Full Version: Bush and Kerry Grades
I didn't vote for GWB but it always annoyed me when people would insult the man's intelligence with no proof more than garbled sentences and a heaping helping of political bigotry.
I wonder what they would say if they knew the truth.
Kerry and Bush had similar grades
Totally irrelevant I know, but a little funny.
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
I wonder what they would say if they knew the truth.
QUOTE
Former US presidential hopeful John Kerry did no better at university than his rival George Bush, records show.
Documents obtained by the Boston Globe daily showed Mr Kerry got a string of D grades in his first year at Yale.[...]
They showed that Mr Kerry had a cumulative grade average of 76 for his four years at Yale, the paper said.
Mr Bush, who also went to Yale and was two years behind John Kerry, had an average of 77, according to records published by the New Yorker magazine in 1999.
Documents obtained by the Boston Globe daily showed Mr Kerry got a string of D grades in his first year at Yale.[...]
They showed that Mr Kerry had a cumulative grade average of 76 for his four years at Yale, the paper said.
Mr Bush, who also went to Yale and was two years behind John Kerry, had an average of 77, according to records published by the New Yorker magazine in 1999.
Kerry and Bush had similar grades
Totally irrelevant I know, but a little funny.
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
QUOTE
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
I hate the media in this country. This is exactly the kind of story we see day after day, in place of something relevant. In 2004, it would have been relevant to get a side-by-side, factual, detailed comparison of the two men, on the issues. I didn't see it in the MSM.
Instead, we got (and get) repetition of what one party says about the other party. And cute asides like this one. This isn't news.
Military records in the early 70's. Grade point averages in the late 60's, it all has nothing to do with anything now. It didn't even have anything to do with anything in 2004.
The same people that would remark about "a C-student from Yale" (I remember Vonnegut wrote something about it ... and I think I have seen dozens of others), would also shake their heads at the thought of a President Kerry. The guy tried to please everyone. Therefore he pleased no one.
Bushisms are still Bushisms, though. Bush's current verbal gaffes have nothing to do with the college grades of the guy that ran against him last year. Everybody does that, anyway.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jun 8 2005, 03:27 PM)
I didn't vote for GWB but it always annoyed me
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
It's not "totally irrelevant". It shows the attacks on Bush for being "stupid" while promoting Kerry as a "genius" were unfounded, petty, and selective.
Frankly, Bush proved he was smarter during the election cycle. His intelligence isn't measured by grades, it's measured by results. He is the twice elected president of the United States. The same as another "genius" who thought he could fool around with a big-mouthed 21 year old intern and not get busted.
Intelligence isn't always measured by collegiate test scores. Bill Gates was a college drop-out.
QUOTE
It's not "totally irrelevant". It shows the attacks on Bush for being "stupid" while promoting Kerry as a "genius" were unfounded, petty, and selective.
Frankly, Bush proved he was smarter during the election cycle. His intelligence isn't measured by grades, it's measured by results. He is the twice elected president of the United States. The same as another "genius" who thought he could fool around with a big-mouthed 21 year old intern and not get busted.
Intelligence isn't always measured by collegiate test scores. Bill Gates was a college drop-out.
Frankly, Bush proved he was smarter during the election cycle. His intelligence isn't measured by grades, it's measured by results. He is the twice elected president of the United States. The same as another "genius" who thought he could fool around with a big-mouthed 21 year old intern and not get busted.
Intelligence isn't always measured by collegiate test scores. Bill Gates was a college drop-out.
the grades are irrelevant. Bush is "attacked" for being less than intelligent not for his grades, and not for the Bushisms. Put him in a room with Tim Russert and have him explain his policies. He falls on his face. Ask him a question out of the blue about what he's doing. He stumbles. The President is the spokesperson for the nation. The criticisms aren't unfounded, petty, or selective.
Bush didn't prove anything during the election cycle. He had better handlers. He had better campaign strategists. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm saying he's awful. But most of all, in the context of these questions, I'm saying the grades are irrelevant.
Bush is mainly attacked for not being able to think and express himself spontaneously. That isn't to say he doesn't know what he is saying, but his speaking skills are somewhat lacking.
It is easy to fool someone by talking quickly and glibly. That doesn't mean what one has to say has any meaning or worth. It certainly is not a measure of intelligence as most people understand the term.
I personally sometimes stammer and fumble for words when my boss confronts me. That does not mean I couldn't run circles around him in a round of Jeopardy, a discussion about politics, or pretty much any other subject.
Unfortunately, we think of politicians and we think of fast talking shysters (maybe not consciously, but subconsciously). We also assume that politicians are intelligent as a whole. So when someone comes along and doesn't fit stereotype A (fast talking) we also assume he does not fit stereotype B (intelligence). It's poor reasoning (although a "C" average, even at Yale, is nothing to be overly proud of...)
Perception is everything (especially in politics).
It is easy to fool someone by talking quickly and glibly. That doesn't mean what one has to say has any meaning or worth. It certainly is not a measure of intelligence as most people understand the term.
I personally sometimes stammer and fumble for words when my boss confronts me. That does not mean I couldn't run circles around him in a round of Jeopardy, a discussion about politics, or pretty much any other subject.
Unfortunately, we think of politicians and we think of fast talking shysters (maybe not consciously, but subconsciously). We also assume that politicians are intelligent as a whole. So when someone comes along and doesn't fit stereotype A (fast talking) we also assume he does not fit stereotype B (intelligence). It's poor reasoning (although a "C" average, even at Yale, is nothing to be overly proud of...)
Perception is everything (especially in politics).
QUOTE(niftydrifty @ Jun 8 2005, 03:27 PM)
Bush didn't prove anything during the election cycle. He had better handlers. He had better campaign strategists. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm saying he's awful. But most of all, in the context of these questions, I'm saying the grades are irrelevant.
