dumb "plays directly into Bush's strength, which is that he comes across as a regular guy."*Sigh.* What does that say about the typical American voter? :(

The problem is not his habit — savored by late-night comedians — of stumbling over multisyllabic words. It is his shocking lack of intellectual curiosity.Great. This is the legacy Ronald Reagan left us.

Bush's supporters have insisted for the last six years that liberal derision of the president's intelligence amounts to nothing more than cultural snobbery.This kind of stuff just literally bugs the **** out of me. We non-Bushies are supposed to apologize for our clear-headedness and our insistence that our president's IQ should be higher than his age?

It's true that presidents can succeed without being intellectuals themselves. The trouble is that Bush isn't just a nonintellectual, he viscerally disdains intellectuals. "What angered me was the way such people at Yale felt so intellectually superior and so righteous," he told a Texas Monthly reporter in 1994.In other words, if you fail to become an intellectual yourself, then deride them and profess the joys of ignorance.

[zimv20]

In other words, if you fail to become an intellectual yourself, then deride them and profess the joys of ignorance.
this sums up high school to me. how naive was i to assume that people would grow out of it?

[solvs]

The problem isn't that he's "dumb". That whole everyman thing is just a put on. He's a spoiled rich boy who never had to understand anything or empathize with anyone or, you know, work hard to do anything. He's oblivious, surrounding himself with very intelligent but greedy, selfish sycophants. Watching the Katrina video or the debates, or pretty much anything where he's talking (did you see the thing where he kept talking about the pig, I mean WTF?), makes that obvious. He doesn't want to know about anything. He has his opinions and his ideas and even if they're wrong, even if he mispronounces everything, it doesn't matter. That's just the way it is to him and no one can tell him any different. It's worse than anti-intellectualism, it's stubbornness, rigidness, and the exact opposite of what people should want in a leader. But people will continue to support him because they want to. Because they actually want to believe he is one of them and is helping them. That he's strong and fights for freedom and God.

Even if it's the exact opposite.

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's worth remembering how it was Bush was elected in the first place. The 2000 campaign was all about Bush being seen as more honorable and decent than the guy before him. Now quite apart from whether there's any truth to the comparison, the fact is, his appeal never was about being the brightest bulb on the tree. Bush was marketed to the voters the "anti-Clinton." Whatever people perceived Clinton to be, the Republican candidate would be shown to be the polar opposite. That's one of the big reasons the powers-that-be in the party worked so hard to get Bush nominated. Little did they know he was going to start a war, botch it, and have no plan for getting out of it.

[stubeeef]

I am not going to say he is a smarty, I am only guessing, but Carter may have been the smartest, Clinton was probably up there, at least when he thought with his big head. I am not a historian on Presidential Intelligence, but while much is needed, collecting and surrounding yourself with the right team, and people/leadership skills, common sense, are strong traits to have LOTS of. Regardless of his SAT abilitiy, I wish he had a better team, I miss Colin Powell, not a BRAIN by SAT measures, but competent, sure, and measured.
W bashing is old, and only makes his base more defensive.
BTW where are all those impeach W threads, gotten lost?

here is some great stuff from a Smart Guy..

"'We're not inflicting pain on these ****ers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks'" . . . [from All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos]

[leekohler]

I am not going to say he is a smarty, I am only guessing, but Carter may have been the smartest, Clinton was probably up there, at least when he thought with his big head. I am not a historian on Presidential Intelligence, but while much is needed, collecting and surrounding yourself with the right team, and people/leadership skills, common sense, are strong traits to have LOTS of. Regardless of his SAT abilitiy, I wish he had a better team, I miss Colin Powell, not a BRAIN by SAT measures, but competent, sure, and measured.
W bashing is old, and only makes his base more defensive.
BTW where are all those impeach W threads, gotten lost?

here is some great stuff from a Smart Guy..

"'We're not inflicting pain on these ****ers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks'" . . . [from All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos]

Why do you insist on defending a man who is running the country into the ground? Oh, and I love you're Clinton quote. BUT- is he the President or is Bush? Clinton-bashing is getting old stu. It's lame and tired.

Oh you asked for it:

IMPEACH BUSH NOW. ;)

[ham_man]

this sums up high school to me. how naive was i to assume that people would grow out of it?
People on the whole sorely overestimate the population at large...

[stubeeef]

Why do you insist on defending a man who is running the country into the ground? Oh, and I love you're Clinton quote. BUT- is he the President or is Bush? Clinton-bashing is getting old stu. It's lame and tired.

Oh you asked for it:

IMPEACH BUSH NOW. ;)
Please point out my defense.
We are all paying the price of all the policies of previous administrations. There are quotes from before 911 (after sudan factory bombing) that predicted greater terrorist threats from Clinton policy. If bush is too dumb than what is smart enough? I have no illusion that he is an intellectual, but I don't think that it is the most important trait, as I outlined. I want a lot of different people in leadership roles, and none of them start with Kerry.

[steamboat26]

Perhaps smart enough is being able to pronounce simple words, like nuclear, and having a basic grasp on what you are doing before you start wars, reform programs, etc

BTW: I wouldn't be the first to admit that Kerry was not the best candidate, but he was better than bush. and besides, Gore should be president now anyway. :D

[zimv20]

People on the whole sorely overestimate the population at large...
no longer -- i'm too cynical!

