Bush Smarter than Kerry?
Find a Conversation
| 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.â€
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 ~~~

Pages
Yes, things went undone in those 7 minutes, Whatever Bush did in the next 7 minutes after he left the classroom was not done, until he did those things 7 minutes later. See, it doesn't matter to me exactly what those actions were, what matters is that they were delayed by 7 minutes. Did I say I knew for a fact? No, I'm just stating my opinions, aren't you?
Unless, Bush really didn't do anything himself after he left the classroom. But surely, you must believe his leadership was essential that day. And if you do, then the sooner, the better.
I think as citizens, making a hopefully well informed decision about who to vote for, we are doing our job. We are supposed to be reviewing the presidents performance in order to decide whether or not he should be reelected. So I feel no hesitation in making those kinds of judgements. That's what we are supposed to be doing.
I'm sure I cannot call up the white house & get clarification of what was being done in those 7 minutes. I am left with other ways to gather info & evaluate it. I won't avoid making judgements because I don't know everything. I try to learn as much as I can, & then I have to make a judgement based on that info.
So, based on what I know, my judgement is that Bush's performance that day was poor. Rather than tell me I don't know if anything was being done, why don't you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate his performance that day, & why? Maybe I missed something. I'm here to listen & understand. Otherwise, I could go watch a movie with my hubby, who agrees with me 100%.
<<"It's not my job to know what was to be done in that brief window of time. It's the presidents job to know, and to do it, whatever that may be. Maybe Bush needed more practice drills? Oh, sorry, I slipped into meanness, I try not to do that. Really, whatever transpired after he did leave the classroom was supposed to happen 7 minutes sooner." >>
< No, it's not your job to know, but, you are speculating that Bush did the wrong thing, so based on that I assumed that you had more information and knew, for fact, that things went undone in those 7 minutes. I guess I was wrong. You don't know that, you are choosing to 'know' that. Big difference. Thanks!>
Ok, then I will ask again. What was he supposed to do that he didn't? Do you have confirmation that nothing was being done until the President made a decision?
"So, based on what I know, my judgement is that Bush's performance that day was poor. Rather than tell me I don't know if anything was being done, why don't you tell me, on a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate his performance that day, & why? Maybe I missed something. I'm here to listen & understand. Otherwise, I could go watch a movie with my hubby, who agrees with me 100%."
Please, tell me what you know then. That is all I have asked for, what do you and others know that I don't, beyond that he sat there for 7 minutes? What do you know that makes you sure that he could have changed the chain of events that happened that day? What do you know that the could have done and didn't? See, I don't have that information. I only have Michael Moores speculation, and Kerry saying that he would have acted quicker (not a quote, so please no bashing on that). No is saying what should have been done that wasn't and why.
So, until someone can give me facts that tell me that Bush could have saved the lives at the Pentagon had he gotten up 7 minutes earlier, I'd give him a high mark. My memory is such that I won't give you an exact number, that was a highly emotional and confusing day, and I only watched the events unfold on TV. Recalling the specifics of the events of that day would be hard. Enjoy your movie! I get to do laundry.
"We already know he's a snob. The question is, is he a dimwitted snob.
Rachel
By the time he learned of the attacks, it was too late to order any other planes shot down, especially since some of the fighter planes didn't even know where to go. I saw the special done by Chris Matthews, and it appears that the FAA and Crystal Mountain could not get a clear picture of where things were going wrong.
It looks as though that not only did our intelligence fail on that day, but it appears that the FAA and others were not prepared to deal with this sort of situation, which is another pretty scary thought.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
<>
Where did that come from? Who can get into any reputable grad school with that kind of GPA let alone Harvard?
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Perhaps they had a higher number of heiresses in their student body?>>
Once again the Green-Eyed Monster comes out Kung-Foo Fighting. Get a grip, you think Bush was born into abject poverty. Perhaps he has a complex because his yacht came in second in one of the Kennebunkport races. His identity with the "common man" is just a wee bit too precious.
If you have seen no flashes of brillance from Kerry you haven't been comparing him to Bush, simply by comparison Kerry wins hands down in the "smarts" department.
Bush trying to answer a question off the cuff is almost painful. Kerry has what it takes to think on his feet. He is the truly compassionate candidate, not the cardboard fake that Bush has proven to be. I'd like to see Bush take an impromptu geography quiz, he can't even tell Iraq from Afghanistan.
If the janitor in our elementary school were notified that one of the toilets was overflowing I am absolutely certain he wouldn't sit around reading "Curious George" for 7 minutes before he awoke from his stupor and checked into it. Perhaps he wouldn't stop it from overflowing in that 7 minutes but the people in the school would know he wasn't brain-dead.
"Had to add one last thing...(I was just reading the paper on the subway and came across this...) Last week while campaigning in Iowa, President Bush paused at a farmer's market for a photo-op and bit into an ear of raw corn. HE TRIED TO EAT RAW CORN. Does that answer your initial question? "
Call me a hick, I'm from Iowa! Yep, farmers eat raw corn! They say it's pretty sweet. Do you ever eat raw vegetables? Carrots? Peas? Beans? yum. No one said it has to be cooked. It just shows he's willing to try new things. Bravo!
Debbie
------------------------------------
~ ~ Follow your passion!:&n
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Pages