Why wouldn't a candidate smart enough to hire better handlers and strategists be a better chief executive than the guy who hired worse handlers and strategists? Wouldn't this be a good indicator of the competency of their future appointments?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 8 2005, 03:48 PM)
It's poor reasoning (although a "C" average, even at Yale, is nothing to be overly proud of...)
I'm glad you mentioned this, because this really bugs me, and bugged me when the snarky Bush grades stories were running. There was a time when C really did mean "average" and not "lousy." The current climate of everyone getting A's and B's is really not serving students or employers very well. An article on this ran in USA Today a few years ago, noting that less than 20% of all college students now earn C's. We need a new system.
USA Today - Ivy League grade inflation
QUOTE
In 1966, 22% of Harvard undergraduate students earned A's. By 1996, that figure rose to 46%. That same year, 82% of Harvard seniors graduated with honors.
In 1973, 31% of all grades at Princeton were A's. By 1997 that rose to 43%. In 1997, only 12% of all grades given at Princeton were below the B range.
<snip>
Fewer than 20% of all college students receive grades below a B-minus, according to a study released this week by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. That hardly seems justified at a time when a third of all college students arrive on campus so unprepared that they need to take at least one remedial course.
In 1973, 31% of all grades at Princeton were A's. By 1997 that rose to 43%. In 1997, only 12% of all grades given at Princeton were below the B range.
<snip>
Fewer than 20% of all college students receive grades below a B-minus, according to a study released this week by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. That hardly seems justified at a time when a third of all college students arrive on campus so unprepared that they need to take at least one remedial course.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jun 8 2005, 04:08 PM)
I'm glad you mentioned this, because this really bugs me, and bugged me when the snarky Bush grades stories were running. There was a time when C really did mean "average" and not "lousy." The current climate of everyone getting A's and B's is really not serving students or employers very well. An article on this ran in USA Today a few years ago, noting that less than 20% of all college students now earn C's. We need a new system.
Apparently, we have a new system (though maybe Eeyore can shed more light on this). A friend of mine is a biology teacher here in central Florida and mentioned to me a few weeks ago that the Florida schools have shifted the bell curve here in terms of grading. Essentially, they've added ten points to every grade level so anything above 80% is now and A, above 70% is a B and so on. And he teaches at a school for "gifted" students. This is evidently reflected (or not reflected) in their GPA in terms of college admission as well. If they had straight Bs - i.e., got an average of 70-80% on tests - it would still read as a 3.0! I was astonished - and kinda resented having worked so hard to get those As and Bs back in the days of the slide-rule.
Oh - as to the topic, I'd agree with lordhelmet that "intelligence isn't always measured by collegiate test scores". I'd disagree with lordhelmet that "the attacks on Bush for being 'stupid'... were unfounded, petty, and selective". After all, "intelligence isn't always measured by collegiate test scores".
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 8 2005, 01:12 PM)
It's not "totally irrelevant". It shows the attacks on Bush for being "stupid" while promoting Kerry as a "genius" were unfounded, petty, and selective.
um, I'm not sure which election you were watching this past November but I don't recall anyone ever referring to Kerry as being "smart" or a "genius". If you have a few quotes please feel free to share.I do remember people having legitimate complaints about Bush's grades though. Is someone that got a C in economics really qualified to state that tax cuts are going to benefit our country? I don't think so personally.
As Turnea's initial post states and as niftydrifty points out Kerry's grades were not available during the election and they were not compared side by side. If they had been then perhaps we could have had a debate on the subject.
However, today in 2005 I really could care less about senator Kerry's grades - he isn't leading this country. I'd say that when probably every single one of us that posts on AD had better grades in college than the President that is a problem. The fact that he can't string two words together without sounding like an idiot is also a problem.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 8 2005, 10:37 PM)
However, today in 2005 I really could care less about senator Kerry's grades - he isn't leading this country. I'd say that when probably every single one of us that posts on AD had better grades in college than the President that is a problem. The fact that he can't string two words together without sounding like an idiot is also a problem.
I have seen Bush at most of his press conference and of course, his debates with John Kerry.
Not only does he "string two words together" without sounding like an idiot, his reasoning is consistently right on and in some case profound (the case for promoting freedom and self determination around the world). Bush's comments on the education issue are also consistently coherent, passionate, and right on the mark. What I referred to as "petty" is exactly what has been demonstrated in your post. Frankly, it's the typical attitude that we see today in the liberal elite.
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper". If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
But, it seems that some are impressed more by style than by substance. It explains why a mediocre president of less than 3 years (before he was killed) is built up to mythical proportions in spite of a record lacking achievement and that an accomplished war-time president is called an "idiot". It also explains the rabid buy-in of a recent ex-president who postured, pontificated, and "felt our pain" but in real-life abused women through his position of power, ignored important foreign policy issues, and generally tried to scam the system.
If you ask me, "being for it before I was against it" is the dumbest thing that ANY politician has said in a long time. I know that Howard Dean is trying really hard to take that crown during his debacle of a term as DNC chair, but for now, Kerry still holds the prize.
First, I have to ask- were these grades before vietnam or after? I have to assume before, since he went to Boston College after word.
Typically you are somewhat unfocused before some maturity or life altering event- Bush has neither in his life, unless you count arrests for drunk driving and possibly cocaine possession.
Obviously, after Vietnam, Kerry went back to school and applied himself. He was pivotal in exposing the BCCI scandal- a very complex type of fraud that took enormous intellect from someone not directly involved in the Banking business.
