Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber?
August 16, 2006 on 11:33 am | In Main, National |
I heard an interesting discussion the other night on KGO, a San Francisco talk radio station I listen to late in the evening on the Internet. I say late in the evening because that’s the time-slot assigned to Gene Burns, the best radio talk show host I’ve ever heard — period.
The subject of Gene’s show that evening was Mike Wallace’s shaky 60 Minutes interview with Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Then the topic turned to the raging war between Israel and Hezbollah and the responsibility (if any) of the U.S. in stopping it. One caller infuriated Gene by insisting that there was nothing the U.S. could do because President Bush was simply “an idiot.”
Why, Gene wanted to know, was the caller making such a harsh assessment and what evidence did he have to support it? Because, the caller said, Bush didn’t even know “the difference between an adjective and an adverb.” Wow, I thought, I’m glad this person isn’t teaching at my kids’ school.
At that point, I realized again why Gene is my favorite radio host: he asked the caller exactly the same question I wanted to ask (great minds think alike!). “Do you think Albert Einstein was smart?” — to which the caller replied, “Of course.” Einstein was dyslexic, Burns noted, and his lectures were said by those who attended them to be difficult to follow and full of malapropisms. In other words, much like our president, the author of the Theory of Relativity did not speak well off-the-cuff.
The caller responded that Bush was still an idiot because of his lame-brained policies, at which point Gene terminated the call because the Bush antagonist did “not meet the minumum intellectual threshold for participation in the show.”
I’m willing to entertain the possibility that the president is not up-to-speed intellectually, but the vehemence, the elitism and the political agenda of the Bush-is-dumb crowd lead me to conclude otherwise.
To take Gene’s argument further (or perhaps backward), I cite the example of Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose garbled syntax and verbal bloopers are the stuff of legend. At a Democratic fundraiser last year, the liberal lion introduced Sen. Barack Obama as “Osama bin Laden.” I wonder if Gene’s caller would label Teddy an idiot. I think we all know the answer to that one.
I can speak from some personal experience in this area as well. I taught English to learning disabled high schoolers for almost 15 years. Many were extraordinarily bright, but struggled with certain forms of verbal communication (both written and spoken). Some had IQs in the 120 to 140 range and were still prone to misspeaking, but their analytical skills were beyond reproach. Others, like Bush, were intellectually incurious, did fine academically.
Bush is among those in the public eye who exhibits the classic symptoms of dyslexia. For sports fans, another who comes to mind is Christopher “Mad Dog” Russo, a talk radio personality at WFAN in New York. Russo is a graduate of Darrow School, a few miles up Route 22 in New Lebanon, N.Y. Russo can barely get through a sentence without committing a verbal atrocity, but his knowledge of sports is encyclopedic and his style is energetic and engaging.
It would be an understatement to say that this president does not make a habit of dazzling displays of public intellect; nor did Ronald Reagan, for that matter. But I think Reagan proved you can have a successful presidency without being a scholar. This is something the left just doesn’t understand.
In another discussion on this subject last night on MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund quoted Voltaire: “In leadership, common sense is both rare and a lot more important than intelligence.” Fund went on to say that this president’s deficit lies more in his limited imagination than in his native intelligence (or even his common sense).
I’m not sure I agree. A vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East shows great imagination. The problem is how you go about doing it. In Iraq, for example, I’m afraid we’ve arrogantly stuck our nose in a hornet’s nest from which there is no face-saving exit. And unfortunately this lack of humility manifests itself time and again as Bush’s most unappealing characteristic.
For those who still think Bush needs to become more erudite, during his vacation on his Crawford ranch, he is said to be reading The Stranger, an existential novella by Albert Camus about a Frenchman in Africa who commits a senseless murder and then ruminates about it on death row. Will it make Bush a better president? Not unless, like Meursault, he is able to come to grips with the concept of truth and justice and take repsonsibility for his own actions.
P.S. For the record, Bush scored 1,206 on his SATs, almost 100 points higher than me. And military officer qualifying tests suggest Bush is as smart as John Kerry or smarter.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Heh. There are enough red herrings here to fill a barrel. For the record, I think Bush is just smart enough….to dupe We the People into accepting an agenda of endless war, curtailed liberties, economic cronyism….well, you get the idea. Some would say he’s just the puppet of a “neocon cabal,” but ultimately, who cares? We don’t elect people to be Einsteins; we elect them to represent us and to faithfully execute the laws etc. etc.
A month ago, “The Daily Show” played a priceless clip of a Bush press conference with German Chancellor Merkel. In it, Bush rants for literally a full minute about how much he’s looking forward to dinner, a big pig roast. When he finally pauses, a reporter asks him about the Middle East conflict, which had just begun. Bush grimaces at the reporter and says (not guaranteed verbatim, but still, you can’t make this stuff up): “Gee, I was hoping you’d ask me about the pig!”
He may or may not be intelligent, but he’s certainly a fool.
