Well, not knowing the inner workings of the US politics, I'm restricted to being observing this from national and the international news I read, and not having any first-hand experience with Bush.
I must admit that I'm rather perplexed by the guy. I do not think it would be possible to be as ..... lets say "intellectual challeged" as he appears in many situations, however, I do also think it is possible to get far on charisma alone, and then add money and the ability to select good people around you.
So my money is that "He's not bright, but he's shrewd where it counts."
I'd also hope for the american people that this is the case, and they indeed did not elect a moron, which just goes to show that voting in my view is important if only to elect the lesser of two evils
The Bush family is very powerful and influential in Texas - especially in their base of operations, which is Houston. If there had been an option such as "He's none too bright, but smart enough to listen to those he employs," it would have been my choice. Dubyah isn't well-rounded at all, but this is not to say he doesn't possess a measure of cunning and the money to make problems go away. The combination of his father's influence and family money helped pave his way to political office. He hasn't had to rely on his own personal resources very much during his life, managing to swing out of trouble and hairy situations using the Bush name and finances.
I believe it would be a mistake to think Dubyah is a moron or stupid. I agree with Gwally's point that the man is uneducated about a variety of issues and topics. However, he is a skilled enough salesman to know how to work certain crowds, and his "simple man of faith" act is by far his most effective ploy. In that capacity, he needn't worry about appearing educated or informed...after all, he's the President of the Yew-nited States. If he needs to know about somethin, then by cracky, he'll be briefed!
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
I guess something doesn’t sit right with me to imagine George W. Bush being ascribed ‘active’ intelligence such as “shrewd where it counts” or “good at playing the average guy card.” Being a “skilled salesman” also strikes me as too active. Rather, I see him as being very passive and reactionary. I think it was money and ascribed status that got him into Harvard, and I understand that he didn’t do too well there for that matter. A C-average is about what one would expect for a trust fund, legacy student who can’t be failed by a school administration that fears losing support of a strong politician’s family.
I see Bush as a figurehead of a cabal of disgruntled Nixon-era powers that never learned from past mistakes. George H.W. Bush or even Jeb Bush would have taken a far more active role in the presidency, and I doubt that many of the excesses of the current administration would ever have occurred. It is precisely for his name and passivity that George W. Bush was supported by this cabal.
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
I would have to agree with those who say it's impossible to rise as far as Bush has without having some form of street smarts. That they don't need to include commonsense, logic, or empathy can be seen by the group he keeps around himself, some of the wealthiest, most powerful, best educated madmen and women in the US. A cynical understanding of the worst in human nature, an ability to know what strings to pull and how to make them work for you, the right contacts the right games to play: this is what Bush has, and uses to considerable advantage.
So like Gwally and Chanak, I think Bush is nowhere near a moron. Very limited in most respects as a human being, absolutely. But very clever in the people he surrounds himself with, and the utter ruthlessness he has shown in daily life concerning his job, his people, and his government. With an emphasis on his.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
fable wrote:I would have to agree with those who say it's impossible to rise as far as Bush has without having some form of street smarts. That they don't need to include commonsense, logic, or empathy can be seen by the group he keeps around himself, some of the wealthiest, most powerful, best educated madmen and women in the US. A cynical understanding of the worst in human nature, an ability to know what strings to pull and how to make them work for you, the right contacts the right games to play: this is what Bush has, and uses to considerable advantage.
<snip>
The question that this then beg however, is it because of G.Bush and his "streetsmarts" as you call them, or because of the Bush-familys money and legacy, so in effect Bush Senior, that he is able to do this.
If the latter (because of money and Bush-legacy), then it could very well be that G.Bush is a moron who just got it easy by his fathers legacy and money which attracts people who want power, whom will help Bush (Junior) rise and thus help themselves to power by proxy
@Von Dondu,
I always thought he was full of it, but I had no idea that was literally true as well.
For the record, I chose: He's not bright, but he's shrewd where it counts.
George W, does not strike me as a true moron. I have read a couple of articles about him in running magazines, and his comments about mind and body connection do not sound like those of an idiot.
Rather, I think he plays the role of bumbling, inarticulate hick because it plays well in large blocks of his support base. But, that is just my POV from the other side of the border
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup. Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
I must say that I only had time to read half the replies, so forgive me if I'm repeating.
I don't think he's dumb at all. I do think he's a poor communicator. He's also dyslexic I think. That explains why he doesn't read the teleprompter well.
He may say some rediculous things, but even with an evil genius like Darth Rove on your side, you don't just get to be President. Whether it was from fraud, misinformation, playing the right part, or whatever else he did it. And quite well at that.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson
U dont become president in the united states if ur an idiot. In fact, I can safely say u have to be very, very, very cunning.
