Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Pens1566
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is with all the "Bush is arrogant" stuff?
What about Clinton and his finger wag? His "how dare you ask me that question" attitude that he gave Wallace?
BTW: Rush is playing segments of the conference now...
I thought you didn't listen to Rush???
I did today actually, via the web.
I normally can not listen to him due to schedule. Except a few minutes here and there.
Took time today to find a site that I could stream. Was interesting.
We will never agree on Bush, waste of time to argue with you guys about him. But I am sure he is a lot smarter than the left wants us to believe.
I think Scott Adams (yes, the Dilbert guy) had a very interesting point about that. He suggested that not only is Bush NOT a total moron, but that he's smarter than about 90% of the people in this country. The problem is that many of the GOOD leaders and political folks are smarter than about 99% of the country, so the difference is quite startling. I think Scott Adams might have been giving the rest of the country not enough credit, but the point is still interesting.
Bush is smarter than some lefties might think, but the gulf between that and being a good person to lead this country is quite vast. Given the left's impression of Bush, as long as he's able to put on his own pants in the morning and operate his coffee cup without pouring hot coffee all over his face, he will have greatly exceeded expectations on the left. This does not mean he's intelligent enough to be president, which he clearly is not.
This argument is typically deflected with some sort of noise about how Bush just isn't good at talking. Bullshit, a lack of clear communication speaks of a lack of clear thinking, and acting like a prick as a means to make a rhetorical point speaks volumes more. This doesn't mean that acting like a dick makes you an idiot, but when folks like Clinton do it, they do it in the context of making a valid point...Bush acts like a jackass INSTEAD of making a valid point. He reminds me of nothing so much as the drunken frat assholes I ran into all the time hitting the bars in college, not surprisingly, as he clearly has the "experience" in this area.
But for all that, I DON'T think Bush is a blundering idiot, I think Jon Stewart (still) has it right...Bush isn't the idiot, we are, because if we were smarter, he wouldn't talk to us that way. This press conference is a PERFECT example, Bush is flopping around like a fish in the bottom of a boat and he clearly expects everyone to just go along with it. Don't get me wrong, most politicians seem to lie and change their position as often as possible, but Bush does it with the kind of bluntness that seems almost insulting. I can't even count the number of times he's retracted a previous statement by simply saying "I didn't say that" even though it is very obvious to anyone with more than two neurons to rub together that he did. The re-re-re(-re?)-definition of the reason for the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example, as is his "plan" for how we'll win that conflict, and the 2004 "mandate" is the kind of silliness that will cause blood to shoot out your nose if you think about it too long. And yet, the most incredible part of the whole thing is that it apparently works. His supporters and the media (and most of the rest of America, for that matter) don't call him on any of it, the only "news" organization that reliably points out the "discrepancies" is the Daily Show for God's sake.
Frankly I'm surprised the Dems don't make a bigger deal out of this kind of thing, the only high point in the 2004 election for them was when Kerry beat Bush like a rented mule in the debates by repeatedly pointing out how Bush's statements didn't exactly make sense (his direct rebuttal of Bush's suggested that Saddam attacked us on 9/11 has got to do down in history as one of the best political "owned" moments of all time). Bush's polls tanked after the debates (especially the first one), but were able to climb back up before the actual voting was done. But why don't the Dems keep the pressure on the whole time? Like this latest development, where Bush is essentially setting a timetable and forming an actual plan to get out of Iraq, something a large fraction of the "anti-war" folks have been suggesting for a while now and something Bush and his supporters have repeatedly suggested you are a traitor if you support. It's a total reversal of his open-ended war policies he so steadfastly stuck to before, and it's a real victory for at least some people who oppose Bush's approach to Iraq. The Dems could very well spin this to make themselves look strong on national security and make Bush look weak and flippity-floppity, yet they almost certainly won't do it, and the "liberal media" won't do it either.
Facebook
Twitter