[JohnSmithXTREME]

An interesting article in the NY Times details the recorded conversations held between Bush and a friend of his when he was Texas governor. It offers interesting insight into Bush's political strategies and personal opinions. What caught my attention was Bush's care to appear just religious enough to get support from the christian right, and at the same time, trying not to alienate secular voters. Is he using his religion as a political tool?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/po...rint&position=

[alex_kac]

I'd say its more that he is a very faith based person who is also a very astute politician who knows how to play his own strengths and weaknesses to the political public.

[Cody Dawg]

I know who you are, BTW.

Of course he's more clever than you thought.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


I know who you are, BTW.

Of course he's more clever than you thought.

I'm john * smith, yes

and I've got to admit, he disguises his cleverness rather well

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Is he using his religion as a political tool?

I think all politicians use religion as a political tool. However, I think in Bush's case he's using secularism as a political tool.

[Sherwin]

Bushie has always been more intelligent than people take him for.
Yes, he stumbles on words. Yes, he makes words up. He looks stupid at times...

...and then I checked him on a documentary which saw a film crew follow him around on his first election campaign. It became obvious that he's highly intelligent and what's causing him to stumble over words is that he's multi-tasking (not always a good thing for guys) while he's speaking.
While you see him simply answering the question, what he's actually doing is answering the question, wondering which reporter he's gonna give an answer to next, wondering what that question will be, etc., etc..

Libs will obviously tar the bloke as stupid for political gain. But then he can't actually be as stupid as they're making out or he'd be a Democrat, wouldn't he?

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It became obvious that he's highly intelligent and what's causing him to stumble over words is that he's multi-tasking (not always a good thing for guys) while he's speaking.

If you'd told me that earlier, I would've laughed, but now I'm beginning to wonder if it's true.

The idea that Bush is a political mastermind may seem risible at first, but I wouldn't be surprised if we hear more news like this in the future. It certainly would make Democrats feel better about having lost two elections to him.

[NYCFarmboy]

quotes from the NYTimes article on gays:


Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

[zigzag]

Bush is one of the shrewdest and most cynical politicians ever. It's surprising that Democrats think he's not very bright, but it's even more surprising that Republicans think he's completely genuine.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Bush is one of the shrewdest and most cynical politicians ever. It's surprising that Democrats think he's not very bright, but it's even more surprising that Republicans think he's completely genuine.

how do you think he is not genuine?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
how do you think he is not genuine?

You're kidding, right? You yourself just got through telling us how gay-tolerant he really is, when one of his biggest campaign themes/subthemes was that the country needed to be protected from the perils of homosexuality and even needed a constitutional amendment to that effect (he won't, of course, use the word "gay" in public). Who do you suppose he's pandering to - the gay-tolerant crowd? Get real.

Do I really need to enumerate all the occasions where he's contradicted himself and spun the truth out of political expediency? He's as shrewd and cynical as they come. In political terms, that's a compliment - just don't try to convince me that he's the 21st century version of Honest Abe. He's a politician like any other, just a remarkably adept one.

To be clear, I don't doubt that he's relatively genuine and likable on a personal level. He's able to project that to the public, and that's a big part of his appeal. But being genuine in private isn't enough to navigate the waters of politics. It's a very tough, cynical business. Ask John McCain how he feels about George Bush's genuineness.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You're kidding, right? You yourself just got through telling us how gay-tolerant he really is, when one of his biggest campaign themes/subthemes was that the country needed to be protected from the perils of homosexuality and even needed a constitutional amendment to that effect (he won't, of course, use the word "gay" in public). Who do you suppose he's pandering to - the gay-tolerant crowd? Get real.

Do I really need to enumerate all the occasions where he's contradicted himself and spun the truth out of political expediency? He's as shrewd and cynical as they come. In political terms, that's a compliment - just don't try to convince me that he's the 21st century version of Honest Abe. He's a politician like any other, just a remarkably adept one.

