Quote Of The Day

“President Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him and innumerable others who are out of favor among liberals, has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight that he is not in the same league with brilliant guys like Al Gore and John Kerry. The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row. Grades and test scores are not everything. But they are something — and those who are convinced that their guys are way smarter have no hard facts at all to back up this widely and fervently believed notion. The cold fact is that anyone who spouts the liberal line is likely to be depicted as sophisticated, if not brilliant, and anyone who opposes it is likely to be considered dull, if not stupid, in the liberal media”. –Thomas Sowell, discussing a new book titled, “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies” by Gregory Jackson, in which several liberal myths are debunked

7 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”


  • I think most would agree that Bush lacks eloquence. I am not saying that conservatives or Republicans lack eloquence, just Bush. That is not to say he is not intelligent but he does not speak anywhere near the same level great orators such as John Kennedy, MLK, etc. speak. Should the leader of our country be a great speaker? I think so. I think they are more of a figurehead than anything, and shouldn’t a figurehead be somebody to set an example for everybody to follow? I think Bush speaks on a mediocre level, at best.

    As for liberal/conservative intelligence… I think it is pointless to generalize but here are some facts to consider: My town of Seattle, which is one of the most liberal places in the country, is also the most educated city (50% has at least a bachelors degree.) The top ten liberal voting states are among the most educated. The top ten conservative states are among the most uneducated.

  • Should the leader of our country be a great speaker?

    That depends on what you mean by ‘great speaker’. For example, the governor of my state, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was thought of as a possible Presidential candidate yet you seem to imply that because of his accent he should be ipso facto disqualified from becoming president, does that seem fair? In fact, during the elections, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s opponent, governor Gray Davis was quoted as saying something like, “I think that a governor of California should atleast be required to say California right”.

    Now, you may reply that accents are different, after all, they are not the fault of the speaker and therefore should not be placed on the same level as Bush’s bad speaking. But is this really a fair reply? Do you honestly think that Bush intentionally speaks bad? Is it not more likely that Bush, like those who stutter, simply has a speaking impairment, one that is not necessarily in his control – much like accents and stuttering is not in the control of other speakers? I think so.

    I am not saying that you can’t make fun of Bush’s constant slip ups. I’ve certainly had my fair share of laughs at his expense. But to conclude from that that he is somewhat less intelligent or even less qualified to be president is a bit elitest, IMHO.

    As far as education goes, yes, it is a fact that many more liberals are ‘educated’ than conservatives, but this does not really say much. After all, education is not a very good indicator of intelligence, especially amongst the young, and in many cases, history has shown that it was the least educated that turned out to be the smarter ones (just think of the many academics that fell for communism as opposed to the many peasants who saw it for the BS that it is).

    Btw, I noticed that the number of comments on this post is higher than the actual comments itself, which leads me to conclude that somebody who tried to comment got marked as spam. If that person is reading this, please know that it was not intentional and I encourage you to try to comment again, if you get marked as spam again, please email me at hispanicpunditATgmailDOTcom and I will get it fixed.

  • I didn’t mention anything about accents. I think accents are mostly irrelevant. I feel they can colourfully characterize speech in many cases. I focused primarily on his lack of eloquence. Sure, it may be elitist, but then again we are talking about the definition of American Elite… the leader of this country. I believe communication is one of the most important responsibilities any leader can assume. Compare your average Bush speech to virtually any other president… starting with Washington down to Clinton and the difference is profound. Language, many agree, defines truth. Should not the purveyors of truth be masters of the language that defines it?

    As for education not saying much, I totally agree with that. It’s too broad of a generalization to really prove anything. I would point out, though, that the first people who typically jet out of an oppressive dictatorship… be it a left-wing communist dictator or a right-wing fascist dictator… are the educated and wealthy. Look at the exodus of the rich educated class during Castro, during Franco, during Hitler, during Mao, etc. Politicians love uneducated masses of poor people, they are very easy to control.

  • Well, the reason the rich and the educated are the first to leave an oppresive dictatorship is primarily because they can. Many of the poor would do the same if they could. Just look at modern day Cuba, it is primarily the poor underclass that is risking life and limb to come to the United States on boats.

    As far as Bush’s speech goes, I still think we are speaking past each other. My point there was that Bush’s bad speaking is alot like people with accents. You exclude people with accents, I say fine, but why not exclude Bush’s speaking in the same manner? In other words, they are both out of the persons control, much like stuttering, so why not put them in the same category?

    Btw, this is not to say that Bush isn’t a great communicator. I think that despite his deficiencies in speaking, much like despite Arnold Schwarzenegger’s accent, they both get their message across loud and clear. Sure they both may mess up on a word here and there, but in the end they both communicate their point very clearly.

  • I don’t necessarily exclude people with accents, I just don’t think that is the same thing. There have been great orators who speak with heavy accents (mi mujer for example ;P ) but I think that is irrelevant to my point. I am not aware of any medically defined speech impediment that Bush may have. I just think it is sad that our “leader” has such a mediocre command of our language and ability to communicate it. Sure, he can explain that “X is not Y” but he doesn’t stirr any emotion like some public speakers can.

    Well, the reason the rich and the educated are the first to leave an oppresive dictatorship is primarily because they can.
    Very, very true.

  • Since we are caught up on the accents thing….I’m curious why Bush is the only one of his siblings who speaks with the Texasm accent given that they were large brought up in the EAST COAST…In addition, there are different attitudes of perceived intelligence based off of the kind of accent one has when sepaking Englis. MEx Spanish lower status, french Higher status.

    The reality on standardized tests is that your social class correlates with income…the higher your folks income the higher your score tends to be…So we equate high score with intelligence…One only need to lok at the EUGENICs movement in the early part of last century to see the idiotocracy that was being built off of perceived IQ intelligence…

    See Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America by Selden to see the history of the inappropriate Usage of testing. I’m not against testing, lets just use them as they were intended

  • I don’t think anybody important in the academic world believes that standardized tests are accurate end-all meters for student potential. Virtually every admissions office will recognize a high score as a positive factor but tend to take in to account other elements. The book you mentioned, however, sounds interesting.

Leave a Reply