25
Jan
07

Is Bush an Idiot?

Linda Ronstadt has been quoted as saying that President Bush is, “an idiot. He’s enormously incompetent on both the domestic and international scenes.” The host of Scarborough Country disagrees. He contends that the President is simply inarticulate. Except when it counts. Like last night’s State of the Union.

Did anyone else notice that he didn’t stumble once? He seemed almost Presidential. As long as you didn’t listen to the bullshit coming out of his mouth. Why is it that he can do so well with this speech when the others are such disasters? Is he playing stupid, or is he, as Ronstadt suggests, actually stupid? OR Will this inarticulate President simply come out some day (as SO MANY others have) and announce (with deep regret) that he had fallen off the wagon sometime during his Presidency and all of his blunders were due to drink? Because, of course, he can’t be held accountable for his actions if his thinking was impaired. After all, alcoholism is a disease.

Either way, his public (and more likely his private) gaffes have effected diplomatic relations both here and abroad. No one wants to be seen with our dear leader. Who willingly invites a PR nightmare into their midst? Republicans are jumping ship left and right. And you have to ask yourself, why is this man still President?

3,063 US Soldiers killed in Iraq
23,114 US Soldiers wounded in Iraq

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Is Bush an Idiot?”


  1. 1 Cranky Yankee
    January 25, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Mark Crispin Miller has a great book called The Bush Dyslexicon that discusses his speaking “issues.” He notes that bush is incredibly eloquent when talking within his sphere of knowledge, frat boy type BS, his ranch, small talk, etc…But when it comes to issues he is really not interested in it is almost as if a different person is speaking.

    That second person is the one we see. He really doesn’t like to study and that is what is required of a man with little ability to think on his feet. Again, that is what we see.

    His SOTU address was painfully substance free and didn’t require much thought. The delivery was obviously well practiced requiring very little thought. That is why he came off as somewhat lucid.

    Unfortunately the fact that the American President didn’t stammer is consider a high mark of his speaking history.

    Very Sad…

  2. 2 Saur♥Kraut
    January 26, 2007 at 12:44 am

    I think Cranky said it perfectly. I couldn’t agree more.

    On another note: I saw your post about your foster brother. I’m very sorry to hear of it. Is there anything I can do? If so, email me.

  3. 3 Laura
    January 26, 2007 at 3:19 am

    What’s with the fancy-pants new template? 😉

    I agree with Cranky & Saur.
    I don’t think he’s stupid in the traditional sense of the word. I think he’s the least curious president we’ve ever had. He knows his worldview is the only, true, correct one and therefore is not interested in learning anything that might challenge him in that way. Since he knows he’s right, he doesn’t have to be worried about such frivolties as articulation. Frankly, he embodies the characteristics of the people who largely are responsible for him being elected – people who stake their worldview on nothing but faith. Therefore, he believes that we should take him on faith rather than belabor ourselves with evidence.

  4. 4 United We Lay
    January 26, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Cranky,
    Because of his speaking issues, we should be discussing how they effect the real issues here and overseas. I think he has the ability, but his brain is often laden with alcohol.

    Saur,
    You could marry him, but he’s only 25 so I don’t think that would work out. We’ve tried everything we could.

    Laura,
    I needed a change. I agree with you, but I think he is not of above average intelligence and a President should be. The guy is running a country, after all.

  5. 5 Three Score and Ten or more
    January 27, 2007 at 2:13 am

    Linda Ronstadt can sing. I loved to hear her sing. I have followed her life a little and have seen nothing to indicate that she has any special ability to discern stupidity. (some of her life choices perhaps but. .. .)

    I was a public speaking teacher for most of my adult life. I will have to say that Bush and Jimmy Carter contest well with each other for the least articulate public speaking President. Of course, like Bush, when Carter was speaking off the cuff, he often was sharp (as is Bush) but neither one could give a formal address worth a dang.

    Unfortunately I had to suffer through Carter as governor AND Carter as President, so I move him a notch lower in the competition.

  6. 6 daveawayfromhome
    January 28, 2007 at 2:58 am

    I dont think that Bush is as dumb as everyone thinks he is, either. I do believe that he’s gotten away with so much because the public thinks he’s too stupid to be truly evil (or at least effectively evil).