To be clear, I don't doubt that he's relatively genuine and likable on a personal level. He's able to project that to the public, and that's a big part of his appeal. But being genuine in private isn't enough to navigate the waters of politics. It's a very tough, cynical business. Ask John McCain how he feels about George Bush's genuineness.

fair enough.

I am not wild about his support for the ban on same-sex marriages either. Yes it was political, but I dont' think it is right for attacking Bush for being "anti-gay" on that issue when he clearly is not.

John Kerry supported state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, so on that issue they were both wrong.

No sane person thinks the ban on gay marriage has a snow balls chance in hell of being ratified. It is used by those on the left and those on the right for political ends with both sides knowing it will never ever be ratified.

I think you get Bush's own true feelings from those phone conversations that he had which he did NOT know were being recorded.

So this is a rare true insight into one politician's gut feelings, not just political spinning.

I think the comments were facinating and truely revealing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I think you get Bush's own true feelings from those phone conversations that he had which he did NOT know were being recorded.

So this is a rare true insight into one politician's gut feelings, not just political spinning.

I think the comments were facinating and truely revealing.

I agree - I've always said that I think Bush is at heart a very tolerant person. I said a year ago that if it were up to him, the whole gay issue would just go away. But politics is a very dirty game, and he happens to be very good at it.

[Krusty]

Well, apparently Dubya smoked weed not to mention he is rare amongst presidents in that he doesn't attend church anywhere in DC on regular basis (even Clinton-the-adulterer and his family went to church in DC when he was in office).

As others had mentioned, Dubya is a sharp politician ... he knows who his constituency is and tries to please them with his legislative initiatives and his overt nods to evangelical Christian causes. But, in the end, I think most of that stuff is just for show ... just like almost any politician who makes it to that level.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I agree - I've always said that I think Bush is at heart a very tolerant person. I said a year ago that if it were up to him, the whole gay issue would just go away. But politics is a very dirty game, and he happens to be very good at it.

Honestly, I think the Bush thugs brough the gay rights issue to the forefront of politics on purpose. I don't think he wanted the issue to go away, I think he wanted the media to focus their attention on the issue, because he knows that most Americans are homophobic, and they would automatically associate gay sex with John Kerry. Clever move, if you ask me, but hardly tolerant.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Honestly, I think the Bush thugs brough the gay rights issue to the forefront of politics on purpose. I don't think he wanted the issue to go away, I think he wanted the media to focus their attention on the issue, because he knows that most Americans are homophobic, and they would automatically associate gay sex with John Kerry. Clever move, if you ask me, but hardly tolerant.

Well, that's the shrewd, cynical part. I suspect that in his own heart, he would've preferred to go about things another way and leave the gay issue alone, but he does whatever it takes to win.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well, that's the shrewd, cynical part. I suspect that in his own heart, he would've preferred to go about things another way and leave the gay issue alone, but he does whatever it takes to win.

However you choose to convince yourself that he's tolerant ... I suppose Bush is not opposed to gay marriage then?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
However you choose to convince yourself that he's tolerant ... I suppose Bush is not opposed to gay marriage then?

I don't know if he's personally opposed to it or not, I just get the impression that he isn't an outright bigot, which can't be said of many of the people he's pandering to. I suspect that as a private citizen, he would not actively oppose same-sex marriage.

There are degrees of tolerance. He might not be the most tolerant, but I would bet that he's more tolerant than his political posturing indicates. To his credit, he refused to do any outright gay-bashing, although this was at least partly another political calculation - he said he thinks it's bad for the party. But I suspect that he prefers not to do it anyway.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't know if he's personally opposed to it or not, I just get the impression that he isn't an outright bigot, which can't be said of many of the people he's pandering to. I suspect that as a private citizen, he would not actively oppose same-sex marriage.

There are degrees of tolerance. He might not be the most tolerant, but I would bet that he's more tolerant than his political posturing indicates. To his credit, he refused to do any outright gay-bashing, although this was at least partly another political calculation - he said he thinks it's bad for the party. But I suspect that he prefers not to do it anyway.

