I think the quotes are hilarious. But I don't buy into the view that this deems him incapable of running the nation.
Bush makes error after error. That doesn't mean he's not smart or that he is smart. What it does mean is that he makes humorous errors when he speaks. Even Bush laughs at it himself. I don't think Bush supporters should take it personally when people bring up and laugh at his gaffs. It's not a criticism of his policy or leadership ability. Those things can be debated seperately on their own merit. Personally I think Gore and Bush just have different styles. Bush seems to prefer to let others advise him, he then takes that advice into consideration and make the final decision. Gore seemed to personally involve himself in the issues, rather than take the advice of a variety of people he trusts. The difference is that Gore comes off as more knowledgeable about the issues he discusses. He can name more specifics, personally knows many of the players involved. Bush has advisors he really trusts, weighs their opinions, and then makes the decisions he feels are correct. He also has core beliefs that he holds to, and guides his advisors in certain directions based on things he believes and his personal philosophy. I don't know that either way is actually better, they are just different styles of management, and can come off in different ways in the media. At least that's how I see things. Others no doubt may see them differently.
Really good post. The interesting thing here is that many (not all) of those who bring up Bush's mistakes are the ones who are the most critical of his politics. It seems that it is done to belittle his leadership ability.
Bush is an idiot. For you to pretend otherwise is laughable. Gore is not Einstein, but do you really think he does not have a better grasp of issues, or at least the capability to understand issues, than Bush? And I said he was 'comparatively' a beacon of intelligence, as in 'compared to Bush.' I do not think Bush could run a fantasy football team on his own, and its a damn embarrassment that he is President. And Gore is not a 'slick' speaker. He is known for his 'wooden' speaking style. Stop retreading your Clinton jibes. I am not anti-Republican nor anti-Democrat. He cannot articulate a position, nor can he create policy. He is a bull in a China shop (oh, the puns). My criticism of Bush is not based on partisan politics. For example, I am not against the new 'Bush Doctrine,' although I think it should be called the 'Rice Doctrine.' In fact, I have been one of the more hawkish foreign policy posters on this bbs, which should be proof enough that is not Bush's Republicanism that generates my criticism.
I dont see anywhere in rimrocker's post where he is praising Gore. Why cant we mock GW's comments just because they are funny? Sat Nite Live does it all the time and its not because they love Gore. Its because Bush is a great target. Screw the politics. Just laugh.
We can laugh buddy. But its the jackasses on this board that are like "Ha! He said consumption instead of conservation! He is clearly unfit for being President. Al "Internet" Gore rulzzzzz!!!" Um, no. I think I would rather have a woman be president than Gore. With all that makeup he wears on TV, he's more woman than man anyway; not to mention the fact that he HAS NO BALLS.
Newsflash: HayesStreet and I agree! Wow, that feels weird. Bush would be all joy and hilarity if it weren't for him being President. I'd love it if he was just some sort of pointless celebrity who had no influence but got covered constantly by Entertainment Tonight. That 'fool me once' clip actually made me cry with laughter, and I was watching it on a tiny realplayer... keep on trucking with the malapropisms, GW.
If Bush is an idiot then somebody give me that guy's karma. He's rich and he became President. Not bad for an "idiot."
Please articulate a warrant for your claim that GW is not an idiot. I haven't seen one yet. You seem to have immediately retreated to sarcasm, which is the first sign that you have no reasonable point to make. Do you feel that wealth is a conclusive sign of intellect? You seem to be saying that but I want to check to make sure, since I thought you were smarter than that. I will admit that becoming President usually seems to require some smarts, but as there is an exception to every rule, so we have GW. Is there anything in particular that you'd like to point to that shows how smart he was on the campaign? Do you think his victory was due to his intelligence? Please explain. Will you go on record saying you believe he has a good grasp of the issues he is dealing with? Do you really think that is true of a President that gets his daily briefings in the form of a hand puppet show put on by his advisors?
Which of our presidents led the nation unilaterally-- that is to say, by <b>his</b> whim? How long have we had Cabinets and Advisors to the president? How many of our presidents have had super-intellect? Isn't there more than one aspect of intellect?
I have no idea what Bush's IQ is. That would be a pretty good indication of intelligence. However I will go on record as saying that smart people will put knowledgable people in an advisory capacity. Then they rely upon said advisors. That is what Bush has done. I think that Bush has a decent grasp of the issues...not to the point where he gets really detailed with names and specific instances to use as examples, but he gets the information from his advisors and then formulates an opinion. I doubt it comes in the form of a puppet show. Quite drole. Example: RC Slocum is an idiot. He knows defense really well, but is not very good with offense. He has had numerous offensive coordinators with excellent credentials. But it is apparent that he does not allow them to do their jobs. The offense has been the same since 1990. He has the first part down...now he just needs to RELY upon his advisors. Part of it is being smart to recognize that which you do not know and take the affirmative steps to mitigate the effects of your lack of information. BTW...for glynch...I don't know exactly how long Presidents have had advisors...but it predates WW2.
I seriously doubt that information is published anywhere, assuming his parents (who I think are smart) ever allowed such a test to be taken, which I also doubt. Is that what Bush has done? Or is that what his handlers have done? For example, how did he come to pick his advisors? He didn't know too many of the big ones before he ran for President. His VP was a friend of his Dad's. His Sec of State was a friend of his Dad's. Shall we keep going? And if you ARE an idiot, does it make you smart if you surround yourself with smart people? I want you to stop avoiding the question. I want you to go on record as saying that George W Bush is smart. That seems to be what you are saying, but let's have it so we know where you stand. Go ahead and make your 'different kinds of smart' caveats, that's ok, but out with it already. And then be prepared to answer how anyone could be considered dumb if GW Bush is smart. Right. He can't remember names or anything about any issue, but he makes an informed decision? That is silly. I think you mean 'droll.' I guess there is a Quayle for every Bush ... Yeah, I know the old saying someone else mentioned about 'knowing that you don't know everything.' But that does not mean you should be considered smart if you acknowledge you are stupid. If that were true you would only put people in charge who said 'I'm stupid, I'm stupid!' Oh wait, that's what we did in the last Presidential election...
The claims in 2000 that Bush's IQ was estimated at 91 (from writing samples and speeches, etc.) were proved to be bogus. The "Lovenstein" Institute apparently does not exist. That false news report also listed estimated IQs for other presidents of the last century, and those are proven false in many cases by actual IQ data. It's kind of an interesting story. See hoax debunked. I don't think the "91" value is impossible, but I agree that we'll never really find out.
Wouldn't some people say that anyone who did hard-core, mind-altering drugs should be considered an idiot? Not my argument, but the more conservative types tend to think so...