Yes, I think in a battle of brains between Kerry and Bush, Kerry is fighting an unarmed man. It was plain that Bush is an medium intelligent man that can not think on his feet as it was shown in the debates. He just kept repeating the same crap over and over and was never able to recover in any debate-, heck , he didn't even know what businesses he owned ("want to buy some wood") Bush is obviously anti-intellectual and anti-rationalist in his approach to anything, whereas Kerry probably intellectualizing too much and ponders too deaply.
So, the grades do matter to me, especially in the context of how they lived thier lives after a medicore performance in college.
Kerry is a self made man, that went back to college after the war, took on a job as a prosecutor taking on mob figures, while GW partied away and eventually got into the family business, which he did badly in, and was only able to stay rich due to his family contacts that wanted to please Papa Bush at the time.
Kerry re-applied himself and became a better person.
GW did not.
Typically you are somewhat unfocused before some maturity or life altering event- Bush has neither in his life, unless you count arrests for drunk driving and possibly cocaine possession.
Obviously, after Vietnam, Kerry went back to school and applied himself. He was pivotal in exposing the BCCI scandal- a very complex type of fraud that took enormous intellect from someone not directly involved in the Banking business.
Yes, I think in a battle of brains between Kerry and Bush, Kerry is fighting an unarmed man. It was plain that Bush is an medium intelligent man that can not think on his feet as it was shown in the debates. He just kept repeating the same crap over and over and was never able to recover in any debate-, heck , he didn't even know what businesses he owned ("want to buy some wood") Bush is obviously anti-intellectual and anti-rationalist in his approach to anything, whereas Kerry probably intellectualizing too much and ponders too deaply.
So, the grades do matter to me, especially in the context of how they lived thier lives after a medicore performance in college.
Kerry is a self made man, that went back to college after the war, took on a job as a prosecutor taking on mob figures, while GW partied away and eventually got into the family business, which he did badly in, and was only able to stay rich due to his family contacts that wanted to please Papa Bush at the time.
Kerry re-applied himself and became a better person.
GW did not.
LH
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper". If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
Yes, I am acquainted with a lot of things that Bush said:
1. There are WMDS in Iraq.
2. We have to fix the evidence and fact to show that Iraq has WMDS from the Downing Street Memo.
But, it seems that some are impressed more by style than by substance. It explains why a mediocre president of less than 3 years (before he was killed) is built up to mythical proportions in spite of a record lacking achievement and that an accomplished war-time president is called an "idiot"
I would like to discuss the definition of Accomplished.
ac•com•plished adj 1 : expert, skilled 2 : established beyond doubt
So what has he accomplished: a potential civil war between the Muslim factions.
Or did you mean, "Mission Accomplished".
He did accomplish over 1600 dead Americans and over 12,000 wounded.
In the latest polls it appears that the majority of Americans don't believe the war was worthwhile and we haven't accomplished anything.
Or maybe you possibly meant the word, Accomplishment
ac•com•plish•ment \e-"kam-plish-ment, -"kem-\ n 1 : completion 2 : something completed or effected 3 : an acquired excellence or skill
Alas, no one believes that there is a Completion in any actions, concerning Iraq.
Oh well, better luck next time.
But please just stick with the facts.
P.S. But I did like one saying of Bushs concerning the office of the President: Its a hard job.
He had that down pat. Of course that quote only consisted of 4 small words which even Bush couldn't destory.
QUOTE
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper". If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
Yes, I am acquainted with a lot of things that Bush said:
1. There are WMDS in Iraq.
2. We have to fix the evidence and fact to show that Iraq has WMDS from the Downing Street Memo.
QUOTE
But, it seems that some are impressed more by style than by substance. It explains why a mediocre president of less than 3 years (before he was killed) is built up to mythical proportions in spite of a record lacking achievement and that an accomplished war-time president is called an "idiot"
I would like to discuss the definition of Accomplished.
ac•com•plished adj 1 : expert, skilled 2 : established beyond doubt
So what has he accomplished: a potential civil war between the Muslim factions.
Or did you mean, "Mission Accomplished".
He did accomplish over 1600 dead Americans and over 12,000 wounded.
In the latest polls it appears that the majority of Americans don't believe the war was worthwhile and we haven't accomplished anything.
Or maybe you possibly meant the word, Accomplishment
ac•com•plish•ment \e-"kam-plish-ment, -"kem-\ n 1 : completion 2 : something completed or effected 3 : an acquired excellence or skill
Alas, no one believes that there is a Completion in any actions, concerning Iraq.
Oh well, better luck next time.
But please just stick with the facts.
P.S. But I did like one saying of Bushs concerning the office of the President: Its a hard job.
He had that down pat. Of course that quote only consisted of 4 small words which even Bush couldn't destory.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 8 2005, 10:10 PM)
Frankly, it's the typical attitude that we see today in the liberal elite.
“Liberal elite” is a buzz word from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough and others of their ilk. It has no meaning outside this limited sphere.
QUOTE
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper".
There you go with the “liberal elite” crap again.
QUOTE
If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
Whether or not you think Bush has “a lot to say” depends on the person you are talking to. He may move his mouth a lot, but in my opinion, little worth while comes out of it.
QUOTE
But, it seems that some are impressed more by style than by substance. It explains why a mediocre president of less than 3 years (before he was killed) is built up to mythical proportions in spite of a record lacking achievement and that an accomplished war-time president is called an "idiot.”
Your reference to Kennedy as a mediocre” president is your opinion. Certainly he brought style to the White House. Much of what Lyndon B. Johnson was able to shove through Congress after Kennedy’s death was proposed by the Kennedy administration. Presidential historian Robert Dallek things the Kennedy/Johnson years must be seen as a unit. He thinks that Kennedy would have been able to get most of the Great Society programs through while avoiding the Vietnam fiasco. Kennedy was cut short so we can’t really use him as a comparison to Bush.