Well, it's a good thing he's not bashing gays while actively working to keep their freedoms restricted

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Well, it's a good thing he's not bashing gays while actively working to keep their freedoms restricted

Look, I don't agree with all of his politics either, I'm just trying to make observations about him as a politician and a human being. Did you read my first two posts? Do you want me to hang him in effigy and take pictures?

[ebuddy]

Keep fighting the good fight Zig!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
However you choose to convince yourself that he's tolerant ... I suppose Bush is not opposed to gay marriage then?

No more opposed than Kerry was.

[Twilly Spree]

Now I'm a big Bush fan as everybody knows and that said I have to ask: How the heck does any reasonable, sane, thinking person come to the conclusion that the President is running the day-to-day show..

The President is smart enough and I'm sure he's genuinely a nice person but I don't think he's good at politics. He's a straight shooter at heart and has often described his prefered way of governing was to have advisers narrow things down to two choices and then he'd pick the one that appealed more to him.

He's not a micromanager. He's not shrewd, he's not cynical, he's a nice guy! In fact if he wasn't born into a politcal family I doubt he'd ever have walked that way.

His brother Jeb, my Governor, is another case entirely. Now there is a shrewd, cunning, resourceful, even cynical politician. He's a natural. He'd have gone into politics no matter what family he'd have been born into.

my 2�

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No more opposed than Kerry was.

I don't think that's true either. He said he wasn't in favor of same-sex marriage, but it was in name only - he was in favor of civil unions with the same benefits. And it was really just a politically expedient position; I doubt he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage. And unlike Bush, he opposed a constitutional amendment. I'd say that those are meaningfully different postures.

I think both candidates were doing what was politically expedient, with Bush naturally coming out to the right of Kerry. On a personal level, I suspect that they both have more liberal views.

Either way, I thought it was nice of Kerry to remind us that DICK CHENEY'S DAUGHTER IS A LESBIAN!!!!!!!!!

[Shaddim]

They both wanted to amend constitutions to block the issue. Neither person took the high road.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't think that's true either. He said he wasn't in favor of same-sex marriage, but it was in name only - he was in favor of civil unions with the same benefits. And it was really just a politically expedient position; I doubt he is personally opposed to same-sex marriage. And unlike Bush, he opposed a constitutional amendment. I'd say that those are meaningfully different postures.

I think both candidates were doing what was politically expedient, with Bush naturally coming out to the right of Kerry. On a personal level, I suspect that they both have more liberal views.

Either way, I thought it was nice of Kerry to remind us that DICK CHENEY'S DAUGHTER IS A LESBIAN!!!!!!!!!

Neither Bush nor Kerry have showed much leadership on this issue. Bush is clearly pandering to his base. Kerry tried pandering to Bush's base while typically waffling about where he really stood. Out of the two, Kerry's struck me as the more cowardly position. A conservative can always claim to be preserving tradition. A supposedly progressive liberal really cannot.

[finboy]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Is he using his religion as a political tool?

How about he's not using religion at all, but he happens to be religious and tolerant and have a stable (non-political) value system that keeps him from caving to one group or the poll-of-the-week.

I know that's an unusual concept in politics (especially presidents), but that could explain it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They both wanted to amend constitutions to block the issue. Neither person took the high road.

I didn't say that either took the high road - quite the contrary. I said that their stated positions were politically expedient but that Kerry's was more liberal overall. Bush argued for a federal constitutional amendment; Kerry actively opposed it. Kerry claimed to support a state amendment, but was adamant that it allow for civil unions with equal benefits; Bush did not insist on any such protections. Kerry actively supported civil unions with equal benefits; Bush dodged the question until a week before the election when he said it should be up to the states. FWIW, Kerry was one of only 14 Senators to vote against the 1996 marriage act.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...marriage_x.htm

Again, neither man took the highest road (depending on your point of view), and both waffled in order to protect votes, but their postures were meaningfully different. Whether that reflects their personal views is another question.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Neither Bush nor Kerry have showed much leadership on this issue. Bush is clearly pandering to his base. Kerry tried pandering to Bush's base while typically waffling about where he really stood. Out of the two, Kerry's struck me as the more cowardly position. A conservative can always claim to be preserving tradition. A supposedly progressive liberal really cannot.