[solvs]

W bashing is old, and only makes his base more defensive.
I'll stop bashing him when he stops screwing things up. Did you ever think that maybe some of us don't like him because of what he does (and doesn't do)? Don't we have a right to? Aren't we supposed to speak out against our leadership when they're doing things that hurt the country? And the world? I remember criticizing Clinton even for little things, you better damn well believe I'm going to speak out against Bush. Sure, there's always going to be a few conspiracy nuts and angry ranters (though I'd like to point out that our angriest ranter here is a former Republican), but most of us will bash him with good reason and tell you why we're bashing.

You want to defend him, you're going to have to do a lot better than "Clinton/Kerry/Gore sucks" because we know that. They aren't in charge. As lee said, kinda ironic that you can bash them long after and yet you're mad at us for getting angry at something Bush is doing now.

People on the whole sorely overestimate the population at large...
As I said, I get why people defend him. They want to believe, and they don't like what the other side has to offer. I feel that way too sometimes, we all do. But it's hard to watch him and his administration continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, tearing the country apart with their divisive rhetoric and "my way or the highway" attitude. The Dems aren't great (putting it mildly), but the Bush administration has been a disaster. And yeah, we are kinda wondering why there's still about 30% who don't see that.

If I can't name 1 thing he's done right lately, that's his fault not mine.

[steamboat26]

I'll stop bashing him when he stops screwing things up. Did you ever think that maybe some of us don't like him because of what he does (and doesn't do)? Don't we have a right to? Aren't we supposed to speak out against our leadership when they're doing things that hurt the country? And the world? I remember criticizing Clinton even for little things, you better damn well believe I'm going to speak out against Bush. Sure, there's always going to be a few conspiracy nuts and angry ranters (though I'd like to point out that our angriest ranter here is a former Republican), but most of us will bash him with good reason and tell you why we're bashing.

You want to defend him, you're going to have to do a lot better than "Clinton/Kerry/Gore sucks" because we know that. They aren't in charge. As lee said, kinda ironic that you can bash them long after and yet you're mad at us for getting angry at something Bush is doing now.


As I said, I get why people defend him. They want to believe, and they don't like what the other side has to offer. I feel that way too sometimes, we all do. But it's hard to watch him and his administration continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, tearing the country apart with their divisive rhetoric and "my way or the highway" attitude. The Dems aren't great (putting it mildly), but the Bush administration has been a disaster. And yeah, we are kinda wondering why there's still about 30% who don't see that.

If I can't name 1 thing he's done right lately, that's his fault not mine.

Well said, i concur

[solvs]

Well said, i concur
Thank you. I try. I'm sure someone will still disagree with me though.

Though I find it odd that so-called "liberals" never seem to disagree with me when I bash Clinton or Kerry. Especially when I bash Hillary. Usually everyone agrees. I point out that Bush has done something wrong, one side goes all tin foil hat, the other says that I'm wrong with nothing to back it up. Oh, and that I'm an unAmerican, terrorist lover. Which I'm getting pretty sick of. Everyone else just nods their heads and says "oh well, nothing we can do".

I wouldn't care if he was the smartest guy in the world, he's an utterly incompetent failure as a president.

[pseudobrit]

I wouldn't care if he was the smartest guy in the world, he's an utterly incompetent failure as a president.

I think the correlation between his disparaging attitude towards intelligence and his ineptitude as a leader is more than just casual.

I don't understand how someone's ego can be so fragile that they'd resent and vote against a guy who was smarter than they. I for one am greatly comforted when I sense the people above me in any hierarchy to be better equipped to handle things.

Perhaps that's what needs fixed in America first: we need to shed our delicate self-esteems and learn to be comfortable "losing" or at least not always being #1. Some humility wouldn't hurt along the way.
Gaining back our intellectual infrastructure would simply take a brief generation after we overcome the obstacles.

[OnceUGoMac]

It's not that Bush is dumb, he's not. It's that his judgement and perspective are grossly misguided. He's a third generation poitician whose been so enveloped in Washington's corrruption, that he's oblivious to the world and its complications and solutions.

[zimv20]

It's not that Bush is dumb, he's not. It's that his judgement and perspective are grossly misguided.
for years now, p'brit and i have been saying that bush is a sociopath (the PC term for that is antisocial personality disorder). consider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath):

Diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV-TR)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
reckless disregard for safety of self or others
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

"three or more". bush has all 7.

[sushi]

Having a degree (BS, Masters, PhD, etc.) does not confer intelligence nor common sense.

Being a leader is takes more than book smarts as my uncle used to say.

Unfortunately, how we perceive our presidents is how they come across on TV and the media.

An example of how the media has changed over time:

First event: During FDRs reign as president, there is only one picture of him going from sitting to standing and that was done by Life magazine. Because of his bout with Polio, the press did not show him clumsily moving from sitting to standing or vice versa.

Second event: Go forward a few years and we see President Ford walking down the stairs of Air Force One. He slips and falls. What does the media do? Do they pan away? Do they broaden the shot? Do they cut to another angle? Do they go to a station break? Nope. Instead the cameramen zoom into President Ford so you can see him stumble step by step until he is a pile at the bottom. Disgusting.

IMHO, these days our perception of the president (such as Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) is way too controlled by the media's interpretation (positive or negative) of the person currently holding office and what they do.

