____Bush administration V.4
(1954 previous messages)
- Aug 4, 2010 3:03 am (#1955 of 1970)
Because I think while that's a great idea, that you will get some irate parents with that one. Basically you're putting yourself in the position of being a subjective arbiter. I think you would do it well, but it's going to be an absolute magnet for complaint.
Maybe not, though, the parents of your schoolkids might be progressive. If you try it let me know. And, just in case, hide your phone number.
jw matthews
- Aug 4, 2010 3:11 am (#1956 of 1970)
I thought "contribution" and "participation" were the same thing in a classroom.
R. Tugboat - Aug 4, 2010 3:31 am (#1957 of 1970)
While it's hard to feel bad about derailing a thread devoted to an ex-president, I'll respond in education.
- Aug 4, 2010 4:55 pm (#1958 of 1970)
Apart from, "well, he was the president."
No one seems to be able to point out examples. It's curious.
He was president for eight years and said a great many things in the body politic, but it's not that curious -- after all, we mostly have no idea what he might have been saying extemporaneously, and what was written for him.
He participated in two Presidential debates, and while I thought he lost each one, he stayed on his message and did well enough on live television against two of the smarter guys in Washington. Lots of people felt he lost, lots of people felt he won, or at least held his own, because he was shrewd enough to steer a path that let the unlikable qualities of his opponents shine through, while not really damaging himself. I know there was the big thing about whether he was wearing a wire in the first Kerry debate, but that was arguably his worst performance in the two series.
I'd submit that most people of average intelligence would get demolished in that situation. Debates are something that you prep for a lot, but still, live, with an opponent taking shots at you, you have to have an intellect and some rhetorical skill if you're up against someone who knows what they're doing. And say whatever you want about Gore, he's a very smart guy, and Kerry's a smart guy too. It would be different if Bush had just ignored what the other guys were saying to him, and spat out canned prepared non-sequiturs, like Sarah Palin did -- I don't think it takes any special intellect to do that. But Bush did get into the give and take.
So inasmuch as I'm interested in it (it's odd that I find myself defending Bush's intelligence) that'd be an example of something he did on the public record, indicative that he is at least reasonably intelligent, that one can't attribute to his advisors and speechwriters.
I don't think Bush was or is stupid. I did for a little while, but I don't anymore, and that was more elitism than sense. What Bush was, and still presumably is, is wrong. We all know people who are smart enough but completely wrongheaded, at least to our way of thinking. That's Bush. He ran shitty software but his hardware was fine.
jw matthews
- Aug 4, 2010 5:11 pm (#1959 of 1970)
Simply put, it is more appropriate to focus on Bush's 'competence,' his suitability for the job he got, and his ability to learn while on it, and what he actually did, expecially under pressure and in crisis, which he, like many presidents most certainly was.
This emphasis on his 'intelligence' is one of those things people do that often reveal more about the person doing the emphasizing than it reveals about the one who is the object of the emphasis.
I firmly believer that most people are 'intelligent enough' and its other qualities and behaviors which are usually more important and tell the tale......and not just in government.
- Aug 4, 2010 5:39 pm (#1960 of 1970)
They say that guy who Ross Perot had as his running mate (Stockdale) was a really smart guy, but his performance in the debates was literally painful to watch...
- Aug 4, 2010 6:58 pm (#1961 of 1970)
Right, Admiral Stockdale.
- Aug 4, 2010 7:40 pm (#1962 of 1970)
The problem for some is that they may be smart in their area, they have intentionally not involved themselves in national issues outside a very narrow area. This was Stockdale (and I was a Perot supporter). I also put Palin in that category when she was nominated for Vice-President.
- Aug 4, 2010 7:56 pm (#1963 of 1970)
Stockdale seemed to be experiencing the onset of dementia during the campaign, as I recall.
- Aug 4, 2010 9:23 pm (#1964 of 1970)
I still recall the Phil Hartman and Dana Carvey SNL sketch making fun of the Perot-Stockdale ticket. Hilarious.
- Aug 4, 2010 10:08 pm (#1965 of 1970)
I think he was given a bad rap by the press...clearly his remark about "What am I doing here?" was meant as a joke but the press took it as him being dense and ran with it...they did the same thing to Thomas Eagleton.
- Aug 4, 2010 10:28 pm (#1966 of 1970)
Gridlock!
Matthew Best
- Aug 5, 2010 11:39 am (#1967 of 1970)
James Buchanan was considered to be a very intelligent president. A bachelor president, there is more evidence with him than any other president that he was our first and probably only gay president (although denied by ancestors).
Wow. That was prescient of them.
Woden
- Aug 5, 2010 12:44 pm (#1968 of 1970)
Sometimes you have to be proactive about things like that.
- Aug 5, 2010 12:59 pm (#1969 of 1970)
It's all about planning.
Matthew Best
- Aug 5, 2010 2:28 pm (#1970 of 1970)
Still, it was a bit presumptuous of them, don't you think?
____Bush administration V.4