<p>If it’s true that Bush is dyslexic, that argues even more that he’s not stupid. To perform well enough to get through Andover, Yale and Harvard with a learning disability requires both intelligence and perseverance.</p>
<p>
Why stop now? By the way, you are mistaken to think that all conservatives and Republicans think that Bush is perfect. It’s just that the continuing vitriol that is spewed against the man eventually gets old.</p>
<p>sjmom,</p>
<p>“It’s just that the continuing vitriol that is spewed against the man eventually gets old” </p>
<p>Sadly for Bush supporters, it’s only going to get worse in these days when the man “enjoys” less than a 30% approval rating.</p>
<p>No, dyslexia would not in any way clarify the reason that Bush’s speaking patterns have deteriorated so badly. I posted a link once before which had video comparison of him debating while a Texas governor, and then again in 2004. It was striking…and not the result of dyslexia. Many dyslexics are quite eloquent speakers (some with serious language disorders also have expressive language issues).</p>
<p>My understanding is it can do both, esplly if you’re giving speeches and using a teleprompter or something (or just note cards on the podium). </p>
<p>Here’s another scary tidbit, somewhat off topic but earlier someone mentioned using the Middle East to bring on the second coming. There’s a book out called “Power, Faith and Fantasy” by Michael Oren that traces US involvement in the Middle East back to 1776 (Thomas Jefferson started the Marines to attack the arabs, shores of Tripoli and all that). According to Oren (in a review), Palestine in the 1840s was viewed by some Americans as part of their manifest destiny and the plan was to repopulate the Holy Land with Jews and then convert them to Christianity to bring on the Second Coming. This movement was referred to as “restorationism” or Christian Zionism. And in more deja vue there was a biblical scholar in 1844 and professor of Hebrew at NYU named George Bush who ascribed to the theory and wanted to recreate the state of Palestine for the Jews. Supposedly Oren researched this GB in the Library of Congress and found him to be a direct forebear of Bush 1 and 2.</p>
<p>I had a piano teacher friend who once told me at length over lunch about how we had to support Israel and do all this stuff in the Middle East to bring on the second coming and I thought she was just an isolated nut case, but apparently not.</p>
<p>Interesting post, mercymom. I’ve heard of ‘second comming’ movements but had no idea they went back that far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TD, that is very much in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>It is one thing to point towards courtesy and respect for the TOS, and quite another to waive the overwhelming number of threads that lack the most basic courtesy and respect for the people who happen to have a different opinion about our current and past Presidents.</p>
<p>If the only problem with the vitriol is that it gets old, why read this kind of thread? I generally don’t read threads about topics I find boring.</p>
<p>Now, if you think that the vitriol is out of proportion to the consequences of his actions, that’s a separate issue, but I don’t hear anyone saying that. Seems to me that if you believe that 3000 American soldiers died because of his incompetence, it’s reasonable to be extremely angry about that…maybe angrier than you’ve ever been about anything before.</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t post as much as I used to, simply because it does get old. Once in a while, however, I feel the need to comment on posts that are either illogical, incorrect or just over-the-top hate-speech. I know, I’m tilting at windmills, but I guess I choose to offer an opposing point of view in case the entire readership of CC does not lean left. Silly me.</p>
<p>Funny, most of the people I know who are angriest at Bush would never describe themselves as leaning left. This vitriol transcends political affiliation. So I don’t think you need to worry about CC right-wingers being offended by this thread (if, in fact, they choose to click on a thread so dull). I take it that you agree that the level of vitriol is well-deserved in light of what’s at stake.</p>
<p>" know, I’m tilting at windmills, but I guess I choose to offer an opposing point of view in case the entire readership of CC does not lean left. Silly me."</p>
<p>I don’t lean left and I see exactly what you mean. I used to jump into political threads with gusto, but I’ve learned a couple things since I’ve been here at CC. First, there are a couple of posters who will do anything to win an argument, including twist other posters’ words and even flat out lie. Second, there are many posters with whom I disagree politically that I find supportive, helpful and incredibly smart. Therefore, I choose not to do battle. There are also some posters, as there are many people living in NYC, who absolutely don’t respect other points of view or recognize nuance of thought because, after all, they know best and they don’t know a single person except that freak, who disagrees with them.</p>
<p>“So I don’t think you need to worry about CC right-wingers being offended by this thread (if, in fact, they choose to click on a thread so dull). I take it that you agree that the level of vitriol is well-deserved in light of what’s at stake.”</p>
<p>I’m a right-winger and am not offended by this thread in the least. There are, however, some threads in which the vitriol becomes incredibly vicious and personal – against other posters and not against administration policies.</p>
<p>Vitriol against other posters is always inappropriate and should be brought to the attention of the mods. I’ve found that they’re pretty good about taking down slurs, etc.</p>
