2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

No , Mr. De Kere:
I donot attempt to prove a subjective value laden set of words like "smart or dumb", Mr. Blatham has already done that for me with his assertion that President Bush is "under-educated".

If you assert the converse you do the same.

Italgato,

Intelligence is simply subjective. The basis of comparison is key. People will not agree on these things. There are many lauded scientists who I find daft and silly despite their comparative intelligence when the average is the criteria.

Such is life, disagreement about subjective interpretation of fact is not a matter that is easily prooved or disprooved.

I've already agreed that the characterization of Bush as stupid is a meaningless rhetorical tool. Blatham knows what I think about this. I have made my objection to his ad hominems of politicians before.

But the opposite of an ad hominem is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Bush's credentials speak nothing of his ability to govern a nation.

As what constitutes sound governance is widely disputed people disagree on the wisdom of policy as a matter of course. Prooving or disprooving the wisdom or folly of the individual is an excersise in futiity.

Before you relauch the "they called him stuupid" rocket remember that I have said, several times, that I agree that the characterization of Bush as stupid as misplaced as it is meaningless to poliical discussion.

Not even Sharpton is stupid ... not that it matters. Regardless of opinion, or affiliation, it is improbable to the point of statistical certainty a stupid individual could attain credible national political prominence, or significant weight, authority, and seniority in any politico-economic deliberative body. Crazy, maybe ... stupid ... never. That is not to say, however, that smart folks don't make stupid mistakes. Look at Dean lifting lines from a TV show ... how embarrassing for him ... and possibly more inconvenient than his waffling on issues, something the Democrats seem to take for granted. Kerry could well find enough there to get back into the race; a lot of folks are real serious about their TV.

Dear Mr. DeKere:

I hope that by now you know I would never say:

They called him stoopid.

I do agree with you that people do disagree as to the direction of policy. That's self-evident.

My quarrel was with the unsubstantiated statement made by Mr. Blatham with regard to President Bush's competence and undereducation.

I really don't know what Mr. Blatham meant by "undereducation" but it is clear that some of our best presidents did not have a college degree( Harry S. Truman). The term "undereducated" really has no meaning with regard to the evaluation of any president.

Of course, the "incompetent" label is one which, in my opinion is also meaningless since that judgment is most often used by partisans who give no proof it is true.

Mr. Blatham has been most general in his comments. He gave no "proof" to show "incompetence"

I hope that the words "incompetence" and "undereducated" can be now put to rest or, at least, be understood as the meaningless labels of a partisan.

Well, I'll be ...

Of the 7 20th century Presidents in that top 10, 5 are Democrats!

Huh. Interesting.

nimh pointed out--

...which only goes to show, these things are screwy. What was Kennedy's great contribution that superceded Reagan's hastening of the end of the Cold War? What the heck did Johnson do besides backing Civil Rights? It was a good thing--but ONE thing. And, he and Kennedy are to blame for the beginning and politization of the worst military defeat in US history. And the Bay Of Pigs...

Wonder what the criteria was?

Oooh boy -- I love catching PDid in an error -- it almost never happens.

Adlai was known as a ladies' man (a phrase of the '50's and before). He also had a mistress (another oldie), Marietta Tree. He was smooth as silk and quite divine (that's the way we described men we "had a chance" with). Sorry. Democrats are sexier, by far. I mean, talking blow jobs, do you think Nixon...? does Quayle know the facts of life (oops, another oldie, sorry)...

Yes, I think some serious education on "facts" and "truth" are needed nationwide. Certainly entertainment periodicals such as Newsweek (just because they TELL you they're giving the facts doesn't mean they are, of course) should be approached with a full salt shaker. Have you ever seen a story in which you appear in, say, Newsweek or your local newspaper or anything in between? Then you'll know that facts are not uppermost in a reporter's mind. Reporters (sic) aren't funnin' you when they tell you they're "working on a story."

I'd like to add that in my personal experience (getting longer and longer) intelligence, ambition, and power in men tends to include a wide-ranging sexuality. That ain't a fact, it's an observation.

Here are the contents of my first daily email from mislead.org which aims to get the facts out about Bush:

a new site for all to bookmark and check daily... http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df09152003.html

tartarin

just saw your post...evidence of a harmonious universe

Criterion was, criteria were...

Blatham: Have you read The Dancing Wu-Li Masters? About them particles separated by vast distances which act in unison? I was the faster particle that time, but you got the web address right!

Tartarin--
When it suits you, spelling and grammar are criticised.
When it doesn't, you complain about others pointing it out.
I think it is a small, shabby practice.

We all see grammatical and spelling errors. We don't all make it our business to point them out.

tartarin

No, I didn't read it, but as you have, that's the same thing

Timber,

Have you never heard of marketing and Carl Rove? Amazing.

At the risk of re-doing Craven's work ...



In Congress elections, people vote for their Congressman. In Presidential elections, people vote for their President.

If a man is to be judged on whether or not he can sway voters into voting for this or that Congressman by his personal power of persuasion alone, he can surely be judged on whether or not he can sway voters into voting for him, personally, when its his own job thats at stake.

