Message Forum: Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :)

Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :)

Posted By: TOM, on host 151.201.63.74
Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 12:45:09
In Reply To: Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :) posted by El Fishski on Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 07:46:00:

>
> Well, as I recall he told students at a college that you too can become president with a C-average, or something very similar, which doesn't quite equal stupid, but I for one would feel happier with somebody beyond mediocre at best as a president. Perhaps stupid is too strong, but not intelligent enough for someone in that position is more what I mean. A perfectly intelligent carpark attendant...
> As I said in my reply to Eric stupid + huge military = dangerous.
>
>

Academic intelligence does not necessarily equate to leadership ability, to administrative ability, to diplomatic ability, etc. It helps, yes, but it doesn't hurt to "only" score a 1220 on your SAT (I think that's what Bush got...it was in some article I read a while ago...)

What's more important is that a person who has to be in charge of so many different things is able to surround himself with people who have a specialized knowledge of such things...as President Bush has done with his Cabinet appointments and in choosing his other advisors. He picked people who knew what the hell they would be doing, because he was *smart enough* to know that he couldn't possibly be able to fully grasp every aspect of a position such as the presidency of the United States on his own.

To contrast, former President Clinton is an extremely brilliant man. Rhodes scholar, studied at Oxford, etc. But he surrounded himself with less-than-capable specialists, making it rather easy for one to argue that his presidency was especially ineffective. (I'm NOT trying to start a debate as to whether or not that it was, just stating that there is enough evidence on both sides that there even IS a debate.)

Likewise, I think it is a lot more difficult to argue the *ineffectiveness* of Bush's administration based on his intelligence...because the president does *NOT* make every decision solely on his own. There's too many to make. The President listens to his advisors, and usually does what they say. The only time he really even *needs* to think a whole lot and make a Tough Decision is when his advisors are split evenly on the issue...something that doesn't appear to be very commonplace in Bush's regime.

The Other "I didn't necessarily get 'good' grades in school...does that make me a moron?" Matthew

Replies To This Message

Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :) - El Fishski - Sat, 7/13/2002, 18:46:04
Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :) - Dave - Wed, 7/10/2002, 14:01:15
- Re: How can one disagree with SAT scores? - Gabe - Sat, 7/13/2002, 23:23:31
  - Re: How can one disagree with SAT scores? - Balanthalus - Mon, 7/15/2002, 10:02:07
- Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :) - TOM - Wed, 7/10/2002, 15:43:59
  - Re: How can one disagree with something so eloquently put? :) - Dave - Wed, 7/10/2002, 16:10:39

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email:		(optional)
Subject:
Message:	> > > > Well, as I recall he told students at a college that you too can become president with a C-average, or something very similar, which doesn't quite equal stupid, but I for one would feel happier with somebody beyond mediocre at best as a president. Perhaps stupid is too strong, but not intelligent enough for someone in that position is more what I mean. A perfectly intelligent carpark attendant... > > As I said in my reply to Eric stupid + huge military = dangerous. > > > > > > Academic intelligence does not necessarily equate to leadership ability, to administrative ability, to diplomatic ability, etc. It helps, yes, but it doesn't hurt to "only" score a 1220 on your SAT (I think that's what Bush got...it was in some article I read a while ago...) > > What's more important is that a person who has to be in charge of so many different things is able to surround himself with people who have a specialized knowledge of such things...as President Bush has done with his Cabinet appointments and in choosing his other advisors. He picked people who knew what the hell they would be doing, because he was smart enough to know that he couldn't possibly be able to fully grasp every aspect of a position such as the presidency of the United States on his own. > > To contrast, former President Clinton is an extremely brilliant man. Rhodes scholar, studied at Oxford, etc. But he surrounded himself with less-than-capable specialists, making it rather easy for one to argue that his presidency was especially ineffective. (I'm NOT trying to start a debate as to whether or not that it was, just stating that there is enough evidence on both sides that there even IS a debate.) > > Likewise, I think it is a lot more difficult to argue the ineffectiveness of Bush's administration based on his intelligence...because the president does NOT make every decision solely on his own. There's too many to make. The President listens to his advisors, and usually does what they say. The only time he really even needs to think a whole lot and make a Tough Decision is when his advisors are split evenly on the issue...something that doesn't appear to be very commonplace in Bush's regime. > > The Other "I didn't necessarily get 'good' grades in school...does that make me a moron?" Matthew
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.