<p>You know, it’s funny about vitrol. Mini is highly, highly critical of Clinton (a president whom I’m inclined to respect and whom I certainly miss) and I guess could be accused of vitrol. But I really enjoy reading Mini’s posts because he (or she!) is so well informed, so concrete in his/her criticism, and writes well to boot. Mini’s anti-Clinton vitrol, if I can call it that, doesn’t get old for me - it’s informative. Which is a lot more than I can say for most other anti-Clinton vitrol I read here and elsewhere.</p>
<p>my history teacher told my class that in the past, many presidents won elections because of their military career and were well-known for that. On the contrary, Bush is well known for dodging the draft.</p>
<p>It says a lot about the ‘faceless cowards’ we have in office.</p>
<p>Katlia, I feel the same way about Mini’s posts and his fairness and willingness to smack both sides gives all of his posts more credibility to me. There are other posters here, as well, with whom I disagree but who have earned my respect and when they post something unknown to me I’ll check it out and see what I find. Whereas the “Bush lied,” “Bush is an idiot” and word-twisting posters generally get ignored, so if they were hoping to change minds, that doesn’t work.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t classify mini’s posts as vitriolic. He tends to share his opinion, and then supplies supporting links. That’s different from name-calling, which seems to have become the dominant form of debate on CC and in the media.</p>
<p>Bush is stupid</p>
<p>jk</p>
<p>I think it’s strange that some posters, in defending Bush’s intelligence, point out that he went to Andover, Yale, and Harvard. No, I don’t think Bush is a total imbecile; he obviously has some native intelligence. He couldn’t be a blithering idiot all the time to get where he’s gotten. To some extent, he may the “Being There” president, having been received the benefit of being a junior Bush and being bailed out many times in his life or helped by his connections, but there is some smarts there.</p>
<p>But strong smarts are not evidenced by his school record. He applied to those schools with considerable advantages in terms of legacy and connections, at a time when legacy and connections counted for much, much more than they do today. </p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article about it:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.longviewinstitute.org/research/karabel/legacies[/url]”>http://www.longviewinstitute.org/research/karabel/legacies</a></p>
<p>I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say that there’s absolutely no way that he’d be admitted today. At least not with his adjusted SAT scores.</p>
<p>Somebody said they don’t need to know what his IQ or SAT scores are to know that he’s an idiot. A strong statement that is, but there are things to be learned from watching him, especially over time:</p>
<p><a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo&feature=PlayList&p=CDAECBB2AFAB4240&index=0[/url]”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo&feature=PlayList&p=CDAECBB2AFAB4240&index=0</a></p>
<p>The videos of Bush 10 years ago, show at the very least, that he had the intelligence to get prepped for a debate and speak reasonably cogently about a variety of topics. Dramatically, our President’s confidence perhaps, but certainly abilities to articulate seemed to have declined.</p>
<p>One thing I have noticed is that Bush is successful in delivering speeches for which he is very well prepared. The State of the Union speech following 9/11 is an example. He sounded strong and articulate.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when ad-libbing when he is not well prepared, he provides a lot of fodder for those would ridicule:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM</a></p>
<p>Whether from dyslexia or some other disorder causing muddled-speech, Bush really is challenged in public speaking off the cuff. For me, I don’t think the ability to speak well is necessarily a prime virtue for a president, but it is a very important one. </p>
<p>Perhaps one of the greatest Presidential speakers during my conscious life was Reagan. His ability to deliver speeches that were well-timed and that demonstrated a solid grasp both of language and metaphor was quite strong. And he could ad-lib quite well. Ad-libbing is a key indicator of strength since iit’s the one thing that communicates genuine smarts vs. an ability to recite prepared speeches.</p>
<p>Clinton’s speeches for me were often overly long, but I was absolutely blown away by his detailed knowledge of subjects and ability to deftly articulate regarding them, often right off the cuff.</p>
<p>I think Bush has demonstrated during his presidency that his strength lies in delivering a prepared speech that he has practiced. But he can’t really do very well with much more. For me, that’s a liability. to have a president thus limited. But it’s not a fatal flaw, IMO. Bush’s folksy self-deprecation can really communicate in a way that’s important to Americans as well.</p>
<p>For me, the real question in this is: to what extent can he genuinely speak commandingly and with strength about events and facts and to what extent is it just an act. There is nothing I see to conclude that he is a commanding speaker and thinker naturally. I think he’s more of an actor.</p>
<p>Leadership abilities: This is a huge one, very hard to define. But for me, 9/11 encapsulated what we like to see in a leader in a time of crisis. But who demonstrated that was Rudy Giuliani (sp?). He didn’t miss a step or falter for what to do. He got his hands dirty and he spent time rallying his people in a time of trouble. It’s why he has a shot at the presidential nomination for the Republican party.</p>
