People ask me, "how come you don't do more political posts?" Well here it comes.
If I had to give my honest opinion of George Bush...George Bush, the current one...if I had to give my personal judgment, - now let me clarify, here! - if my judgment came down, and I knew that George Bush would be judged by it, as in, judged accordingly, then I couldn't do it. Because, "judge not!"
But knowing that it's only my own personal opinion, that it doesn't affect him at all one way or the other, and that it has no bearing at all whatsoever on anything, I'm free to give it. I feel free to give it.
I don't know the man. I've got precious little upon which to form any sort of opinion. But just going by my impression of how he comports himself media-wise, I think he's not evil. I think he believes he's in the right. My impression is that he's pretty smug in that belief. Which...hey, aren't we all? Anyhow, contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think he's a dupe or a moron. I doubt that anyone who is really that stupid - as stupid as his detractors make him out to be - could be smart enough to play dumb* like he does. Smart enough to play the part. I'd say he's of above-average intelligence, not-so-good verbal skills, well-above average affability, and very conscious of the nature of his appeal: the "aw-shucks" ostensibly-common-man factor. He's self-aware, and he plays the part that got him there.
So while I don't see him as a pawn, I do think he's aware enough of his limitations to rely on the advice of the people with which he has surrounded himself. He's been a bit too loyal to some of them, perhaps. I see him as similar to Reagan in that respect, albeit, Reagan had a far more outstandingly-capable cabinet! Sheesh - remember some of those guys?! But in general, George Bush has been quite Reaganesque in his ability to surround himself with trusted advisors, rely on their expertise while still coming across as more-or-less "in charge." Reagan had that to a much greater degree, of course - but I don't think even Bush would fault me for putting Reagan ahead of him. His dad might, but whatever. Those two had beef.
So yeah. I don't think he's the brightest bulb in the buy-one-get-one-free value-pack. But not dumb, either. Clinton was of course, far smarter. And yet, so dumb in other ways! Clinton was dumb similar to how Nixon was dumb.
And Nixon was very smart.
Yet he believed he was above the fray, and couldn't be held accountable for shenanigans. Tricky Dick found out the hard way that he wasn't - that in the 1970's the President wasn't above going down for being implicated in masterminding half-assed burglaries. And then later on, Slick Willie found out the hard way that in the 1990's the President wasn't above being implicated in half-assed perjuries over some chick going down.
But none of these people are stupid. They just want love like anybody, that's what I think.
If I had to give my honest opinion of George Bush...George Bush, the current one...if I had to give my personal judgment, - now let me clarify, here! - if my judgment came down, and I knew that George Bush would be judged by it, as in, judged accordingly, then I couldn't do it. Because, "judge not!"
But knowing that it's only my own personal opinion, that it doesn't affect him at all one way or the other, and that it has no bearing at all whatsoever on anything, I'm free to give it. I feel free to give it.
I don't know the man. I've got precious little upon which to form any sort of opinion. But just going by my impression of how he comports himself media-wise, I think he's not evil. I think he believes he's in the right. My impression is that he's pretty smug in that belief. Which...hey, aren't we all? Anyhow, contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think he's a dupe or a moron. I doubt that anyone who is really that stupid - as stupid as his detractors make him out to be - could be smart enough to play dumb* like he does. Smart enough to play the part. I'd say he's of above-average intelligence, not-so-good verbal skills, well-above average affability, and very conscious of the nature of his appeal: the "aw-shucks" ostensibly-common-man factor. He's self-aware, and he plays the part that got him there.
So while I don't see him as a pawn, I do think he's aware enough of his limitations to rely on the advice of the people with which he has surrounded himself. He's been a bit too loyal to some of them, perhaps. I see him as similar to Reagan in that respect, albeit, Reagan had a far more outstandingly-capable cabinet! Sheesh - remember some of those guys?! But in general, George Bush has been quite Reaganesque in his ability to surround himself with trusted advisors, rely on their expertise while still coming across as more-or-less "in charge." Reagan had that to a much greater degree, of course - but I don't think even Bush would fault me for putting Reagan ahead of him. His dad might, but whatever. Those two had beef.
So yeah. I don't think he's the brightest bulb in the buy-one-get-one-free value-pack. But not dumb, either. Clinton was of course, far smarter. And yet, so dumb in other ways! Clinton was dumb similar to how Nixon was dumb.
And Nixon was very smart.
Yet he believed he was above the fray, and couldn't be held accountable for shenanigans. Tricky Dick found out the hard way that he wasn't - that in the 1970's the President wasn't above going down for being implicated in masterminding half-assed burglaries. And then later on, Slick Willie found out the hard way that in the 1990's the President wasn't above being implicated in half-assed perjuries over some chick going down.
But none of these people are stupid. They just want love like anybody, that's what I think.
Comments