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — August 16, 2006 #
Fred,
I suspect GWB was trying to be funny. But frat-boy humor doesn’t translate well on the world stage. Ergo, that pig. And speaking of translations, I wonder how the German premier’s interpreter paraphrased that exchange.
Comment by Terry Cowgill — August 16, 2006 #
People getting on the radio and calling the president an idiot is more about easy access to media, than the “coarseness” of contemporary political discourse or, for that matter, the president himself. It’s not like people weren’t calling Hoover or Roosevelt or Truman “idiots”. They just could have their voices streamed across a continent for the pleasure of certain Connecticut based bloggers.
But if you think it’s bad now, read this…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158648334X/sr=8-1/qid=1155760425/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8304399-0068115?ie=UTF8
Sam Adams actually had a bunch of thugs kick the crap out of a political enemy, and then wrote in his paper that “the people” didn’t support the guy’s tax policy. I’m not sure even the New York Times would do that. CNN? Well, maybe…
Comment by Jake — August 16, 2006 #
PS… I think it was “Obama Sin Landen”. Not a difficult mistake to make after three or four double scotches.
And if you want to read a book recounting Clinton’s malapropisms, there are plenty of references. For some reason they just didn’t make it into the popular media. Wonder why. Oh, ya, he was “the natural”.
Comment by Jake — August 16, 2006 #
Jake,
Unfortunately, the words of the radio caller are all too typical. I have heard lots of people here in casual conversation say the same thing about Bush being intellectually challenged. While being no fan of GWB, I nonetheless take some pleasure in puncturing the popular myth that he is abysmally stupid.
Oh, and a correction to my original post, which has been changed. Bush scored 100 points more than me, not 1,000. I guess that explains why I only got a 500 on the math SAT.
Comment by Terry — August 16, 2006 #
I think that discussing whether or not GWB is smart is a distraction. After six years he should be evaluated on his record, what he said and did. Do you like his wars/changing rationales, tax-cuts/deficits, environmental rules? How did he get through Andover, Yale and Harvard and say that “intelligent design” should be taught alongside evolution? Does he really believe that?
Most of what a president does is determined by philosophy, not intelligence. I have read that one of our most intelligent presidents was Herbert Hoover.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 16, 2006 #
If discussing his IQ is a distraction, then people on the left should stop talking about it so much and focus more on a compelling critique of his policies. It might even win them some elections. But all too often (and I can attest to this in NWC) they would rather talk about his presumed idiocy instead of their own vision for America. Perhaps it’s because the former is so much easier to do.
Comment by Terry — August 16, 2006 #
To all…
I don’t think its in the Consssstitution that yopu have to be brilliant to be President. George may not be brilliant, but he is no fool!
You may question his politics, his approach, his honesty..but way to many people have underestimated his intelligence!
Jimmy Carter was one of the brightest people ever to occupy the White House, he was one of the most honest, and look at his legacy as President! Then look at his legacy as a human being.
I am by no means a “Bush supporter”, but, lets judge others as we would like to be judged!
Comment by Marshall Miles — August 17, 2006 #
People on the left want to talk about all sorts of things. Some on the right want to talk about whether or not Bill Clinton is a homosexual. That does not mean that we have to talk about it. Pose the most outrageous statement and you can probably find someone on the left or right who is saying it.
By the way, 1206 is an unusual SAT score. In all of my years prepping kids for the SAT, I do not remember a score that did not end in zero. The explaination was that anything else would pretend to an accuracy that was not attainable. Maybe things were different back in the day.
I agree with Marshall.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 17, 2006 #
If you agree with Marshall, move to Connecticut and vote for him for senate. The beloved radio host is mounting a write-in campaign. If elected, he vows to be the first member to speak on the floor of the senate in a golf shirt. Now that’s a platform I can support …
Comment by Terry — August 17, 2006 #
“People on the Left” may want to talk about a lot of things, but they don’t. Simple Fact.
Let’s take one of Tom’s points about Bush:
Tax Cuts/Deficits. The latest economic numbers coming from Washington show tax revenues ahead of projections. That is a fact.
Deficit spending: How many Democrats ARE NOT on the Pork Barrel? How many voted against spending increases? How many voted in favor?
Since Tom mentioned the Left, that is my focus. I know that the other side is worse. Canaan Union Station is “getting” $1.5 million from the Transportation Bill. Why? Because Nancy loves pork, and the public loves “free” money, at least that is how the idea is sold.
Where is the discussion from the Left on this point? Non-existent. The Left has no ideas, only complaints and whine.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — August 19, 2006 #
Blanket denouncements of either the left or the right are not worthy of discussion. “People on the left want to talk about all sorts of things.” and do. If you do not hear them, then you are not trying to.
Paul said “The latest economic numbers coming from Washington show tax revenues ahead of projections”, whose projections, based on what assumptions? If the projections assume the tax cuts, then that needs to be considered. The revenues are not sufficient. That is a fact.
