Are we finished with this topic yet?
Bush definitely suffers from foot-in-mouth disease, and he may well be a simpleton, but I don't think the two are related.
He's not very complicated, and he's not a deep thinker. He doesn't have much intellectual curiosity. He's not really interested in philosophy, science, literature, art, or clever repartee. From that you may derive that he is a simpleton, but does it really matter?
He is that curious thing, a natural leader. People like that are born, not made, although it helps to come from a family that polishes off the rougher bits, and a lot of family money can't hurt. But being rich doesn't buy you the Presidency, ask Steve Forbes.
Connections help because that is what natural leaders do. They make connections with people who want to follow them.
If you happen to not like the direction he is headed, then you won't like him.
Simpleton isn't really the point. Reagan was a simpleton, Truman was a simpleton.
Handlers aren't really the point, either. If the handlers were natural leaders, then why are they handlers?
He's the most powerful man on earth. If he doesn't give a flying flip whether it's "nucular" or "nuclear," what difference does it make? |
