George W. Bush is a moron, and there is no 'grey matter' there

I suspect that those interested in the stupidity argument have not examined Al Gore's academic record particularly closely. In any event, I will not jump into that minefield, save to say that Gore's SAT scores were only 10 points better than my own and that (presumably) you will not think this sole figure an adequate basis for preferring me as President to W.

Is the "best man" ever elected to public office? Political theorists, following Plato's (well, we can't be sure they're really Socrates' words, can we?) thought would argue that those most qualified to serve tend to have no interest in serving, and even a casual observer of history can find numerous examples of this. So this argument really holds no water.

The original author of the lead writeup here does, in fact, take issue with two areas of W's policy, though only in the broadest possible strokes. Here are some of my thoughts on the matters raised:

• Russia: There has clearly not been time for the President to undo all that has been done in the past decade. Presumably (and I say this because none is offered), the argument is that America's insistence on building a national missile defense or NMD has done irreparable harm to our relations. This is to ignore the fact that, while Russia has opposed W's plan, they have conceded the point that a limited ABM shield may be possible and valuable to implement.
• Kyoto Protocol: W has, in fact, said that he would not, in his capacity as executive implement the provisions of this treaty. He is not doing anything radical here, as the US Senate--the body charged with ratifying treaties--defeated the measure when it was brought to a vote. Seen in this context, Bush's decision seems a logical extension of prior legislative action.

Once again, if you are interested in seeing W out of office, I have to believe that cogent attacks on his policy stances will be, in the long run, more productive than simply telling us that you feel he's stupid. And if you feel like trumpeting that anyway, at least do us the favor of attempting to document it.

(There was some sarcasm in the above, please understand this.)

So Bush is a moron? Hmm, I would have agreed heartily with you six months ago. His public speaking is ridiclous at best, and scary at it's worst.

HOWEVER...

I no longer think that Dubya is stupid. Here's why:

He is beating an entire political party into the ground. He is single-handedly annihilating the Democratic Party. Barbra Streisand sure is scared. So are a lot of other ultra-liberal Hollywood-ites. The liberals have been in utter shell-shock since Dubya took office.

The man hasn't lost a skirmish yet. I think he's going to turn this China thing into a victory yet (and I'd like to note that as of now everyone on the Hill is saying that Bush is handling this exceptionally well; even Lieberman said so yesterday; he didn't like the taste of it, but he said it).

The man is not stupid. He took what could have been an insanely divisive election and has come through unbloodied so far. He is beating the SNOT out of a political party that took the popular vote just a few months ago. He is sticking by his guns on the right issues (tax cuts), and retains the realistic outlook to review policies that would cripple the country (Kyoto Protocol).

The son of a bitch is going to surprise you, I think. The Dems couldn't pull out a victory coming off 8 of the best economic years the country has known, simply because they underestimated the man. You might not want to do that again.

You may disagree with his ideas. You may make fun of his public speaking (though could you totally avoid any slip-ups, 24/7, with hundreds of cameras watching you?). You may even make fun of the way he looks.

But don't say he's stupid. That may be the last mistake the Democratic Party ever makes.

I really hate jumping into this sort of partisan argument, but there are a few things that the writeups above seem to be missing. Now die-hard Republicans will generally leap to his defense (I think it's safe to guess which side of the fence elwoodblues is sitting on), and that many Democrats will automatically lambast him for his poor English or some other item. I am neither of these animals. There are more than two political philosophies.

What neither side seem willing to understand is that he is, quite simply, an unfit ruler. The first thing he did as President was to illustrate his lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Faith based funding is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. There are many political analysts who have tried to make it more of a grey area, but if my tax money is being given to religious organizations, I think it's pretty much black and white.

He has no real policies, because much of what he says one day, will be taken back the next. There are various pundits and comedians who are already calling him "The Waffler", and he's only been at the job for less than three months.

Worse yet, he makes his people look bad by forcing them to reverse opinions so that they present a united front.

I am not really that surprised that he became president. He threw huge barrels of money at the political machine, and besides, had the advantage of the votes from people who will vote for anyone running under the republican banner. He is also not to blame for going to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is to blame for agreeing to hear the case. We now have our first appointed president, and the highest court in the United States has lost an enormous amount of credibility.

I am far less concerned with the man's intelligence than I am with his, thus far demonstrated, inability to govern. But, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, we get the government we deserve.