I dont agree with a single word you said, but you said it well Bill.

I thought that you were looking to pick uncivil blog-fights, like the Commissar?

You're going to have to do better than that ...

Bush is neither a coward and he is not stupid. He is not a great orator, but then that ability probably vanished from the US political scene somewhere in the early '50's.

The President has an engineer's mind. It is clear that his brain works with non-verbal symbols and that speech is, in fact, a second language to him, one into which he must slowly translate his thoughts while speaking. This is annoying, but it is neither indicative of stupidity nor a character defect. There is a type of personality that goes with the brain and in our current predicament, maybe we need "Mr. Fix It."

Everyone who thinks it means he's stupid is not only a Liberal Arts Major but also a Liberal Arts Snob -- unable to understand minds that work differently from his/her own. And it's time he/she grew up and diversified acquaintance some.

Excellent post Bill. And I think you're right, there are rational arguments that could be used against the war. They just aren't used very often!

Excellently put, Bill. I agree with some, although not all, of what you said. The areas where I disagreed, I did not find you the least bit disagreeable. Would that all modern political discourse could take such a rational high road.

And I didn't know about the "turd blossom" thing, but I think it's hilarious.

Great oratory vanished in the 1950's? Wow!. You mean that Truman, Ike and Nixon were great orators and JFK (occasionally), Clinton (often), MLK (always) and Jesse Jackson (whatever one might think of what he says, how he says it is a lesson in that combination of classical rhetoric and the cadences of the preacher that is so, so effective)were not?
I think I would want to revise that comment myself.

For years we suffered a great orator with no moral compass. Bush has definite moral beliefs but is inarticulate in expressing them. Between the two, I prefer Bush, whose beliefs inform his actions, to Clinton, whose beliefs were simply those whom he was addressing at any given moment.

Tim Worstall,
Two of the four significant orators you mentioned actually got anything done, which makes Bill's point. Eloquence without action equals poetry. I'll take Bush, doing the right thing and mangling the explanation.

Good post.

No, the speech impediment, though disturbing, is not a sign of lesser intelligence. I've got it too, despite an IQ high enough to join MENSA, a successful business, great life, and great (and understanding) friends. It is VERY, VERY frustrating though--and always a worry in meetings with clients.

It is NOT good that the president suffers from this. But I agree with Bill that it should be taken into consideration when choosing a commander and chief, but ultimately it is the substance behind the speech, eloquent or otherwise, that matters most.

I have this theory that you can rank folks for intelligence on a scale of one to ten, with the tens and the ones barking at the moon (think A Beautiful Mind.) The nines are too smart to get anything done on their own--they work for the eights. George Bush is an eight, like Reagan.

Nixon and Clinton were nines, which was their downfall. Nines tend to believe that everyone else is a knucklehead and easily fooled. They can get very angry when they find out otherwise--the eights have to keep them on a short leash.

Damn right. Indecisiveness and "nuance" should not be considered signs of intelligence. Anyone who trumpets the value of "nuance" is trying to compensate for something.

Here's an enlightening post on the "Kerry Brain"

http://dbsoxblog.blogspot.com

I agree with the comment about Bush having an engineers mind. I would add that it is an engineers mind who has moved out of the cubicle into the CEO's office.

But then again I have seen this President give some of the most powerful brilliant speeches that I have ever been a witness to. Powerful because you know that he means every single word, brilliant because they were so beyond typical political positions. Or is anyone going to try and argue that his speech at the Cathedral 9/14/2001 was the speech of a dullard? Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.
What about the speech of 9/20/2001 if this doesnt stand as an example of a great President calling the nation to arms then no speech qualifies.

But thats just my opinion. I believe that the President doesnt consider every speech to be so important so he doesnt put a lot of effort to them. He believes that actions are more important. It was more important to actually get rid of Saddam then it was to explain why. When he puts his mind to speeches no one has done them better.

Pierre

Extemporaneous speechifying is an extraordinarily difficult thing to master. Very few of us can instantly whistle up a cogent reply to an unexpected question. But inability to come up with an off-the-cuff soundbite does not betoken a feeble mind. I'd far rather have someone who can do the behind-the-scenes mental legwork to come up with a real solution to a problem than some glib used-car salesman with an ever-ready quip.

I certainly do not regard Bush as stupid. For a start, stupid people can't fly fighter jets, for the simple reason that they will die trying. And they don't give Harvard MBAs to dummies, no matter how well connected, because Harvard cares more about its brand name than featherbedding its alumni. I'd rate Bush's general intelligence as quite a bit higher than Gore's (who always struck me as very much a second-class brain).

Excellent post, Bill. I enjoy reading something like this that captures all the pieces of a subject and puts a nice bow on them. All of the various lies, half-truths, and distortions about Bush that the far and center-lefties bandy about only serve to demonize a person who's clearly not evil. Certainly not perfect, annoying as hell sometimes, but a man of his word and someone who seems genuinely interested in our country's overall welfare, rather than his own "legacy".

