Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

Steven - just jumping in on your post because I deleted the other replies
already.

1. I don't think GW is dumb, stupid or inept.
2. I *do* think raw intellect is something you can get a sense of - much
like charisma, warmth and sincerely.

3. Intellect is not the end all in setting up a successful
administration.

4. For example: GW doesn't answer questions with a strong command of the
situation (news conferences/interviews/etc). Clinton owned those
situations
for the better part of 8 years. This is where 75% of my "Presidential
Intellect" observations come from.

If there are maybe 10 criteria that Bush, and all former Presidents are
scored on - and intellect is one of them, then I sincerely believe Bush
would rank near the bottom (compared to past Presidents) in that one
category - raw intelligence.

Now it comes down to definitions of intellect.


What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least intelligent
Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
most intelligent Presidents?

What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least intelligent
Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
most intelligent Presidents?


Bush's trail is littered with the political corpses of opponents who were sure
they were smarter than him.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

("Wdtabor" wrote)
Bush's trail is littered with the political corpses of opponents who were
sure they were smarter than him.



"Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job done,
plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.

Then there's the whole EQ vs IQ thing...

Again, this isn't about "smart" (political or otherwise). It's about the
clubs in Bush's bag.

His short iron game might be brilliant. He might be able to out-putt
everyone. His shot selection might be tops. All in all, a pretty good
player - many tourneys won, most opponents defeated.

All of that said, I don't think the guy has much distance on his drives
....IYKWIM. My perception of the guy is: 175 yds is about all you'll get off
the tee from GW. It's not one of his weapons.

With Clinton, I believe the most effective wood in his bag was .....the
scoring pencil - but yes, with his intellect he could *drive for show* with
the best of them.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .

With Clinton, I believe the most effective wood in his bag was .....the
scoring pencil - but yes, with his intellect he could *drive for show*
with
the best of them.

Doesn't matter how far you can hit the ball if you knock it in the wrong
direction

Eric

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .

"Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job
done,
plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.


Based on that, Bush is smarter than Clinton.

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
"Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job
done, plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.

Based on that, Bush is smarter than Clinton.


You're now into a review of the different administrations.

I'm smart enough to leave it at that :-)

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least
intelligent
Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
most intelligent Presidents?


I'm basing, maybe, 75% of my (most/lease intelligent) observations on verbal
cues. I don't think Bush is a quick thinker. I don't see him as clever. I
see the guy struggle with word choices, comprehension (and also with his
delivery) at press conferences and in interviews.

Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep thinker
in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
than thinking and communicating.

Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

I'm basing, maybe, 75% of my (most/lease intelligent) observations on
verbal
cues. I don't think Bush is a quick thinker. I don't see him as clever. I
see the guy struggle with word choices, comprehension (and also with his
delivery) at press conferences and in interviews.

Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep
thinker
in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
than thinking and communicating.

Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.


So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:57:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"

So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?


He didnt get the nickname "Slick Willy" for nothin'.

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those
situations.

So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?


Clinton has always appeared to me to have a bigger engine under the hood -
more available horsepower, etc, than Bush.

Who's the better driver?
Who's got the best pit crew?
Who's got the best sponsor deals? g
Who's car handles the best in the corners?
Who gets the best mileage?
Who is the fan favorite?

Horsepower is only one aspect of racing. But in that area, Clinton is
clearly the winner - if more is better.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif