I thought John Kerry was supposed to be smart?

You said it brother... finally we can agree on something!

Kerry 5 alive!

~Ulrika~

LOL... not me!

There are plenty of college grads asking if you want fries with that as we speak and plenty of non-college grads that are now millionaires. This is not saying that an education isn't important, quite contrary, but there are other measures of intelligence.

Thank God for spell check is all I have to say... hehe

Huh --whatever happened to that agenda anyways?

That only for Money, for every thing else it's the word of GOD.

Ah, TY for agreeing with me and supporting my assertation. You are a doll Kendra!

Maybe small government was a line item in the trillion dollar deficit, or maybe it got lost in the shuffle of dozens of new agencies.

States' rights should be respected in all cases, except when the state in question has been obviously taken over by reefer madness... or euthenasists... or gays... well, basically, any time they disagree with the administration.

No problem. I'm well aware that USED to be what Republicans stood for. My question is why ya'll stand for having Bush trounce all over your party platform?

hehe a lot of Candidates have been for small governement , then when elected decided for whatever reason, they couldnt shrink it.

Starting with .. Mr. Jefferson.


to their defense the governement is so bloated and controlling would probably take a focused effort of all three branches of governement to "downsize"

Maybe a Constitutional Convention and some new ammendments?

Not sure.

I was just thinking on that Collette. Can you imagine what a televised Constitutinal Convention would be like, oh my.

Perhaps because Kerry is extremely articulate and Bush expresses himself like a dumbass? We can see and hear that Kerry isn't stupid. Bush has yet to do anything to convince me he's not. In fact quite the opposite. Every time he opens his mouth ignorance spills out of it.

It really doesn't matter if he's Forrest Gump or a closet savant at Stratego. What does matter is that this is the 21st century and the game has changed since Washington and Adams. Bush represents us, our country-- on TV. I don't want everyone in the world to think that my country is full of people that can't speak.

Besides, if the job description requires oration- don't suck at it. If Microsoft (or insert your favorite OS company) hired a web designer who had great artistic and design skills, but botched the html on every single page he wrote, then people would probably think that the company was incompetent even though the only screw-up is the guy responsible for extending their image and product to the world.

It doesn't matter where his uncle's father's best friend's brother's party-line is towing the corporate ladder's campaign funds, he just isn't a very good pick because his knack isn't speaking.

Since when did we expect American presidents to be (1) intelligent, (2) articulate, and (3) well edyookated?

Not since the invention of mass middle-class consumer culture in the 1950s, which included TV, of course. Jefferson, Polk, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, and FDR are among a number of intelligent, articulate, and well-educated presidents who would never, ever, be elected today.

The travesties of George Bush and John Kerry can be laid at the feet of an apathetic, unaware, unmotivated American public. We got what we deserve, from both parties.

To argue about it is to argue about who is stupider. The answer is obvious.




Us.

So when are you running?

There are those who claim that the only thing Jefferson really had going for him was sheer force of personality and charisma. I don't think that's true, but I do think he'd play well on TV.

Lincoln would have absolutely rocked the Town Hall format (and not just the scripted Republican Glee Club type). He was a man who did the folksy, down-home thing that Reagan was good at... but Lincoln really meant it. His appearance might work against him... but then again, Nixon won and he was ugly as sin (inside and out).

Thank you, Chip. Hopefully Lupo will read your post and understand what I'm trying to say (if he doesn't, I give up... I'll just go back to the *new products* forum).

Really not sure on all this. I think a President should be decided on Policies and ability ot implement them, A big bonus would then be leadership. Finally , the ability to be articulate.

I imagine Conservatives are happy how he is doing. He seems to be fairly good at pursuing his agenda (for whatever reason) thus making liberals like him less.

I think a lot of people who think Bush are stupid had another reason not to like him first (something political) and simply latch on to his apherent idiocy. Much of the world first didnt like him becuase of our Saber rattling and the following invasion of Iraq.

It reminds me of kids in a school yard. They look at any reason to tear the other one down. "Bush speaks badly, hes an idiot - thus that proves his politics are flawed."

I prefer to say this; Bush's politics are flawed, they deny personal liberty, his foriegn relations are suspect, he wants to do things that are wrong. - Therefore we have to work hard so that the republicans dont win the next time.

Remember people tried to dismiss Clinton on things not related to his ability to lead and impliment policy also. The big arguement by his supporters was to argue against his politics, not his personality.

People remember how Clinton spoke against the "politics of personal destruction" ?

Why is there a double standard now?

My simple answer is the PUBLIC in general isnt articulate enough to rise above name calling.

Right wing pundists call liberals Traitors , Hippies, Unable to live in reality, and worse.

Left wing pundists call Bush an Idiot, a war criminal , and worse.

To sum up:
1. Bush: Butchers the "anglish" language, was a C student, won presidency...twice.
2. Kerry: Talks like a boring university professor, was a C student, is a war veteran.

Both are richer than us, both never really had to go to college...or work for that matter, both would most likely rather hang out with each other; rather than all of us poor, unclean masses-type people.

HAHAHAHAHAH... awsome line Seth, I couldn't agree more!

Very nice post. I obviously disagree with your politics but the rest of what you said is right on. Your opinion is one I can respect because of the way you frame it, free from the irrelevant BS that too often accompanies a political discussion.

The IQ test was designed to test children and find the ones deemed mentally deficient.

I don't care if you score off the charts on an IQ test, it still doesn't mean you are intelligent, only that you're not a mentally deficient child.

Its sad so many people waving their IQ scores like a mark of intelligence, I find it to be quite the contrary.

In addition, being unable to speak or spell properly as was mentioned in one of the previous posts, may not make you "stupid" but it certainly doesn't give credence to claims of intelligence either.

You know, I have a hard time believing that grades are indictive of how smart you are. Grades are indicitive of how hard you work. I have made A's in classes I have never had to lift a finger in, and C's in classes I busted my ass in.

John Kerry and George Bush...who is stupider? They both have their Bushism and Boring Kerry moments, but they have obviously done something right, they each got about half the country to vote for them.

They each managed, at least in the minds of their supporters, to be less offensive than the alternative.

What a sad way to choose a leader.

And... (someone has to say it) a disturbingly high percentage of Americans aren't terribly bright.

50% of all Americans are below the national mean intellegence.

That's my favorite totally useless statistic