<p>By contrast, Bush sat passively after being informed of the 9/11 attacks finishing his press conference with children in a Florida classroom. If it was apparent to me that Bush’s calculation clearly had been that he was going to carry on, that the world could wait because he felt the moment was important, that might change my view. But he just seemed passive. For me, a lot of Michael Moore’s movie was a stretch. Seeing this part of the movie, however, deflated any sense of the image that had been presented of Bush as a doer or decisive “MBA style” president. He’s just no Rudy G.</p>
<p>I thought it was telling that 2 or 3 or 4 days after the attacks, Bush staged a phone call with Rudy G. to talk about how things were being handled in NYC. I thought it was a patent attempt to have Rudy’s image of alacrity and competence rub off toward the president. Surely such a phone call didn’t need to be televised except for its PR value. Yes, the president was right to want to express to the American people that he was in control, but for me the imagery rang false.</p>
<p>The rest of Bush’s so-called demonstrated leadership following 9/11 revolved around his staged appearances. At a time when the nation needed a figure of strength, in these contexts, Bush said the right words with the right tones.</p>
<p>Again, the staged George Bush succeeded. At least to the extent that was needed by a nation needing to see images of strength and authority. His approval ratings skyrocketed as people rallied behind him.</p>
<p>Another time, in a totally different context, I thought Bush was really slow off the mark. During the direct aftermath of the Asian tsunami, I waited for our government to make a statement. It would have cost us absolutely nothing. One of the first pieces real press our administration got was Condoleeza Rice commenting that the tsunami provided the US with a great opportunity; it did not play well that the administration was viewing the tsunami as a PR opp. It really pained me. </p>
<p>Yes, it would have been a largely symbolic move for Bush to make a statement. And in reality, the US did respond by sending ships and much assistance, so where it arguably really counted we were doing the right thing. But someone who had a real feel for leadership and what it is optimally would have quickly reacted and made a strong statement of allegiance and condolences. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t need to talk about Katrina.</p>
<p>Wisdom and Policy Depth: I don’t think there is any way to answer this without getting into policy particulars and thereby partisanship, but I’ll try. Bush is noted to lack curiosity. Nixon would have people of opposing viewpoints come in and deliver policy briefs. Kennedy would apparently have people debate in front of him. Clinton was noted for his mastery of policy details.</p>
<p>By all accounts, Bush makes up his mind with a little input from people of divergent viewpoints. There was a case reported when Bush was being briefed by someone on intelligence on what was happening in Iraq. When the gentleman was being negative, Bush’s response was “Is this guy a Democrat?” For a president to assume that reality only has a partisan taint is a pretty remarkable level of closed-mindedness.</p>
<p>This quote pretty much coalesces a lot of my concern about his intellectual tendencies and approaches to policy:.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Iraq War? Well, there are two basic views of that. 1) It was tragically unwise to invade a socialist country that wasn’t an ally of Al-Qaeda, was a regional foil to Iran, and that was marked by 3 religious/ethnic factions; the result is that we have made Islamic-driven terrorism prevalent there, have put the country in the sphere of Iranian power and influence, and have let loose a civil war. 2) It’s what we need to do to “take the fight to the enemy.” </p>
<p>I think the former. I think this policy blunder, which George Will the conservative commentator called an extremely grand blunder, will define Bush’s presidency. It was the height of lack of wisdom.</p>
<p>A president who can’t speak well, whose leadership is staged and who lacks intellectual depth and was unwise enought to get us into a war where winning will be undefinable in any way that we can achieve. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…</p>
<p>Bush has some native intelligence. But it’s not at the level ideal or required to be a capable president. </p>
<p>People complained about Reagan being an overly staged president, but he could speak well and he had a clearly defined vision that he could communicate crisply to people. Bush is no Reagan.</p>
<p>I hear sometimes people say that Bush surrounds himself with smart people and that this is what really matters. By that standard, we may as well dispense with elections. We don’t need a president.</p>
<p>Or maybe it’s just that the president is only a mouthpiece and figurehead. But Bush isn’t great at these functions.</p>
<p>For those who think Bush is smart or quite smart, what specifically is it that leads you to believe he is, that is endemic to him? What specific qualities? I mean, deft political maneuvering can be given to a president by consultants that he trusts. What does he do personally that makes you conclude he is smart?</p>
<p>See Bedhead, you made a thoughtful, factual post in which you didn’t attack anyone, call anyone names or attribute to them words they didn’t state. I agree with some of what you said, disagree with some, but completely respect the tone in which you posted. As a conservative in NYC, I always appreciate the rare courtesy and especially when someone on “the other side” can manage to disagree on issues and facts without demonizing or spitting. That courtesy is very rare. As a side observation, Rosie O’Donnell is completely representative of a large group of New Yorkers. The foaming at the mouth rage, the lack of filter, the inability to recognize common humanity. It is extremely wearisome to deal with.</p>