At some level (while I appreciate that) I think it is errant spin.
O.K. GWB was a door-stop, everybody knows it.
Bill Clinton was a Rhode's scholar, and it shows.
G.H.-W.B was a highly skilled, well-educated, and considered statesman. That I think he was also a criminal is a separate matter.
RWR - by any estimate of "mulitple intelligences" was certainly a genius ... how he would score on SATs or a GRE, well, probably just average, and obviously he was rapidly eroding as a consequence of underlying neurological disease. But he was not "just an actor" he was brilliant, albeit constrained by a requirement for personal interaction in order to see. He was not gifted in abstraction at that level.
Jimmy - not the dullest knife in the drawer.
Ford - again, not the dullest knife in the drawer.
Nixon - Obviously brilliant, tenacious, well read, all full of history and knowledge. Again, is Obama "brighter" than Nixon or Carter or Clinton? Really?
Johnson - beats me
Kennedy - again, all of charismatic AND very productive on factual analysis.
The pleasant notion we take as Americans is that we have a broken process that elevates only the least common denominator. It makes us feel good or as good or better than what we have. I beg to differ. This shit that ends up at the top, it is usually some pretty smart shit. (GWB excluded).
And the folks that these folks ran against, and their education, their credentials ... the process does a much better job than it is given credit for.
I didn't like the Republican field ... but from that field they had Mitt and Newt almost emerging. I don't like them or their policies, but neither of those guys is dumb.
Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey, Gore, Dole, Ford, Kerry, Kemp, .... none of these folks were deprived of oxygen at birth.
Democracy is crazy, screwed up in some ways, and hideously perverted by massive ad buys ... but when one considers that, the ad buys and the money, I am shocked at how reasonable what floats to the top is.
Except GWB.
That was just a f.u., of historical proportions, a catastrophic collapse of the electorate as it transitioned into this more tabloid press world. UK has been doing tabloid press for some time, it is new to America, and we are starting to figure it out ... that our sources are not fair and balanced, nor should we expect them to be, and the GWB event was an anomaly of that process curve.
I do not expect another round of GWB (in the lights on sense) for some time.
So, we may or may not like Mitt, Newt, Mondale, Dukakis, GHWB, Clinton, or Obama .... but they are all pretty damn bright. On balance, these folks would chew up and spit out 99% of everybody else on some sort of "brightness" scale.
Perhpas I am over reacting to your "one of the brighter perople" comment, cuase while they have flaws, particularly political flaws, and so on, ... if one takes a schlep like Humphrey or the guy he lost to Nixon ... I'm not sure that Obama is a brightness match for either or them ... indeed I assert not. Or Clinton. Or Carter. Or Kemp. Or Dukakis. Or .... gasp GHWB. GHWB is no troll.
the office is generally occupied by a brilliant person, not just politically brilliant, but downright beat you in chess and poker brilliant.
Except GWB. That was a mess.
| 