Clinton stood for re-election once - and sailed into a resounding victory against Bob Dole (not, by any accounts, a stupid man).

Bill Clinton 47,402,357 votes, 49.24%
Bob Dole 39,198,755 votes, 40.71%

Not emotion, feelings, sentiment- FACTS. If popular vote determines, in your logic, who can safely be considered "highly competent and extremely well educated", Clinton can feel safe.

Bush Jr., on the other hand, won over 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore. Not emotion, feelings, sentiment- FACTS. Do you therefore respect Al Gore as, by extension, a man of superior competence and intelligence, Italgato?

Still, lets leave the Presidential elections for what they are and go back to what Italgato posited: we should take the results of Senate and House elections as indications of a President's competence.

So - history.

In the 1982 Congress elections, midway President Reagan's first term, the Republicans lost 26 seats in the House of Representatives; the Democrats won twenty-seven (see p. 54 of http://clerk.house.gov/members/election_information/2002election.pdf). A defeat the Republicans didnt recover from until more than a decade later. In the year Reagan was elected, 1980, the Republicans won 192 seats in the House of Representatives and 53 seats in the Senate. By the end of his terms, in 1988, the Republicans had lost 17 House seats and 8 Senate seats.

So, what does that mean? An indication that Reagan was less than "highly competent", would you say - accoridng to the logic you've proposed?

Italgato writes, "Is it an opinion that the Democrats lost their majority in the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998 under the leadership of William Jefferson Clinton or is it a fact?". It is a fact that the Democrats failed to get a majority of House or Senate seats any time between 1994 and 2000, yes, despite successive Congress election gains in 1996, 1998 and 2000. Much like it is a fact that the Republicans, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, "lost" the House to a Democratic majority in 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1988, and lost the Senate to a Democratic majority in both 1986 and 1988.

An indication of Reagan's incompetence? Nonsense. The only thing election results "prove" is which party or president the majority of the people would like to see in office. Their motivations will vary widely, the candidate's intelligence being only one factor in the equation. Many voters will voluntarily - and justifiably - elect someone who is less educated or intelligent than his opponent, but with whom they agree.

Switch the attention from the percentages of the Presidential election results (damning for Bush Jr., rosy for Clinton), like Italgato did, to the results of Congress elections, and you'll just blur the picture even more, with still more motivations entering the equation: preferring to have a split in power, for example, (dis)liking their own Congressman, etc.

Of course the fallacy in Italgato's contention pops up like a thirteen-year-old's erection when one supposes intelligence based on election results.

And then again, I am very much afraid that I have found to be mistaken about the cocksmanship of the esteemed Democratic contender, Adlai Stevenson.

I sit corrected, Tartarin.

My supposition was that no woman, even in the Fifties, would consider a man named Adlai sufficiently divine. My bad.

Perhaps Italgato would now like to rank all Presidents in terms of their prowess with members of the fairer gender. An appropriately obsessive digression, one I hope -- should he choose to pursue it -- happens in a thread far, far from this one.

To get him started (ELSEWHERE, hopefully) and in ascending order, I suspect Calvin Coolidge and Woodrow Wilson would top the list, with Herbert Hoover running (waddling?) close behind. A real turnoff, that Depression.

RMN just out of the money.

In descending order, LBJ and JFK must rank ahead of the mighty Clenis.

No real evidence to support the above. I'm just hunchin'.

And here's some real news for this thread:



Yahoo! (which is both my response and the source)

Mr. Italgato,

Are YOU Mr. GW? Can you site the source of your knowledge of Mr. Bush's IQ score?

Sofia -- I am indeed a shabby person (but large) -- today in particular. But not aware that I get pissed when others point out errors of usage and spelling. Well, maybe when Certain People use it as a put-down. Usually I think, when I see wordsmiths at work or people who post (as some of our foreign contributors do) well-wrought English, Oh! another divine person!.. Meanwhile, ease up -- you got a freebie from a irritable oldster, a frustrated 6th grade teacher probly, the kind who says, You children will be grateful for me someday!

..."sufficiently divine.." he was indeed, PDid, though shortish and balding.

Nimh -- That's a wonderful post. You only omit the money factor -- how money can buy and does buy the office. Think of the utter crud money has elevated to the presidency, not to mention Congress. Has anyone done a compilation of what the presidency has been worth, in cash money, over the years? Which presidents have been "worth more"? Is it possible that being president doesn't always represent merit but can be simply the result of money and voter ignorance? Can we think of a recent example, children?

Hell ... marketing is what politics is all about. Some do it better than others. If Rove worked for The Music Industry, the RIAA wouldn't be all freaked out today over declining sales and 'The imminent collapse of the miusic industry". Of course, if the RIAA were not infested with libruls, it would understand the revenue fall-off is due to consumer rejection of the formulaic, derivitave, unoriginal product being foisted on the buying public, and its insane, arrogantly inflated pricing, not the on-line activities of 12-year-olds ... a typical example of trying to use the judicial system to correct a self-created problem.