I got this response twice from separate people

Twice I've gotten this same response, in the same week. I was in a passing conversation with two separate strangers, and for some reason wound up talking about Bush. Both times I said something like "He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that's for sure."

Both of them, without missing a beat, said "Yeah, but he appoints smart people to advise him."

The thing is, neither of these people seemed like wingnuts. They seemed to be just normal, half-attentive voters who repeat what they've been told without thinking. I wanted to push them on who they thought had displayed any intelligence, but in both cases I really couldn't get into an argument.

What is this? Is this some new talking point? Were these neocon automatons, or is this some message the media has been spreading?

automatons.

It's called being ill-informed and living in a state of denial. Nothing more, nothing less.

what's destroying this country? How do we get these folks to wake up and pay attention? What will it take before they realize how bad things really are? Will they finally wake up when it's too late?

:banghead:

It doesn't matter how smart you think you are if you're WRONG, and his advisors have been WRONG on Iraq, wrong on the economy, wrong on offshoring, wrong on taxes and wrong on social security.

the same response.

That's why I'm wondering what's behind it.

I know people have said that before, but this was like a Pavlovian reflex. We were barely even talking about Bush, we hadn't even stated our opinions. In one case, my comment was more about stupidity than about Bush. We were talking about people doing dumb things, and I said something simple like, "Well, look who we have in the White House." The response came without missing a beat, like I'd pressed a play button on a tape recorder.

we must admit, Dubya hires sharp people to advise him, otherwise he wouldn't be as "successful" as he is. But they aren't necessarily smart, kind of like a con artist is clever, but not intelligent.

And, I do think Dubya is sharp. Better to say he isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

I've heard that used with every president I've been old enough to remember. Even the smart ones. I'm only surprised you haven't heard it until now. I've been listening to that one ad nauseum since January 20, 2001. Just one more half-truth.

When I get that answer I respond...

"That might make a difference if a) he understood his advisors and b) his advisors weren't so dangerous and treasonous."

Both people used the same words. They spat it out like I had pressed a button on a recorder. We weren't even debating politics, it was just a passing comment, and both jumped on it with the same words. One was a guy in his late twenties, probably, with a pony tail and a teeshirt-he didn't even look like a Republican.

Usually when people start repeating something like that thate automatically, there's an email or memo behind it.

"Yes, I know Bush isn't so bright, but Gore is so smart that he won't listen to anyone else. Bush knows he isn't bright, so he'll hire capable advisors."

My response today would be, "Who cares if they're smart? They're evil."

They've been using that since before he was elected.

"He'll apoint really smart people to advise him"
"He might not know everything about foreign affairs but he'll apoint good people"

then he got elected and it was

"He appointed really smart people"
"He's surrounded by smart people"

When it became already to elect a fracking idiot I dont know. The job we elected him for is not The Advisee in Chief, but someone to actually make decisions. What they're saying is that he'll appoint smart people, so if he goes against what his 'smart' advisors say, that's a problem right?

Well i didn't elect a committee to run this country. I voted for a man who can lead (two of them), not some flub brained nob herder.

It was shopped around a lot pre-911, when everyone was told, no worries...unless something really, REALLY bad happens.

Problem is, most of his appointees are either kool-aid guzzlers or rich idiots. The statement is simply not true, it just makes them feel better about their choice. They're going back to grasping at old straws, the more lame duck the chimp gets.

It was true with Reagan, he did have some seriously detail-oriented people around him (political bent notwithstanding--that's worthy of argument anyday), who kept their focus, but it is not true with the CEO-Chimp. He is as lousy a PretzleDunce as he was a businessman. He appoints bottom feeding sleazeballs to do his dirty work, and their inabilities to grasp and resolve serious issues are starting to show.

chose a mindless puppet, stole the election and manipulate the strings. 'Cept they can be smart, sneaky and underhanded for only so long.

a bunch of times.

It is your duty to point it out and call it the propaganda it is.

because if they actually took the time to think, how could they support BushCo?

That's some potent Kool-Aid!!!

"Yeah, but he surrounds himself with smart people."

Why do you think that? Can you name the "smart" people that Bush has allegedly surrounded himself with?

Between 2 people who're both smarter than he is, how does he choose which one is smartest?

