Who will the next US President be?

Not neccessarily Lord Bane... the poll only allows 10 choices, here in this thread, any candidate can be discussed.

I would say that most liberals feel that the term 'conservative' in and of itself as an insult.

I'm not a liberal, but according to the conservatives here I am, so I guess my feeling on this matters: I've never thought of it as an insult, nor have the liberals I have actually known.

I've heard Conservatives called 'backward', 'imbecilic', and more.

I didn't say they didn't receive insults - I specifically mentioned name-calling.

I think that Clinton was more of a target than any other president because of all the scandals he was a part of. Whether or not you agree that was really guilty of any of the things that he was involves in, you have to admit that he was involved in more.


Nah, the Republicans just couldn't stand to let it go, and wasted tons of taxpayer's money looking for "proof" that was not to be found. Every politician has a ton of scandals. The only president who didn't in recent years was Carter, and everyone thought he was a weenie. People want to be led by presidents who are tough and dirty - they've all got skeletons.

We may want a president who is tough and dirty, but for some reason we got stuck this time 'round with a guy who is dumb and clueless.

We may want a president who is tough and dirty, but for some reason we got stuck this time 'round with a guy who is dumb and clueless.

That's a petty and baseless claim.

Academically, Bush did much better than Gore in college. Bush has been insightful and knows how to be a leader. Just because he's not the best public speaker is not a reason to call him "dumb and clueless".

Apparently he's been dumb and clueless enough to get nearly all of his campaign initiatives enacted in less than two years, successfully prosecute a war in Afghanistan, and hold the support of 70-75% of the American people in the face of relentless assaults by the left-wing fringe.

Clinton, on the other hand, was smart enough to create a phony economic bubble, pardon multi-millionaire fugitives, sell missle technology to the Chinese government, and leave us wide open for terrorist attack, all while committing sexual assault against half the women in DC.

Well said.

Bush is not dumb, and people will regret not having seen that. He uses that "dumb" routine (which is really just the "hillbilly" way Texans have of expressing themselves - it's cultural, not intelligence-related) as a way of getting people to underestimate him. It's his best tool.

I have a LOT of issues with him, and I think he'll do enormous amounts of harm to this country - not that the Democrats aren't helping him as fast as they can. But I do NOT mistake him for dumb, and I think other detractors of his would be wise to figure that out. Their arguments will hold more water if they refrain from basing them on a mistaken assumption.

Also, let's not forget that academics are a very narrow form of intelligence measure - some people are musical geniuses, language or math geniuses, but can barely get through school for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence. Clinton is probably the most academically intelligent president we've had but even his fans would be hard pressed to argue how that helped him to be as good a president as they feel he was.

Hope that all made sense. My basic points, if it was confusing, are: Bush is not dumb, though there are other criticisms to be made of him, and academic smarts are overrated anyway, and should be judged on results.

Ssshh, Treecave. Good insight isn't allowed here. .

In all seriousness, that's an excellent assessment. People will get much farther basing their criticisms on substance, instead of on the mistaken idea that he's "dumb."

While I disagree that Bush will cause harm to this country (he has done some things that I disagree with, but no politician can be made-to-order to any particular person/groups expectations), your post is intelligently written, and to a large extend true.

I agree that academics are not a good measure of intelligence, but I felt it the best counterargument that I could find at the time, since I had access to a report that spoke specifically about false impression of "dumbness" in Bush.

If you classify "harming the country" as not using the government to destroy the will of the American people and enslave them to an amoral federal beaurocracy, then I guess he is harming the country.

He uses that "dumb" routine (which is really just the "hillbilly" way Texans have of expressing themselves - it's cultural, not intelligence-related

What's that supposed to mean? From a Texan point of view, I think he just isn't that great a public speaker. I've never seen someone here speak like he does. When he talks, he does seem kind of like a friendly guy though.

committing sexual assault against half the women in DC.

Yeah. Consenting acts=sexual assault

Stryker, I realized you were responding to someone else calling him dumb. And the comment about "acedemics" was just an aside, anyway.

If you classify "harming the country" as not using the government to destroy the will of the American people and enslave them to an amoral federal beaurocracy, then I guess he is harming the country.

From my perspective, almost everyone with power is trying to enslave those without it. This is the human condition, unfortunately. I know of no politician who I believe is an exception to the rule. Well, Carter - I think he really was an idealist who wanted to make the world a better place. Look how far that gets you.

Ramius, maybe I should have been clearer. I didn't mean his saying things like "subliminable", which is just poor public speaking. Texans, in my experience, have a way of cursing a lot, using a lot of metaphors, and saying things in a way anyone from another region would interpret as rude or even mean. And they do this whether they were educated at Yale or dropped out of school at age 9. Bush does all this, though he did learn to leave the cursing out when he's in front of camera. But anyway, it's just a form of expression - like New Yorkers being brusque and how men from Dixie let their voices escalate into soprano range when they're mad (which sounds VERY strange to someone from another area).

Aja, sweetie, I think the women in DC can protect themselves. Don't worry your pretty little head about them.

I never thought about it before, but Bush probably talks the exact same way I do, so I can't pick up on little things of Bush's speach the way people from other areas can.

I think this thread has gotten a little off-topic.

