The President with the lowest IQ?

Maybe Shrub has some sort of brain damage from the drinking and coke use. Why can't he speak in coherent sentences without a script?

You might wish to read Um's posts more closely. She has spelled out her gender a few times.

McGen, you leave yourself so open all the time. It's almost as if you want to be abused.

Let's see the Craven v. McGen match.

Do I need to go on here? I've noticed all ready that you prefer to comment on what other people say instead of offering your own insights. Undoubtedly this is going to fall in a little quote box too, but you need to understand something. It hardly matters what you think in virtualville. Only the cream rises to the top here, and that is for everyone else to determine, not me or you, or even Craven, for that matter.

You are not making any sense. Even in places where I tried to give the benefit of the doubt.

What is the source for Pistoff's numbers?

Where is the "snopes" source that Craven references?

Maybem but Clinton with the highest? I mean really...

Frank- I am not a George Bush lover. But I see it another way. There are some people, (and most politicians) who are very verbal, glib, and quick with the answers. George does not happen to be one of them, which is unfortunate in a world leader.

There was an article I read in Time magazine a while back where he referred to Canada as "our most important neighbor to the north." Huh? We are the only neighbour to the north! Well...you COULD count St. Pierre and Miquelon too, although technically they are northeast of the coordinates defining the U.S.A. Hmmm...maybe he meant Greenland, 'cause some of their geography is in the same longitudinal region as American soil. Yet, somehow I just have this feeling that he wasn't even thinking of those two regions at all when he made the statement he did. I wonder if he even knows about St. Pierre and Miquelon. Should I ask? *L*

Not Bright Enough

Gosh, it was good to hear from President Bush's alternative universe in the State of the Union address. "Jobs are on the rise."

As we say in Texas, "No ****?"

At the December rate of 1,000 new jobs a month, it would take 166 years just to replace the two million jobs lost since Bush became President, and that, of course, would be 166 years of not creating enough jobs for new workers. Or as John Kerry puts it, that leaves us only 249,000 jobs a month short of where we need to be and where, incidentally, the President promised we would be by now.

But then Bush also promised to cut the deficit in half. Instead, it grew by 100 percent from his prediction of last year. The guy is not exactly on target. And didn't you love the weasel-wording of "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"?

I also liked Bush urging Congress to make his tax cuts permanent "for the sake of job growth." Excuse me, but hasn't Bush just spent three years conclusively demonstrating that giving tax cuts to the rich doesn't do a thing for job creation? Three times now Bush has given huge, lopsided tax cuts, and all that happened is that jobs keep disappearing. And the jobs that are disappearing are no longer limited to Rust Belt manufacturing jobs: Computer-related jobs of all kinds are being moved to India. Outsourcing and off-shoring are the new corporate rage, along with, of course, the popular post-box-in-the-Bahamas tax dodge.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bushies is astonishing, but their cluelessness about the economy is even worse. When Bush was handed the U.S. government, it was a going operation. We had a huge surplus and a chance to fix some longstanding structural problems in both Social Security and health care. Now all we've got is a mess.

Bush brought with him the First Principle of Texas Government, which is that government exists to create a "healthy bidness climate." While Bush has certainly been helpful to the major polluting and extractive industries, unfortunately they are all very "old economy," as they say in Silicon Valley.

The free traders have been blithely assuring us all these years that "brain industry" jobs will replace manufacturing jobs. So what did Bush decide to cut from the federal budget? Research.

One assumes that solar power, wind power, and other alternative energy sources will be the new high-tech economy. But this Administration--run by two oilmen--is not putting any money into those fields. It is, however, heavily subsidizing extractive industries with massive tax breaks. Biotechnology is another promising field the Administration is hindering rather than supporting.

As Richard Florida points out in The Washington Monthly, the Bush Administration's contempt for science is all too evident. Whenever they don't like a scientific conclusion, they either ignore it or just flat change it. Global warming is but one example, and their policy on stem cell research is already causing a brain drain to other countries.

Being curious, taking an interest in other cultures, and enjoying travel were all characteristics of Bill Clinton, Florida notes. Bush pretty much embodies the reverse.

Paul O'Neill's memoirs via Ron Suskind rudely committed the crime of lèse majesté, leaving Washington chattering classes agog and atwitter. The media made O'Neill's not very new tale that this Administration meant to invade Iraq from the git-go the big item, but the real story in O'Neill's recollections is both simpler and more depressing. It is what has bothered people about Bush from the beginning: He's not bright enough to be President. For a long time, anyone who questioned Bush's ability to think was pointed to the opinion polls and told that discussing whether or not the President is borderline stupid was bad manners and counterproductive. Actually, that is the main problem with Bush: He neither reads, nor writes, nor speaks well.

It turns out that a C average is not good enough for the Presidency.