Honest reporting seems to be a thing of the past. Just ask Dan Rather! ;)

[zimv20]

btw, from that same page:

Mnemonic

A mnemonic that can be used to remember the criteria for antisocial personality disorder is CORRUPT[1][2]:

C - cannot follow law
O - obligations ignored
R - remorselessness
R - recklessness
U - underhandedness
P - planning deficit
T - temper

[FFTT]

Wow that's really interesting.

I wonder if he ever really kicked the cocaine habit too?????

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose I had to know this topic would quickly degenerate into a generic Bush bash/Bush defense thing. But I was hoping somebody would have some insight into why so many people prefer political leaders who are folksy and shallow, even if they don't seem to have much of a grasp, instead of intellectual and complicated, even if they'd be more likely to run the nation's business competently. I think this was the real question being asked by the opinion writer. This goes back to the Eisenhower election at least, when the Republicans successfully branded Stevenson as being too smart for the job.

[FFTT]

I meet all kinds of people every day who still think George Jr.
is a good 'ol boy.

http://trailertrashale.com/imagez/leader.jpg

[zimv20]

I was hoping somebody would have some insight into why so many people prefer political leaders who are folksy and shallow, even if they don't seem to have much of a grasp, instead of intellectual and complicated
i have no good answer, though i will say a cursory examination of popular culture, even since way before i was born, seems to celebrate the american hero as one who works harder, not smarter.

i wish we had a sociologist on hand to discuss anti-intellectualism. and when more people watch the superbowl (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/playoffs/news/2003/01/27/superbowl_ratings_ap/) than vote in a presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004), i really wonder where our priorities lie.

[Chundles]

Let me get this straight in my head. Bush is a spoilt, rich, university-educated (poorly it seems but he attended nonetheless) son of a long-established US family associated with upper class dealings.

Just because he's a Texan doesn't change all that right?

So why do the rednecks love him?

Oh, and who do you guys think will get the job next time around - that is, if you have a next time and Bush doesn't declare war on Iran just in time to invoke some old, long-forgotten clause about war-time elections and stuff??

[sushi]

I suppose I had to know this topic would quickly degenerate into a generic Bush bash/Bush defense thing. But I was hoping somebody would have some insight into why so many people prefer political leaders who are folksy and shallow, even if they don't seem to have much of a grasp, instead of intellectual and complicated, even if they'd be more likely to run the nation's business competently. I think this was the real question being asked by the opinion writer. This goes back to the Eisenhower election at least, when the Republicans successfully branded Stevenson as being too smart for the job.
Maybe because being a brian does not equate to leadership.

Many times intellectuals cannot deal with issues at hand in a quick and decisive manner that is required for those in leadership positions.

People want someone whom they can identify with whom they believe have the same common sense and look on life so they can trust their decisions.

Being out front is not easy. You must relate to those you lead.

[zimv20]

Many times intellectuals cannot deal with issues at hand in a quick and decisive manner
many times people generalize to an extent that what they are asserting ends up being neither true nor supportable.

[solvs]

I think the correlation between his disparaging attitude towards intelligence and his ineptitude as a leader is more than just casual.
Well, yeah. But even the smart people he surrounds himself with are helping to screw things up. It's not all intelligence, or lack thereof. Some of it's the evil. The 2 are often confused.

It's that his judgement and perspective are grossly misguided.
for years now, p'brit and i have been saying that bush is a sociopath
Part of that is the spoiled rich boy thing. Most of that is the spoiled rich boy thing. I can't tell if he doesn't understand, or just doesn't care. Or both. It's not even evil, it's just incompetence.

Just because he's a Texan doesn't change all that right?
He's actually from Connecticut. ;)

Being a leader is takes more than book smarts as my uncle used to say.
Maybe because being a brian does not equate to leadership.
I don't know. It is a pretty tough job. There's a lot to do, and you have to do it right. I'd think a brian would be the first thing you'd want in a leader. Sure there are other important qualities. Like compassion, understanding, strong ethics (not faux morality), honesty, bringing your people together instead of trying to force them to believe as you do, accepting valid criticism as constructive, admitting your mistakes and seeking to rectify them, planning things to a fault, having backup plans in case things go wrong, trying to take care of all of your people... I could go on.

Not saying the previous administrations had all those things, but the current one doesn't seem to have any of them.

[sushi]

many times people generalize to an extent that what they are asserting ends up being neither true nor supportable.
Just based on my personal observations of many people in highly stressful situations and how they react.

Reminds me of the pilot who can recite emergency procedures perfectly without pause, but get them in the aircraft and fail an engine in an unusual situation and they turn to dust (freeze up).

This is just but one of many that come to mind...

[OnceUGoMac]

But I was hoping somebody would have some insight into why so many people prefer political leaders who are folksy and shallow, even if they don't seem to have much of a grasp, instead of intellectual and complicated, even if they'd be more likely to run the nation's business competently.

Not sure, but it's been working since Jackson.

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe because being a brian does not equate to leadership.

Many times intellectuals cannot deal with issues at hand in a quick and decisive manner that is required for those in leadership positions.

People want someone whom they can identify with whom they believe have the same common sense and look on life so they can trust their decisions.

Being out front is not easy. You must relate to those you lead.

This assumes that George Bush is a leader, and that he can relate to the lives of ordinary people. I don't see much evidence of either quality. People of intellect can be decisive when need be, and I can think of at least a few of our presidents who exhibited both deep a understanding of problems they faced, and the ability to take quick action on them. I guess I'm still unconvinced that a superficial comprehension of issues can translate into a leadership quality.