Bush as “an accomplished war-time president” is one of several opinions. Many of us see Iraq as a colossal failure.
QUOTE
It also explains the rabid buy-in of a recent ex-president who postured, pontificated, and "felt our pain" but in real-life abused women through his position of power, ignored important foreign policy issues, and generally tried to scam the system
When all else fails, bring up Bill Clinton to justify Bush’s failures.
QUOTE
If you ask me, "being for it before I was against it" is the dumbest thing that ANY politician has said in a long time. I know that Howard Dean is trying really hard to take that crown during his debacle of a term as DNC chair, but for now, Kerry still holds the prize.
I don’t remember anyone asking, but Kerry was simply saying he changed his mind. Time will tell concerning Howard Dean.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 8 2005, 09:10 PM)
Not only does he "string two words together" without sounding like an idiot, his reasoning is consistently right on and in some case profound (the case for promoting freedom and self determination around the world). Bush's comments on the education issue are also consistently coherent, passionate, and right on the mark. What I referred to as "petty" is exactly what has been demonstrated in your post. Frankly, it's the typical attitude that we see today in the liberal elite.
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper". If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
What Bush is up against is the liberal elite's prejudice against people who's speaking style if "folksy" as opposed to "proper". If you listen to what Bush is "saying" instead of the "style" of his speech, you can learn that he has quite a lot to say.
So instead of doing what you can't (finding where people called Kerry a genius), you decide you are going to launch an attack against the "liberal elite" - what a useless and meaningless term. If you really want to cut the mustard around here you are going to have to do better than that.
Do you really need me to find numerous quotes by Bush that are lacking both in style AND content? I think you know how to use google just fine
As far as the difference between "folksy" and "proper" as you put it why don't you try a little experiment? Listen to a speech made by Tony Blair and then listen to a speech made by George Bush. Blair sounds the way a leader should - he could be talking about the price of tea in china and it would sound good. I don't know about you but I believe the leader of our country should be one of our best and brightest and an example to live up to. The President is the representation of our country to the rest of the world - I'd prefer he not sound like an under-educated bafoon when he speaks, it is embarrassing.
What do you think of the fact that Bush had a slightly higher average in school than John Kerry?
I think the fact that he still, to this very day thinks it's "nucular" instead of "nuclear" and this little recent tidbit - "it seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth" - is only a couple among many things that render comparing GPAs between the two a useless indicator of intelligence.
Um... not being able to spontaneously express yourself and consistently using the incorrect words are a little different. I honestly cannot listen to the President because I'm laughing so hard that I can't comprehend any ideas he might have to present. Honestly, everytime I see him blubbering on in front of the camera all I can think "is this is the best we have to offer the world?!"
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
I'm not really sure what you mean by your question. There's nothing to live down. How indicative of intelligence are grades, really? A very slight difference in Kerry's 4-year-average -76 - and Bush's 4-year-average -77- does absolutely nothing to erase Bush's elocution and vocabulary blunders. There's no GPA in the world that will convince me Bush even has an above-average mastery of English, much less better than Kerry. It's going to take a LOT more of a difference than one cumulative college career grade average point to 1) undo all the public displays of academic deficiency Bush has shown over the years, and even then that would just make him as intelligent as Kerry, and 2) make me put his intelligence higher than Kerry's.
I think the fact that he still, to this very day thinks it's "nucular" instead of "nuclear" and this little recent tidbit - "it seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth" - is only a couple among many things that render comparing GPAs between the two a useless indicator of intelligence.
QUOTE
Bush is mainly attacked for not being able to think and express himself spontaneously. That isn't to say he doesn't know what he is saying, but his speaking skills are somewhat lacking.
It is easy to fool someone by talking quickly and glibly. That doesn't mean what one has to say has any meaning or worth. It certainly is not a measure of intelligence as most people understand the term.
It is easy to fool someone by talking quickly and glibly. That doesn't mean what one has to say has any meaning or worth. It certainly is not a measure of intelligence as most people understand the term.
Um... not being able to spontaneously express yourself and consistently using the incorrect words are a little different. I honestly cannot listen to the President because I'm laughing so hard that I can't comprehend any ideas he might have to present. Honestly, everytime I see him blubbering on in front of the camera all I can think "is this is the best we have to offer the world?!"
Will the "Bushism" crowd ever live it down?
I'm not really sure what you mean by your question. There's nothing to live down. How indicative of intelligence are grades, really? A very slight difference in Kerry's 4-year-average -76 - and Bush's 4-year-average -77- does absolutely nothing to erase Bush's elocution and vocabulary blunders. There's no GPA in the world that will convince me Bush even has an above-average mastery of English, much less better than Kerry. It's going to take a LOT more of a difference than one cumulative college career grade average point to 1) undo all the public displays of academic deficiency Bush has shown over the years, and even then that would just make him as intelligent as Kerry, and 2) make me put his intelligence higher than Kerry's.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 8 2005, 11:30 PM)
As far as the difference between "folksy" and "proper" as you put it why don't you try a little experiment? Listen to a speech made by Tony Blair and then listen to a speech made by George Bush. Blair sounds the way a leader should - he could be talking about the price of tea in china and it would sound good.
Let me see if I've got this right. It's not as important what one says as it is how one says it? That's what makes "a leader"? 
No wonder y'all can't win an election.....
I think this reveals to me that Kerry was just as mediocre as he seemed. He was lauded as a great speaker, but a lot of that was by the Bush camp to try to raise expectations for his (Kerry's) performance during the debate and to play down the significance of a Kerry victory in debates.
