W. tonight

[TillEulenspiegel]

I can agree with you there. In fact on the other thread I stress that one news conference cannot be used as a sole vehicle for judgment of the man. He has however demonstrated throughout his political career a tenuous grasp of the concepts and facts that are most relevant to his functioning of the office he occupies. All one has to do is look back at when he was running for the nomination. He didn't know where whole countries were! That's not a lack of speaking skill but a deficit of areas of knowledge that are FUNDAMENTAL to his position. I have nothing personal against the man, I am just of the opinion that he is the Peter Principle poster child of both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

 

[Charles Livingston]

I can agree with you there. In fact on the other thread I stress that one news conference cannot be used as a sole vehicle for judgment of the man. He has however demonstrated throughout his political career a tenuous grasp of the concepts and facts that are most relevant to his functioning of the office he occupies. All one has to do is look back at when he was running for the nomination. He didn't know where whole countries were! That's not a lack of speaking skill but a deficit of areas of knowledge that are FUNDAMENTAL to his position. I have nothing personal against the man, I am just of the opinion that he is the Peter Principle poster child of both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I dont know if I would go as far as you would, but I pretty much agree that he lacks fundamental skills that a president/leader should have (good public speaking certainly included).

 

[Ed]

GW BUSH, as an adult mind you, used his connections to get out of the danger of Nam. Some poor sapp ended up taking his place. Who knows what happened to that guy.

Its laughable to say Kerry has 1% of his integrity and honesty.

It may be 1% of little but Kerry has been in the Senate for 30 years, he has been bought and paid for many times over. They are all crooks and to use the word "integrity" with respect to any of these weasels is just plain silly.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't think Bush did badly, watching the speech and then reading the transcript in today's NY Times to re-check. But in any case, I fail to see why there should be much of a correlation between speech-making and being a good president.

The one president in recent history who was good at both, I believe, was Clinton, who in my opinion was a far better president than he is often given credit for, serious mistakes he made to the contrary notwithstanding. As for other presidents, you'd have to go back to FDR to get a president that was good at speech-making and at being POTUS. JFK, for instance, was a horrible president, his reputation being saved by the idiotic bullet on the eve of the Vietnam war. Carter--the most articulate and (IMHO) probably the most intelligent president ever IQ-wise, was a catastrophic president. Reagan, by contrast, was famous for his inability to string two coherent sentences together in public, but was an excellent president.

So even if we accept for the sake of the argument that the speech was a "disaster" (I think it was far from it, IMHO, but saying so automatically means I am a "Bush apologist" who is spreading "conservative propaganda"--it is only CRITICISM of Bush that is "objective" by definition, of course), so what?

 

[a_unique_person]

deep down I was hoping he was going to announce something important like Bin Laden , or WMDs. The naive part of me wants to believe that America is that special place where we don't do all the bad sh**. unfortunately the more I read the more I relizse most of the bad sh** starts here.


Virgil

I don't know if most of the bad ◊◊◊◊ starts in the US. There are plenty of bad people around the rest of the world. I just don't like the US portraying itself as not being what it is. A little honesty and self criticism goes a long way. Also, the US has the ability, when it does stuff up, being the most powerful country in the world, to stuff up in the most spectacular way. No other country could have unilaterally invaded Iraq the way the US did, no other country could have stuffed up the way the US did when it did invade Iraq.

 

[Tmy]

It may be 1% of little but Kerry has been in the Senate for 30 years, he has been bought and paid for many times over. They are all crooks and to use the word "integrity" with respect to any of these weasels is just plain silly.

OK so which is it. Is Kerry super-rich and out of touch, or can he be bought with a few sheckles.

 

[a_unique_person]

First, I never said brilliant when talking about Bush, I just said he may not be stupid. Second, how would you know if his intellect has shown elsewhere than public speaking, do you work with the man, do you see the information he is presented with and his decisions on such info, have you been with him at his fancy ivy league schools to know that he didnt earn any of his grades, etc.?