  7. 7 jsull28fl@yaho
    January 28, 2007 at 3:53 am

    ok I am kinda with Dave I think. Bush isn’t an idiot. I think the war surely didn’t go the way they wanted. I think the Kool-aiders say its for oil and that is assinine. I think that he honestly believes it was the right thing. I think the g’ment fucked it up too, but Bush really believes the right thing was to go into Iraq. I think everyone who had a vote thought so too.
    Anyway
    I don’t really come down on either side if you look at my voting record but I do wonder who you (dem voters) would vote for if you had to do it today for Pres in 08???
    the best I can tell it will be Hillary, obamma,gingrith,rudy
    js

  8. 8 Cranky Yankee
    January 28, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Bush if not technically an idiot, but he is not too bright either. He is obviously in the pocket of some very evil special interests.

    If Hillary got the nod and was running against McCain I would grit my teeth and vote for Hillary. If she were running against Giulliani it would be a hard choice because they are pretty much the same. I think Hillary is a sure loser, unless Gingrich strangely gets the gop nomination.

    I would vote for Obama in a second, but I don’t think he gets the nomination. America is still a racist nation and we are not ready for a black president, especially one named Barrak Hussein Obama.

    Gingrich is a psycho and doesn’t get nominated. How can the Goopers nominate a guy who was run out of the highest seat in the House for ethics violations and personal scandal?

    McCain is dangerous. He has flowed with the wind for so long that no one knows where he stands on anything. We only know he is a war hawk and that is reason enough not to vote for him. His recent pandering to some of the most extreme on the religious right should be a good indication of how low his personal character has sunk.

    I still hope General Clark gets in. He is my favorite. I also like John Edwards. He stands for pretty much everything I believe in and would be easy to support.

    I also could stomach Giuliani. Although he is a “law and order” fascist, he is still a social and fiscal liberal. The gop may be in love with the guy from 911, but the reality is they would be nominating a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-gun, 3 time divorced, scandal ridden north east Italian Catholic. I don’t see it happening.

  9. 9 daveawayfromhome
    January 29, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    “I think the Kool-aiders say its for oil and that is assinine”

    Oh really. So is this article a big fat lie? Republicans didnt feel so excited about nation-building in the Baltic, yet in Iraq they’ve been all gung-ho. What’s the difference? Duh! Oil. Funny that Iraq, more recently a supplier to Russia rather than to the US, suddenly decides to give all their oil to companies based in the country that invaded them. But that’s not suspicious, oh no.

    As for the elections, dont believe tha hype. Front-runner today means jack-shit a year and a half from now.

  10. 10 bud
    January 30, 2007 at 2:55 am

    There’s no question oil was the difference, but a better right winger would tell you it was not so much about getting the oil, it was about denying the oil revenue to Saddam Hussein.

    Consider Osama bin Laden’s attempts to obtain second hand nuclear devices. He is attempting this with a personal bankroll estimated to be $300 million.

    At a million barrels a day, and a price of $30 a barrel, OBL’s fortune is just 10 days’ revenue for Iraq.

    So if you can assume that Hussein wanted to do harm, he would have plenty of money to do it with, from the oil revenue.

    That is their thinking. The other part you have to keep in mind is how much Bush is influenced by the life of his father, who served in WWII. GWB does things that he thinks are the same as in WWII and expects the same results.

    He admires Churchill and he believes Churchill “stayed the course” when others wanted to give up against the Nazis. He takes a lot of strength from noting that even though Churchill lost his government after the war, he is now well regarded by history.

    This belief that history will vindicate him is what makes him quite happy to ignore his critics, not listen to his own advisors (except the inner party). This belief is what makes him dangerous.

  11. 11 daveawayfromhome
    January 30, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    That belief is what makes him an idiot.

  12. 12 Daniel Hoffmann-Gill
    January 30, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Yes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Top Posts

Disclaimer

I am not perfect. I do my best to practice what I preach, but I am human. My mantra is, "DO NO HARM". I may not always succeed, but I will always try. My goal is to be a better person today than I was yesterday.

Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb and Dave Away From Home

%d bloggers like this: