How dumb is Bush?


Trex
#1
I thought I would chuck this one out and see how it fares amongst the leftist pack.

National Post has an article on a recent book which posits that Bush really is not dumb at
all.
Bush was Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, has degrees from both Yale and Harvard, always got pretty good grades (even in junior and senior high) and has a measured I.Q in the 120's.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-liberals.aspx

Gore, Kerry, Senator Bill Bradly and pundit Michael Moore are apparantly not quite up
to Mr.Bush's intellectual hights.
Their scolastic records indicate far lesser brainpower is shared among the liberal elite.

Quote"
Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied."
Unquote.

Both the Clintons's are accepted as being highly intelligent.

I wonder how Obama actually rates?

Trex
 
scratch
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Trex View Post

I thought I would chuck this one out and see how it fares amongst the leftist pack.

National Post has an article on a recent book which posits that Bush really is not dumb at
all.
Bush was Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, has degrees from both Yale and Harvard, always got pretty good grades (even in junior and senior high) and has a measured I.Q in the 120's.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-liberals.aspx

Gore, Kerry, Senator Bill Bradly and pundit Michael Moore are apparantly not quite up
to Mr.Bush's intellectual hights.
Their scolastic records indicate far lesser brainpower is shared among the liberal elite.

Quote"
Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied."
Unquote.

Both the Clintons's are accepted as being highly intelligent.

I wonder how Obama actually rates?

Trex


Trex,

High or low intelligence is possessed by these people! It has never shown in their actions.

But to each his own. Obama could play Poitier or Washington in something.
 
scratch
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Trex,

High or low intelligence is possessed by these people! It has never shown in their actions.

But to each his own. Obama could play Poitier or Washington in something.


Hey Trex,

Welcome to 3C, CCC or CanCon.

Some advice to (damn, I hate posting on myself) you. You are a Newbie and a lot of people will test your metal.
We have a great group of people but over all I (IMO) think that we are a little off centre.
Always remember: be polite, stay way from things outside your realm of knowledge and............always stand your ground with grace, politeness and respect for the other......never forget to stay COOL, CALM & COLLECTED.........be self-assured in what you are saying and posting and you'll do just fine.

Again nice to have you on board......do not get discouraged....it works out.

scratch
 
Colpy
Conservative
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Trex View Post

I thought I would chuck this one out and see how it fares amongst the leftist pack.

National Post has an article on a recent book which posits that Bush really is not dumb at
all.
Bush was Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, has degrees from both Yale and Harvard, always got pretty good grades (even in junior and senior high) and has a measured I.Q in the 120's.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-liberals.aspx

Gore, Kerry, Senator Bill Bradly and pundit Michael Moore are apparantly not quite up
to Mr.Bush's intellectual hights.
Their scolastic records indicate far lesser brainpower is shared among the liberal elite.

Quote"
Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied."
Unquote.

Both the Clintons's are accepted as being highly intelligent.

I wonder how Obama actually rates?

Trex

I have absolutely no doubt that Al Gore is a drooling idiot..........and a con man.

I have always though Bush was under-rated for intelligence, but he also has no common sense. The most intelligent guy I ever met lives in a shack in the woods and is completely anti-social. He is also a history professor of some fame in his area, invited to speak at conferences world-wide. I really like the guy......would I trust the leadership of the free world to him?

Not Bloody likely!

I have no doubt the Obamas (both of them) leave both Bush and McCain in the dust when it comes to IQ numbers.

But intelligence of that type is over-rated.

McCain has the experience, the principles, the spirit, the determination, the character that Obama........I was going to say lacks, but that would be unfair.........that has not revealed itself in Obama.......he is largely unknown.
 
Trex
#5
I too have a bit of a problem believing all the anti Bush rhetoric and thats why I made the original post.

It was always my theory that anyone who became President or Prime Minister more or less had it together just by merit of obtaining the position.

I never thought that Bush was a particularly good President. He has, without question, made some hideous blunders.
And how he got re-elected for the second term I do not know.

Having said that I still think he is a reasonably smart man.

Even money says he will do just fine after politics and would do so even without the help and financial assistance of all his newfound "friends".
 
china
Conservative
#6
I wonder how intelligent is J.Chreatin or the former PET or the ones who voted them in.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

I wonder how intelligent is J.Chreatin or the former PET or the ones who voted them in.

Trudeau was brilliant.