As an aside, I'm also an Athiest and pro-choice. Additionally I have several good friends who are gay and I don't see the danger in letting them marry. But what it all comes down to for me is our safety, our economy, and our ability to raise families in this great country of ours. If we have to worry about which city we're going to lose next to terrorists with suitcase nukes, then we have none of those freedoms.

Sure, I'd much rather we had another 8 fat years under a Clinton-type administration, but that's not the world we live in today. We have a clear picture of what radical Islam is capable of now, so to stick our heads back in the sand is not a viable option. In fact, I think Bin Laden himself said it best: "When given a choice between a weak horse and a strong one, people will choose the strong one."

Bush and the ongoing war on terror are proving to the world that we're not going to be cowed into submission. To win this battle of the cultures, we need to be seen as the strong horse. That's what I see Bush doing for us now, and that's the reason he's got my vote in November. He's not perfect, just committed to the most important issue the country is currently facing.

Yup Yup.

I don't believe you've addressed "overgrown" in the 'spoiled overgrown frat-boy' charge. What are you trying to avoid? I mean Bill, let's try to be throurough.

But nice post nonetheless.

Vote for me John Kerrrrryyyy and my friend Zarqawwwwiiiiiii. This land was made for him and meeeeeeeeee.

I'll bring the Commmmmmmmmieeeeeeeeees. He'll bring alllllllllllll Qaeeeeeeeeeeeda. This land was made for him and meeeeeeeeeee.

From the burning towwwwwwwerrrrrrrrs to the anthrax leeeeeetterrrrrrrrrrs, this land was made for him and meeeeeeeee.

We'll burn the UUUUUUU.SSSSSSSS. It's a unholy abbbbbbbbscessssssss. This land was made for him and meeeeeeeeeee.

We'll see her crummmmmmmmmble. Then she'll be hummmmmmmmmble. This land was made for him and meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

---------

Vote Kerry / al Zarqawi '04, for a freer, safer world.

Um ... ok ...

Dario, I also notice that Bill left the meaning of "Is" wide open to interpretation in the first word of the first sentence in his article. If you re-read the piece using the Clintonian definition of "is" [meaning: "isn't"] you'll see that Bill makes a very different point than the one you get from your first reading.

That changes everything.

This blog is chock full of "wiseass." The posts, the comments, everything.

I too have quibbles with Bush positions, but none that trump the safety issue.

Much of the Kerry campaign really seems to be a desperate attempt to wish on a star that 9/11 never happened. The "can't we all get along" has changed to hysterical denial that anyone wishes to harm the US. We're hearing -- heaven help me -- about "root causes" and "understanding" so much that I have to look down and make sure I'm not wearing bell-bottoms.

Sometimes it's more comforting to believe you're paranoid than to know people are really out to get you. However, option a) will kill you. I understand the appeal. What I can't understand is how people can shut their brain down long enough to believe it.

I'm scared by how many of my friends are buying into this "package deal" and believing they can undo any need for the war on terror by telling themselves we overreacted.

This November our country will get the president we deserve. I'm hoping we didn't deserve dellusional and 70s style pacifist.

Me? I don't like Burquas. And I will not go quietly into one.

interesting post; a number of commentors had intersting points, such as Portia's about differing intelligences and the engineering mind, and I appreciated those who weighed in on the issue of character content being the equivalent of action rather than eloquence or "nuance."

but your original post works against your argument for two reasons. first, you acknowledge as foregone conclusion that Bush is inarticulate. sure, my favorite word is "strategery," but not because of the list of "Bushisms" that everyone along the intellectual spectrum enjoys bandying about, rather because Will Farrell used it in a caricature that was supremely hilarious. Bush is far from inarticulate, as DG and Pierre point out. so arguing that a non-fact is important but not compelling is a failure in debate.

the second reason is focus. we know and accept a president who is goofy at best and a dangerous dimbulb at worst because we hear the soundbites. interesting that no one remembers the Clinton funnies, the Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, etc. funnies, let alone what can be culled from The Congressional Record on an almost daily basis. as DG notes, extemporaneous speech is difficult to master. I know; I have been involved in several debate leagues for years, and it is a marvel to watch the kids shine, and endearing to see them wobble. in blogs, we have the opportunity to finesse what we want to say; try it face-to-face in thirty-second to several-minute segments of pro and con some time.

if we only pointed to the speakers' mistakes, or those of previous politicians and personalities, as most of the media do with Bush, one has to come to a decision about that person: they are either a someone with faults like yourself whom you judge based on overall content, or they are inept in toto. and I believe November will show that most people appreciate an imperfect man, who is still a good and even great man, and one they want to continue in leadership.

You're going to make me paranoid Bill in Colorado.

Line by line fisking is great fun. But in truth people make those broad stroked statements because they are more interested in provocation than actual debate. Often such things as 'overgrown', 'frat-boy', 'coward' and the often used 'dumb' are inflammatory feel good remarks from the person writing/saying them. I don't think much thought is really given to the meaning of the words used as long as the broad-based insult is delivered prior to (possibly) making a point. If you're actually interested in rebutting the topic of that debate you're generally cornered into not commenting on the diatribe of insulting adjectives because you want to get to the point of the argument.

