Dubya gaffe alert!
- Thread starter happygrump
- Start date
yychobbyist said:
Are you sure?
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc...116&num=2&ctrlInfo=Round5b:Prod:SR:Result&ao=
OTB
Read my lips; Al Gore lost the 2000 Election.
With his intellect and political savy Al Gore should have romped over George Bush long before it got to Florida.
Gore made two critical mistakes:
1) He ignored Bubba's advice.
2) He underestimated Dubya.
Al Gore is a loser, let's hope John Kerry doesn't make the same mistakes.
George Bush has luck on his side, he makes a gaffe at the start of the weekend. Can you imagine what would have happened if he did it on a Monday and Howard Stern had run with it!
With his intellect and political savy Al Gore should have romped over George Bush long before it got to Florida.
Gore made two critical mistakes:
1) He ignored Bubba's advice.
2) He underestimated Dubya.
Al Gore is a loser, let's hope John Kerry doesn't make the same mistakes.
George Bush has luck on his side, he makes a gaffe at the start of the weekend. Can you imagine what would have happened if he did it on a Monday and Howard Stern had run with it!
I disagree strongly. Yale, and universities in general (especially Ivy League ones) cannot run the risk of being associated with political interference.Manji said:
I have yet to meet an MA or PhD that didn't earn it.
(What did Bush graduate in, anyway? Was it PoliSci?)
As a good public speaker I wish there was a connection between public speaking and smarts - I've not noticed one.
OTB
OTB
If you want somebody to party with, I think George W. Bush is your man. Bush is more your every man, a guy that would probably be better qualified at running a convience store than a nation. He's grounded and he's got a charmy folksy quality to him but he definitly is not presidential.
The whole genesis of the criminal voting thing was because of the Republican move in Florida in 2000 whereby thousands of people were mistakenly listed as having criminal records, when they did not, thereby excluding them from voters lists.
Besides, once a person has done his/her time, then there's no reason whatsoever that they should be denied the franchise.
Besides, once a person has done his/her time, then there's no reason whatsoever that they should be denied the franchise.
onthebottom said:
So I take it you think that Bush is a poor public speaker who just happens to be dumb then?
onthebottom said:
I am sure. What you said was a fuckin' dumb ignorant statement. Someone that has served their time should be allowed to vote. I guess you don't think so b/c they might not vote for the crooks in office, huh?
Bush is of below average intelligence.
Everyone else in the WORLD knows it. For some reason Americans don't see it, or they don't care, or they relate to it somehow. You will often hear the arguement made that they (Bush supporters) like Bush because he is one of them. (Nothing could be further from the truth in reality.)
Clinton was often known to "dumb himself down" so as not to appear to be too much of an egg head which would turn off mom and pop voter. I would like to think that Canadian politicians wouldn't do such a stupid thing, but maybe that explains Chretien (hardly an eloquent speaker himself.... remember the proof is the proof bit)
Thing is, I want my president, or Prime Minister to be of the highest intelligence possible. He doesn't have to be Stephen Hawking, but he or she definitely has to be in the top 10%. I don't want to trust the running of a nation to a buffoon; no matter how "down home" that buffoon might be.
Everyone else in the WORLD knows it. For some reason Americans don't see it, or they don't care, or they relate to it somehow. You will often hear the arguement made that they (Bush supporters) like Bush because he is one of them. (Nothing could be further from the truth in reality.)
Clinton was often known to "dumb himself down" so as not to appear to be too much of an egg head which would turn off mom and pop voter. I would like to think that Canadian politicians wouldn't do such a stupid thing, but maybe that explains Chretien (hardly an eloquent speaker himself.... remember the proof is the proof bit)
Thing is, I want my president, or Prime Minister to be of the highest intelligence possible. He doesn't have to be Stephen Hawking, but he or she definitely has to be in the top 10%. I don't want to trust the running of a nation to a buffoon; no matter how "down home" that buffoon might be.
onthebottom said:
Clinton
Kennedy
Roosevelt
Truman
Jefferson (not that I have heard him speak, but by all accounts he was a good speaker and very intelligent, though he did have this thing for 14 year old black slave girls that he owned)
add:
- Winston Churchill
- Martin Luther King Jr.
- Tony Blair
- Mackenzie King
- Ron Reagan
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Nelson Mandela
- Louis Nizer
- William Jennings Bryan
happygrump said:
No I don't, while it is much easier to be successful (in nearly any career) if you are a polished and confident speaker I don't know that the lack of that ability shows a lack of intelligence. Now if you can't break 85 on the golf course from the blues, then you are an idiot ;-)
Don't you remember all the same comments about Reagan, that and he couldn't stay awake, yet he made your list.
OTB
Manji said:
You are bang on on why people like Bush. Lots of people unfortunately vote for candidates that they can related to or just plain feel like they can hang out with. They feel that Bush is easy to figure out and a regular guy.
Yeah he's not the sharpest guy out there but remember that only like 30% or so of Americans have a degree higher than high school. Bill Clinton was smart and slick. He said he didn't have sex with Lewinsky and then later said he didn't really lie because he doesn't consider oral sex to be real sex. He was being slick and he irritated a lot of Americans because they felt he was trying to be too cute with the interpretation and felt Bill was insulting their intelligence. People feel Bush is too honest, too unpolished, and too down to earth (and let's be honest here - too stupid) to do that. Gore was much more qualified in 2000 but people felt he was condesending and didn't relate to him. Kerry has a bit of the same problem. People originally liked Clinton because they can relate to him (poor kid from rural Arkansas, did some weed, likes blowjobs, etc) . But he lost some folks at the end with his slick talking
Even Michael Moore publically stated that he felt bad for Bush because he feels Bush is actually a decent guy who never wanted to be President, never should have been, and is terrible at it.
Bush is a guy that might be fun to hang out with... not a guy who's advice you'd listen to.. much less be the president.
Guess I'm an idiot, at least on the links!onthebottom said:
Reagan did certainly have a way of communicating with people. Yes, he dozed off on occasion, yes he was manipulative... but he sure knew how to work a crowd, whether the crowd was the media, citizens, Congress or the Senate. Although I disagree with most of his policies - space weaponry and supply-side economics to name a couple - he was no dummy.
As much of a fan as I was (and am) of Reagan I never considered him the sharpest knife in the block. I think he saw things simply - correctly in most cases but simply. I think there is a bit of that in Bush - not stupid just sees things simply. Interesting they both use (d) the language of "evil" (empire or axis), simple - I think right - but simple.
I think both Reagan and Bush had clear vissions of where they thought America should go, Reagan got his shot and scored - Bush go hijacked by 9/11.
OTB
I think both Reagan and Bush had clear vissions of where they thought America should go, Reagan got his shot and scored - Bush go hijacked by 9/11.
OTB
Also, Reagan was very clear about surrounding himself with the best and brightest that were available. When he didn't have the intellectual depth of, say, Tony Blair, he was very good at directing staff and getting the best from them. The only possible exception that I can see was David Stockman, who was simply not up to the task and ended up fudging all kinds of numbers to support his pet theory.
Similar threads
