I like to write my own stuff, but this time there's no way I could do better than the L. A. Times did this morning:
Although neither group likes to say so, some Americans who support President Bush and many who don't support him have concluded over four years that he may not be very bright. This suspicion was not allayed by Bush's answers in the first presidential debate a week ago.
The smartest candidate is not necessarily the best candidate. The candidate's belief system and character matter more.
Actually, we would not frame the question as one of abstract brainpower, a dubious concept. The issue might better be described as one of mental laziness.
Does this man think through his beliefs before they harden into unwavering principles? Is he open to countervailing evidence? Does he test his beliefs against new evidence and outside argument? Does his understanding of a subject go any deeper than the minimum amount needed for public display? Is he intellectually curious? Does he try to reconcile his beliefs on one subject with his beliefs on another?
It's bad if a president is incapable of the abstract thought necessary for these mental exercises. If he is capable and isn't even trying, that's worse. It becomes a question of character. When a president sends thousands of young Americans to kill and die halfway around the world, thinking about it as hard and as honestly as possible is the least he can do.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters. We state boldly that thinking hard is a good thing, not a bad thing, even in a president. If that sounds snooty, so be it. And maybe George W. Bush will reassure us by his performance Friday night that he is thinking as hard as he should about the issues the president will face in the next four years. Especially the issues resulting from his own failure to think hard during the last four.
That's the essence of their editorial, but you can read the whole thing (including mentions of Ronald Reagan) at Is he a Dope? [Los Angeles Time 10/07/2004]
Enjoy. (And the answer is "Yes," for those of you still wondering.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mac Diva
Now, that's a headline! No beating around the Bush. Just go ahead and put the question. Congrats to the Los Angeles Times. And, frankly, it is time to go there. Bush's lack of thoughtfulness and frozen in aspic values have a lot to do with how he governs.
For people who care about the paraphernalia of intelligence, I 've seen Bush's. His SAT or ACT scores are somewhat above average. His grades in college were mediocre. The Calpundit, Kevin Drum, posted the material back in 2002, but I don't have the link.
But, I am more interested in what he has done after college. That record suggests a lazy boy born into wealth who has never really thought about much of anything.
2 - Vic
Yup, I'd rather see one of those hyper-intelligent communist college professors in office.
Not.
Vic
3 - Mac Diva
So, you'd rather elect the smart prof's clueless frat boy student instead, eh?
4 - Bernard
Why the.... is hyper-intelligence equated with communism?
I mean...
O well, he sighed while taking a deep breath. So be it, let the clueless ones vote for one another and call it the 'right' thing to do.
5 - Hal Pawluk
You keep missing the point, Vic.
Oh, wait - is that why we have who we have as Prez?
6 - Vic
Bernard, hey, thanks for calling me clueless. I *really* appreciate it. Perhaps your reading skills need a little work... or are you one of those Dems adept at twisting peoples statements? Did I say that high intelligence = communist? No. But if you believe that there is not a prevalance of communist/socialist college professors in US colleges you need a reality check.
Vic
7 - Vic
Mac,
Despite all the potshots, the path to the Presidency is one heck of a filtering process. No one who is "dumb" has a snowball's chance of making it all the way.
Vic
8 - Bernard
Vic,
Thanks for your appreciation.
There are very few 'communists' left in the world. China has some form of communist capitalism, eastern europe is largely conservative or social democratic. And Mc Carthy has long gone where he should have stayed in the first place. Conceptual clarity is desirable.
If you want to talk about reading skills. I didn't say you were clueless.
But your babbling about communist intellectuals is a pathetic attempt to rhetorize your way around the lack of smart decisions by the republican leadership.
9 - Rodney Welch
What planet are you living on, Vic? A number of Presidents have been dumb as a bag of hammers. Look at Warren G. Harding. Look at Gerald Ford; he used to brag about how he never read books. Look -- PLEASE look -- at Reagan; even his most unswerving supporters would have gladly told you he wasn't all that bright. People aren't voting for an egghead. They're voting for a manager.
10 - Vic
But your babbling about communist intellectuals is a pathetic attempt to rhetorize your way around the lack of smart decisions by the republican leadership.
Oh my God, what bullshit. It's a well know fact that the many, many college professors are *extreme* Liberals.
Vic
11 - Hal Pawluk
It is also a "Well-know fact" that the term "well-know fact"is used by propagandists when they have no provable facts.
12 - Vic
And calling someone a "propagandist" is a great way to divert attention away from the point and not address the issue in question.
Vic
13 - Bernard
It is a well known fact that many, many, many people like to label those that they don't understand as evildoers.
Also it is now completely obvious that if you say many, many, many, many times it starts to sound really silly.
But it does sound like an whole lot of many.
14 - Vic
Bernard, I used the word "many" twice in a row, not three, which to my mind is quite acceptable.
And your argument does not carry weight with me. I don't understand pedophiles, but if I label them as sick, I just don't "understand them"?