And I hate the SOB, but his intellectual abilities are beyond dispute.

He was an elitist arrogant bastard, who saw himself as the philosipher king.......who attached no importance to any one below his elevated position.

He view of the world in general, and Canada in particular, was seriously flawed, IMHO, but there is no doubting his IQ.

Chretien is bright.....in the same way that a successful Mafia Don has to be bright. His intelligence is completely devoid of any ethical element, it consists only of survival strategies. A nasty piece of work, that boy.

I'm not sure which is worse.

And people wonder why I loathe the Liberal Party of Canada.
 
Kreskin
#8
Regardless of how smart someone is, a leader is one who can convey a vision, convince people to buy into common goals and bring people together to work toward them. It doesn't matter what IQ's they have, if they can't do the above they're in the wrong line of work.
 
china
Conservative
#9
Quote:

Regardless of how smart someone is, a leader is one who can convey a vision, convince people to buy into common goals and bring people together to work toward them. It doesn't matter what IQ's they have, if they can't do the above they're in the wrong line of work.

Well said.
 
china
Conservative
#10
Quote:

Trudeau was brilliant.

Brilliant.....? intelligent ?.... in what....?


Quote:

Chretien is bright.....in the same way that a successful Mafia Don has to be bright. His ntelligence is completely devoid of any ethical element, it consists only of survival strategies. A nasty piece of work, that boy

So this is a mentality of majority of Canadians,right ? ....lasted 11 years , wow ? Just joking .I think he won a majority with less than 40% .
Quote:

And people wonder why I loathe the Liberal Party of Canada.

...........me too.
Last edited by china; Aug 3rd, 2008 at 09:36 AM..
 
Curiosity
#11
What a perky discussion!

I am always interested in comparisons of IQ and leadership potential.

Some very high IQ - Mensa candidates - prefer to function on a solo mission having very little ability to communicate with others, and less patience to explain at a 'lesser' level.
What might be of huge concern to a regular member of our society (which includes most of us), may not even register with one who prefers to make decisions on a different plane of thought.

A good leader must be immersed in human experience and the more ability he/she has to
identify with the people and their goals for their nation, would be a primary criterion for
electing a leader in government or any other position requiring leadership and future planning.

Another attribute would be a person who has had to work to gain an individual sense of achievement and responsibility for self.
Last edited by Curiosity; Aug 3rd, 2008 at 09:58 AM..
 
Kreskin
#12
I forget his name but the guy who wrote about 100 books on Winston Churchill claimed his leadership success was based on his ability to not only have a vision but to communicate that vision and have people buy into it. That's the same way I've always felt.

It's no different from running a company. A company may have a temporary blip of success when run by the likes of "Chainsaw Al" but if it alienates employees it will ultimately fail. A leader who alienates and divides will lead whatever he/she is leading down the toilet, sooner or later.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#13
IQ does not mean one gets high grades in school nor does it mean one will be successful in life.

I think the problem with IQ is that no-one can really pinpoint what intelligence is. Is it the retention of knowledge? Is it the potential to learn? Is it the ability to use the knowledge one has acquired? Is it comprehension? Is it reasoning? I think it is all of the above and more. I think this because we really still don't know the abilities of the brain and what a mind is.

Besides that individuals score differently at different times. One may have an IQ of 105 one day and the next day their IQ is 98. Or They may have an IQ of 98 when they are tired and 110 after a good snooze.

At any rate, I have heard GWB has an IQ in the mid 120s, too. I just don't think it's very easy for him to put himself in anyone else's shoes. I also think he's a little shy on the ability to reason and is also easy to manipulate.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Aug 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 AM..
 
dj03
#14
Elections don't have much to do with the candidates intelligence, they have to do with organizing and getting out the vote...unless you live in Alberta where all that is required is to run as a Conservative.

Bush won both elections largely because he had recruited Karl Rove, who is about as close to a mastermind in this field in the US these days as you are going to find. I have heard several Republicans say that bringing Rove into the McCain campaign would greatly improve McCain's chances.

Bush isn't stupid and even though he beat most people on an IQ test, those tests are overrated anyways.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

Bush won both elections largely because he had recruited Karl Rove, who is about as close to a mastermind in this field in the US these days as you are going to find.

bingo
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

I have absolutely no doubt that Al Gore is a drooling idiot..........and a con man.