To be a leader anywhere (unless your born as one, your dad is king) u have to be cunning, and if your not cunning someone is gonna take your power from u (which may happen anyway cuz of someone being in better position, is smarter and so on)
The more power ur position holds the more ppl will compete with u for it.
Sure bushs family has alot of money and connec. but so had all of his competition. U dont get great connec and money without getting powerful "friends" and in the process alot of "enemies" to fight.
Politicians may seem like stupid, not being able to do stuff and so on... but in truth if they do nothing its cuz they are happy with the current situation and playing stupid has its merrits.
Someone may even be "stupid" as a great leader, having problems with fancy words, math and science, but that doesnt matter if u can manipulate ppl to obey u, help u, destroy each other, help each other (be it by threat, promises, subtle manipulation or sheer will).
Intelligence is such a vague concept. Was Hitler smart? Was Caesar? Was Napoleon? Is not the standard math wiz kid much more intelligent than these ppl but they have never held any power.
anyways i drift away, comes from studying Interantional relations for 3 yrs at the uni....
Speaking of vague comments... Hitler was extremely intelligent (but like Dubya, he did like to play the "stupid" card to lull his enemies into a false sense of security). Caesar--I have to assume you mean Julius Caesar, as Caesar is only a title--was a brilliant military leader, as was Napoleon. All of them just had their moments on inequity and they all had their downfalls. To imply that any of them--and also Dubya, but you didn't do that at all--were not intelligent is rather wrong, and would have worked against your point.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Staying on subject, if the people who have known Dubya and left his fold are to be believed in their books, then he is a very serious, well-spoken, spookily intense man out of the public eye: a person who is ruthless in demanding loyalty, has a large say in all major policy matters, and will protect anybody who follows him to the death. This doesn't seem like an idiot to me, but like the flip side to a very deliberate Mr. Amiable Stumble before the cameras.
But again, that depends on whether you truly believe the books. Since there's a measure of vindictiveness involved, as these people have left the team, there's also room for allegations of distortion.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Ok, well. If President Bush really is well-spoken, intense, and serious, but intentionally plays the bumbling idiot for the sole purpose of lulling enough people to vote for him so that he could weasel his way into the presidency twice, then what does that say about the American People? I think this horrific thought is what causes me to despair. I could never understand how he didn't lose by a landslide both times.
Furthermore, if he is really intelligent, is his foolish act just a cover-up so that he can intentionally destroy America's international credibility, intentionally kill thousands of US Servicemen and women in an unjustified, unprovoked war, and intentionally promoting cronies over the thousands of more capable candidates to oversee Katrina fiascos, etc?
Why does George W. Bush hate America?
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
Gwalchmai wrote:Ok, well. If President Bush really is well-spoken, intense, and serious, but intentionally plays the bumbling idiot for the sole purpose of lulling enough people to vote for him so that he could weasel his way into the presidency twice, then what does that say about the American People? I think this horrific thought is what causes me to despair. I could never understand how he didn't lose by a landslide both times.
Furthermore, if he is really intelligent, is his foolish act just a cover-up so that he can intentionally destroy America's international credibility, intentionally kill thousands of US Servicemen and women in an unjustified, unprovoked war, and intentionally promoting cronies over the thousands of more capable candidates to oversee Katrina fiascos, etc?
Why does George W. Bush hate America?
But remember, many if not all politicians in all nations involving elected governments have a long history of being cynical opportunists. There are exceptions (which are not always the best politicians by any means), but for a politician to rise in their profession, they have to be willing to use a host of practices that many of us would find repugnant. Perhaps it's tied to the all-consuming desire for power. I don't know.
Certainly Dubya comes from a state, Texas, that has been a byword through the years for corrupt politics. It's well known that Johnson (who later became president) won his first senatorial race on the basis of voting records that vanished from two districts known to heavily favor his opponent. What's more, when repeatedly asked about it in later years, he always chuckled about it. It was custom. It was expected. You won anyway you could, and then you did what you thought best, manipulating those who thought they had elected you.
And this is the culture Dubya arose from. It makes his behavior more understandable: the need to manipulate the truth, to villify opponents with lies, even (if you believe this occurred; I'm disinclined to think so) control enough ballot boxes to swing several states.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
In general, politics is a sloppy business and you have to be cutthroat at some point to get ahead for the most part. The presidency fell into very few laps over the years and it usually wasn't by two regular elections.