I think the talking point is old, and may even date from the Reagan administration. Appointing "smart people to advise him" is Republican codetalk for a figurehead President appointing advisors drawn heavily from business and corporate law. These advisors make major bucks, which means they're smart, see? A Republican never respects the intelligence of anyone, unless that someone makes at least 5 times as much money as he does. Then that someone is deduced ipso facto to be a genius.

What you get from "smart people to advise him" is a corporate wild west, focussed like corporate management on short term results, and not much smart long term policy at all.

when people like Rumsfeld really screw up.


Well, he appointed them, didn't he?

I can't verify a "source" from which they may have drawn that precise wording, but it seems an obvious workaround to the whole "the President is stupid" issue.

And, truth be told, Bush has not appointed absolute imbeciles in cabinet and advisory positions.

These people, whether or not we agree with their ethical motivations (or lack thereof), are highly intelligent individuals; unfortunately, through a derogation of personal contact with the world, they believe that compassion is a fool's enterprise, and that accumulation of strength via accumulation of private wealth is the only meaningful gesture in a meaningless world.

Niccolo Machiavelli; Leo Strauss - they were not fools. They are the progenitors of Wolfowitz's philosophy, as well as the driving force behind many policy decisions. It is based on deception and clever manipulation, not on stupidity and bumbling.

Here's a sample of Strauss' write-up in Wikipedia. I hope you find this informative:

"As Strauss saw it, "good politicians" need to reassert the absolute moral values that unite society and this would overcome the moral relativism that liberalism had created. To do so, they needed to propagate myths necessary to give ordinary people meaning and purpose as to ensure a stable society. Modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, and Strauss wanted government to take a more active role in promoting morality. Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical in Strauss's view because the populace needs to be led; they need strong rulers to tell them what is good for them."

Please, read this over and over again. Repeat to yourself, "they are not fools." Their power lies in the assumption that you do not understand that block of text.

Just because Leo Strauss used complex language to argue a simple point doesn't make him intelligent, any more than it a modern politician falling for his fallacies becomes intelligent. Intelligence is often confused with effective rhetoric, and sometimes with learning.

Intelligence is about a person's ability to reason through complex ideas and understand the strengths and weaknesses of an argument and draw conclusions that work in the world. Rush thinks he's intelligent, but his idea are childishly simple and fallacious. So are Strauss's.

Donald Rumsfield, for instance, used his learning, experience and self-accepted superior intellect to make a mess of Iraq. Each of Bush's cabinet I'm sure has some pseudo-intellectual basis for believing what they believe and practice, but in the end their "educated" views are no better than Bush's. They've screwed up everything they've touched, and haven't even figured that out. Much like Reagan's advisors. To me, they are all stupid, with varying degrees of education and eloquence.

I guess you can define intelligence in a way that includes Strauss and Rumsfield, but I can't. To me it's about real world application. Just because someone can make it work in their mind doesn't make them intelligent.

I understand about Strauss. That no more makes them intelligent than if they were following Suess or Clancy or Rick James.

On a purely personal, visceral level, I do agree with you. Intelligence should not be defined by the ability to manipulate public opinion into accepting pragmatic wargames. However, if you, like they, believe that sentiment and compassion are false objectives in a world with no meaning, save the meaning of power, they are absolutely brilliant.

You must agree that any assessment of their intelligence is subjective; it lies in the undeniable fact that they've wrested power, maintained it for years, and have generally gotten the results they wanted (scandal is to be expected, but those are slight fluctuations in the greater trajectory) - which are very different from the results you or I, or any other socially conscious American, would want.

I think they wanted control of Iraq and the Middle East. I think they see now that they won't get it. I think they really did believe that tax cuts would help the economy, and I think, because of their silence on the economy, that they failed there. Yeah, they got their taxbreaks and boondoggles for their buddies, but with the economy stagnant and the dollar sinking, I doubt they're very happy with the results--the money they have gotten has turned out to be worth a lot less than they assumed it would be.

Every idiot believes he or she is the smartest person in the room. That doesn't make it so.

..."And we all know how well THAT worked!"

Then mention the soaring trade deficit, the fact that we're in debt up to our ears, that there are two wars going on with no end in sight, that a housing bubble seems to about to burst, and that when this is all over, we have to PAY FOR GEORGE W. BUSH'S RETIREMENT.

That might shut them up, assuming you can penetrate their ears and brains.

On edit: Just mention the words incompetence/incompetent. As in "I don't care if they're smart; they're still incompetent."