I think Kerry was as mediocre as his grades in college suggest. (As I do about Bush)
About that "new" system. Unless Florida has gone to a weird place(and doesn't that open the barn door?! Folksy huh?), today's students get "quality points" for taking harder classes. If you take an AP class and get an 85. You will get your B plus one extra grade point that gives you a 4.0 for your B. Our school also (very recently for both of these points) offers a .5 boost for taking a non-AP honors course.
What it does it tremendously boost the grade point average of a student body that gets its students into a lot of AP classes.
I think that Bush has positioned himself fairly effectively as an anti-intellectual, anti-liberal elite candidate. Whether or not there is or isn't a liberal elite, attacking that creature is the social version of attacking people for having lived too long inside the beltway.
I think Kerry was as mediocre as his grades in college suggest. (As I do about Bush)
About that "new" system. Unless Florida has gone to a weird place(and doesn't that open the barn door?! Folksy huh?), today's students get "quality points" for taking harder classes. If you take an AP class and get an 85. You will get your B plus one extra grade point that gives you a 4.0 for your B. Our school also (very recently for both of these points) offers a .5 boost for taking a non-AP honors course.
What it does it tremendously boost the grade point average of a student body that gets its students into a lot of AP classes.
I think that Bush has positioned himself fairly effectively as an anti-intellectual, anti-liberal elite candidate. Whether or not there is or isn't a liberal elite, attacking that creature is the social version of attacking people for having lived too long inside the beltway.
QUOTE
Let me see if I've got this right. It's not as important what one says as it is how one says it? That's what makes "a leader"?
It does when your "leader" uses words like disassemble.
QUOTE
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way." —
"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see."
"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!"
"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off."
"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
"There's no cave deep enough for America, or dark enough to hide." —George W. Bush, Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002
"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make — it would hope — put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see."
"Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!"
"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off."
"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
"There's no cave deep enough for America, or dark enough to hide." —George W. Bush, Oklahoma City, Aug. 29, 2002
There are pages of this stuff. It is one thing to not be an eloquent speaker and another to barely handle basic english.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how many members of AD can speak publicly, or have local colloquialisms in their vocabulary. It would also be interesting to take a poll on how many people want a "normal guy" to get into the White House instead of an "insider".
History gives us many intelligent men who not only got poor grades, but were also unable to speak to groups of people (Einstein comes to mind).
George W. Bush is not your typical politician. I think we can all agree on that.
History gives us many intelligent men who not only got poor grades, but were also unable to speak to groups of people (Einstein comes to mind).
George W. Bush is not your typical politician. I think we can all agree on that.
Question for clarification:
Does anyone have a year by year breakdown??
Right now all I have seen is a certain type of spin. Kerry by getting all these "D"s early in the game could continue to pull his grade average down. For every "D" Kerry got he would need a "B" just to get a 2.0 grade average. If Kerry did get all these poor grades early you may have seen a substantial better appliance of himself in later collegiate years. So while there may be only a slight difference over four years, Kerry's later years may be substantially better than Bush... is there a link or something to the four year transscripts??
Does anyone have a year by year breakdown??
Right now all I have seen is a certain type of spin. Kerry by getting all these "D"s early in the game could continue to pull his grade average down. For every "D" Kerry got he would need a "B" just to get a 2.0 grade average. If Kerry did get all these poor grades early you may have seen a substantial better appliance of himself in later collegiate years. So while there may be only a slight difference over four years, Kerry's later years may be substantially better than Bush... is there a link or something to the four year transscripts??
QUOTE(niftydrifty @ Jun 8 2005, 03:27 PM)
the grades are irrelevant. Bush is "attacked" for being less than intelligent not for his grades, and not for the Bushisms. Put him in a room with Tim Russert and have him explain his policies. He falls on his face. Ask him a question out of the blue about what he's doing. He stumbles. The President is the spokesperson for the nation. The criticisms aren't unfounded, petty, or selective.
Bush didn't prove anything during the election cycle. He had better handlers. He had better campaign strategists. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm saying he's awful. But most of all, in the context of these questions, I'm saying the grades are irrelevant.
Bush didn't prove anything during the election cycle. He had better handlers. He had better campaign strategists. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm saying he's awful. But most of all, in the context of these questions, I'm saying the grades are irrelevant.
If I were to make an educated guess, I'd venture that liberals in the media today often times equate a southern accent and "colloquialisms" with ignorance. Frankly, it couldn't be further from the truth. This President is NOT the most eloquent, but as the liberal media holds a large amount of disdain for him, every mishap is broadcast on National News. Think about how many people mock GW's accent and his hand gestures; not to mention the "Bushisms" that he uses in speech. Does that prove ignorance or a lack of intelligence??? Of course not.
Frankly, I'll agree that the republican party has better PR people and that the US is tired of the DNC's waivering policy and pandering to the minority, and that had a lot to do with the large number of conservatives in office today... On the other hand, it's not that Bush has a problem with understanding policy, it's that he's not the most articulate man on the face of the earth. People are used to "Slick Willy"... whose eloquence and stage presence were astounding. However, we don't need an entertainer in the whitehouse. Anyone that knows the real Bill Clinton story, both Republicans & Democrats alike, are disgusted by the man and how he ran his administration. So what if GW doesn't have a song and dance??? American fascination with how the world views us is absurd. It has little (if not nothing) to do with world trade (another discussion altogether...) or aggression towards Americans abroad (again.. another common misconception).
Lest we not forget that Ronald Reagan made some very controversial decisions during his tenure, of which many (if not all that I know) democrats held contempt for. Now he's held as the greatest contemporary leader of our generation....