I think you can tell the difference between a person who thinks slowly and carefully, and Dubya. Lets face it, the lights are on, but no one's home.

 

[subgenius]

OK so which is it. Is Kerry super-rich and out of touch, or can he be bought with a few sheckles.

A wise old woman I know (mom) said just that. She likes a rich guy cause he can't be bought.

(And remember rule #1: no bad comments about moms.)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

JFK, for instance, was a horrible president, his reputation being saved by the idiotic bullet on the eve of the Vietnam war.

I disagree, but I don't wish to derail the thread.

Well, okay, how 'bout a slight aside? Which administration would you rather have in place during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- JFK's or Bush II's?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Skeptic Clinton was a good president mostly, He could have been a great president, but he sinned. You know what his sin was? Not a blow job, not even the fact that he lied under oath about the blow job . His sin was the sin of hubris , the same thing that sunk Carters presidency. That is that he blew into town thinking that he was in charge and would call the shots. This in a town peopled by career politicians some who had been in office 50 years. People who's whole lives were devoted to forming policy and politic.

Patrons , sinners and saints who all knew how the game is played. Here comes this pup who thought he could short circuit the way Business was done .Wise fool. If power is the name of the game then the diet that feeds it is money. I don't care who You think you are, President , Senator or janitor , if you really think you can interfere commerce that represents billions of dollars Your a dead duck. This is not a conspiratorial theory but a description of the way things work. The inertia of that system doesn't care whether You call Yourself Republican or Democrat, just don't stand on the tracks.

 

[subgenius]

During last night's prime time press conference, President Bush once again
claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't
think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into
buildings" . But just minutes later at the same press conference the
president proved he was not telling the truth.

Specifically, Bush said the reason he supposedly requested intelligence
briefings before 9/11 "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going
to attend" in 2001. Bush was referring to the fact that, prior to that
conference, he was warned that "Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill him
and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the summit" meetings
His statement that "the prior government" had not taken precautions against
terrorists using planes as weapons is also contradicted by the facts. The
Wall Street Journal recently reported that under President Clinton, "the
federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret
measures to protect special events from just such an attack" (3) after
receiving intelligence warnings (4).

At the press conference, Bush also claimed to have no "inkling whatsoever"
(5) about an attack before 9/11. But the Washington Post today reports that
newly-declassified information shows that the president did not just receive
one intelligence briefing about an imminent Al Qaeda attack, but "a stream"
of repeated warnings (6). In April and May 2001, for example, the
intelligence community titled some of those reports "Bin Laden planning
multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden
threats are real." The CIA explicitly told the Administration that upcoming
attacks would "occur on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would
cause the world to be in turmoil."

Sources:
1. President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,
04/13/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=28724.
2. "Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit", Los Angeles Times, 09/27/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=28725.
3. Wall Street Journal, 04/01/2004.
4. "Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News, 05/10/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=28726.
5. President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference,

 

[LFTKBS]

The one president in recent history who was good at both, I believe, was Clinton, who in my opinion was a far better president than he is often given credit for, serious mistakes he made to the contrary notwithstanding.

What the? It's always weird when you don't Rikzilla it up, Skeptic. No! KKKLINTOON BAD!!!11

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Reagan, by contrast, was famous for his inability to string two coherent sentences together in public, but was an excellent president.

Well, I disagree with both of these sentiments. Reagan was a terrible president, but he was a brilliant public speaker (unlike Bush, who manages to be awful at both).

But, on the positive side, at least Bush is smart enough to realize that his press conferences are an embarrassment and he's better off having as few of them as he can.

Oh, a question. I know at the last one reporters were pre-selected and had to submit their questions in advance. Does anyone know if that was the practice last night, too? (It hardly seems possible, given his difficulties, but...just wondering. Maybe they got too much criticism about it last time.)