Some might not agree.
Gore graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government cum laude on June 12, 1969.[26] The Washington Post described his commencement ceremonies as a "Sixties period piece" of tradition and chaos. This included the moment when "President Nathan Pusey delivered his time-honored welcoming of the graduates to 'the company of educated men,' [and] hundreds of seniors rose from their folding chairs, raised their fists in defiance, and walked out."[27]


Gore had basic training at Fort Dix from August to October, and then was assigned to be a journalist at Fort Rucker, Alabama. In April 1970, he was "Soldier of the Month."[29][14] On May 19, 1970, Gore married Tipper at the Washington National Cathedral.[14][31]
Gore with the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa as a journalist with the paper, The Castle Courier.


His orders to be sent to Vietnam were "held up" for some time and he suspected that this was due to a fear by the Nixon administration that if something happened to him, his father would gain sympathy votes.[28] He was finally shipped to Vietnam on January 2, 1971, after his father had lost his seat in the Senate during the 1970 Senate election,[32][33] one "of only about a dozen of the 1,115 Harvard graduates in the Class of '69 who went to Vietnam."[29] Gore was stationed with the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa and was a journalist with the paper, The Castle Courier.[34]He received an honorable discharge from the Army in May 1971.[14]

Maybe Al Gore saw Bush in VietNam..........maybe not...

 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#17
Well anyway, I don't think Bush is particularly dumb, just fairly limited in various abilities and has a somewhat sociopathic set of principles and habits.
 
Curiosity
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Well anyway, I don't think Bush is particularly dumb, just fairly limited in various abilities and has a somewhat sociopathic set of principles and habits.

You have reminded me that Bush has a terrible Verbal IQ - in other words he does not speak well or organize his thoughts. Perhaps his other published (whether accurate or not) IQ - which is a general knowledge one I think might bring out a higher score on things
he is more familiar with.

Some very high IQ people cannot communicate with many others at all unless it is on one or two of their pet topics which may so far into the stratosphere nobody can bear to listen to them.

IQ is not a very satisfactory measure of a leader in politics or business or education or charitable work - a leader has to have a good support system going but still has to be able to extend the good ideas to the people either by word or deed.

And there is that old bugaboo .... "You can't please all the people all the time...... "

If I had my druthers I would rather hook up a politician to a lie detector when he/she is making a speech. Now that would be interesting.
 
scratch
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

You have reminded me that Bush has a terrible Verbal IQ - in other words he does not speak well or organize his thoughts. Perhaps his other published (whether accurate or not) IQ - which is a general knowledge one I think might bring out a higher score on things
he is more familiar with.

Some very high IQ people cannot communicate with many others at all unless it is on one or two of their pet topics which may so far into the stratosphere nobody can bear to listen to them.

IQ is not a very satisfactory measure of a leader in politics or business or education or charitable work - a leader has to have a good support system going but still has to be able to extend the good ideas to the people either by word or deed.

And there is that old bugaboo .... "You can't please all the people all the time...... "

If I had my druthers I would rather hook up a politician to a lie detector when he/she is making a speech. Now that would be interesting.


Don't go to the expense. They always look to to left when speaking and after they have been asked a question. Need I say more.
 
Curiosity
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Don't go to the expense. They always look to to left when speaking and after they have been asked a question. Need I say more.

Scratch:

Their left or your left hehehe...
 
scratch
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Scratch:

Their left or your left hehehe...



Appreciated!
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#22
The problem with a class system is that morons can get into power - which is the whole point of the system. Both the Canadian and US systems were designed ostensibly to prevent that but now we find ourselves saddled with a political elite.
 
Curiosity
#23
What is the fairest style of debate or campaigning which would allow the public to see the bare actor behind the words.

If they follow the script - we have no idea who wrote the statements they are making or if they believe them.

If they debate carefully chosen questions - it is obvious there will be an equal number of loaded questions for each of the two candidates.

Everything seems to be staged - which is all it can be I guess - otherwise we would be watching chaos and would learn nothing.

I would rather see two guys or gals or one of each sitting in chairs talking - ten minutes exchange on preselected topics - but no notes available - just ad lib from memory or vested interest in a particular subject. Evrn an exchange of back and forth like two humans would be nice. Why does campaigning have to be cruel and insulting?

This business of standing behind a podium raising a long arm at he people pointing a finger seems too anarchist to me.... like a dictatorship has arisen from the mound of earth at our feet...

