While I agree that Bush has deficiencies, I don't see that not knowing the names of certain foreign leaders (especially some of the obscure ones he was asked) is a means of testing intelligence.
I pride myself on knowing about 70% of the names of leaders of other countries (I love geography and politics). However, I only could name one of the countries Bush was asked....
Besides, the follow up question was with regard to Pakistan, and Bush said he felt the leader there (who led a recent coup) was a reasonable man...a comment which garnered much derision from the Democrats. Shortly afterward, however, Pakistan hired one of Clinton's former aides who then arranged for Clinton to alter his travel schedule so that he could visit Pakistan.....
I agree with the gist of your statement. It is a shame that probably the most qualified men for President are the VP candidates...or they are men we don't even know or will ever hear of. But the problem I have with most of the men who run is this - they usually make up their mind based on the current polls. Reagan was the last president I liked, and not because I necessarily felt he was a good president. The thing I liked about him was he made up his mind (for right or wrong) and went forward with a plan. I don't care if I disagree...I can respect a plan I disagree with if the person simply follows through on a particular path or plan of action. With Reagan, you always knew where he stood. Not so with the last two. I'm not sure about either of the current choices. Bush is probably less wobbly than Gore (a former tobacco farmer? who invented the internet?), but that doesn't mean he isn't wobbly. |