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Jun 8 2005, 09:37 PM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jun 8 2005, 01:12 PM)
It's not "totally irrelevant". It shows the attacks on Bush for being "stupid" while promoting Kerry as a "genius" were unfounded, petty, and selective.
um, I'm not sure which election you were watching this past November but I don't recall anyone ever referring to Kerry as being "smart" or a "genius". If you have a few quotes please feel free to share.CJ, I think that the words used when Kerry made a gaffe were genereally "nuanced" or "complex" while if Bush made a mis-statement, it was a "bushism." Much more subtle vs. "Kerry is a genius." Although Bill Clinton did say "'They think Kerry's smart - they're not sure he's tough" when contrasting the two.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 8 2005, 11:41 PM)
Kerry is a self made man...
John Kerry married the ex-wives of not one but two multi-millionaires. Yes, he had a day job and used his law degree, but to call him a a self-made man is laughable. If I got a job making $70k for 4 or 5 years, then married Paris Hilton and spent her millions while serving in Congress and spending my summers in Tuscany. You'd call me a self-made man?
Self made man meaning, he has been succesful without his wives help or his family ties, by himself- GW has never succeeded at anything- daddy has bailed him out of every business he has ever had- between sweatheart oil deals etc.
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man, because they buy into the "Reagan Myth"- reagan was only good for conservatives, NOT for the country- we are still paying for his presidency.
In fact, Reagan was a mediocre person that also "married well"- he was Dem until he married money and became rich- I have even less respect for a person like that- all for the poor while they are poor, then showing utter disdain once they get out of the hole!
To me, that is the great weakness of the modern day conservatives- they buy into the cult of personality so easily of thier leaders- they just don't have the ability to question thier own parties leaders abilities or policies, they are just so darn happy to have thier guy in power, no matter how they act or behave, they can do no wrong.
All a conservative leader has to do is say "Abortion is bad, guns are good", sleep with only his wife, after that, anything is forgiven.
For instance, conseratives, while a democrat is in power, is all about fiscal conservatism, "tax and spend" is bad, "growing the size of goverment" is bad- until a republican is in office - then ALL OF A SUDDEN- it is okay to do both!
In Bush's case, a person that has never been succesful on his own, would have never been accepted to school had not his dad gone there too, got mediocre grades, partied his first 40 years away, had a string of failed business, bad grades, has never bothered to learn fact about anything, and here he is president. But hey, at least he is republican...
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man, because they buy into the "Reagan Myth"- reagan was only good for conservatives, NOT for the country- we are still paying for his presidency.
In fact, Reagan was a mediocre person that also "married well"- he was Dem until he married money and became rich- I have even less respect for a person like that- all for the poor while they are poor, then showing utter disdain once they get out of the hole!
To me, that is the great weakness of the modern day conservatives- they buy into the cult of personality so easily of thier leaders- they just don't have the ability to question thier own parties leaders abilities or policies, they are just so darn happy to have thier guy in power, no matter how they act or behave, they can do no wrong.
All a conservative leader has to do is say "Abortion is bad, guns are good", sleep with only his wife, after that, anything is forgiven.
For instance, conseratives, while a democrat is in power, is all about fiscal conservatism, "tax and spend" is bad, "growing the size of goverment" is bad- until a republican is in office - then ALL OF A SUDDEN- it is okay to do both!
In Bush's case, a person that has never been succesful on his own, would have never been accepted to school had not his dad gone there too, got mediocre grades, partied his first 40 years away, had a string of failed business, bad grades, has never bothered to learn fact about anything, and here he is president. But hey, at least he is republican...
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 9 2005, 09:38 AM)
Self made man meaning, he has been succesful without his wives help or his family ties, by himself- GW has never succeeded at anything- daddy has bailed him out of every business he has ever had- between sweatheart oil deals etc.
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man, because they buy into the "Reagan Myth"- reagan was only good for conservatives, NOT for the country- we are still paying for his presidency.
<snip>
To me, that is the great weakness of the modern day conservatives- they buy into the cult of personality so easily of thier leaders- they just don't have the ability to question thier own parties leaders abilities or policies, they are just so darn happy to have thier guy in power, no matter how they act or behave, they can do no wrong.
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man, because they buy into the "Reagan Myth"- reagan was only good for conservatives, NOT for the country- we are still paying for his presidency.
<snip>
To me, that is the great weakness of the modern day conservatives- they buy into the cult of personality so easily of thier leaders- they just don't have the ability to question thier own parties leaders abilities or policies, they are just so darn happy to have thier guy in power, no matter how they act or behave, they can do no wrong.
Bush has done and continues to do plenty of wrong. How does that change the fact that John FORBES Kerry, who summered at the Cape and was educated at a boarding school in Switzerland, got everywhere because of his family name, and then married into two other (self-made) family fortunes?
Battle of wits? How can that be? or is there a typo and you mean a battle of twits?
When the 2 major political parties offer up such poor choices, it lends support to the idea that all is orchestrated by behind the scenes power mongers and real, competent, statesman type politicians don't have a chance of getting nominated.
I wonder how far the pendulum has to swing in this direction before it starts to swing in a (hopefully) better direction?
I register Republican only because they are slightly more in line with my thinking than the Democrats. Perhaps the next election will surprise us, and a truly educated and intelligent nominee who is capable of good judgement will appear.
We will know if that happens, as both major parties will be attacking him.
I am still wanting a "Moderate" party, but wanting is not always getting.
When the 2 major political parties offer up such poor choices, it lends support to the idea that all is orchestrated by behind the scenes power mongers and real, competent, statesman type politicians don't have a chance of getting nominated.
I wonder how far the pendulum has to swing in this direction before it starts to swing in a (hopefully) better direction?
I register Republican only because they are slightly more in line with my thinking than the Democrats. Perhaps the next election will surprise us, and a truly educated and intelligent nominee who is capable of good judgement will appear.