I don't think Kerry was pandering to Bush's base so much as to the black church vote and what remains of the white Democratic church vote. Neither is leading on the issue, but if I were gay, I don't think there's any question as to which party or candidate I would feel more comfortable with in office with respect to that particular issue. Does anyone really believe that, for all of their hedging, Democrats aren't likely to do better overall by the gay population?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
How about he's not using religion at all, but he happens to be religious and tolerant and have a stable (non-political) value system that keeps him from caving to one group or the poll-of-the-week.

I know that's an unusual concept in politics (especially presidents), but that could explain it.

But on this tape he reportedly talks about using "the right code words" and about basically triangulating religious issues for political purposes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Does anyone really believe that, for all of their hedging, Democrats aren't likely to do better overall by the gay population?

"Democrats" also include people who, as you admit, are as anti-gay as many Republicans. The term also includes people like Kerry who are perfectly willing to sell us out and who aren't at all willing to challenge the bigots in their own party. That's not exactly heroic.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
The President is smart enough and I'm sure he's genuinely a nice person but I don't think he's good at politics . . . He's not shrewd, he's not cynical, he's a nice guy! . . .

You don't get to be Governor of Texas, much less President, by being a nice guy. He projects charm, and he appears to be quite likeable in person, which is certainly an advantage, but you can't get where he is without being shrewd or cynical. That you don't think he has those characteristics is a testament to how good a politician he really is.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Democrats" also include people who, as you admit, are as anti-gay as many Republicans. The term also includes people like Kerry who are perfectly willing to sell us out and who aren't at all willing to challenge the bigots in their own party. That's not exactly heroic.

I didn't say it was heroic - I said "Which candidate/party is more likely to do better by the gay population?".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I didn't say it was heroic - I said "Which candidate/party is more likely to do better by the gay population?".

I don't care that much about the presidential level. What they say isn't that important. You have to look at the state level and see who is pushing the issue there. In some states, the anti-gay agenda is being pushed by Republican politicians, in other states, it is being pushed by Democrats. For example, here in Virginia, it's primarily one or two Republicans, but in neighboring Maryland, it is primarily a group of Democratic lawmakers.

The idea that this issue divides neatly into Republicans in one camp, and Democrat in another is simply false. And unfortunately, it is an attitude that tends to give an awful lot of bigots a free pass just because they happen to be Democrats.

Frankly, both parties are going to end up looking pretty sh1tty when this is finally resolved. But Democrat have more to be ashamed of given their rhetoric.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't care that much about the presidential level. What they say isn't that important. You have to look at the state level and see who is pushing the issue there. In some states, the anti-gay agenda is being pushed by Republican politicians, in other states, it is being pushed by Democrats. For example, here in Virginia, it's primarily one or two Republicans, but in neighboring Maryland, it is primarily a group of Democratic lawmakers.

The idea that this issue divides neatly into Republicans in one camp, and Democrat in another is simply false. And unfortunately, it is an attitude that tends to give an awful lot of bigots a free pass just because they happen to be Democrats.

Frankly, both parties are going to end up looking pretty sh1tty when this is finally resolved. But Democrat have more to be ashamed of given their rhetoric.

I don't get this. Political positions are never completely pure, on any issue. Democrats don't want all private property confiscated, Republicans don't want Christianity to be the official state religion, Democrats don't want to abolish the criminal justice system, Republicans don't want to get rid of child labor laws. Gay rights issues are no different.

