Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Thank God America has you to sit back and tell us all how stupid we are! What would we do without the self-appointed intellectual elite?

If they could bottle arrogance and use it as a fuel, A2K's liberals could power the world.

I think A2K's liberals not uncharacteristic of the bunch. I ascribe no exclusivity of arrogance to them, however; there's plenty of that to go around most equitably. Arrogance has no ideologic affilliation.

I have found no one on A2K political forums who aren't arrogant - it's a prerequisite!

Tres
I know you voted for Georgie and will again. Maybe you could use a little guidance.

Opinionated can often be confused with arrogant. I must say that in general I find the far right much more arrogant than any other group, and add that I don't believe the far side of either party accurately represents the majority of Americans.

For that representation one must go to purposefully ignorant.

Well said, BP

Tres
It doesn't take the intellectual elite to recognize that Bush is a mental midget. Normal intelligence will do.

BP, Which is probably the 'majority.' c.i.

No one who knows Bush (including Dems in his home state) think Bush is a mental midget. He's a lot of other things for which he should be drawn and quartered (and the sooner the better), but we'd be idiots to take for granted that he's a dumb-dumb.

With this, Tartarin, I must disagree. He is a little bit slow and horribly uncreative. This combination in a young man expected to compete with highly intelligent people sometimes makes him a little bit mean. So slow, uncreative and mean is bad, very bad.

Tartar, When I think of GWBush's christian upbringing, and his ability to be responsible for all the misery that he's brought upon the Iraqi people and the coalition military men and women and their families, I must wonder how his head is screwed on. What, pray tell, has the Iraqi's ever done to us? c.i.

I understand why you might say that we should be wary about underestimating him. After all, how could a dunce rise to be the leader of the free world?

I am sad to report though, that from what I have seen in my life, stupid men and bad men can achieve. I have seen men who are abusive, who don't know their jobs, who specialize solely in the greasy art of "networking" (for lack of a better word) have great success. I've worked for them. I've seen the destruction that resulted from their incompetence. So I don't have to stretch my imagination much to conceive of a man, with no better qualifications than his bloodline and his contacts, rising fairly unimpeded in the political world. It's a pitiable thing that has more than once had me questioning the basic fairness - if not of life itself, then of the institutions and organizations that promote and protect these men.

C.I., some believe it has too much to do with Saddam's massive oil reserves and his refusal to behave himself like other puppet dictatorships in the Region like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I hypothesize, Cic (about the way in which his head is screwed on) that because the guy has had an enormously sheltered, cossetted life as the son of a rich and powerful family of little cultivation and many prefabricated opinions, imagination and creativity are not only absent, they are considered problematical. He has proven himself very capable of manipulating people. Read the accounts of those who know him well (but do not all, by any means, admire him). They all concede he knows how to pour on the charm, and is far from stupid. He gets his way most of the time, and when he doesn't, he knows how to make it seem that he has. He may not have the kind of smarts, Lola, that we find useful and attractive, but he's got 'em. I'm counting on my belief that his smarts don't cover serious adversity, and that the angry alcoholic emerges when he is crossed and thwarted. That's the moment when a foot placed judiciously in his path could make him fall very hard.

I only charge $90 for 50 minutes of that. A bargain.

That's a bargain, Tartarin. He should be so lucky to be able to pay you for such favors. But of course, he wouldn't recognize it as such.

I've had the "opportunity" to observe GW up close. His daughters went to school with my daughters. He doesn't look very smart to me or charming. He charms the socks off of silly men and women who suck up to fame or, more accurately, notoriety. But they all seem a little silly and ineffective to me. I agree with Snood, he has risen to his present position of apparent power because he was convenient for those who used him. He seems like a puppet to me.

And let us remember, he didn't win the election. He's president due only to, at best, gross negligence or worst, criminal voter fraud and the Supreme Court. And he wasn't the brains behind it. To me, he always looks like a little lost puppy dog who feels so insecure and bad about himself that he has to put on that silly frowning face. He often seems to be barely covering his smirk of disrespect. And that swagger! A swagger has never seemed intelligent to me, just a symptom of someone too foolish to know he's not in control.

I know there are those who think he's really smart, just not able to show it. But, if he is, I've never seen anything in his manner that would lead me to the conclusion that he's anything other than a slightly dull, spoiled, rich kid of a politician.

You may be right, Timber, but recent evidence here seems to contradict you on that. True, I do see the odd conservative call the odd liberal a moron here, but what I am addressing is the pervasive notion being put forth again and again and again that the fact that others disagree with these people is--in the view of these people--evidence that those others are deficient in some way (or evidence that these people are superior, in the alternative).

tress,

I've seen you do so almost as many times as you have complained about it. I can provide quotes upon request.

I too have been guilty at lest a few times of saying or implying it. i think it stems from the notion that one's opinions are correct (or why would one subscribe to them?) this usally means differing opinions are considered incorrect and holding an incorrect opinion is sometimes construed as faulty logic etc.

I share the same distaste as you do for this tactic.

Lola -- Hope you caught Maureen Dowd's latest in yesterday's Times. Oh, Daddy...

tartarin,

I missed it. Do you have a link? Love Maureen Dowd. Speaking of liberals who indicate that those who disagree with her are a little bit dull. That is what satire is, is it not? And where would we be without it? Dead, I think. We'd be at each other's throats for sure.

I agree Craven, if we didn't think we were right, we wouldn't think we were right, or it wouldn't be our opinion. Believing oneself to be right implies, but does not automatically prove, that the opinion holder believes other disagreeing opinion holders to be wrong in their opinions. But I find no fault in that. everyone is free to hold their own opinions. But those who disagree with me, I usually think are wrong. If their opinions exclude the validity of my opinion, then I always think they're wrong. Am I wrong, or what?