(is anarchist the right word???).... (anarchical???) oh well.
 
Tonington
#24
Nice to see you back Curio.

I think the fairest form would be a moderated debate with all questions coming from the audience. It's a little harder to script the answers, though not impossible. Someone who performs well has obviously prepared for such questions, and being at least knowledgeable about said questions would be a good start.

I would like chairs as well. I think it would be more entertaining to watch someone squirm in a chair due to some pointed question, than to stand there and shift from side to side. More body language in a chair

I have to agree with a lot of what was said of IQ's and test scores as well. You can train to score better on IQ tests, after all the questions follow a format, that is easy enough to replicate. Test scores or grade point averages can be highly dubious as well. These regimented styles don't lend themselves to artistic/creative/ingenious manipulations, which are certainly advantageous as a leader.

In leaders, I look for genuine self-less acts, consistency, and creative solutions that aren't constrained by a party doctrine.

Bush very well could be dumb. Or he could be playing the part. I'm positive that some portion of the Hollywood 'bimbos' aren't as moronic as they are portrayed to be. There's a certain innocence that comes with being naive and ill-informed that sells very well with good marketing techniques. And that's the most important thing I think to remember.
 
scratch
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

What is the fairest style of debate or campaigning which would allow the public to see the bare actor behind the words.

If they follow the script - we have no idea who wrote the statements they are making or if they believe them.

If they debate carefully chosen questions - it is obvious there will be an equal number of loaded questions for each of the two candidates.

Everything seems to be staged - which is all it can be I guess - otherwise we would be watching chaos and would learn nothing.

I would rather see two guys or gals or one of each sitting in chairs talking - ten minutes exchange on preselected topics - but no notes available - just ad lib from memory or vested interest in a particular subject. Evrn an exchange of back and forth like two humans would be nice. Why does campaigning have to be cruel and insulting?

This business of standing behind a podium raising a long arm at he people pointing a finger seems too anarchist to me.... like a dictatorship has arisen from the mound of earth at our feet...

(is anarchist the right word???).... (anarchical???) oh well.



Dictatorship would fit better than anarchist.
Yet you have a good idea, sad fully its been tried, never worked.
These people rely on others to write for them.
How these people know what to write is beyond me.
.....an unrehearsed, no note debate.....might as well put them in Oz...

cyl
scratch
 
Curiosity
#26
Tonington
Quote:

Nice to see you back Curio

Thanks Toni -

I have no idea why Bush isn't as slick as people seem to want him to be - it is as if he enjoys getting people annoyed so they aren't as sharp with him as they could be - asking the right questions from a calm demeanor. It could be something he learned from his advisors.

I shudder to think what some of the other leaders here would have done eight months into their presidency on September 11th.

Anyway back to Bush - I doubt he cares very much about his public personae - and seems comfortable in his down home hayseed style. It does irritate - especially the dapper Euros.
 
Curiosity
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Dictatorship would fit better than anarchist.
Yet you have a good idea, sad fully its been tried, never worked.
These people rely on others to write for them.
How these people know what to write is beyond me.
.....an unrehearsed, no note debate.....might as well put them in Oz...

cyl
scratch

LOL Scratch - they are already in OZ! ..... love it.

I am waiting for the day under hot studio lights for Pelosi's face to melt..... hee

Where are the Danish cartoonists when we need em???
 
scratch
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

LOL Scratch - they are already in OZ! ..... love it.

I am waiting for the day under hot studio lights for Pelosi's face to melt..... hee

Where are the Danish cartoonists when we need em???



With all due respect.....the Danes go a little too far.
 
Curiosity
#29
Scratch

It may be what some of the political egos need here to lock them into reality!

It's a matter of looking for a laugh or weeping copious tears of frustration.

Ya dictatorship fits - thanks (from before).

Curio
 
scratch
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Scratch

It may be what some of the political egos need here to lock them into reality!

It's a matter of looking for a laugh or weeping copious tears of frustration.

Ya dictatorship fits - thanks (from before).

Curio


Curio,

No problem. Anytime.
...and you are right!

Regards,
scratch
 

Similar Threads

41
Dumb ministers
by benny_patrick7 | Nov 2nd, 2008
37
It's not the Yanks who are Dumb
by I think not | May 2nd, 2006
4
How Dumb Can You Get?
by I think not | Mar 23rd, 2006