I can understand what's being promoted by (some? many?) college professors just fine. Just because I disagree with it doesn't mean I don't understand it?
So in following your logic, you just don't understand conservatives and republicans, yes?
Vic
15 - Bernard
Conservative republicans are not evil, just misguided.
You can use the word many, as often as you like. But it doesn't make your remark more plausible. If you label pedophiles who act on their urge as sick, to my mind you understand them fine.
Communism is the opposite of capitalism.
Liberalism is not socialism, but very connected to democracy and capitalism
Socialism is the ideology that was never really applied in communism.
Social democracy is a form of liberal socialism
You use the labels, you first have to understand the labels. You do not know how many professors are 'liberals'. Worldwide, there are many, many liberal conservatives, even professors. Only america equates the word liberal with the word socialist.
Are there any professors you agree with? would you have one of them as your president?
16 - Hal Pawluk
Fousing on semantics, Vic, is one way to evade having to deal with the issue: Do you think what Bush has done was smart?
Feel free to pick any area - security, terrorism, Iraq, the economy.
17 - Vic
Hal,
As I've tried to make clear in the past, I'm not a Bush-can-do-no-wrong zombie ideologue. Overall, I agree with what he's done. Some things could have been handled differently, or even better, but I personally have more confidence in his ability to run the country than I do in Kerry's.
I think the southern US border should be closed... personally I think the Israelies have the right idea with a wall/fence. The funny thing is, as far as that issue, he addresses it by saying that illegal immigrants are just trying to find a better life, which seems to me to be more of a liberal position than a conservative one.
I think the invasion of Iraq was justified, and what's not being made page one news is the portion of the report yesterday by Duelfer which states that there were massive bribes both monetary and in the form of oil contracts given to France, Russia, Germany, and China by Saddam in exchange for in effect lobbying for him and against us. His money was (almost) well-spent as is seen in the lead up to the war by the fact that these were the countries opposing invasion.
Also not showing up in the news is the fact that Duelfer stated that Saddam's plan was to wait out the expiration of sanctions so that he could start up his war machine again. Saddam siphoned off $350 million from the oil for food program into his military slush fund.
So yes, I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
I do not personally believe that the economy is in the toilet with unemployment at 5.4%, and I think that one can take statistics and by slicing them this way or that can tilt things to one side or the other.
The thing is, I don't think that Kerry and Edwards are "evil". I think they want to do what they think is right for the country. I just don't agree with their point of view. What bugs me is that the other side doesn't seem to look at Bush the same way, and he's just trying to do the same.
I know you disagree, and neither one of us are going to convince the other, so let's just leave it at that, shall we?
Vic
18 - Hal Pawluk
If bribery is the standard for invasions, the troops should have been sent into DC and Texas.
And I'd still like to see some evidence supporting your "well-known fact" that 'many, many college professors are *extreme* Liberals.'
19 - Vic
Wow, I respond to your points in depth and you respond with a witty quip and a question about my statement about liberal professors.
Whatever, on to another thread.
Vic
20 - boomcrashbaby
To be fair Vic, you told him to 'leave it at that'. That's telling him you want to end the debate. Now don't make it look like he's the one bailing out.
21 - Hal Pawluk
I'm here, Vic, and still waiting for you to substantiate your silly-sounding claim way back up there in comment #10.
22 - Vic
Call it anecdotal evidence.
Guess I won't expect a response to any other points.
In general it's just argue, argue, argue (paying attention Bernard? :-) ) and belittle, slam, make accusations and character assasinations. (Not specifically from you on that last point, Hal.)
I've gotta stop hanging out at this site, it only raises my blood pressure and makes me feel like I'm banging me head against the wall for no good reason. I need to pay more attention to my own site.
23 - Hal Pawluk
As for not responding to your other points, I don't follow red herrings but concentrate on the issue and try to get wafflers to finally face up to and take responsibility for their claims.
It usually works and it did in this case, too: you finally admitted that your claim was just pulled out of thin air and had no basis whatsoever.
Thank you.
(Man, sometimes I feel like a dentist on a chicken ranch.)
24 - Mac Diva
Vic, I am concerned about your equating opposition to invading Iraq with bribery. There are legitimate reasons to have opposed the invasion. Furthermore, the relationship between the U.S. and Saddam prior to his appointment as villian of the moment was quite chummy. Seems like a double standard, if the bribery allegations even have any substance to them.
25 - Vic
Mac,
I understand what you're saying, but the report that came out a couple of days ago made it clear that this was in fact the case as far as China, Russia, France, and Germany were concerned. I could be wrong, but I believe that those were the only countries opposed at the time.
As to the U.S. being chummy with Saddam, how far back was that? (Seriously, I don't recall) I know we haven't been buddies at least since 1991. During the cold war the U.S. aligned with more than one country/faction that left a bad taste in our mouths.
Vic