I love all the Big Causes that libs have had over the past years of the Bush Admin, but their man is prez and have control of the white house and we have: Continued genocide in Darfur No Bid Contracts to KBR, Inc subsidiary of Halliburton! Gitmo's still open the patriot act is still on the books Osama Bin Laden is still living in a cave Nice job, Mister President. Nice job.
It was foolish to expect much of a difference between Bush's second term and Obama. That doesn't mean that Obama is a moron.
Not really. Bush's policies weren't primarily of his own making. He was a moron because of his low intelligence.
I love it when folks like Rick talk. I'm sure that, in a room, Bush would dominate DickDeckard like the pseudo-intellect he is.
Rick versus Bush wouldn't be fair: We know Bush can dodge a shoe thrown at his head.... can Rick dodge a bottle of Lonestar Beer?
I don't think he was a very good public speaker. He's at least as bad as Obama at extemporaneous speaking, probably worse. Having been around him on multiple occasions, though, he never struck me as being dumb or unintelligent at all.
Because he was inarticulate when reading prepared remarks. Bush "off the cuff" was well-spoken (other than the fact that in some quarters the mere existence of a southern or texan accent is a marker of low intelligence) and in meetings and policy discussions (with his staff or with foreign leaders) he was most impressive. Over the course of his term more than a few foreign leaders or officials were quoted to the effect of "I was very surprised how bright he was" However, when reading from prepared text he was awful and this made easy fodder for jokes about him, just as when President Ford tripped it became the cliche that he was clumsy. Obama, on the other hand, is smooth as silk when reading a prepared text and stilled and unimpressive when speaking off the cuff. In those situations he is very noteable for a lot of "white noise" - long pauses, "and uh" type filler, repeating back the question or restating it as a statement, diverting quickly onto a reharsed sound bite, etc. Further, he gives a lot of evidence of being in over his head on any issue that's not part of his long held agenda. Is either man a moron? Shit no, not even close. It's all perception fueled by the popular meme of the moment. But Bush was (for all his faults) far more able to take an issue out of left field, bring his intellect and his resources to bear on it, and achieve some results. Obama hasn't shown that ability to "think on his feet" and it's clear that he's been unable to adjust on the fly to some of what he's faced. In short, both men had plenty of intelligence, but Bush has a more intuitive sort of thinking while Obama has a more "agenda driven" (I don't know the right word, what I mean to say here is that he is narrowly focused on a specific course of action and is not as able to deal with "wild cards") sort. And just to be clear that this isn't a right/left statement. Bill Clinton (for all his faults) had both a solid "agenda" intellect AND very good intuitive flexibility. it really is a damned shame a man with his talents was so often wasted.
That pretty much goes without saying. To some it doesn't matter what the question, it means that Bush was a moron.
I've always felt that Bush was more of a bona fide leader, while Obama is more of an administrator. Like you said, he is agenda driven. Deviate from the agenda, and he's up a creek without a paddle. :|
So now Bush isn't retarded? Okay, so first the right as a hive-mind washes their hands of Bushie, now they want to rewrite history in his favor? Gee, that's not something you do for someone you threw under the bus.... Makes no sense..almost like, it were bullshit.
I don't think Bush was retarded either. His policies were just retarded. Oh, and if you're the POTUS, and you can't think on your feet, you're a moron. Plain and simple.
I have been on record for at least five years saying plainly and without reservation that I'm not a Bush fan and anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of his policies I directly oppose (and more now than then) Unlike yourself, I do not HAVE to assume the person who disagrees with me is a retard. A person can be perfectly intelligent and still be wrong politically or philosophically. I said years ago anyone who thought he was stupid was, at best, incredibly ill-informed - that doesn't mean i think he always or even mostly got it right. all that said, I'd take 40 more years of Bush getting it half right over 4 more years of Obama purposely fucking it up.
This is what too many people can't or won't understand. The commonest criticism on message boards, as regards those who do not agree with the poster, is some form of "This person is of low intelligence." (See for example the current thread on the front page of the RR entitled "Wait, what about this? The president IS moron" [sic].) This flows from the widely-held assumption that "I am intelligent, which is why I have correct opinions." It also upholds the classic ad hominem fallacy, since the supposed low intelligence of anyone who disagrees with me shows I do not have to bother refuting their arguments. The bottom line is that anyone who has ever used the argument that those with whom he disagrees are necessarily stupid has demonstrated, by the very fact of using that approach, their dismal failure at logic. It might not say anything about their intelligence, but it does say something about their grasp of the principles of rational discourse.
I think the term given was intellectually incurious. It's not that he isn't intelligent, it's just that George W. had no interest in anything that didn't or couldn't hold his attention. I'm sure if you got him onto a topic that he was interested in, you would get a wholly different reaction from him. I think in Obama's case, I'd say, after a lot of thought, that he is a lot like me on some things, that being, he is interested in a little bit of everything, but a jack of all trades is usually a master of none, and while on some issues he's very good, on many others, including those one would deal with as President, have just completely caught him off guard and he is uncertain how to proceed. Every President faces that kind of situation. Nothing, and I mean nothing, prepares you for the Office of the President of the United States. It is a uniquely engaging experience. Contrary to popular opinion, a moron wouldn't get anywhere close to that Office. I always have to keep that in mind when I watch the news and listen to OpEd columnists.
I've maintained from day one that Former President George W. Bush was a well-meaning man whom I had some fundamental disagreements with and who listened to some very, very bad advice. But, the buck stops with him. I voted for him in 2000. I did not in 2004. Not much else I can say.
While I agree that Dubya was no dummy, he was in fact a dumb-ass. He was too ideologically driven, too inflexible in his responses. Too willing to listen to advice/opinions from too small a pool of close advisers, resulting in a lot of "groupthink". Let's face it, some spectacularly bad decisions came out of his administration. That said, far, far better he was President on 9/11 than Al Gore. Clinton was a quick thinker, an outstanding public speaker, and might have been a great President had he simply possessed a moral center. He was too much a "which way the wind is blowing" President, governing by opinion poll. Bush Sr was a smart man, and a much better President than he's generally credited with having been. But he wasn't articulate and came across as wimpy because he was nice. But you don't fly airplanes in combat or rise to head the CIA if you're a wimp. Reagan, simply put, was a titan. Clear vision, clear understanding, belief in America as an idea and an ideal, and a tremendous public speaker - even better than Clinton, and that's saying something. Able to listen to a wide variety of opinions and advice, cut thru the nonsense, and arrive at a decision or position that reflected reality. Carter was the anti-Reagan, a very, very bright man who simply had no idea how to lead. Micromanager, borderline ineffectual on most "big picture" stuff. Presidents before Carter I remember mostly from parodies on Saturday Night Live or dimly-recalled six o'clock news stories.