[sushi]

This assumes that George Bush is a leader, and that he can relate to the lives of ordinary people. I don't see much evidence of either quality. People of intellect can be decisive when need be, and I can think of at least a few of our presidents who exhibited both deep a understanding of problems they faced, and the ability to take quick action on them. I guess I'm still unconvinced that a superficial comprehension of issues can translate into a leadership quality.
Those that I personally know that have worked with the President hold him in very high regard and respect his leadership.

I trust their judgement much more than a liberal media bias or someone who has not been there. But that is just me.

[blackfox]

Maybe because being a brian does not equate to leadership.

Many times intellectuals cannot deal with issues at hand in a quick and decisive manner that is required for those in leadership positions.

People want someone whom they can identify with whom they believe have the same common sense and look on life so they can trust their decisions.

Being out front is not easy. You must relate to those you lead.

This brings up some interesting questions - both about humanity in general, and of Americans in specific.

Generally-speaking, there is a historical case for leaders, who while not intellectuals, were instinctual leaders. An important distinction, however (at least historically), is whether these people also had a tragic sensibility - and a potential for wisdom.

OTOH, in defense of intellectuals, you have to wonder how many crises were silently forstalled by their efforts, preventing the more visible action of the "man of action", or alternately what place intellectual thought has in the whole leadership system - it would be hard to argue that it shouldn't have an important place.


As for America, we have generally been able to succeed as a Nation separate from the quality of our leadership. The US had a run of lackluster presidents in the 19th Century and we still prospered, and this continued on into the 20th. Being a Nation protected by vast oceans, with a rich resource-base and unique creed, we could always ride out poor leadership by a combination of Isolationism, economic dynamism and idealism. When we ventured out into the larger world with full-force around WWII, we futher cemented our security by virtue of economic and military supremacy. Even with setbacks like Vietnam, we continued to be an economic dynamo - regardless of leadership.

Unfortunately, the world has gotten a lot smaller and we no longer can retreat into isolationism and our economic superiority is in doubt. I believe the effects of our leadership have a more profound effect on us and the world than any other time in history, so the era of resilience through any bad leadership may be coming to an end.

So I might try President Egghead. I really liked Bill Bradley from back in 2000 - he didn't make it because he seemed too intellectual. He may or may not have been a great President, but he was dismissed merely on vague perception/principle.

[IJ Reilly]

Those that I personally know that have worked with the President hold him in very high regard and respect his leadership.

I trust their judgement much more than a liberal media bias or someone who has not been there. But that is just me.

So, the people of the nation he is supposed to be leading are entitled to no opinion on the matter? Is that how "leadership" is supposed to work now?

I have made this observation many times before, but I think it's called for again here: A great leader gives credit and takes blame. A poor leader takes credit and gives blame. I may not personally know anyone who has worked with Bush, but I've had six years to observe his operating style. So with all due respect, I have a perfect right to a judgement, and so is anyone else who cares to make one.

[IJ Reilly]

So I might try President Egghead. I really liked Bill Bradley from back in 2000 - he didn't make it because he seemed too intellectual. He may or may not have been a great President, but he was dismissed merely on vague perception/principle.

I think we might be allowing ourselves to be led astray by the word "intellectual," which all by itself is a pejorative term in many circles. An intellectual is assumed to live in a world apart from ordinary people. An academic, for example. As the article suggests, some of us find Bush's approach to facts and their meanings disturbing due to his distinct lack of curiosity, and his apparent sense that his gut instinct is all he really needs to make a good decision. I believe we've seen where this kind of decision-making leads. I don't think it's necessarily the mark of an "intellectual" to want to have all the available facts before making a major decision. It's simply the only responsible approach.

[Eraserhead]

I think we might be allowing ourselves to be led astray by the word "intellectual," which all by itself is a pejorative term in many circles. An intellectual is assumed to live in a world apart from ordinary people. An academic, for example. As the article suggests, some of us find Bush's approach to facts and their meanings disturbing due to his distinct lack of curiosity, and his apparent sense that his gut instinct is all he really needs to make a good decision. I believe we've seen where this kind of decision-making leads. I don't think it's necessarily the mark of an "intellectual" to want to have all the available facts before making a major decision. It's simply the only responsible approach.
The problem is that because America is a superpower whoever is president affect's the rest of the world. If we had a bad prime minister it would screw up our country, but that is our problem, it wouldn't really affect anyone else, as it is the American President is the only one who can exert a controlling influence on some things (eg Israel/Lebanon at the moment), it's a sad thing that the UN isn't more powerful, if it was it wouldn't matter so much that Bush is incompetent (at least for non-Americans).

[zimv20]

I don't think it's necessarily the mark of an "intellectual" to want to have all the available facts
but is that the percepetion these days? is any kind of rational thought or researched opinion derided as intellectual?

[blackfox]

but is that the percepetion these days? is any kind of rational thought or researched opinion derided as intellectual?
has it not been the perception for quite a while?

Even the Greeks sometimes preferred the handsome, the brash and the rhetorically-gifted - what was the name of the Greek commander who precipitated the Peloponnesian War? (I remember Nicias...)

[mactastic]

I remember Bush going on the Bill O'Reilly show in the run-up to the '04 elections. Bush and O'Reilly engaged in a little 'hate the eggheads' banter about how much the intellectual types pissed them off.

