<p>Would you like your child to use President George Bush as a role model, in
his/her academic and intellectual pursuits?</p>
<p>It’s the Holidays…do we really need to fight? (jk 
)</p>
<p>Expand the question beyond Bush - can you think of any recent President you would wish your child to use as an academic/intellectual role model?</p>
<p>my Ds roll model is Eleanor Rossevelt…</p>
<p>Ah yes, Eleanor Rossevelt (sic) 
</p>
<p>Do you know how many kids think she actually said, </p>
<p>“America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, bad-ass speed.” ?</p>
<p>I would guess that in the last couple of years and for next 10 years, the proper name “George” will fall in favor. Sorry Martha.</p>
<p>oppsss eye moist larn to spel</p>
<p>“can you think of any recent President you would wish your child to use as an academic/intellectual role model?”</p>
<p>Heck yeah. Clinton had many failings, but I’d pee my pants with pride if any child of mine duplicated his academic success. Looking farther back, Carter (Naval Academy) was no slouch, either.</p>
<p>Wow, Hanna, I agree with you!</p>
<p>From an “academic/intellectual” perspective, the Naval Academy is really not that terribly impressive. To graduate 59th as Carter did is even less impressive.</p>
<p>BTW - I’m not knocking the Naval Academy or any of the service academies - they are great institutions (my nephew recently graduated from the Air Force Academy). However, while academically strong, they are not nearly as academically selective as many top colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I take it that you have never been to Plains, Georgia? Or, considered what it was like when Jimmy Carter was obtaining his high school education?</p>
<p>I would say that Carter’s life is certainly role model material.</p>
<p>itstoomuch -</p>
<p>At least I got the “Sorry, Martha” reference. Wow - that’s an old one.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter in a minute: even if he was sometime ineffective as president, he was (and is) smart, compassionate, fair-minded, and generous of spirit. I would value those intellectual qualities over 4.0 at an Ivy in my kid any day.</p>
<p>Footnote on George Bush: I’d agree with Al Gore’s assessment, when someone asked him roughly this question. His reply was that he frankly didn’t think that Bush was “intellectually curious.” I think that’s it in a nutshell–Bush is not stupid, but he just doesn’t have the type of mind that’s interested in probing every nook and cranny of each policy issue. Whether you liked Gore or Clinton, they were policy wonks, and liked to think about all sides of an issue, and generally I think that quality serves political leaders well.</p>
<p>“Whether you liked Gore or Clinton, they were policy wonks, and liked to think about all sides of an issue, and generally I think that quality serves political leaders well.”</p>
<p>Not only does it serve politicians well, but I contend that it should be a requirement. You wouldn’t want an attorney who couldn’t rattle off historical cases & verdicts, would you? Or a doctor who couldn’t have medical knowledge at his fingertips?</p>
<p>Then why, oh why, were the voters willing to settle for an ‘Aw shucks’ kinda guy for the highest office in the land? I’ve heard so often that bush is a ‘nice guy’ but the presidency of the most powerful country in the world should require more credentials than that. Intellectual curiosity should be a MUST. bush doesn’t even read his briefs. </p>
<p>That’s why I think it is naive to think that he actually runs the country. It’s just so obvious that he has always just been the frontman.</p>
<p>That’s why Poppy Bush started crying in public when talking about Jeb losing the governor’s office the first time around - he lost his positioning and therefore could not be president, so Poppy had to settle for the backup son to put into position. GW was never intended to be president, and I don’t think he ever really wanted it. He’s been quoted as saying as much. Now that he’s there, he sure does enjoy being ‘the decider’ and he lets us know it. Like a kid in a candy store.</p>
<p>Regardless of one’s opinion of Gore and Clinton’s policies, both are intellectual giants and have the capacity needed for the job. gw is not even in the same league and someday the world will look back on this presidency and wonder, ‘What were they thinking, electing this guy?’</p>
<p>Morals? Family values? As if starting a war is moral??? Anyway, even IF gw were a morally upright man (which I do not believe he is) there are plenty of intelligent morally upright people (well, a few, anyway) so we should not have had to sacrifice intelligence in order to get morals. We should not have had to sacrifice any of the core requirements - all are important. It’s called having the credentials for the job.</p>
<p>Like them or not, Gore, Clinton, and Bush Sr. all have the necessary credentials. Even Jeb, sort of. But gw? No way. It’s so obvious that he got in because of Daddy and Jeb. He never would have become president on his own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that’s how you see him. I see him as a bitter old man who feels that only he knows what’s best for the country (despite doing a tremendous job of screwing it up when he was in charge.) As an ex-President he feels like it is still his job to create an “alternate” US foreign policy - much to the chagrin of Bill Clinton and both Bushes. Everyone sings praises about the elder Bush’s ability to build the coalition for the first Gulf War. What they may not know is that Jimmy Carter did his his best to undermine that coalition by writing to members of the Security Council asking them to not support the war. “Treason” is a strong word, but it comes close to describing Carter’s actions.</p>
<p>Bush’s legacy will be pathetic…already…what has he done? okay, he went into two wars…and those are both a nightmare…other than that? </p>
<p>as for Carter, he had integraty and inherited a mess…</p>
<p>As for Bush, too bad the apple fell so far from the tree</p>
<p>ANd ff, you love of Bush Jr is truely astonishing…has he ever, in your eyes made a mistake?</p>
<p>CGM, you mistake “love” for wanting to set the record straight from those like you whose “hatred” for the man exceeds all bounds of honesty.</p>
<p>It’s not hatred; it’s indignation that someone who is NOT qualified is in the leadership role of our nation. (Notice I did not say 'leading our nation.)</p>
<p>EVEN IF it is hatred, do ya really blame us?</p>
<p>We essentially hired the guy to do a job. He has failed, miserably. And people are paying for HIS arrogance with their lives and those of their children (not to mention the Iraqis.)</p>
<p>Good heavens, ff, why do you continue to defend someone who has nothing good to show for his years in office, but a string of failures? And why do you blame those who are disgusted? If you hired an employee at your place of business and then found out s/he lied and stole from you, then put the blame on others, wouldn’t you be a bit…disgusted? Wouldn’t you fire that person?</p>
<p>This joke of a president could be impeached many times over. I hope that happens next year.</p>
<p>“who feels that only he knows what’s best for the country (despite doing a tremendous job of screwing it up when he was in charge”</p>
<p>So happy to see you finally came to your senses about baby bush.</p>
<p>
<br>
I’m sure that someone who believes that the US was involved with 9/11 will never be convinced otherwise, but none of the reports indicate that there were any lies involved. But, let’s not go down that path - I have little patience debating the subject with someone who holds the beliefs that you do. </p>
<p>As far as “firing” that person - the American public (this is still a democracy, remember) did the opposite when they decided to re-hire Bush for another 4 years.</p>