Is Palin stupider than GWB?

Is Palin stupider than GWB?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 46.5%
  • No

    Votes: 6 4.7%
  • They are equally stupid

    Votes: 15 11.6%
  • They are stupid in different ways

    Votes: 34 26.4%
  • It doesn't matter, because Palin is a MILF

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • On Planet X, they are both co-chairs of Mensa.

    Votes: 9 7.0%

  • Total voters
    129
How do would we know? I've seen smart people do and say stupid things before.

If I had to guess, I would say Palin probably isn't as smart as George Bush. Going to great schools can help a student.
 
Examples? If you would be so kind. Just for my edification.
A couple of guys at the Weekly Standard. I don't have any proof, just chit chat. According to Karl Rove, he read a lot of biographies and history, but I suspect that there wasn't a lot of breadth in the point of view. I doubt there was much Zinn or Chomsky, for instance :)
 
I've never thought George Bush was Stupid.. You really can't be, and be president. I figure he's a smart guy, but a little more down to earth.

However, what he is not is eloquent. He wants to speak 'off the cuff' and ends up mangling words, sentences and speeches. I felt that he needed a better speech writers who could write to George Bushes style of speaking. And perhaps better handlers to make sure he never went off speech. That woul dhave likely helped immensely to prevent a number of his gaffes.

Palin, however, is different. I do not get the feeling that he's as intelligent. I think, however, she is ignorant, naive, and full of her own self-importance. The fact that she was tapped to by VP, and the sudden interest by the Media may have helped to convince her that she is important, and capable of doing the job.. whatever job that may be. However, she quit her job at Governor, and along with her.. unusual education record, I'm not sure she can really handle much beyond going on book tours, and soft interviews.

Palin may yet impress me, but I doubt it. Her gaffes have almost been worse than Bushes, and definitely worse than Obama's. (Biden is different., he seems to suffer from terminal foot in mouth disease). When she mocked Obama for his use of Teleprompters, but then appeared with writing on her hand, that was the killer. I'm sure she sees nothing wrong with what she did, showing more of her naivety. She may thrive in her current job, which is basically energizing the far right, but if she were actually placed in power, I think she would be unable to handle the media, the politics, or the stress.
 
A couple of guys at the Weekly Standard. I don't have any proof, just chit chat. According to Karl Rove, he read a lot of biographies and history, but I suspect that there wasn't a lot of breadth in the point of view. I doubt there was much Zinn or Chomsky, for instance :)

I think my original point stands. Palin and Bush aren't stupid in the classic definition, but neither are they intellects like a Chomsky, a Hitchens or a William F. Buckley.
 
Most Presidents aren't, no. I just resent the cartoon-like depictions of (most) Republican presidents as stupid, and in this case, the implication that W didn't read books.
 
A couple of guys at the Weekly Standard. I don't have any proof, just chit chat. According to Karl Rove, he read a lot of biographies and history, but I suspect that there wasn't a lot of breadth in the point of view. I doubt there was much Zinn or Chomsky, for instance :)

According to Karl Rove? :confused:
 
I think I'd take Palin over Obama any day.

Not for particular qualifications, but so far B.O. has done major gaffes because he won't listen/doesn't have handlers with good advice. I get the sense that B.O. is a loose cannon, doing his own thing, with no input from the career Dems, or the career bureaucrats.

I'll vote for "The Republic Machine" once again.


LOL, you are a funny chap.
 
Resume said:
A couple of guys at the Weekly Standard. I don't have any proof, just chit chat. According to Karl Rove, he read a lot of biographies and history, but I suspect that there wasn't a lot of breadth in the point of view. I doubt there was much Zinn or Chomsky, for instance :)

I think my original point stands. Palin and Bush aren't stupid in the classic definition, but neither are they intellects like a Chomsky, a Hitchens or a William F. Buckley.
Noting that intellect and the ability to govern have little correlation; unless someone here thinks either of those 3 might be effective leaders?

Bush and Palin have, imo, "sufficient" IQ ( I suspect at least a couple sd's above 100 )and were and are both electable and capable of leadership. Geniuses? Nope.
 
Bush and Palin have, imo, "sufficient" IQ ( I suspect at least a couple sd's above 100 )and were and are both electable and capable of leadership.

I wish I knew how to post the laughing dog emoticon.

ETA:
:dl:
 
Noting that intellect and the ability to govern have little correlation; unless someone here thinks either of those 3 might be effective leaders?

Bush and Palin have, imo, "sufficient" IQ ( I suspect at least a couple sd's above 100 )and were and are both electable and capable of leadership. Geniuses? Nope.

Being a POTUS or VP takes a lot more than ability to govern, no? And on the subject of intellect, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, among others, displayed considerable acumen, would you not agree?
 
I wish I knew how to post the laughing dog emoticon.

ETA:
:dl:
I have no doubt you and most here are more intelligent than Palin or GWB. Yet, there they are, effecting reality, and here you (and I) are, effecting nothing.

Laugh a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Noting that intellect and the ability to govern have little correlation; unless someone here thinks either of those 3 might be effective leaders?

Bush and Palin have, imo, "sufficient" IQ ( I suspect at least a couple sd's above 100 )and were and are both electable and capable of leadership. Geniuses? Nope.

Being a POTUS or VP takes a lot more than ability to govern, no? And on the subject of intellect, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, among others, displayed considerable acumen, would you not agree?
I'd agree it takes a reasonably high IQ, as well as other abilities, leadership being one of them.

I'd also agree the people you cited likely were near if not at genius level. Too bad so few like them can be identified in todays politicians, either party.
 
I'd agree it takes a reasonably high IQ, as well as other abilities, leadership being one of them.

I'd also agree the people you cited likely were near if not at genius level. Too bad so few like them can be identified in todays politicians, either party.

Because what we have are politicians, not public servants. Leaders are never in good supply.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
I'd agree it takes a reasonably high IQ, as well as other abilities, leadership being one of them.

I'd also agree the people you cited likely were near if not at genius level. Too bad so few like them can be identified in todays politicians, either party.

Because what we have are politicians, not public servants. Leaders, if you will.
Notice that the politicians we elect are "leading" us, unless you believe CFR/Bilderbergers/whomever are doing that job.
 

Back
Top Bottom