It is a small step from that kind of rhetoric to the outright war on science we've witnessed the right wage.

[IJ Reilly]

I remember Bush going on the Bill O'Reilly show in the run-up to the '04 elections. Bush and O'Reilly engaged in a little 'hate the eggheads' banter about how much the intellectual types pissed them off.

It is a small step from that kind of rhetoric to the outright war on science we've witnessed the right wage.

Yes, I certainly agree with this observation. The irony is dripping. For years I've heard people on the right berate people on the left for being too touchy-feely, too "relativistic" in their views, too soft and mushy in their thinking. Then we have the spectacle of the right promoting the idea of going with gut feelings, and devaluing deep thinking and objective analysis. I'm so confused. What do people believe anymore?

[mactastic]

Yes, I certainly agree with this observation. The irony is dripping. For years I've heard people on the right berate people on the left for being too touchy-feely, too "relativistic" in their views, too soft and mushy in their thinking. Then we have the spectacle of the right promoting the idea of going with gut feelings, and devaluing deep thinking and objective analysis. I'm so confused. What do people believe anymore?
I thought you were going to ask me about the pig!

[IJ Reilly]

I thought you were going to ask me about the pig!

Alrighty then, what about the pig?

[mactastic]

Alrighty then, what about the pig?
I hear I may get the honor of carving it tonight. What's that? The world is going up in flames you say? Never mind that, I want to see this pig I've heard so much about...

[IJ Reilly]

I hear I may get the honor of carving it tonight. What's that? The world is going up in flames you say? Never mind that, I want to see this pig I've heard so much about...

I am now officially confused.

[mactastic]

I am now officially confused.
Ah, you must have missed Bush's news conference with German Chancellor Merkel. To whit: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060717/cm_huffpost/025066)
He was equally inept during his press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel earlier in the week. Israel was bombing Lebanon, India had been hit by terrorists, Iraq was exploding, North Korea had fired its nukes, and Iran was rushing to join the nuclear club -- but the topic that most seemed to engage the leader of the free world during the press conference was the wild boar barbecue scheduled for later that night in the small German town of Trinwillershagen.

"I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig," he said. Then, after rambling through a recounting of all the subjects he and Merkel had discussed, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Israeli-Palestinian issues, the Doha trade round and the upcoming G8 conference ("we discussed a lot of things, in other words"), he returned to the topic, telling Merkel: "Thank you for having me. I'm looking forward to that pig tonight."

But that wasn't the end of his swine obsession. He couldn't seem to get it off of his mind during the Q&A session:

p -- Bush: Follow up on?

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war? And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

Bush: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I'm curious about that, too.

Bush: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.
Clear as mud?

[IJ Reilly]

Clear as mud?

Yes, the Mississippi kind.

Thank you in more ways than one. ;)

[FFTT]

I've always believed that George Jr. was set up as the front man, but that
the signing members of PNAC were really in charge of things.

Cheney and Rumsfeld go waaaay back in not only the Bush Dynasty, but also
in important Republican roles dating back to the Nixon, Ford and Reagan
administrations. Rove is the hired gun spin doctor and Condi helped to organize the office.

In my view, they are the watch dogs put there to make sure Dubya stayed on course with their extremist agenda.

I think it's very foolish to disregard the power and influence of the PNAC members and their allies.

[CorvusCamenarum]

i have no good answer, though i will say a cursory examination of popular culture, even since way before i was born, seems to celebrate the american hero as one who works harder, not smarter.

I'll take it a step further with my own theory, which goes something like this:

1) Some, if not most people, aren't happy with their lives.
2) Living vicariously in some form through another provides an escape of sorts.
3) People want someone with whom they can identify.
4) Having someone who at least comes across as "he's just like me" allows said people to accomplish the above.

[solvs]

Reminds me of the pilot who can recite emergency procedures perfectly without pause, but get them in the aircraft and fail an engine in an unusual situation and they turn to dust (freeze up).
So we should let someone who's never flown before and can barely even drive a car fly the plane because he's really confident he can do it? Especially if he believes God is on his side? Even when he's flying the wrong direction and upside down and won't listen to people who actually know what they're doing tell him what to do while he listens to people who want the plane to crash? Alright, not a perfect analogy, but usually what a good leader lacks in one category, he will more than make up for in other ways. Bush doesn't seem to have that luxury. He makes up for his lack of intelligence with incompetence, arrogance, and generally being oblivious.

People respected Clinton too. And Nixon. Still do. I don't care how many people respect Bush, he's earned my disrespect. About two thirds of the rest of the country feels the same way (not to mention most of the rest of the world), and he doesn't seem real interested in even bothering to pretend to win us back.

[sushi]

Even when he's flying the wrong direction and upside down and won't listen to people who actually know what they're doing tell him what to do while he listens to people who want the plane to crash?
Your analogy doesn't work.

Remember, not all believe as you do.

Some are very happy with President Bush and what he has done. ;)

[solvs]

Some are very happy with President Bush and what he has done. ;)
Really? Like what? Maybe I should say, flying in the opposite direction than a majority of the planes passengers want to go. Or how about just making a lot of rookie mistakes an experienced pilot wouldn't.

I stand by my comment about not really knowing how to fly, but being arrogantly confident about it.

[pseudobrit]

Your analogy doesn't work.

