Re: Bush to the Nation Tonight

[ttiwed]

favorite quote from last night's speech:

"ah boo [pause] gah rave prison"

-W.

i can't believe he stumbled on this. i mean, i understand the prison's name is in foreign language but its been recited over and over again on network news, leno, cnn, fox, etc hundreds of thousands of times!! even I know how to pronounce it. besides, hes the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the PUSA). just this little blunder proves we'd be better off with a chimpanzee in the oval office than bush.

[buster]

I heard a clip of that on the radio today and I thought it was a joke. I guess it wasn't?!

favorite quote from last night's speech:

"ah boo [pause] gah rave prison"

-W.

i can't believe he stumbled on this. i mean, i understand the prison's name is in foreign language but its been recited over and over again on network news, leno, cnn, fox, etc hundreds of thousands of times!! even I know how to pronounce it. besides, hes the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the PUSA). just this little blunder proves we'd be better off with a chimpanzee in the oval office than bush.

[onehandedreader]

the worst part is that he stumbled every time he said it, and i don't think he pronounced it right once in the whole speech.

"ah boo [pause] gah rave prison"

-W.

i can't believe he stumbled on this. i mean, i understand the prison's name is in foreign language but its been recited over and over again on network news, leno, cnn, fox, etc hundreds of thousands of times!! even I know how to pronounce it. besides, hes the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the PUSA). just this little blunder proves we'd be better off with a chimpanzee in the oval office than bush.

[calvin]

I like Moore, but I know he's done his share of exaggeration-for-effect (I further admit that even that may be a generous interpretation). The Weekly Standard, though, isn't exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity, and Fred Barnes isn't exactly Honest Abe.

oh serious?  why not?  i didn't realize that.  oops, my bad then.  sorry about that.  i did find this site, though, which is hopefully better:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

and then there's always roger ebert :

http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert23.html

[calvin]

ah, and here's one from an actual lawyer which "seems" legit in its criticism, at least as far as the few paragraphs i read are concerned (although can you ever really trust those stinkin' lawyers?! ):

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[calvin]

i have my doubts about bush, too, but i don't think the mispronunciation of words is necessarily indicative of stupidity or somehow demonstrates a deficiency in leadership.  of course i have other misgivings about his leadership, but i don't think his texas accent or the frequent mispronunciation of words or even his stupidity (if he really is) means he can't be a competent president.  after all one of the great legal minds of the century, justice oliver wendell holmes, said of one of our great presidents, fdr, that he had "a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." 

the guy has other gifts or talents that might make for a capable leader.  for one he reputedly knows how to charm people close to him (if not the public).  yeah, that could've come from his frat boy days or growing up in an affluent family or whatever, but it ain't necessarily a bad thing to know how to rub elbows with the rich and famous, those in power, and to (hopefully) win [political] enemies over, even if he is academically "dumb."  of course it'd be nice to have a scholarly president like woodrow wilson, but on the other hand some of our finest presidents - george washington and abe lincoln and fdr - weren't necessarily the brightest ones either (i believe jq adams, jefferson, and wilson are probably tops there).  well then again i think abe was pretty smart too.  anyhow i'm not agreeing with bush, but rather just saying that book smarts don't necessarily always make a successful president is all. 

[buster]

Calvin, I agree that a high level of "book-smarts" is not necessarily a prerequisite for an effective president. I also agree, or suspect, that Bush's biggest asset is personal charm.

wait for it...

But, the ability to win over one's political enemies with personal charm is only a positive characteristic for a president if that president is acting in the best interests of the country. I think in order to reasonably assume that a president is acting in the best interests of the country we should also be able to assume that that president relies upon one or more of the following:

-- intellectual capacity
-- good judgment
-- flexibility of thought
-- input from advisors demonstrating the above

Is mispronouncing words a big deal? Probably not, but I haven't seen any more evidence of the above qualifications than I have of Bush's personal intelligence.

[ttiwed]

but i don't think his texas accent or the frequent mispronunciation of words or even his stupidity (if he really is) means he can't be a competent president.

his mispronunciation of the prison's name demonstrates his ineptitude in current affairs. it also shows he didn't prepare his speech well enough. likewise, a student who didn't do the readings and didn't prepare for his presentation is a bad student.

after all one of the great legal minds of the century, justice oliver wendell holmes, said of one of our great presidents, fdr, that he had "a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." 

biased quote. holmes was a conservative justice appointed by a republican president. fdr was a democrat. i'm sure rehnquist and scalia wouldn't have the nicest things to say about bill clinton either. yet clinton was a self made man who went to georgetown and yale law school (obviously a bright guy).

the guy has other gifts or talents that might make for a capable leader. for one he reputedly knows how to charm people close to him (if not the public).

i don't care if bush is mr. casanova or an even smoother player than friggin' snoop D O double G. i care about the president's (along with all other elected official's) ability to get this country out of the downward spiral that its been going on for the past few years. the bush admin isn't doing that.