I'm glad to see that you don't buy into vote tampering theories, fable. I don't dispute that he's not a good president, but I don't think he broke the rules to get there. Well, not any of those rules anyway. He is actually pretty good at skirting the edge of the rules and still getting what he wants.
Besides that, he would have had to tamper a lot to get the kind of margins he got. He didn't win by a landslide or anything, but even a small margin is a couple hundred thousand votes. I also think I once read that most election workers are democrats anyway. That would make the kind of large conspiracy necessary rather difficult. I honestly think he just had weak competition both times. Not that he's that great, but I don't think Gore and Kerry had any more public appeal at large.
That's totally nonpartisan too. In fact, I'm actually considering voting democratic for the next FL governor. If Charlie Crist loses the primary to Tom Gallagher, I'll more than likely vote democratic. I can't stand Gallagher.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson
Fable, some of your points ring true, but I think we need a more developed character study. In many ways, President Bush seems a lot like some people I've known, including my grandfather (who passed away many years ago). I think it helps to look at Presidents as if they're just ordinary people, because their character traits tend to make more sense that way.
To some extent, everyone leads a "double life". At least, that what analysts would call it if a person's every move was scutinized and judged against some silly, unrealistic standard of "consistency". Most people have a public persona and a private persona. People who don't have a dual public/private persona are either so shy or submissive that they never express their feelings and desires at all in private or in public, or else they are boors who tell you exactly what they think and how they feel and what they want no matter what the circumstances are. Most people realize at least on a subconscious level that you make a better impression and have a better chance of pleasing other people and getting what you want if you abide by certain standards of behavior (which can vary from one group of people to the next). That's why people have manners. Most people don't study this issue or understand it in any detail; it's something they just "know". Public figures must learn the "rules" if they want to have any chance of success, so people automatically assume that politicians are "calculating". Well, so are most people; it's just that most people aren't in the public eye and don't have so much at stake, and their own "calculations" are taken for granted because they're just part of normal, everyday life. If you put ANYBODY'S behavior under a microscope and look for meaning in every little thing, you'll blow the whole thing out of proportion.
President Bush isn't an "idiot", but he's not a deep thinker. He thinks that what he "knows" is the iron-clad truth, but there isn't much depth to his "knowledge". His ability to think critically or make a coherent argument (without reading a prepared speech written by someone else) is mediocre at best. When he's not in public, he acts without thinking. When he appears in public, he tries to look presidential. To me, that means he's not much different from most people.
Take someone like my grandfather, for example. Unlike Bush, my grandfather didn't have a college education and he didn't have a truckload of mentors and advisors. But he had a sharp mind, and he tried to acquire as much information as he could (within his limited means) to make good business decisions. He could do basic algrebra in his head and he could even calculate amortized interest (which probably explains where I inherited those skills). But if you saw him, you'd call him a "dumb farmer", and with good reason. He hardly knew anything about the world. He was very opinionated, but it's not clear where he got his information. I think he based his ideas on "what sounded right" to him. People pick up a lot of ideas as they go through life, and most people think that what ends up in their brains is "knowledge". They'll swear that what they believe is true. But if you ask them to articulate their vision, they're shallow, incoherent, and completely inconsistent. That's all you can expect from the average person, even a well-educated person.
My grandfather felt passionate about a lot of things. But when you get down to it, most of his political beliefs came down to one simple idea (which he himself never realized was the basis of his political philosophy): "Leave me alone and let me do whatever I want." He thought he believed in higher things like "the rights of man" and "democracy", but he was just like the rabid politicians who say we need to put the Ten Commandments on display in every public building and every courtroom--if you ask them to recite the Ten Commandments, they can't remember more than three of them. (Actually, my grandfather knew the Ten Commandments by heart, but this is just an analogy.) My grandfather's code of ethics was not very well thought out. Basically, if he wanted to do something, he felt like he had a "right" to do it. By definition, he was a "good person", so by definition, his actions were always "justified" in some unspecified way. Good people don't do bad things, so nothing he ever did was wrong.
In private, my grandfather was very stubborn and very demanding, and he always let you know how he felt. His temper wasn't all that bad, but when he was angry, he ranted and roared. He was convinced that he knew what was best for everybody, and he was always telling his family members what to do. (Where he came from, you can't tell your neighbors what to do, so you can't boss them around the way you can boss around your family and your employees). But you see, that's a side of him that not everyone got to see. In public (and in front of his friends), he wanted to maintain a different image. He wanted everyone to think he was friendly and charming and funny and easy to get along with. He was quite vain. The thing is, I don't think he realized that he had one image at home and one image in public. As far as he knew, he was always just being himself. He was somewhat aware that he was trying to reinforce a particular image in public, but he was not aware that he had an "image" at home that ran contrary to it. The difference was that he didn't care what people thought of him at home, where he was the master; he only cared about his image in front of his peers.