Remember, not all believe as you do.

Some are very happy with President Bush and what he has done. ;)

If the pilot crashes the plane and 30% of the survivors are satisfied with his performance has he not crashed the plane?

[solvs]

If the pilot crashes the plane and 30% of the survivors are satisfied with his performance has he not crashed the plane?
I think it's ok to crash as long as you blame everyone else for it and don't get a bj from a chubby stewardess. :p

[solvs]

Really? Like what?
Seriously. I'm all ears. 1 thing.

All I ask.

[bowens]

and besides, Gore should be president now anyway. :D

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.

[Sdashiki]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.

Sigh, another person who just wanted to troll their opinion.

I was fine just reading this thread, you had to crap on it.

I thought we were actually getting some discourse here, not some mud slinging crap.


The words YOU PEOPLE and YOUR pretty boy are just plain wrong in your use of the words. Who is this group "YOU" that you refer to? If you mean democrats vs republican, please leave this thread now, you are of no use.

Honestly its like you'r Barbara Bush touting her son's merits when the neighborhood bullies come a callin'. So really, youve made yourself and possibly vicariously, the Bush administration, look even worse than I could have.

THANKS! :D

OH and Trenton, Fl, thats Hicksville-Middle-of-Nowhere-inbredmayor-type USA.

Check it out:
53132

[aquajet]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.

If you knew anything at all about the basis of others' opinions of Bush around here, then you would know this is completely false. Spend some time reviewing and studying previous threads in this forum and you'll see your post is nothing more than baseless hogwash.

[Sdashiki]

If you knew anything at all about the basis of others' opinions of Bush around here, then you would know this is completely false. Spend some time reviewing and studying previous threads in this forum and you'll see your post is nothing more than baseless hogwash.

hogwash = see 2 posts up.

[miniConvert]

I think a lot of folks here in the UK still find it hard to believe how Bush ever ended up as a President in the first place. I get the impression that a lot of people in the UK warmed to Clinton and felt 'safe' with him at the head of the USA. Bush supporters over here, like in many other countries, are few and far between, and Bush's perceived (ha!) lack of intelligence definitely has something to do with that.

Still, it has to change in what, two years is it? For the rest of the world it can't come soon enough.

[yg17]

I think a lot of folks here in the UK still find it hard to believe how Bush ever ended up as a President in the first place. I get the impression that a lot of people in the UK warmed to Clinton and felt 'safe' with him at the head of the USA. Bush supporters over here, like in many other countries, are few and far between, and Bush's perceived (ha!) lack of intelligence definitely has something to do with that.

Still, it has to change in what, two years is it? For the rest of the world it can't come soon enough.

You mean Bush has supporters over in the UK? I would've never expected that.


I wonder what his approval rating in the rest of the world is. I'd be surprised if it's over 10%.

[mactastic]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.
Lol... you people and your theories. No wonder you're losing in Iraq!

[zimv20]

i respect gore for a lot of things, but i don't find him "pretty". i wonder what kind of relationship our new friend has with his father.

[leekohler]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.

Get your head out of your a**. The reason everyone hates Bush is because he's a screw up. I actually had hope for him after 9/11, but no, no, no! He had to go and mess that up! Iraq was never a threat but now we have plenty (N Korea, Iran and now the Lebanon/Israel/Palestine mess), and we have no resources to deal with them.

Bush is completely inept. Anyone else who did his job this poorly in the real world would have been fired years ago.

[yg17]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.


I got over that 6 years ago. I hate Bush for many reasons, but Gore "losing" isn't one of them. Bush is the most unintelligent, incompetent, immoral president this country has had, and if we can last 2 and a half more years without him turning our country into a sh*thole, then I will be amazed. He is the reason I am no longer patriotic. He is the reason I want to get the hell out of this country. I don't dislike the man. I have strong HATE towards the bastard. I hate him more than I hate Bin Laden, because Bush's actions actually affect me. In fact, he and his cronies are the only people I can say I truly hate. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg. There are other things I want to say about him and wish on him but won't because I'd probably get into deep ***** with the CIA. Gore losing an election doesn't give me such strong hatred towards him and his country (yes, not my country....my country was gone when he took office). 6 years of watching him take America and turn it into this right wing, neoconservative, corrupt jesusland has given me such strong feelings towards him.

[IJ Reilly]

May I make an observation? Exchanging rants is not productive.

[steamboat26]

May I make an observation? Exchanging rants is not productive.

You asked a question, people are giving you their answers. What were you looking for?

[steamboat26]

That's the whole reason why you people hate Bush. You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago. Get over it.

BTW, gore won the election. More people in America voted for him, and after they actually counted ALL the votes in Florida, Gore won that state too. He should be president, bush didn't even win the electoral.
Do you still actually believe that Bush is a competant leader? After all he has put this country through?!?

[IJ Reilly]

You asked a question, people are giving you their answers. What were you looking for?

I did not ask the question. I am simply pointing out that just because someone lights a flame, that doesn't call for flying right into it.

[mactastic]

I did not ask the question. I am simply pointing out that just because someone lights a flame, that doesn't call for flying right into it.
Our erstwhile questioner seems to have left anyway...

[solvs]

You are still pissed off becuase your pretty boy Gore lost an election 6 years ago.
Considering I didn't vote for Gore (not that I voted for Bush either), that's a ridiculous statement. Even if I did (which I would like to again point out I didn't), it's still pretty ridiculous. If that's the best you've got... well I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot better.

