Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (74535)	11/14/2000 11:06:21 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

All I know about his reading habits is what aides have reported about his need for... brevity, and what one might conclude about whether he even reads the paper from interviews like this one by Gail Sheehy: In late June of this year, Sheehy asked Bush if he had any reaction to the new "civil union" law upheld by the Vermont Supreme Court allowing gays the rights and responsibilities of married couples. "I missed that," he says. "Is that like gay marriage?" He wrinkles his nose. Told it is a new alternative, he says, "I haven't heard anything about it. I'd only be interested if it were an issue in Texas." The man was a national candidate at the time. For the presidency of the United States. And Vermont's civil union law was discussed in every paper in the country, not to mention on prime time news. You might be surprised by the Sheehy article in Vanity Fair, penni. It made me more sympathetic, and less concerned, in a way, about the implications of having a president with what appear to be dyslexia and ADD (the reasons for this conjecture, which I think is a correct one, are given). For example, it explains that a person with these disabilities can be very intelligent, appearances notwithstanding. (How you can be very intelligent and get not just words, but simple concepts so confused isn't clear to me, but experts say it's possible.) I'd rather not have a president like Bush, but then there are a lot of things I'd rather. Like I'd rather Cheney hadn't regularly voted for the tightest restrictions on abortion, voting against abortion rights on all the roll calls for which he was present, including proposals to ban Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women whose lives could be endangered by continued pregnancy; and that he hadn't voted against regulating "cop-killer" bullets that were supported by all but a handful of lawmakers from both parties (including by those who, like me, believe gun ownership is a Constitutional right) and even voted (one of only four who did) against a proposal to ban firearms that did not contain enough metal to be picked up by a metal detector; and that he hadn't voted in 1986 against a nonbinding resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. These seem like extremist positions to me. I think I'd actually rather have Bush as president than Cheney.

To: Rambi who wrote (74535)	11/14/2000 11:55:48 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm not comfortable dealing with phrases like "manifest idiot" and "brain soaked in alcohol" because I think they set up barriers between us. I'm constrained from being able to say, yes, GW seems unable to construct a coherent answer to a direct question and yes, that worries me, because it implies agreement to your assumption that this is because his brain is pickled in alcohol, something I DON'T accept. I want to make clear that it is I who made clear that my perception of Bush as having cognitive problems "just an intuitive reaction to seeing him and listening to him." ... It was NOT, as you described it as, an "assumption" of mine that his bizarre statements were from alcohol and... I knew it was "important to note" that I was stating my opinions and interpretations, as proved by my having noted it! Message 14805431 I don't know why Bush's brain is the way it is. He himself has admitted being a drunk and by implication admitted cocaine use. Many years of alcohol sure as hell does affect the brain. Do you know well any former long-term alcoholics? They will tell you themselves what it has cost them. Whether he stopped drinking before that occurred, I don't know. As I say, I conjectured about why he is like that,-- just as I conjectured that it might be from the dyslexia that runs in the family, since his brother Neil has it. (Not Jeb, as I think I said earlier; Neil.) I feel I am saying the Emperor has no clothes, and many, not you, are acting just so mystified as to why on earth I say that! It is downright funny, really. (I say it because he's naked, of course.) I think there is a tendency to think it's okay, and doesn't set up barriers, to speak negatively of a candidate whom you oppose and not okay, and barrier-causing, to speak quite insultingly of a candidate whom you support. For example, you said of Gore something I agree with (lack of character, dubious intelligence, large void where true self should be found) -- but you may be sure many Gore-fans find this sort of characterization unwarrantedly insulting, ad hominem, mere intuition, cruel, unsubstantiatable and unfair because of this. I met a fellow last week who knows Gore and his family personally, as a friend, and said he is the nicest, warmest, most genuine person you could ever meet, and that his awkward persona is not "him" at all. (I gathered he thinks it's the result of something like overcoming natural shyness; some social awkwardness that gives an oh-so-wrong impression.) (If you doubt this, I'll tell you his name and how I met him via PM, penni.) Okay: So, I made no assumption, I conjectured. I agree with you about Gore, but others, Gore fans, undoubtedly feel calling Bush a "manifest idiot" (at least I offered examples) offers at least as much of a barrier than characterizing Gore as we have.

To: Rambi who wrote (74535)	11/15/2000 12:09:51 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Where we obviously agree is that neither candidate was compelling and we voted with issues in mind. At this point, we're going to get one or the other, either of whom inherits a crippled presidency, and a divided congress, and the current dilemma is the resolution of which way we go with the least damage to the country. And my portfolio. We agree perfectly on this. And my portfolio, too, if the train wreck that is my portfolio still deserves that name. Anecdote, also occasioned by a social event, as was the one about the friend of Gore's. Last week I also went to a small dinner party at which I sat next to an old friend who's a writer on business subjects and an editor of the Harvard Business Review. (He may be a former editor there; if he's left he's doing the same thing thing someplace or other.) (He lives in Boston and we hadn't seen him in a couple of years.) He said he planned to vote for Gore because Bush's economic policies will destroy the economy. He's a hard-numbers sort of guy and knows a great deal, especially about businesses (he analyses them) and knows a great many economists and writers on economics and business subjects. I was impressed by what he said. I will tell you who he is by PM, too. Oh, I'll tell you here. Remember the friend whose son goes to drama school whom I mentioned? This is her brother. He could be right or he could be wrong. But I left aware of the fact that the notion that Bush's economic ideas are of necessity the ones best for our portfolios is subject to serious question by some very very smart people. 'Night, penni. And all.