I don't understand what's wrong with saying that you agree slightly more with Democrats on gay-related issues, but agree strongly with the Republicans on the vast majority of other issues. It just seems like you're going to an awful lot of trouble to heap more criticism on Democrats than Republicans on an issue on which you agree more with Democrats. It's like the Democrats have to always be worse than Republicans, even when they're really better.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You don't get to be Governor of Texas, much less President, by being a nice guy. He projects charm, and he appears to be quite likeable in person, which is certainly an advantage, but you can't get where he is without being shrewd or cynical. That you don't think he has those characteristics is a testament to how good a politician he really is.

Perhaps, but perhaps you are more cynical than President Bush..

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't get this. Political positions are never completely pure, on any issue. Democrats don't want all private property confiscated, Republicans don't want Christianity to be the official state religion, Democrats don't want to abolish the criminal justice system, Republicans don't want to get rid of child labor laws. Gay rights issues are no different.

I don't understand what's wrong with saying that you agree slightly more with Democrats on gay-related issues, but agree strongly with the Republicans on the vast majority of other issues. It just seems like you're going to an awful lot of trouble to heap more criticism on Democrats than Republicans on an issue on which you agree more with Democrats. It's like the Democrats have to always be worse than Republicans, even when they're really better.

No, it's more simple than this. I agree with pro-gay Democrats on gay issues, and with pro-gay Republicans on gay issues, I disagree with anti-gay Democrats on gay issues and anti-gay Republicans on gay issues. Both parties contain a mix, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

What I loathe is being told the Democrats are better on this issue when very often they are just as bad. It's heaping hypocracy on top of bigotry, and it is treating me as a fool.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't care that much about the presidential level. What they say isn't that important. You have to look at the state level and see who is pushing the issue there. In some states, the anti-gay agenda is being pushed by Republican politicians, in other states, it is being pushed by Democrats. For example, here in Virginia, it's primarily one or two Republicans, but in neighboring Maryland, it is primarily a group of Democratic lawmakers.

The idea that this issue divides neatly into Republicans in one camp, and Democrat in another is simply false. And unfortunately, it is an attitude that tends to give an awful lot of bigots a free pass just because they happen to be Democrats.

Frankly, both parties are going to end up looking pretty sh1tty when this is finally resolved. But Democrat have more to be ashamed of given their rhetoric.

I didn't say "divides neatly," I said "Which candidate/party is more likely to do better by the gay population?" I repeat: More likely. I already know there are bigots and hypocrites in the Democratic Party, and that there is no bright line, but you can't convince me that as a whole, the party hasn't been more gay-tolerant. That just defies common sense. If we follow that line we might as well pretend that the parties are functionally equivalent as to all issues and that there's really no point in favoring one over the other.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Perhaps, but perhaps you are more cynical than President Bush..

My simple answer: ask John McCain how he feels about George Bush being "just a nice guy." I think that working on a political campaign would change your mind fairly quickly as well. But if you want to believe that a person can become President just by being a nice guy, suit yourself.

[thunderous_funker]

Why am I becoming increasingly convinced that Karl Rove has studied Truman in great detail?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Why am I becoming increasingly convinced that Karl Rove has studied Truman in great detail?

I agree, although I think Dubya has studied him as well. I posted this some time ago:

The older I get, the more I realize how much effective leadership is a function of symbolism and personality, not expertise. While I recognize the danger in this, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. Bush I, Dukakis, and Gore were all smart, capable men, but they couldn't inspire a Boy Scout troop much less a nation. They didn't connect with people. Clinton connected with people, but fate did not grant him the opportunity to be great.

I think this is what Dubya counts on, and what a lot of people like about him. Like Truman and Reagan, he connects with people, he doesn't sweat the small stuff, he has his eye on the big picture, and he's willing to take risks. This can be maddening in the short term (I've stated my objections often enough), but if his strategy succeeds in the long term, the short term stuff will be forgotten. Of course, if his strategy fails, he'll be forgotten as well.