I think President Bush is similar to my grandfather in some respects. Of course, my grandfather didn't come from a wealthy, powerful family and he didn't have as much ambition. To some extent, Bush does what's expected of him, given his background. He went to college and grad school. He tried to get into politics early in his career (he ran unsuccessfully for Congress). He tried to be successful like the rest of his family to keep up the tradition and the lifestyle. But most of the things he did were simply things that he wanted to do. Being active in sports. Partying. Getting married and having kids. Trying to run his own business or finding other ways to make money. (And of couse, avoiding the draft, but he got to fly planes until he lost interest them.) Since his father was Vice President of the United States and then the President, Dubya got a lot of favors from people. The Bush family has strong ties with wealthy Saudi Arabian families, so Dubya had a couple of wealthy benefactors early in his career, and then there were Harken Energy, the businessmen who participated in the Texas Rangers deal, and people like Tom Hicks, who helped Dubya become Governor of Texas so they could profit under his patronage. Later, they thought he was the perfect Republican candidate for President, and they have stood by their man because it puts them in power in a very real and substantive way.
I don't know if there's anything "special" about President Bush's privileged background. Nor is there anything "special" about the support he receives from various interests. His occupation of the White House benefits them, so they support him. That's the way the world works. I wouldn't be surprised if the pressure is too much for Bush sometimes. To some extent, he's just doing what other people expect him to do, and he's trying to play the role as best as he knows how.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that he's venal and, in private, he has the manners and attitude of a frat boy. But what is Bush supposed to do when he's expected to address the public? Other people like his wife tell him how he looks, and he rarely listens. He's not self-conscious and he's not reflective, so he's at a serious disadvantage when it comes to cultivating an appropriate image. He lacks the sensitivity and mental acuity to actually study the issue, so he does what my grandfather always did: he falls back on what he feels is "right". If he's supposed to give a speech on human rights, he gives a little bit of thought to what he thinks about it (mostly platitudes), and then he "crafts" his words (in the loose sense of the word) to where they sound "right" to him. It's not about what people want to hear; I think he actually expresses what he thinks he's supposed to believe, in all its glorious superficiality and facileness. "Yeah, that sounds right to me. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart."
The trouble is that he's easy to manipulate by people who have a more complicated agenda than he does. "Mr. President, since you believe in freedom, we need to send Haliburton on a mission to Iraq." "Then what are we waiting for? Freedom can't wait." His advisors tell him how certain policies fit into his shallow, childish worldview. If they're lucky and he listens to them, their objectives become his objectives, and he thinks they're most important priorities in the world.
There's a good reason why so many people thought he would be the perfect Republican candidate. Not only did he have the name, the looks, and the votes to defeat Al Gore (he came awfully close to it), he also listens to his friends and champions their ideas and sticks with his decisions no matter what the consequences are. He has no grasp and he just doesn't care. I honestly believe that once he does the hard work of setting his policies in motion, all he wants to do is get on a treadmill or a bicycle or go out and cut brush to "clear his mind". Bush wants to be the President and he wants to be "the one who gets to decide", but all he really wants is the power and the title; he doesn't want the responsibility or the hard work that comes with it. He has a certain amount of ambition, but it's not limitless.
I really don't know what it takes to make a good President. But I think it's important to remember that Presidents are ordinary human beings, and in some ways they're just average people. And of course, some are more average than others.
VonDondu wrote:Fable, some of your points ring true, but I think we need a more developed character study.
My posts in this thread are not intended to present the truth, the whole truth, and the well paid for lapdogs of the White House press staff. They are intended to offer reflections from one or another facet of this issue, and draw forth comment. As they've done from you.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I haven't paid him much attention (like most politics but I do like to keep 'in the loop'), but he does seem to be very dim...but I can't see him getting into power if he is that stupid. The seconds in command would have done something, to at least lessen the times he is in the public eye. I also think that rules out that he is just a pawn, cos they wouldn't want him looking an arse on tv....It has to be acting.
At times he really makes me wonder what is he thinking. Other times he is really well stated. Good or bad speech writers perhaps? It does seem as though he is uncomfortable when he has to speak off the cuff or ad lib. Might be just a case of being outside his comfort zone if he doesn't have prepared remarks.
There is really nothing much I can say. I don't think I've agreed with any of the choices that he has made. Of course I don't really listen to much politics. But if there was something that Bush did, that I agree with, I would know. So......Moron, no doubt.
:mischief:Thoughts of chaos calm my soul:mischief:
