Hi, Steven. So you're here. I really just dropped by to offer a quote from a recent campaign appearance by Bush. But I see you, and that you have agreed that Clinton is "dumb." So I think I'll take a sort of exception.
One can use words to mean whatever one wants, I guess. We dislike him, and "dumb" is negative, and it feels somehow more satisfying to say "Clinton is dumb" than not to... but in the real world of distinguishing who's "dumb" from who isn't, Clinton isn't dumb at all. He's a stupid intelligent person.
He is stupidly self-destructive, he has stupidly bad judgment, he has no impulse control, he has no ethical center, he may even be a classic sociopath. But he undoubtedly has a high, pardon the expression, IQ. He knows a lot, learns easily, can master a great deal of information, and expresses himself well if lyingly. If he hadn't been so stupidly arrogant, he would be an immensely popular president now. And while Bush had every advantage of birth and education, Clinton pulled himself up from close to the bottom to the very top of the world by virtue of his own brains. (Then he sabotaged his self-made, brains-generated success by being ethically void. Having brains isn't enough.) Clinton was never a "legacy" candidate for anything. He thought his way to the position of Most Powerful Man on Earth.
Bush, on the other hand, is, it certainly appears, "dumb" in every sense of the word. He can't learn even after being told over and over again that nuclear isn't nukewler. I'm no IQ tester, but he appears to be an utter moron. It's almost as embarrassing as having a sociopath as president, imo.
But Bush really can be sort of inspiring. Listen to this, from a Virginia campaign appearance: "We're on the forefront of who knows what!"
He's got a point there. |