The causes of the deficits are many. Pork spending is certainly one of them. Does anyone support Pork Barrel spending? Both parties are to blame, but the GOP is in charge of all branches. Don’t they deserve most of the blame? War expenses are another cause. I am opposed to the war in Iraq, But support whatever spending is necessary to keep the troops safe. I think that the tax cuts are a major cause of the deficits. Paul says “How many Democrats ARE NOT on the Pork Barrel? How many voted against spending increases? How many voted in favor?” Those are questions that deserve answers re both parties. I don’t know the percentages. If Paul does, maybe he can share them with us.
I am on the left and have lots of ideas. I have friends on the left who have lots of ideas, some I agree with and some I don’t. I have friends on the right who have lots of ideas, some I agree with and some I don’t. There is no shortage of complaints on either side. Am I whining?
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 20, 2006 #
Tom, we may be running afield here, but I read extensively concerning current events. I do not see any discussion of issues by the Left. I see and hear complaints, but no solutions, unless, concerning Iraq and Israel, cut and run is a solution.
The General Accounting Office is my source for the info. Why would you “assume” something which is law? The Bush Tax Cuts are a fact, or do you dispute that? A minor sidebar is the current vogue of “tax free” weeks for school shopping. The reason given is to stimulate retail sales during a slow period. Interesting: Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Where have I heard that idea before? Kennedy, 1960s, Reagan, 1980s, Bush, 2000s.
The revenues are not sufficient because of pork barrel spending. Currently there is a bill in the Senate, S2590, that would establish a web site to see which senators and representatives are padding the spending bills. THAT is what causes deficit spending; Bridge to Nowhere, Canaan Union Station, rebuild train tracks in Mississippi that WERE NOT damaged by Hurricane Katrina, but put the pork in the Katrina expenditures, so on.
Tax cuts put more money into the economy. People have more money to spend (see the note about Sales Tax Amnesty, above), businesses have more money to pay employees, invest in new equipment and expansion.
Yes, the Pork Barrel issue affects both parties, I said as much in my first post. Heck, I even named names! Regarding percentages, haven’t the answer. Try matching the following names with their party: Coburn, Paul. Those are the only 2 names from the current session of trough feeders that oppose pork spending.
Are you whining? YES. Where are these “ideas” you speak of? The fact is the left is not the source of ideas or solutions. IF they were, you wouldn’t have to look, they would be plain to see.
Terry summed it up nicely:
“If discussing his IQ is a distraction, then people on the left should stop talking about it so much and focus more on a compelling critique of his policies. It might even win them some elections. But all too often (and I can attest to this in NWC) they would rather talk about his presumed idiocy instead of their own vision for America. Perhaps it’s because the former is so much easier to do.”
So, Tom, et al, what is your vision?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — August 21, 2006 #
You seem to think that the deficits are caused purely by Pork Barrel spending. That is ludicrous. Maybe you think that armor for the troops in Iraq is Pork spending. I do not. The wars contribute enormously to the deficits, as do the tax cuts. Having any tax cuts during this wartime is totally irresponsible.
Reagan’s years were also accompanied by enormous deficits. We entered a new era at that time, where just paying the interest on the national debt became a significant part of the annual budget. Can we continue increasing the debt as we have under Reagan and Bush’s I and II?
I do not speak for the left, but as one on the left.
For the vision thing, off the top of my head, just for a start,
1. Poverty wages are unacceptable. No-one working full time should be poor.
2. Education -
a) create universal pre-K
b) require a BA or BS in their subject for PS teachers
c) create something like a GI Bill for those that need college tuition help
d) expand PS continuing education
e) Find a source of funding for schools other than the property tax
3. Healthcare
a) our system is a mess. Put every American citizen on Medicare and improve it.
b) allow the gov to use free market competition to negotiate prescription drug prices
We should remove our troops from the civil war in Iraq as quickly as can be done safely.
I agree that “cut and run” is not a solution. It is just a slimy GOP talking point. By the way, what does “cut and run” mean re Israel?
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 24, 2006 #
To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” Character assasination, innuendo, and flat out “mind reading.” For the record, I do not think that body armor is pork barrel spending. In fact, I listed some real examples, or do you think kiting checks is a good idea just because it is done by “represenatives” of the people?
That being said, you and I are far afield of this blog.
You have ideas that are different than mine; you see big government, especially a leftist controlled government, the solution to the ills of the world. I see any such government, regardless of political affilliation as the problem.
A suggestion:
Perhaps you can use your influence with your son to allow us to offer a Point/Counterpoint series of columns on these issues. A topic is chosen. We each write our column, and it is printed in the Journal. The views expressed would hopefully flesh out the soundbites so common to the discussion. It might be interesting.
BTW, why must you use derogatory terms when referring to the right? Cut and run is “slimy?” What is your view of the Clinton decision in Mogadishu? The USS Cole? The WTC bombing in 93?
Cut and run re: Israel? Easy. The daily barrage from the MSM that equates Israeli response to aggression by Muslim Terrorists. The MSM solution? “Moderation” in military response by Israel against an enemy that hides behind women and children. The MSM goal? Isolation of Israel and the US in the “court of world opinion.” Forget national sovreignty; it’s all about “one world.”
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — August 28, 2006 #