We will know if that happens, as both major parties will be attacking him.
I am still wanting a "Moderate" party, but wanting is not always getting.
QUOTE
I think the fact that he still, to this very day thinks it's "nucular" instead of "nuclear"
From Merriam-Webster:
QUOTE
Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.
What this leaves out it is it is a quite popular pronunciation in the American South. I too pronounce nuclear the southern way. Y'all never going to win any states in the South if you continue to deride southerners as stupid.
What we have here is a man who learned from his first election defeat and never lost another, despite always taking on "smarter" foes. The first election he lost he was successfully characterized as , not a Texan but, an Ivy Leaguer. He has not let another opponent do the same.
Darn Yankee spell checker wanted me to correct y'all.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 9 2005, 07:47 AM)
People are used to "Slick Willy"... whose eloquence and stage presence were astounding.
Yes, the Orca in the "Free Willy" movies was astonishingly eloquent. For a moment you had me all excited. I thought the creators of the movie had found a new Orca and were releasing a flick entitled "Slick Willy."
Then it dawned on me that you were taking about Bill Clinton and that you had joined the crowd that points to things Clinton did to excuse Bush's failings.
Hey all,
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
QUOTE(Rickmanx @ Jun 9 2005, 02:00 PM)
Hey all,
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
Kerry released his military records 7 months after the presidential election, and I'm to conclude that Bush is deceiptful and "dodging?" Interesting. I think that his class photo was the real "meat" of the story. compare / contrast
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 9 2005, 09:38 AM)
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man, because they buy into the "Reagan Myth"- reagan was only good for conservatives, NOT for the country- we are still paying for his presidency.
In fact, Reagan was a mediocre person that also "married well"- he was Dem until he married money and became rich- I have even less respect for a person like that- all for the poor while they are poor, then showing utter disdain once they get out of the hole!
In fact, Reagan was a mediocre person that also "married well"- he was Dem until he married money and became rich- I have even less respect for a person like that- all for the poor while they are poor, then showing utter disdain once they get out of the hole!
That's funny that you would make statements like these about Reagan, as frankly, he's ranked in the top TEN of numerous rankings, according to leadership effectiveness and the ability to change our nation for the better.
There are a few things that this portion of your post lack;
1. You mention that we're still paying for his presidency, and if you're talking about fiscal policy, you either don't understand fiscal policy or know little about the economy. Reagan said himself on numerous occasions that he knew that his the fiscal policy of his administration was a long-term ideology... of which we still (as did the Clinton administration) employ.
2. You discuss Reagan marrying well and becoming rich via marraige?? WHAT? He was an actor that made his fortune on the silver screen. He married Nancy when he was the President of the SAG!!! What planet are you from? He did come from meager beginnings, an abusive/alcoholic family, etc. However, he made his money in Hollywood.... not like Mr. Kerry who became nuptually rich.... (not that I knock that idea... still looking!
)3. Reagan never showed contempt for the poor, but had the foresight to believe in capitalism, which earnestly set the stone rolling that gave us the economic boost during the 90's (which most economically inept people attribute to Clinton... whom had no substantial effect on our fiscal health) As I mentioned before, "Reagan-omics" as it is coined, is used not only currently in our economy but in that of nearly every industrialized western society.
You can bash GW all you'd like, but the funny thing is that you seem to nearly put John Kerry on a pedastal. He married money and came from affluence to begin with.
Only conservatives consider Reagan a great man???
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7cb31a396a.htm
(this was written by a British Author)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5146340/site/newsweek/
(an msnbc article... which is far from conservative)
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.js...tart=0&start=-1
(hell... this is the History Channel's take!)
Need more? ? ?
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 9 2005, 01:14 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 9 2005, 07:47 AM)
People are used to "Slick Willy"... whose eloquence and stage presence were astounding.
Yes, the Orca in the "Free Willy" movies was astonishingly eloquent. For a moment you had me all excited. I thought the creators of the movie had found a new Orca and were releasing a flick entitled "Slick Willy."
Then it dawned on me that you were taking about Bill Clinton and that you had joined the crowd that points to things Clinton did to excuse Bush's failings.
Good job with the rhetorical spin..., but you didn't make a point. My reference to Clinton was objective and meaningful. I was stating that Clinton knew how to work a crowd, as do comedians and entertainers. That was my reference (as if it wasn't clear enough).
Bush's failings, as you refer to them, have nothing to do with Clinton (as much of an abhorrid person as Bill is/was). But the point that GW doesn't have to be a polished speaker to be an effective leader and that the two qualities are mutually exclusive was where I have a point. Argue that effectively... (if you can!)
QUOTE
Bush's failings, as you refer to them, have nothing to do with Clinton (as much of an abhorrid person as Bill is/was). But the point that GW doesn't have to be a polished speaker to be an effective leader and that the two qualities are mutually exclusive was where I have a point. Argue that effectively... (if you can!)
hi aevans176,
if BoF doesn't accept your challenge, I gladly will. but only if you can tell me what this or Ronald Reagun has to do with Bush and Kerry's grades at Yale!
QUOTE(niftydrifty @ Jun 9 2005, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE
Bush's failings, as you refer to them, have nothing to do with Clinton (as much of an abhorrid person as Bill is/was). But the point that GW doesn't have to be a polished speaker to be an effective leader and that the two qualities are mutually exclusive was where I have a point. Argue that effectively... (if you can!)
hi aevans176,
if BoF doesn't accept your challenge, I gladly will. but only if you can tell me what this or Ronald Reagun has to do with Bush and Kerry's grades at Yale!
