This was posted by Neil Cavuto today. I think it is extremely well written and is an insightful piece. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69680,00.html Simpleton. Moron. Twisted syntax. Dumb ideas. Those were some of the kinder things said of the president. Not "this" president. I'm talking president Ronald Reagan. He was also dismissed as an intellectual lightweight. He was also lampooned as a puffed up idiot. He was also crazy like a fox. You'd think the so-called intellectual elite would wake up. The people you dismiss today have a way of running circles around you later. I'm not taking sides here, just making a point. When arrogant people make disparaging remarks, watch out. They're not only rude, they're wrong. And they're mean. Did Ronald Reagan ever once rip their syntax? Did he ever once make fun of their predictions, or once demean them for their views? The same applies to President Bush. After all the hurtful things written and said, did he ever once call them clueless? Ever once call them vapid? Ever once call them not up to the job? No, he did not. Here's something the elite don't get, but the good people of this country do. Character counts. Being decent counts. Understating yourself counts. Trudging on when others are carrying on counts. Not boasting, or carping, or criticizing, or demeaning, or snickering -- all that counts. This isn't a Republican issue. Or Democratic one. This is a human issue. Tables have a way of turning on those who think they know, but don't. Versus those who say they don't know, but do.
This is light years beyond the DD drivel Phi83 posted, but of course you have to realize he is taking sides. If you want to explore the origins of Cavuto's implications, I recommend this book. It is extremely well written and insightful. Somehow I have two copies. If you like, I'll send you one gratis. (The older, frayed copy. ) "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter
Did Ronald Reagan ever once rip their syntax? Did he ever once make fun of their predictions, or once demean them for their views? I distinctly remember RR calling the press "bastards" to their face. RR will go in history as one of the worst albeit popular presidents that we ever had. Comparing RR to W is silly too. RR at least was charismatic.
Simpleton. Moron. Twisted syntax. Dumb ideas. Those were some of the kinder things said of the president. Not "this" president. I'm talking president Ronald Reagan. He was also dismissed as an intellectual lightweight. He was also lampooned as a puffed up idiot. He was also crazy like a fox. You'd think the so-called intellectual elite would wake up. The people you dismiss today have a way of running circles around you later. I've never understood this logic. Using this, you could argue that, if someone really stupid runs for President, we shouldn't ever criticize that because we might just be wrong. Personally, I *want* a smart President, and if someone acts like he's stupid, I'm going to assume he is stupid. I may be wrong occasionally, but its far better than the alternative of taking the chance of getting someone who's really stupid.
So it didn't matter that Reagan was senile through most of his second term? I also don't understand this logic. Incidentally, I saw a commercial for an HBO documentary coming out that I woud like to but won't be able to see. It was some film student with a hand held camera who went on the campaign trail with Bush. In it, he acts goofey, jokes around, gets really close to the camera "Blair Witch" style and makes silly comments/faces, etc. I think that it will mostly increase his popularity...it shows his "buddy charm" that people seem to love.
I think you're referring to "Journeys with George." I just watched it on Tuesday. As a film, it was a little long and repetitive. But as a behind-the-scenes look at Bush it was ... well, still a little long and repetitive. I came away with two lasting impressions of Dubya: 1. He seems to be a decent guy 2. He is incapable of keeping his mouth closed while he's eating Incidentally, it wasn't a film student who made it but NBC-correspondent Alexandra Pelosi -- the daughter of the next House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Interesting twist, huh?
I actually agree with this article even though I despise GBII I think labeling him 'stupid' is lazy. When we quickly label him as a 'moron' and 'daddy's boy" we're potentially predisposed to dismissing any good he might be doing or recognizing exactly what it is we disagree about his direction. No sense analyzing policy if we've got a handy label ready. I remember within weeks after his election being in a bookstore and seeing three or four books critical of Bush' s presidency/leadership -- and the man hadn't even really started his term. He was elected and is entitled to a degree of respect for that .
I want a smart president too. Especially if said president wants to radically chance governemnt, e.g. privatizing social security, changing tax reform based on dubious economic principles, declaring war on those nations that are not "with us" on the war on terrorism, etc.
