Bush's intelligence
This recently occurred to me. Bush is often accused of not being very smart. His speaking ability, and his Bushisms are often used as evidence for this.
I have often found the Bushisms amusing, but I have always hesitated to use them as an argument against the President. All I have to do is look at myself: I'm often not a very good speaker. I think about what I'm saying while I'm saying it, and it seldom comes out the way I want it to. My -isms would be worse. However, I do find it pretty easy to get across the main ideas about the things that I'm most familiar with. My job. My hobbies. My family. My church. Etc. I can even be articulate and persuasive when it comes to the things that I'm most passionate about. It is when I speak about the things that are new to me, or that I'm not well versed about, that I become like a Bush.
If anything, the Bushisms are kind an endearing trait. I do see it that way, but I'm of course more impressed by someone that is articulate. And I do admit that I'm sometimes alarmed by Bush's affliction. And like I just said, it just occurred to me, why this is.
I have heard stories about how Bush, in social settings, is almost completely different than he is when he is speaking about his administration's policies, or about the world, or about our nation.
He is very quick witted, responds fast, and comes up with sharp things, funny nicknames for people, observations that cut to the heart of the situation, and that are striking to others.
I'm sure Bush would make a great drinking buddy, if anybody was really looking for one. But he's a lousy President, not because he's unintelligent. He's a lousy president because he's not up on things. Because he's not familiar enough with current events to speak about them articulately. Ditto with policies. He is not in possession of the facts that will inform his opinions. He is not persuasive. He might as well be unintelligent, but I don't believe that to be completely true.
I have often found the Bushisms amusing, but I have always hesitated to use them as an argument against the President. All I have to do is look at myself: I'm often not a very good speaker. I think about what I'm saying while I'm saying it, and it seldom comes out the way I want it to. My -isms would be worse. However, I do find it pretty easy to get across the main ideas about the things that I'm most familiar with. My job. My hobbies. My family. My church. Etc. I can even be articulate and persuasive when it comes to the things that I'm most passionate about. It is when I speak about the things that are new to me, or that I'm not well versed about, that I become like a Bush.
If anything, the Bushisms are kind an endearing trait. I do see it that way, but I'm of course more impressed by someone that is articulate. And I do admit that I'm sometimes alarmed by Bush's affliction. And like I just said, it just occurred to me, why this is.
I have heard stories about how Bush, in social settings, is almost completely different than he is when he is speaking about his administration's policies, or about the world, or about our nation.
He is very quick witted, responds fast, and comes up with sharp things, funny nicknames for people, observations that cut to the heart of the situation, and that are striking to others.
I'm sure Bush would make a great drinking buddy, if anybody was really looking for one. But he's a lousy President, not because he's unintelligent. He's a lousy president because he's not up on things. Because he's not familiar enough with current events to speak about them articulately. Ditto with policies. He is not in possession of the facts that will inform his opinions. He is not persuasive. He might as well be unintelligent, but I don't believe that to be completely true.
Labels: Bush Administration
posted by Martin Lane at
10:40 AM
ADD ME ON FACEBOOK
1 Comments:
hi lordhelmet,
Thanks for reading and thanks for responding. Please note that my main point had nothing to do with what most Liberals think. I mentioned the evidence that 'they' mostly use, which is in fact true. Bush is accused of not being very smart. Many of those people making that accusation are partisans, sure. I brought that point up only because I disagree with that argument and those accusations.
So the real point, here, is that I believe the President is not unintelligent. And I've certainly never indicated that I'm an apologist for what other Liberal partisans are saying. So I won't begin to do that now. All I'm willing to do is to discuss the points that I've actually made.
If you truly disagree with my assessment, you will need to explain how I'm wrong when I say that Bush is "not up on things, or "not familiar enough with current events to speak about them articulately," or "not in possession of the facts that will inform his opinions," or "not persuasive."
sincerely,
Martin
By
Martin Lane, at 10:59 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home