Carter was and is a great man who didn't quite belong as president through no fault of his own. He's shown himself to an adept ambassador, along with being a good writer and all-around good example of what a person can be like.

When all else fails, condescend.

Stryker, ya think?

Back to topic, have we really discussed who will oppose Bush? I mean, there's always at least some token candidates to oppose the sitting prez. Who will they be, how seriously will they go after the nomination, and what will they say against Bush, if anything? I have no idea, personally.

Aja, sorry, I wasn't condescending, I was just teasing. But can I ask if you think Clarence Thomas is similarly a sadistic tramp who sexually harrasses women? Hill, like Paula Jones, didn't notify the proper authorities or sue the guy. Like Jones, she got "discovered" by people in Congress who wanted to bring down a powerful political enemy. Unlike Jones, she didn't get a nosejob (or two), go to Hollywood and try to make herself a trashy career afterwards, escalating to the height of trashiness in a celebrity boxing match or whatever that stupidity was.

About Bush being dumb...I've heard that a guy who specalises in alaliseing speach patterns, writeing samples, and many other things, has placed Bush's IQ at 91. Clinton on the other hand had it somewhere around 140, so compared to the prevoius prez, yes Bush is dumber then a bag of hammers.

People alwas say that the things Bush has done show that he is smarter then he sounds. But Bush didn't do any of the things in question! Cheany did, and then gave a helpful 'suggestion' to Bush. How else do you explain that while Cheany and all the other people relivant to economic policy where haveing a conferance to figure out what the heck we should do to get out from under this ressecion, (oh yea, we can trust them to look out for the little guy ) Bush was at his ranch doing yardwork.

And all the things that Bush rammed through congress, don't let that fool you into thinking he is a masterfull politician, beacuse after the attacks, any kind of resistance to him was political suicide.

I stand by my belief that Bush is not bright, and that Cheney is the real power in the White House. Bush may have considerable infuance, but I do not think that he can truthfully be called 'insightfull' or 'savvy'.

I became aware of a fascinating new candidate for the Demo nomination. Not sure of his chances, but his thinking is interesting and very moderate, like the majority of American voters are right now, and I encourage people from all edges of the political spectrum to check this out, if only from the standpoint of assessing his viability.

The candidate is Howard Dean, governor of Vermont. I can't find a link that describes his "platform", so I'll just briefly recap what I saw on Meet the Press this morning.

First of all, he seems to believe strongly in states' rights. This is not typical of Democrats, who often emphasize bad state laws (we all have some, I'm sure) as reason why states are simply too dumb to govern themselves. For example, Vermont, under his leadership, has decided to allow homosexual marriage, which he believes is right because they should have the benefits of marriage - such as joint insurance, being allowed to visit each other in the hospital, not to mention encouraging monogamy. But he would not legislate such a thing from the Federal level[/]i because it would provoke hostility toward gays in states that just aren't ready. He feels it must be decided state by state.

He believes the gun control laws we have are fine, if only they were enforced. And his proposition for closing the gun show loophole - where there aren't people there to do background checks - is simply to make sure there ARE people there to do background checks. This is a very moderate, reasonable sounding position, and it will appeal to the majority in this country, which is moderate.

When asked about abortion in the same context as gay marriage, he said there was no correlation between the two. Abortion, he feels as a former doctor, is a medical procedure - and the govt should not be denying free market citizens the right to an FDA approved medical procedure. BUT he also feels the the question must be decided on a state level. This is also a moderate position.

The guy is very well-spoken and handles himself well on camera. No idea of his long range viability..... if more of his ideas came out and sounded whacko, or if he just doesn't have enough support, that would be it for him. But he had some very interesting ideas that I think encapsulate what the moderate majority is thinking. Perhaps he even designed these ideas to fit their expectations.

"bout Bush being dumb...I've heard that a guy who specalises in alaliseing speach patterns, writeing samples, and many other things, has placed Bush's IQ at 91. "

No offense, but what IQ would the aforementioned "guy" place upon the person who wrote that sentence?

Treecave

"there is an implied insult in "Slick Willy".

I thought it just referred to his ability to slip out of any jam he found himself in. Kinda like how Reagan was called the "Teflon President".

"I have always noticed conservatives hurl insult-implying names around a lot more than liberals."

What other examples do you have besides "Slick Willie"?

Imrahil
"Gore did actually won the last election. "

By whose count?

conservative names for various liberals: bleeding hearts, femi-Nazis (listen to Rush for his complete assortment, and yes I have heard regular people repeat his, er, gospel), tree-huggers.... I dunno, since I dumped cable TV and moved back to a semi-tolerant city, I don't hear the stuff as much, so I'm forgetting.

I'm not saying liberals are better, I'm just saying they don't do as much name calling. Except Paul Begala - he annoys me. I mean, Molly Ivins makes great points about Bush and often with Texan humor, which can be biting.... but Begala is just mean, and it undermines even when he makes exactly the same points.

Like, who would take Rush Limbaugh seriously, when he has to concoct a name for every group that doesn't bow to him? It undermines his argument just like Begala's constant "Have Karl Rove explain it to you, Governor" asides make him look too lame to be taken seriously.

Treecave
I agree it goes both ways, but you have to admit the words "facist", "racist", "Nazi", and "homophobe" are used quite a bit these days, especially in the media, to describe anyone on the right.