I remember whithin a few days after Clinton's election (and even before), there were books and internet sites out accusing him of scores of murders, drug dealing, graft, treason, etc. Oh yeah, and he was elected.
The "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" comment was resoundly supported by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
So does that mean if Russia and France did not bend to the US's will on the war with Iraq that they would be next? But wait a minute. The US bent to to France's and Russia's will on the Secuirty Council's Iraq resolution. I guess that does mean they are next, that is they are in line after North Korea (a known Axis of Evil (tm)).
Your memory is either really short or selective. The comment Bush made was tempered by his comment that military force would be applied to those nations who "harbor or sponsor terrorists." That is something that Iraq and North Korea have been known to do. The Russians even suspect that Islamic militants from Iraq and Saudi Arabia are funding the Chechens who stormed the theater.
Eh? Insightful? Commentary? There's no analysis there, just rhetoric. Come on Refman... I know you really like Bush... but that's hollow. *You*, personally, could write a much better piece than that. I know you can, because I've seen you do it. Hell, there are at least 10 posters who can put it to shame. I'm not entirely mocking your piece, so much as disdaining the tendency to praise the published word. There just wasn't any actual content there.
Simpleton. Moron. Twisted syntax. Dumb ideas. Those were some of the kinder things said of the president. Not "this" president. I'm talking president Ronald Reagan. He was also dismissed as an intellectual lightweight. He was also lampooned as a puffed up idiot. yeah, and it was all well deserved. As it is today.
OK...well then that "puffed up idiot" was smart enough to fool everybody, because in 1984 he took ALL but Minnesota and DC.
My problems with the logic behind both that article and ref's conclusions are as follows: 1) Agreed that media spin can be inaccurate, but it in no way follows that you must therefore assume the opposite...Arrogant people can make disparaging comments and be right...even when they are being rude and/or mean...There is no qualitative connection between the attributes you ascribe to them and the accuracy of their commentary. 2) The comparisons beween the two Presidents are way off...Irrespective of where you sit on the political scale, almost everyone agrees that Reagan deserved the Great Communicator tag he had, at least for the first 6 years he was serving. That, and a boundless sense of belief in the rightness of American idealogy in the face of ( at the time) a national sense of insecurity was what he brought to the table..Reaganomics proved short-sighted, and the man was, in fact, not all that bright ( relatively) as is agreed by world leaders who were in power at around the same time...but the man knew how to communicate. He had charisma, presence, delivery...sure, anyone who is in front of the camera enough will make plenty of mistakes, but by and large RR had the timing, delivery, and sense of drama that distinguishes the effective orator...He is probably the most effective speaker among Presidents in the last 40 or 50 oyears... Bush, on the other hand, is a terrible speaker...He goes beyond drama to melodrama, garbles words, gets lost mid-speech, mixes metaphors, and generally relies on 'punching' the end of each line with either a glare or his 'defiant man' look..ie, jutting chin out and firmly setting his mouth....He has no sense of pace, nor does he come across as all that aware of what he's talking about...It was only his good fortune to go up against an even worse public speaker in Al Gore... And ref, you seem to be confusing political success with effectivness and/or intelligence. Reagan was incredibly politically successfull...but his effectivness/intelligence are much more debatable. You state that RR, just like Bush, was thought by many in the know to be an intellectual lightweight, and was lampooned...and when that is said to be deserved you try and refute that by pointing out his political success...I don't see your point. No one is saying that intellectual lightweights can't get elected...hell, we're living through it right now. The point that others are making is that the fact that they both have that in common is neither a positive reflection of our system, nor does it mean that Bush brings the other things to the table that Reagan does, just because he shares some of his shortcomings...
just bc I think he was none too bright doesn't mean I don't think he was a good politician. Though I don't ... .. I think he was a great politician.
The same could be said about a good many politicians on both sides of the aisle. It is strange that it only becomes fodder for discussion when a Republican is elected. That was really the point of the Cavuto piece...and it is a point I echo.
