Does Bush has any credibility with you?
 

Any at all?

Yes. He have lots of credibility with me.

Do you really need me to answer that question?

(Allow me, Tex.)

"Bush is God."

Bush is yo' mama.

This poll is an all or nothing without a middle ground. Do you not feel a person can have some credibility here and there? I believe Bush when he says he wipes his own ass.

Lets add a little distinction here. I believe Bush when he speaks and so I believe in his veracity. However, I don't trust his judgment at all and think he is uniquely ill suited for his position and in that sense I think he is not credible as an executive.

So I voted in the affirmative in closely adhering to the call of the question.

I believe he has credibility in that, unlike pretty much all politicians, he is not poll driven.

I wish so deeply that he were driven b polls, at least some of the time. I know that is routinely listed as a bad thing, for a politician. But sometimes, would it not be good for the representative of the people to find out what it is that most people want?

I can understand what you're saying and I actually do agree. IMO, the problem is that I don't think there are any reliable polls because pollsters can word anything to sway people to give a response. (That's why I had a lot of fun with a pollster who called my home one evening - I gave really inconsistent answers and could sense the frustration of the person on the other end.)

Well let me think just a minute here. Who are those who are very vocal about Bush being dishonest and deceptive.

Move on .org, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Crissy Mathews, Harry Reid, Dan Rather, etc.

Those folks vs Bush. I guess I will take Bush's credibility and trust him.

Bush isn't really smart enough to be truly deceptive.

Stupid is the more apt description.

Thank you, Keith.

Stupid enough to be President of the USA. You probably meant in your opinion he makes some stupid decisions.

I really don't think you meant what you said. I don't think you are that stupid.

He is president in spite of his lack of intellect. Can you think of another US president with less brains that W? I can't.

Perhaps you believe as Snipe does. W is a genius who simply suffers from word-sequencing issues.

LOL. Of all the reasons to dislike or disagree with Bush, the excuse that he is without brain power strikes me as the most cowardly and uninformed. It's the ultimate ostrich-head-in-the-sand moment.

To say nothing of the fact that he's 3-1 in national elections ... what does that say about you and yours?

If Snipe thinks he is a genius he suffers from the same lack of judgement as those who think he is stupid.

Lack of intellect does not equate to someone being stupid. Quite frankly that is the problem with liberal types. They worship intelligence as they define it. Some of us call it elitism. Some things in life are just simple and best.

The glory of god is intelligence. I think he meant wisdom, which aren't the same.

The Clintons are living proof that intelligence doesn't equate to wisdom.

Tex thinks Bush is bright? How surprising.

If you think having an opinion that Bush is not too bright is cowardly or uninformed, then your head in not in the sand, it is up your rear.

3-1? Hasn't he run for president twice?

Let me explain this carefully Tex, so you wee little brain can grasp it: I didn't say Bush is stupidest person in the world. I said he could very well be the stupidest US president ever. Huge difference.

Call me crazy, but I think we should have pretty high standards for the most powerful office in the world. Like being able to pronounce "nuclear".

Do you think Bush is wise? Seriously.

(great avatar, BTW)

Stupid is relevant.

Clinton was stupid enough to lie and get caught lying about taking advantage of an intern.

Carter was stupid enough to have policies that caused high inflation rates.

Nixon was stupid enough to have hired people who would get caught at the hotel.

Johnson was stupid enough to think the public wouldn't mind sending more troops to Vietnam.

Kennedy was stupid enough to be involved with the mob.

But if you're talking about brain power, I don't know if Bush is as stupid as the left claims he is. He's just not a slick politician who comes across as smart when he speaks. Lots of people are like that.

That's some brilliant analysis there. I'm make sure to pass that memo on to the myriads of people--most recently one of Tony Blair's close aides--who have publicly said they find Bush much more informed and capable than the caricature of him presents.

Speaking of mid-terms there. We can say 2-0 if you prefer ... still makes the point. Or are we going with the "2000 was stolen" and "Kerry was an idiot" line today?

Oh my little brain got it just fine, thanks. Apparently your oversized one didn't understand what I was saying. It's gratifying to know that someone of such intelligence as yourself makes his presidential voting decisions based on the diction of the candidates. Way to pick something important.