[calvin]

buster, that's a good point.  i think you're probably right, too.  although obviously most conservatives would say that he has demonstrated those qualifications you mention while most liberals would disagree.  in other words we then have to ask, what demonstrates or doesn't demonstrate those qualifications?  re: iraq, those in bush's camp would say he has done a bang-up job on the war on terror or whatever while those not would vehemently disagree and say that he's waging a needless war in iraq, sacrificing young men and women for... for what?  missing wmds?  anyhow, like i said, i have my doubts about this president, too, but whatever the case, my point was not to commend nor to disapprove of his conduct per se; it was simply to point out that when trying to fairly discern good leadership from bad leadership we need to go further than the vague criticisms of "mispronounced words" or "a lack of intelligence" (however that's quantified), which you've of course done above (cool ).  that is, i was basically just trying to clarify, define, frame in the proper context, or however you want to put it, the argument rather than to let it flit around with what seemed to me to be more or less ad hominem attacks and arguments without any real substance.  thankfully though it looks like we've turned this around.

(by the way, it should be pretty clear, but i'm not partisan to the republican party; i would've replied this way too had someone said something similar about clinton or gore or whomever else.  heck, even nader.  although i guess most people wouldn't attack clinton or gore re: their intelligence.  maybe their sexual misconduct or lack of charisma, or something else, but certainly not their intelligence.)

[calvin]

his mispronunciation of the prison's name demonstrates his ineptitude in current affairs. it also shows he didn't prepare his speech well enough. likewise, a student who didn't do the readings and didn't prepare for his presentation is a bad student.

ttiwed, well, again, i'm not taking a partisan stance on any of this, although you seem to be.  that's totally understandable, of course, and i'm in no way faulting you for it.  politics is such a touchy issue.  by the way, it's so hard to intone other people's meanings via electronic text, so please forgive me if what i just said came off offensive or something (and likewise for me if i "read" you wrong or whatever); i honestly don't mean it to be.  that said, i think you brought up a few good points, too, but i wasn't arguing whether or not bush is doing a good job as  president.  i was just pointing out that it's sort of sketchy to imply that mispronounced words and a lack of intelligence make for a bad president.  maybe they do, maybe they do not.  but there has to be more clarification as to what is meant precisely in order for someone to objectively judge that.  that's all i was saying.

biased quote. holmes was a conservative justice appointed by a republican president. fdr was a democrat. i'm sure rehnquist and scalia wouldn't have the nicest things to say about bill clinton either. yet clinton was a self made man who went to georgetown and yale law school (obviously a bright guy).

the quote from holmes actually was saying that fdr was a great personality.  but it doesn't really matter anyway what holmes said.  other people, both his enemies as well as those close to fdr, said more or less the same thing: intelligence aside, fdr had a charm and charisma that in great part helped to bring our nation through one of her darkest periods (the great depression, ww2).  he was a tremendous president because of this, and not necessarily because of his intelligence or lack of intelligence.  so that at least in one president's case, some things count for more than intelligence alone.  (although i suppose one could make the argument that an intelligent president would better know how to be charismatic.  jfk would be an ideal in this case, i think.  then again, not sure how you'd explain other charismatic but not actually intelligent presidents like reagan, or those who were intelligent but were not very charismatic such as carter.  although these days carter seems to be doing quite well on both fronts.  too bad he didn't do better during his actual presidency.)

i don't think that's necessarily true about republicans tending to say not-so-nice things about democrats or vice versa.  many members of each party, even today, respect one another even if they do not agree with their politics.  and are willing to say so.  more than that though, and if you think about it, there also has to be more bipartisanship than we the public are perhaps aware of, since otherwise nothing would be accomplished in government.  and, again, as for holmes' quote above re: fdr, it might not have been the most flattering words he could've mustered, but it actually was at bottom a commendation of fdr for his outstanding, charismatic personality.

i don't care if bush is mr. casanova or an even smoother player than friggin' snoop D O double G. i care about the president's (along with all other elected official's) ability to get this country out of the downward spiral that its been going on for the past few years. the bush admin isn't doing that.

well this would assume that there is a downward spiral in this nation.   which again may or may not be the case.  i'm not straight up disagreeing or agreeing with you, but just pointing out what i pointed out before: these sorts of remarks are just remarks, but nothing more.  without further support, they're unhelpful statements, unfortunately, just like the previous statements made by others that bush's lack of intelligence automatically equate to being a bad president.  again, maybe it does mean something, maybe it doesn't.  whatever the case we need more clarification of terminology and so forth in order to better understand what you're getting at exactly.

however, that was a good point about elected officials bearing some share of the responsibility for the direction our nation is headed.  so here's perhaps something else to consider, along with attempting to somehow measure "intelligence."  a president (fortunately) doesn't lead alone, by himself.  he has to pick a solid group of advisors, secretaries, etc. in order to help him make hopefully sound decisions for the nation.  so i would think that if we were faulting a president for a lack of intelligence, then we would necessarily have to include in that his selection of his cabinet.  an obtuse president would more likely than not have a poor cabinet while an intelligent one would have "chosen wisely."  i don't know what most people's thoughts are on the current bush cabinet (probably not good, especially now with rumsfeld and the fallout from abu ghraib), but that'd certainly have to factor in somewhere when trying to judge bush's intelligence or lack thereof.  just another thought anyhow.