I could be wrong, but I still feel that there's a good deal of truth to this. I hope I'm not misconstruing your point, though.

Of course, Truman barely won re-election. But I think Dubya understands how his stature has grown over the long term. Reagan's as well.

This is why I keep saying that the Dems need another Clinton. Someone with the common touch. There's no shortage of reformers in the party, but they need someone who can galvanize people and translate dissatisfaction into collective political will. John Anderson couldn't do it, Nader hasn't been able to do it, Perot couldn't do it, Dean couldn't do it. Maybe Hillary can pull it off, I don't know.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by zigzag:
My simple answer: ask John McCain how he feels about George Bush being "just a nice guy." I think that working on a political campaign would change your mind fairly quickly as well. But if you want to believe that a person can become President just by being a nice guy, suit yourself.

Well nevermind what kind of character W is, saying he can't be a good guy because he is the President sounds.. really cynical.

This is just an observation, no offense meant. Further, if you stick to the cynical character then you'd want to comment on how naive I am

One thing I noticed about W is that he wasn't all that successful when he first entered politics in Texas. It wasn't until certain aids and advisors were in place that the wheels began to turn. He has the name, the connections and access to the money and he got advisors that knew exactly how to get him elected, what he should do, say etc.

I'm not saying he's a puppet, but I'm saying he didn't become President of the USA solely on his own virtues.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Well nevermind what kind of character W is, saying he can't be a good guy because he is the President sounds.. really cynical.

This is just an observation, no offense meant. Further, if you stick to the cynical character then you'd want to comment on how naive I am

One thing I noticed about W is that he wasn't all that successful when he first entered politics in Texas. It wasn't until certain aids and advisors were in place that the wheels began to turn. He has the name, the connections and access to the money and he got advisors that knew exactly how to get him elected, what he should do, say etc.

I'm not saying he's a puppet, but I'm saying he didn't become President of the USA solely on his own virtues.

OK, I think I'm getting your point, and I apologize for my jumpiness - I get impatient when people suggest that Dubya is just a good ol' boy without a mean or insincere bone in his body. To me, that's equivalent to Democrats saying he isn't very bright. He is, in fact, quite bright and quite shrewd. Having made that point, I agree that it doesn't appear that he was bound for politics initially. He's no policy wonk. As you suggest, it was always assumed that Jeb, being the most academically inclined, would be the political star. However, it seems clear to me that once Dubya got the bug, he became a politician's politician. He's not a policy wonk but he knows how to play the game as well as anyone.

[Dimethyltrypt]

multi tasking like when he was reading my pet goat, right? yeah that's red hot multi tasking

[saltines17]

The only problem I have with considering Bush to be "very" intelligent is his abysmal performance in the first Presidential debate against Kerry... Sure, people have off days - I do all the time - but that was... embarrassing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by saltines17:
The only problem I have with considering Bush to be "very" intelligent is his abysmal performance in the first Presidential debate against Kerry... Sure, people have off days - I do all the time - but that was... embarrassing.

I know what you mean. I can barely tolerate hearing the guy speak, and I've often wondered if there's much going on upstairs. But intelligence can manifest itself in different ways, and I think it would be a mistake to misunderestimate him.

Also, I've seen him speak one-on-one, and it's like watching a different person - clear and articulate. I suspect that he just doesn't do well when he's in the spotlight. No one would mistake him for an authority on policy in any case.

His Dad was a policy guy who didn't have "the vision thing." For better or worse, George seems to be the opposite.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by saltines17:
The only problem I have with considering Bush to be "very" intelligent is his abysmal performance in the first Presidential debate against Kerry... Sure, people have off days - I do all the time - but that was... embarrassing.

Whether or not you thought Bushie was useless in that debate is, I believe, down to what you were expecting of him in the first place.
I watched it and thought he kicked ass.

-- general comment, not directed at anyone in particular --
Is Bushie intelligent? Well... ...Are you living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at the moment?