As I said, we dislike Bush for a number of reasons. Most of which we can actually back up. Once again, I ask what good he has done and do not get an answer. I asked the same type of thing when someone said they felt toward Clinton (who I also didn't like and didn't vote for) the way we felt about Bush. "What was it you hated specifically and what about GW do you like?" I didn't even get a vague response. I think someone just said something like "stupid liberals" (which was funny because he was talking to 2 former Republicans, a moderate, and a European when he said it) when I asked it another time before that and left, but yeah, no real response. Someone actually did list some things once a long time ago, but I went through the list and showed him how Bush had actually done the exact opposite. Like with the 9/11 Commission, which he opposed for some reason. No response.

So here it is again, what's so good about him?

[solvs]

So here it is again, what's so good about him?
Seriously, I know you people are reading this. 1 thing. Just 1. All I'm asking.

[Sdashiki]

I think david cross said:

"10,000 less Iraqis?"

[leekohler]

Seriously, I know you people are reading this. 1 thing. Just 1. All I'm asking.

You won't get one solvs, because there isn't one. At least Clinton balanced the budget. Isn't that supposed to be Repubicans' job? :rolleyes: As much as I didn't care for Clinton, I wish we could have him back right now.

[Black&Tan]

You won't get one solvs, because there isn't one. At least Clinton balanced the budget. Isn't that supposed to be Repubicans' job? :rolleyes: As much as I didn't care for Clinton, I wish we could have him back right now.

I'd take even take Carter, for that matter!!

:D :D

[leekohler]

I'd take even take Carter, for that matter!!

:D :D

Wow- no kidding! Oh those were dark years though. It's kind of a toss-up!
:D

[mactastic]

Seriously, I know you people are reading this. 1 thing. Just 1. All I'm asking.
He supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act the other day. Begrudginly of course, but nevertheless the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress passed it and he signed it.

Plus he's done wonders for the late-night television industry...

[zimv20]

how about the Do Not Call Registry? i like that.

and that's all i can think of.

[yg17]

how about the Do Not Call Registry? i like that.

and that's all i can think of.

Missouri had that before the rest of the US did, and our DNC list was created by our democrat attorney general Jay Nixon :D


So no, Bush hasn't done 1 good thing :P

[zimv20]

Missouri had that before the rest of the US did, and our DNC list was created by our democrat attorney general Jay Nixon :D

thanks, i didn't know that. but it did become federal law under bush, and i count that as a good thing. i mean, he could have vetoed it.

[IJ Reilly]

how about the Do Not Call Registry? i like that.

and that's all i can think of.

The DNC registry only worked for a while, until the industry figured out the loopholes. Hasn't anyone else noticed?

[zimv20]

The DNC registry only worked for a while, until the industry figured out the loopholes. Hasn't anyone else noticed?
it's only in the past couple months that my volume has gone up fairly dramatically.

i know there are exceptions for political campaigns and charities. what are the loopholes being found?

[mactastic]

So no, Bush hasn't done 1 good thing :P
You're not into voting rights? :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

it's only in the past couple months that my volume has gone up fairly dramatically.

i know there are exceptions for political campaigns and charities. what are the loopholes being found?

Market research surveys. Really, you hadn't noticed? For a while I was getting several of these calls a day. Surveys are exempted from the DNC list restrictions, but only technically if the survey company isn't trying to sell you anything. Of course you need to stay on the line for a long time to find out what they are trying to flog, but you can bet it's something or other. I interrogated one of these callers a few weeks ago about how I get off their calling list. He confessed that there wasn't any way, as far as he knew. So this is even worse than the situation which existed prior to the DNC registry, when you could demand to be removed from any given call list.

[Black&Tan]

Market research surveys. Really, you hadn't noticed? For a while I was getting several of these calls a day. Surveys are exempted from the DNC list restrictions, but only technically if the survey company isn't trying to sell you anything. Of course you need to stay on the line for a long time to find out what they are trying to flog, but you can bet it's something or other. I interrogated one of these callers a few weeks ago about how I get off their calling list. He confessed that there wasn't any way, as far as he knew. So this is even worse than the situation which existed prior to the DNC registry, when you could demand to be removed from any given call list.

I just ask them "are they paying me for their research?" I get paid for my opinion, thank you very much!

[zimv20]

Market research surveys. Really, you hadn't noticed?
yeah, those are the ones that have gone up. i usually just say "take me off your call list" and hang up. didn't occur to me that they might not have one.

but now that i think about it, they have dropped off in the last few weeks (after being higher for a few months).

related, i've been getting a more-than-usual number of door-to-door people asking for money, usually in the form of magazine sales. when i'm patient, i ask if they have the Economist (they never do). some seem legit, but some strike me as scams (unimpressive stacks of documentation, bad and weather-worn photocopies of crib sheets, no handouts to speak of).

twice this week, i've said, "i don't do anything without research, give me your website address." both times, it was false. hmmmm....

[IJ Reilly]

yeah, those are the ones that have gone up. i usually just say "take me off your call list" and hang up. didn't occur to me that they might not have one.

Lately I've taken to just setting the phone down and going about my business. They don't stay on the line long. I could try saying "hang on for a second," and putting them on hold. That might be fun.

