Personally, while I never voted for GW Bush in any of the three elections that he's stood in, I've always thought that the attacks upon his intelligence were always a bit, uh, stupid. First, of all in this age of handlers and spin-control, it's pretty difficult actually know what a person is like. There are precious few opportunities to get snippets of what a President is really like. Honestly, there is no way to gauge how intelligent a person is from what they say or do publicly. Second, speaking ability is a rather poor indicator of actual intelligence. As I've stated, there are many people who are highly intelligent who can't speak publicly to save their lives. As someone who got his college degree in computer science and who works as a software designer, I've seen many intelligent people stammer, studder, speak incoherently, make up words, and the like. Finally, focusing on these questions about intelligence and speaking ability detracts from discussion about things that really matter: the economy, the post-9/11 erosion of civil liberties, a possible attack on Iraq that isn't even all that popular here, important stuff like that. I don't really give a rip about whether or not crawfish is a word or whether or not Shrub is an intelligent guy or not. What I give a rip about is how much John Ashcroft is going to defecate on the 4th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution.
This wasn't a misstatement, though. It wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a remarkably callous and stupid man talking down to the public trying to win points for being "folksy." Eisenhower was a Republican president not celebrated for his oratory, but it's impossible to picture him bungling on Dubya's scale. I'm trying to get to a frame of mind where if Congress comes back and says, "You know what? Bush and Cheney are right, we do need to invade, here's your permission," then I could accept that there might actually be a legitimate issue there that requires American military action. Because the way the administration has handled the whole business reeks of runaway jive-turkeyism. Now watch this drive.
Yup. Jive-turkeyism. Now, imagine how you'd feel if I used that word to try to justify sending Americans off to war, and killing a whole spitload of Iraqi civilians.
Well, at least "crawfish" as a verb is listed in the dictionary. "Jive-turkeyism" isn't. Yet. So, advantage Shrub.
You didn't call them stupid because they were Democrats. And you only call Bush stupid because you disagree with him politically. I am not going to stoop that low.
Call me old fashioned, but I expect the President to have command of the English vocabulary and more importantly, to be aware of what's going on around the world. I never got the sense "W" was half as aware as his Dad. Also let's remember we are talking about the Presidency and not a software designer or architect. I expect a higher degree of competency for someone holding the position of president than you, I or any other private citizen.
I actually expect a higher degree of competency from software designers or architects than I do of Presidents.
Yes, owners/investors in sports franchises that build 71/29 public/private financed stadiums are just horrible. Don't you also love when left-wingers get selectively high and mighty about "taxpayers expenses".
Yeah, we must have confidence in our software designers or architects, but since GW is JUST our president it doesn't really matter.
Yes, it's blatant hypocrisy when we get p***** when taxpayers make rich people obscenely rich, but like it when taxpayers have to cough up for frivolities like pre-natal care.
Is it ok if I think they're all wrong? Plus, a lot of the blame does in fact have to go towards the taxpayers who repeatedly decide to hand over their money to these guys who are just gonna use their money to get richer and richer.