Well, sir, nothing really. The conversation actually digressed into a rhetorical rant, but I can say with confidence, that my initial reference to Bill had a point. I was saying that one of Mr. Clinton's strengths inherently was his ability to appear "spit and polished" in public, while I believe that there have been extremely effective presidents whom were not. (and other horrible presidents that were...i.e. JFK!!)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jun 9 2005, 01:48 PM)
Good job with the rhetorical spin..., but you didn't make a point. My reference to Clinton was objective and meaningful. I was stating that Clinton knew how to work a crowd, as do comedians and entertainers. That was my reference (as if it wasn't clear enough).
Aevans176 as a whole you may have made a meaningful point.
Trotting out that tired old "slick willy" crap about Clinton is neither objective or meaningful--just empty and hateful rhetoric.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Jun 9 2005, 07:09 PM)
QUOTE(Rickmanx @ Jun 9 2005, 02:00 PM)
Hey all,
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
Not to go too off-topic, but the source this "report" came from was a Form 180 John Kerry signed to release "ALL" of his military records to the press in an attempt to bury the Swift Boats for Truth comments that Kerry was hiding something about his military record. They claimed he would never sign this form. So much for that stinking pile.
Funny how all the media wants to focus on in this story are the grades, instead of the REAL meat of the topic.
Bush and Kerry might be "on par" to each other as far as intelligence, but at least one of them doesn't use his skills for constant deceptions and dodges on the American people and the world.
Kerry released his military records 7 months after the presidential election, and I'm to conclude that Bush is deceiptful and "dodging?" Interesting. I think that his class photo was the real "meat" of the story. compare / contrast
You are missing the point. NOTHING was found in this full release of his military records ( as far as his military time ) that was not already released way before the election. So your statement is inaccurate.
But then again if it doesn't bother you having weather balloon stations labeled as mobile weapons labs even though it was known the UK sold those stations to Iraq years ago, have wmds later on labeled as wmd program-related activities, no confirmation or denial on the legitimacy of the Downing Street Memo, etc, etc. then I guess you are right: Kerry is the deceitful one.
I will offer no comment on the fact that this (thoroughly humorous) aside actually became a semi-serious debate on W's intellegence my opinion should be clear on that note
I will say that the President took this decidedly more graciously.
Transcript: President Bush on 'Your World'
It's all fun and games until someone loses an election I guess...
I will say that the President took this decidedly more graciously.
QUOTE
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Neil.
CAVUTO: We were thinking of you, Mr. President, we knew you had won the election and now we have heard that you had better grades than your opponent too in college.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: What did you think with the release of those transcripts?
BUSH: I didn't think much about it. You know, I've always tried to lower expectations, and I feel like if people say, well, you know, maybe, you know, I don't think you handle the tough job, and when you do, it impresses people even more. But my view is the campaign is over.
CAVUTO: Yes. He was billed as the intellectual, though, and you had better grades in college.
BUSH: Yes. Well, as I said, I like to lower expectations.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: We were thinking of you, Mr. President, we knew you had won the election and now we have heard that you had better grades than your opponent too in college.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: What did you think with the release of those transcripts?
BUSH: I didn't think much about it. You know, I've always tried to lower expectations, and I feel like if people say, well, you know, maybe, you know, I don't think you handle the tough job, and when you do, it impresses people even more. But my view is the campaign is over.
CAVUTO: Yes. He was billed as the intellectual, though, and you had better grades in college.
BUSH: Yes. Well, as I said, I like to lower expectations.
(LAUGHTER)
Transcript: President Bush on 'Your World'
It's all fun and games until someone loses an election I guess...
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Jun 9 2005, 01:48 AM)
Let me see if I've got this right. It's not as important what one says as it is how one says it? That's what makes "a leader"? No wonder y'all can't win an election.....
Not what I said, but that hasn't stopped you from putting words in my mouth before so why should it now.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Do you really need me to find numerous quotes by Bush that are lacking both in style AND content?
QUOTE(Amlord)
It would be an interesting exercise to see how many members of AD can speak publicly, or have local colloquialisms in their vocabulary.
Not really Amlord, because public speaking is a skill you develop. If you are just a normal person then you really don't have much need for it. I would consider it a requirement of the job if you are running for public office. The man (and hopefully one day woman) that represents our country to the rest of the world should be an excellent public speaker, period.
Also, if you think the local colloquialisms are what people take issue with then you really don't understand the problem.
QUOTE(aevans176)
If I were to make an educated guess, I'd venture that liberals in the media today often times equate a southern accent and "colloquialisms" with ignorance.
if you did that then you'd also be completely wrong and you'd see where blanket generalizations get you. It is always quite amusing to read people who think they know so much about "liberals". I suppose it doesn't matter to you that if you really look at a county by county map there is no such thing as a red or blue state, the country is purple. That means there are plenty of liberals with accents, even where you live in Texas aevans. In fact I happened to have lived there for 25 years and haven't completely dropped the accent myself.
QUOTE(aevans176)
On the other hand, it's not that Bush has a problem with understanding policy, it's that he's not the most articulate man on the face of the earth.
Sure he does - please do tell me how Bush isn't harming the country by spending money like a gambling addict on the first of the month. The people that are truely Republicans (meaning fiscally conservative) realize this, they just don't want to admit it. If Bush had made something a little better than a C in Economics he might know a little something about what happens when you accumulate too much debt, or about what happens when you cut taxes and increase spending.
QUOTE(aevans176)
Lest we not forget that Ronald Reagan made some very controversial decisions during his tenure, of which many (if not all that I know) democrats held contempt for. Now he's held as the greatest contemporary leader of our generation....
Uh... by whom? Certainly not by me or a lot of other people here at AD. I don't recall any history books being authored that way. As a matter of fact we had to close several threads around the time of Reagan's death precisely because people hated him so much.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.