Bush Smarter than Kerry?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Bush Smarter than Kerry?
111
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 8:57pm

'THE KERRY BRAIN


http://dbsoxblog.blogspot.com/#109162538493538368


Something’s been bothering me about John Kerry. I just don’t think he’s that smart.

One of the axiomatic dynamics of this presidential race has been that Bush is a dolt while Kerry is highly intelligent. But if Kerry is so bright, where has he been hiding his allegedly fearsome intellect? Does “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” sound like the workings of a brilliant mind? And yet the Adam Nagourneys of the world continue to insist that Kerry is remarkably “complex” with an uncanny sense for nuance. But I’ve come to a conclusion: He’s not particularly smart.

Let’s take a look at his academic record for illustration. As a control for our study, let’s use another party who for the purposes of this analysis we’ll call George W. Bush. As we all know, Ivy League admission back in the 60’s and 70’s was highly political. If you had the right connections, your ticket was all but punched. Thus, Kerry and Bush had no trouble gaining admission to Yale. Both hailed from the same prestigious prep school and had a surfeit of family “pull.”

At Yale, Bush was a famously indifferent student. Once out of Yale, Bush was an even more famously indifferent national guardsman. And yet a few years after emerging from New Haven, Bush gained admission to Harvard Business School, no doubt thanks to family connections and an academic performance that though quite unimpressive suggested that he would be able to handle the work at HBS.

Now the allegedly big-brained Kerry graduated Yale a couple of years before Bush. Kerry, unlike the President, is not a famously dunderheaded student; he was supposed to be blessed with his preternatural sense for nuance in the crib. After graduating Yale, Kerry burnished his resume by being a war hero first and a media star second. So after this impressive performance, where did he go to law school? Boston College.

(None of what follows is intended as a slight towards Boston College or its law school. B.C. is a wonderful institution that has produced many wonderful graduates including Michael Adams and Doug Flutie.)

If you’re not from Boston, you might be unaware of the following truth: No one here, in spite of Boston College’s undeniable strengths, would eschew an invitation to attend Harvard Law School to attend B.C. It’s simply not done. Thus we can reasonably infer that Kerry did not get in to Harvard Law.

And that’s remarkable. Given his family connections and his post graduate work both in the war and later protesting it, his admission should have been a given. The only thing that would explain Kerry not getting into Harvard would be that he performed dreadfully at Yale. Indeed, he would have had to perform at a level that would have raised the prospect that he couldn’t handle the work at Harvard. His efforts were probably so weak, they could even be described as sub-Bushian.

The reason this matters is because a key subtext for the Kerry campaign is that he’s smarter than the incumbent. The Senator, with his ear for subtlety and his eye for complexity would have seen through intelligence errors that fooled the rest of the world. Or so his campaign would have you believe.

I’ve scrutinized Kerry’s record searching for evidence of his purportedly giant intellect. I’ve found none. His academic biography includes no Latin words like “laude” or “magna.” Who knows? Maybe Kerry’s just being modest and doesn’t want to boast about decades old accomplishments. But I doubt it.

Of course, the Kerry campaign could prove me wrong by releasing transcripts of his time at Yale and Boston College. What about it, Kerry campaign – care to weigh in on this?


(Correction: Bush and Kerry did not go to the same prep school. One went to St. Paul, the other to Andover. I can't keep straight who went to which - sorry.)'

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:01am


Yes, the last thing Bush needed was a scene; that would have just made everything twice as bad and over the edge. How thoughtless of me and others not to think of this like that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:27am
Huh? <<...message is whispered into Bush's ear (his right one :), and if MM knew whát words were said, I am sure he would have quoted them IF they would've worked to his advantage, but he didn't, so that leaves me to think they weren't supporting his "thing"!!)... >>

It's pretty common knowledge that Andrew Card whispered into the President's ear "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Also, I'm pretty sure that Moore tells you that in the voice over, but I'd have to see it again to confirm that.

Yes, Moore slowed the footage down. I wish he hadn't, because watching it in real time is a million times more telling. You can watch a video taken in the classroom at this site:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Unfortuneatly there are some cuts in it, or someone turned the camera on and off so it's not the full 7 minutes. I think it's five.

from the site:

Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons:

1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn't know if we're facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn't he just say, "Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can."

2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.

3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn't it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack?

4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies' feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President's life if it might bother some schoolchildren?

5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn't they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action?

6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:30am
You can only ask "now what" if you first have any idea of what's happening. Bush only knew that two planes had hit the WTC and that we were under an unfolding, ongoing attack, the nature and extent of which he did not know. Maybe it's just me, but I would have had more than a few questions I'd be in big hurry to get answers to. Even after the reading excersise was over, he lingered in the room posing for pictures when it would have been easy to leave.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:32am
<

Sen. KERRY: I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to--to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. >>


Thanks you for finding the passage. Paraphrasing, it would be irresponsible of any senator not to vote for the bill if Kerry's failed to pass. McManus's question precludes the spin you are trying to put on Kerry's answer.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:53am

<<He didn't "zone out" for fourty minutes...he attended a Democratic leadership committtee meeting, which he said they all had a hard time concentratiing on because their minds were on the WTC attack.
>>


Oh, he continued on with his schedule eventhough the country was under attack? How irresponsible is that? The DLC couldn't come up with anything useful to do while Americans were being incencerated and jumping out of the WTC?


But of course, it's worse than that. They didn't just not

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 11:57am
Are you claiming that he isn't a snob or that he has exhibited a higher than average intelligence?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 12:09pm
I dont know if it is a question of smarts, but Bush certainly does have an interesting way of using the English language. I think he may have attended the same public speaking class that Yogi Berra did.

Some of the things he says would actually be quite funny, if it were not such a serious matter, and he were not President of the United States.

I do agree about Kerry. He is pretty dull, but his speech at the DNC was probably one of the better ones I have heard him deliver.

Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 12:13pm

No offense Renee but, did you say you were a teacher?

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.  -
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 12:14pm


Bush continued on, no matter what didn't he? But you are saying that is not irresponsible? Which is worse a president who knew we were under attack but didnt leave what he was doing, or senators not being able to do a anything to stop it? Priorities are really misplaced here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Mon, 08-09-2004 - 12:57pm
: ) There was a lot more to my post than that one statement. That was the conclusion, the result of a plan already in place and in motion. I could never be a politician, how frustrating to have your comments continually misquoted and/or taken out of text. Just shows ya how easy it is to spin something to reinforce a point, valid or not.

And still, I have yet to see anyone suggest just what the President was going to do in those 7 minutes, with the exception of ordering civilians plane(s) shot down. I don't know, but if at the point on the second plane hitting, it seems as though that was the realization that this was not an isolated incident and something much more. Was the President the one that was going to go on the fact finding and figure it all out? Collect all the information himself, or don't we have agencies, from the federal all the way down to the local levels that are specifically appointed to do that job?


Edited 8/9/2004 1:04 pm ET ET by alicia2210

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Pages