 

[dsm]

Oh, a question. I know at the last one reporters were pre-selected and had to submit their questions in advance. Does anyone know if that was the practice last night, too? (It hardly seems possible, given his difficulties, but...just wondering. Maybe they got too much criticism about it last time.)

I suspect that the format was the same, but one reporter did manage to slip in an unplanned question (I think it was "what was your greatest failure in the post-9/11 world?"). GWB really floundered for the proper way to try to answer that...

 

[hammegk]

I think that is a false dichotomy...If a brilliant person is slow at speech or even has trouble communicating, their brilliance would show elsewhere say in the field that is their reason d'etre. Mr.Bush has shown neither.

When will you run for POTUS?

 

[Ed]

OK so which is it. Is Kerry super-rich and out of touch, or can he be bought with a few sheckles.

Not a few, it costs bucks to continue to suck at the public teat. Why use his wifes money? I think that he is very much in touch. He, like the rest of the donkey humping brood in Washington, simply wants power and when he has it, he wants more.

Incidentially you don't get and stay rich by spending your own money.

 

[billydkid]

I don't care...

I don't care how you cut it, there is just something off kilter about GW Bush. Aside from his obvious moral and intellectual incompetence, there is something just not sound about the man - something really weird and wooden about his delivery and his apparent utter lack of ......... I don't even know what. If there are lizard people, he is one. It is as though the sound coming out of his mouth are disconnected entirely from what may or may not be going on inside his head. I'm sorry, there is something subtley and unnervingly off about the guy.

 

[a_unique_person]

I bet you he wishes he was back in Texas, where life was simpler and all he had to do was sign the odd execution order.

 

[Skeptic]

I think you can tell the difference between a person who thinks slowly and carefully, and Dubya. Lets face it, the lights are on, but no one's home.

One can imagine the outrage if, instead of Bush, the same thing was said about, say, a black person: "Well, I've never met him, but just LOOK at the way he looks and talks. Let's face it, the lights are on but there's nobody home." From all quarters one would here the accusations: "Have you ever MET the guy? Do you KNOW him? Talked to him? You racist!". And you know what? They'd be right, because, it goes without saying, there is another name for "deciding" on someone's intelligence from seeing them on TV once in a while, without having known them or ever met them: it's known as "prejudice".

The issue here is not that Bush should file an anti-descrimination lawsuit on those who claim he's "obviously" stupid and "everybody knows" he lacks intelligence without ever having been a thousand miles from him. The issue is that such prejudice leads to worthless conclusions: to yet another one of those "truths" ("Bush is stupid"; "Islam is a religion of peace"; "loweing welfare will leads to mass homelessness"; "criminals are victims of society and can be rehabilitated most of the time"; "children learn better without grades and testing"; "all cultures are equal", etc.) which are simply false--sometimes obviously so--but which it is fashinoable to believe (as what "intelligent and educated" people MUST believe) in certain circles.

P.S.

Even if Bush IS stupid and his supporters ARE mainly uneducated slobs, which isn't the case, I fail to see why this is a problem. Historically, at least, the uneducated, "stupid" presidents supported by the "masses" (Truman, Reagen) were good presidents, while the well-educated, "genius" presidents that were enthusiastically endorsed by the intelligentia (JFK, Carter) were lousy presidents. Apparently Joe Sixpack is better at choosing a president than all the faculty of Harvard combined.

Come to think of it, this isn't suprising: why, Joe Sixpack usually IS better in political predictions than all the faculty of Harvard combined. For example, every moron that was saying "the USSR sucks" or "they are evil and God will strike them down" was more accurate in describing the conditions in the USSR (it was evil and sucked) and what will happen (it was stricken down, although not by God) than all the "sovietologists" put together. Other examples abound.

 

[a_unique_person]

In what way was Carter bad, other than that he had the sense to roll back the empire, rather than expand it. Iraq is moving, slowly, towards it's own destiny. US interference in it was just one more case of the US propping up a vicious dictator, with the inevitable blowback.