[zimv20]

I could try saying "hang on for a second," and putting them on hold. That might be fun.
and you'd be serving society in two important aspects -- fewer people would be called that night, and in turn you're keeping the telemarketers employed longer!

[yg17]

We never get called, thankfully. But we never even get calls from political campaigns, which is a shame, because I'd love to tell some republican to shove it.

[steamboat26]

We never get called, thankfully. But we never even get calls from political campaigns, which is a shame, because I'd love to tell some republican to shove it.
As fun as that would be, you are not missing much. you get a horrible recording of the candidate saying, "vote for me"

[IJ Reilly]

and you'd be serving society in two important aspects -- fewer people would be called that night, and in turn you're keeping the telemarketers employed longer!

I feel so virtuous, thank you.

Actually I try not to get angry at the people who call. What a lousy job, annoying people by phone, and how desperate does a person need to be for work to take one?

[leekohler]

I feel so virtuous, thank you.

Actually I try not to get angry at the people who call. What a lousy job, annoying people by phone, and how desperate does a person need to be for work to take one?

I did it for a while. And yes, I was desperate. It actually wasn't that awful. I was contacting people to renew magazine subscriptions. I hope I never have to do it again though. When you're young without the support of your family, you'd be very surprised at what you can put up with.

[pseudobrit]

Actually I try not to get angry at the people who call. What a lousy job, annoying people by phone, and how desperate does a person need to be for work to take one?

My profession is in junk mail.

Not electronic, mind you, and I promise I don't do those damned credit card solicitations; we're too small a company for them.

[yg17]

Not electronic, mind you, and I promise I don't do those damned credit card solicitations; we're too small a company for them.


Oh god I hate those. Between myself, my mom, and my dad, we must get 15 Capital One applications in the mail each week. We'll get more than one on the same day for the same person. Down at college, Chase somehow got the names and addresses of all students in the dorms (I think reslife sold our addresses) and each one of us got about 8, yes, EIGHT applications over the span of a few days.

I wonder how much money these companies piss away on mailing this crap out?

[zimv20]

we must get 15 Capital One applications in the mail each week.
i used to get about 5/week. one call to them took care of it.

[pseudobrit]

I wonder how much money these companies piss away on mailing this crap out?

It's not cheap but it's effective.

[yg17]

It's not cheap but it's effective.


How is it effective? Especially when they send several to the same people each week? They go from the mailbox to the shredder, and I know we're not the only ones. I can't imagine these mass mailings get too many new applicants. If anything, it completely turns me away from Capital One and I would never, ever get a card from them.

[pseudobrit]

How is it effective? Especially when they send several to the same people each week? They go from the mailbox to the shredder, and I know we're not the only ones. I can't imagine these mass mailings get too many new applicants. If anything, it completely turns me away from Capital One and I would never, ever get a card from them.

Obviously it's working on someone or they wouldn't be doing it. If a mailing is $20,000 for a list of 45,000 and they get just ten people to apply and go rack up $2000 in fees interest payments over the next year, they've made that mailing worthwhile.

But typical response is something like 3%, so figure on at least 1,000 responses. Each one of these people needs incur just $20 in charges for them to break even. They target college kids because they know they're irresponsible with credit, get in over their heads and mom and dad will more often than not bail them out, but not before the interest and penalties have rolled into a huge sum.

[solvs]

You're not into voting rights? :confused:
But he wasn't responsible for that. He just didn't stop it from happening. Doesn't count, sorry.

It couldn't be that hard. 1 thing he actually has done or helped spearhead that turned out to be a good thing for a majority of people. You can't even really say anything about abortions or gay people or anything if you're into opposing that sort of thing because all he's done is talked about it. There has to be at least 1 thing. Even Nixon had his good points.

[pseudobrit]

1 thing he actually has done or helped spearhead that turned out to be a good thing for a majority of people..

I don't know about yours, but I know my hydrogen car kicks ass.

[solvs]

I don't know about yours, but I know my hydrogen car kicks ass.
And I love my CNG car. All 7 of us who drive them are very happy with them. :p Actually that would have been a good one, but unless you're being sarcastic, a lot of that was just talk. I love that my very liberal parents bought shiny new SUVs. Both of them. Mars is lovely too I hear, but that didn't really go as far as I'd hoped either.

Close though, thanks at least for trying. :D

[mactastic]

But he wasn't responsible for that. He just didn't stop it from happening. Doesn't count, sorry.
How do you figure? He called for the passage of the VRA before it passed. I know his party resisted it, particularly the southern Senators, but Bush never resisted it, and although he didn't push hard for it like Social Security reform, it's still his bill to sign. I don't recall the vote being veto-proof either. Unless you know something I don't?

[solvs]

How do you figure?
I hadn't heard him even mention it before it had already passed, to the NAACP when he finally spoke to them for the first time during his presidency. If he did push for it, good on him. But the law already existed, all they did was reinstate it, and all he did was no veto it. I'm sure there are all sorts of things he wasn't responsible for that he didn't veto or just kinda happened under his watch. I am speaking of something he himself, and/or his administration, has done that's been good. Preferably to a majority of people, if not everyone.

I can't think of 1 thing he's actually done that's been his and his alone, and whenever it's asked, neither can anyone else it seems (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=good+thing+Bush+has+done&btnG=Google+Search). Not something he's said, has to be something that's actually happened. Something that someone else has done that he just hasn't stopped or screwed up doesn't count.