I seriously think he has wisdom and some dang good values. I seriously think the Clintons don't.

However, I think wise people make mistakes, so I don't think Bush is mistake free.

What I do believe is it is easy to second guess others decisions. You can always say we should of because no one could refute what would have happened we had taken that "should have" course.

Just because a decision doesn't work out, we don't know for sure the alternative would have. If you don't believe me just ask people on their 3rd and 4th marriages.

Sure. And there are plenty of insiders who say the opposite. In any case, I don't find too much comfort in "He's not as dumb as he looks."

Midterms? That's funny.

And what does this have to do with the topic? Try to focus, Tex. Concentrate!

You are still struggling. I never said that was my sole criterion. Come on, Tex. Try to focus.

I actually voted for Bush in round one. About two months into office, it became clear we had all been hoodwinked.

Unfortunately for you, that's not what they say. They say, "He's not as dumb as his political enemies would like you to believe."

Might as well ask a bunch of Southern Baptists for an impartial view of Mormons.

What, your oversized brain doesn't get it? He's 2-0 in presidential elections, 3-1 if you count midterms (did well in 2002, poorly in 2006). That means as "stoopid" as he is, he still kicked the crap out his opponents.

So what does that say about them?

Right. The first time you heard "nucular" you thought, "That's it. He's the stoopidest President ever."

Ok.

Listen, if you trying to use midterm elections as proof of Bush's intellect, then this debate is pretty fruitless.

In this case I would say many, many people didn't second guess, but outright disagree with many of Bush's policies. Those policies in hindsight seem to have been based on wishful thinking. I see very little evidence of wisdom at work in GWB's presidency.

Now you're just looking for a way out.

"Listen," if you've got policy disagreements with the man, fine. You think he's destroyed the environment, the economy, national security, whatever, fine. Make your argument and we'll talk.

But saying "He's stupid 'cause he can't say nukular" is completely inane.

How many future elections do you think he'll tilt the opposite way? I think it will be at least one and possibly two. Maybe in a worst case scenario three.

His unpopularity was, surely more responisible for the big 2006 defeat than anything the inept, detached, clueless, idiotic, unpatriotic, cowardly, morally bankrupt Democrats (those are paraphrases of your sentiments-please feel free to object). And that makes him persona non grata in his own party.

LOL.

Tex, you never disappoint.

Fine, what is so hard about saying you outright disagree with someone's policies. Why does there have to be an element of calling someone a liar and or stupid. Is it that your arguments are so poor that to back them up you need the other person to be a liar and stupid.

I agree that calling names is poor form. Most political debates are poor form. But who wants to have good manners?

I must ask however, what distinction you make between calling someone stupid and saying that they have poor values? Are both not insults?

No matter which way it goes, I don't know how much of 2008 one will be able to lay at Bush's feet. I'm sure politicos will debate it for years.

I don't think Bush unpopularity had as much to do with 2006 as war fatigue. Midterm elections are traditionally tough, especially for 6th-year presidents, and the war just made things worse. That doesn't mean it isn't ultimately Bush's fault (he DID choose to go to war), but I'm not sure it had much to do with his personal unpopularity. Repeated Republican Congressional scandal, both real and perceived, played a big factor too.

And the Dems really didn't fare that much better. It was conservative/moderate Dems, not wacko lefties, that won them their victories. Moreover, their margin in the Senate is razor thin, and their House margin is only as large as the Republicans' was before.

The bottom line is, Bush is indeed a pretty smart guy and if Iraq pans out in the long run, he'll get the credit for that too. This "stupid" and "liar" stuff is just folks like Peanut Gallery Lebowski substituting ad hominem for substance.

Fair point. Calling me stupid though bothers me a lot more.

Let's say someone who has mullah tendencies says I have poor values, do you think I really care. It does bother me though if anyone calls me stupid.

You know, I don't relish the moment the next time a Democrat becomes President. However, when that day inevitably comes, I can't wait to start making demands on his cabinet and judicial appointees.

"We need a consensus candidate!"
"We need a candidate who will maintain the balance!"
"We need a check on the executive!"
"We need someone non-partisan!"
"We need an independent thinker!"

"Filibuster his butt!"

That will be a fun day to throw all of the Democrats' thoughtless tactics back in their collective faces.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...l?id=110010605