But, giving someone the mirror to see what they are actually saying is always good practice and a humbling experience for those given the virtual switching. The real fun comes when someone tries to defend the aforementioned beat down.

Small quibble for David Gillies: The real reason why dumb people can't fly fighter jets is that they wash out in ground school and thus never get close enough to a fighter to die in one. I sometimes wonder how many of the people who laugh at Bush for being such a dummy could make it through that program. (Amusing to imagine them trying, though. Would they be as prone to wishful thinking about the hydraulic system as they are about the school system? Would they regard stall speed as an arbitrary social construct?)

Dario -

If only "Raging Bee" could come back to INDC for some abuse ...

"I agree with the comment about Bush having an engineers mind. I would add that it is an engineers mind who has moved out of the cubicle into the CEO's office. "

Or a CEO-in-training that went into a very demanding engineering environment -- which is precisely the description of Bush's college and National Guard experience.

If you follow the link to the article with the "Nice of you to mow the grass for us" quote, you find something really interesting. When Putin was showing Bush around the Hermitage museum, he pointed out a painting of Catherine the Great, and Bush commented, "Oh, and by the way, where is the portrait of Potemkin?"

I put it to you that that is not only a damn funny joke, it reveals something about Bush. It shows someone with a pretty keen knowledge of world history, to jump so fast from C.theG. to "potemkin village." And it shows a pretty sharp and subtle wit, to make such a delicious comment when he's playing the role of visiting dignitary being shown things meant to impress him.

Bush does ok off-the-cuff if he keeps it short. The best speech he ever made was off-the-cuff and three sentences long.

"I hear you. The whole world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear us all soon."

Agreed.

I am a solid Bush supporter, but c'mon people! We holler and shout about how Kerry's actions 30 years ago were relevant to his character and leadership now, but we rush to defend the president's past, saying that people change and mature. Don't get me wrong - I think Kerry is a giant wet sucking noise - but it's a dangerous double standard.

MamaGeph -

I think your logic is flawed; Bush isn't running on what he did 30+ years ago ...

You're right Bill, Bush isn't running on what he did 30+ years ago but it sure looked for a while like he was trying to hide what he did 30 years ago, including the 'disappearance' and 'reappearance' of his records at the Pentagon. Amazingly that part has been really ignored and downplayed in comparison.

I'm of the firm belief it is a lot harder to run as a Senator than it is as a Governor. A senator doesn't have ultimate responsibility. They have to give and take, ebb and flow with the times some days and it can be pointed to as waffling like it has been.

However as a governor, the buck stops here so to speak for the work they do for a lot of things. The ability to lead can stand based on the track record with a state house/senate or however it's set up. As a senator it's harder to show that.

So, if you're over 50 or so the last time you had a chance to be a leader was in Vietnam. If you were in the Gulf War of '91 being of age where they'd take you seriously (see all the kid jokes about Edwards) is not for some time. Showing Kerry has some leadership capabilities means he has to go back to being in Vietnam.

Tom, no offense, but that's just a load of crap. John Kerry was a prosecutor and a lietenant governor for multiples of the amount of time he spent in Vietnam. He's beating the issue as a matter of tone deaf campiagn strategy.

Senate records do open themselves up to scrutiny, but you can also determine very relevant trends from these careers, and many senators can tout very impressive pet projects. Something in his 20 year career should be more worthy than 4 months in Vietnam, no?

As far as the National guard records are concerned, it is extremely plausible that it can be difficult to track and find 35 year-old records maintained in a non-electronic, governmental archive.

Show me some links that back up some shady action on the Wjite House's part (with reagrds to the release of the records), or don't bother with that point.

Also about Kerry, you have to realize, I was perfectly willing to honor Kerry's Vietnam service (not the post Vietnam dishonesty before the Senate), but he's turned me against him on that point by INSISTING that that's all that we have to talk about.

He asked for the scrutiny.

Current American foreign policy is based on fear and fantasy.

If you wish to believe that lashing out at the wrong enemy, bogging down the U.S. military in the wrong conflict, uselessly draining blood and treasure, allowing the enemy to study American military tactics up close over a long period of time, pointlessly alienating your friends and allies, and tarnishing the American reputation by suspending human rights at the will of the executive, is courageous; then yes, Bush is politically courageous. However, it is the predictable outcome of a wounded and proud nation led by a man surrounded by those with limited knowledge of the world, abstract and idealistic political theories, and a great fear of an uncertain and dangerous future. Bush should have acted to restrain the passions of the people while seeking justice and security, instead of acting on his own worst, ignorant and fearful impulses.

Wow Zachriel ...

That comment gave me a bit of a giggle ...

Initially I was going to give you credit for at least getting right the fact that Bush's foreign policy employs "idealistic political theories," but then you doubled back on yourself and said that he acts on "fearful impulses."

So which is it? Idealism or fear?