Posted on 08/25/2006 6:24:42 PM PDT by WestTexasWend
Bush-bashing for sport has never lacked fans in the blogosphere, but questioning the president's intelligence lately has gone mainstream. Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," recently tossed his beanie into the ring, running a 10-minute segment titled: "Is Bush an 'Idiot'?"
Scarborough wasn't calling Bush an idiot, mind you. He was just quoting that renowned American intellectual, Linda Ronstadt. Recently, Ronstadt had commented on the president's performance while attending an international summit of heads of state.
No wait, my mistake, she made those comments to reporters and audiences while touring in Canada. But never mind. When Ronstadt talks, people listen. Citing other leading American intellectuals — The Dixie Chicks, Peter, Paul & Mary and Joan Baez — Ronstadt said:
"I'm embarrassed George Bush is from the United States. ... He's an idiot. He's enormously incompetent on both the domestic and international scenes."
Scarborough said he felt compelled to explore whether the president is intellectually curious. To debate the topic, Scarborough rounded up two commentators — John Fund of The Wall Street Journal and Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC senior political analyst. He also provided a video collection of Bushisms in which the president repeatedly trips over his own tongue.
Fund said that Bush is not dumb, just inarticulate, while O'Donnell suggested that Bush is out of his league. They both may be right, but I'd like to submit an alternative explanation for Bush's linguistic deficit.
Language barrier.
This theory occurred to me not long ago at an off-the-record luncheon with Bush and a hundred or so of his supporters. I was the guest of a guest and welcomed the opportunity to observe the president in his natural habitat.
What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola. Toward the end, one of the guests said, "Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating."
I think that's almost true. Not 95 percent, obviously, but he'd surely have a higher than 30 percent approval rating were he better able to explain what he's thinking. Bush does know; he just can't seem to say.
The question is why?
My theory dovetails with something one of his most acerbic critics, columnist Molly Ivins, once wrote: "George W. Bush sounds like English is his second language." That's because it's true. "Washington English" is a second language for Bush; "Texas English" is his first.
When he tries to speak Washington English, which is the way Bush thinks presidents are supposed to speak — over-enunciating and sprinkling his comments with awkward aphorisms — he fumbles. He forgets what he's saying because the thoughts and words are not his own. My guess is he over-enunciates to cover his prairie accent, but the effect is, well, sssssstrange.
Tapes of Bush as governor of Texas reveal none of the malapropisms for which he is now infamous. That's because in Texas, he speaks his native tongue.
Anyone who speaks before cameras knows the taste of humility and can relate to the agony of being George Bush.
Even, perhaps, Scarborough, who wrapped up his idiot segment, saying: "And that is a big question, whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness — if that's a word — to continue leading this country."
My dictionary confirms that "curiousness" is a word, though Joe's expression suggested it wasn't the one he meant to use. No worries. Sometimes in the excitement of a moment, even the curiouser and curiouser quite forget how to speak good English.
That is often because their brains are working faster than their mouths can keep up and they change thoughts, or expressions, in mid sentence or word even (think "misunderestimated). For the scientists, they are often searching for the right word in everyday language when they normally speak and think in technical terms.
Bush's communications problems are two: Reading a prepared speech, even if he wrote most of it, and not attempting to communicate at all, thinking people can grasp the obvious.
That fails him when the Democrats and media lie about what he said and did. In key speeches Bush said that the war on terror would take a long time, maybe thirty years, and it would not be over during his presidency. Yet, that is ignored and even McCain misquotes him. The problem is he doesn't jump in and correct them.
He also said that Iraq was not an eminent threat but that Saddam's intentions were evident and dangerous so we must take him out before the threat is eminent. The Democrats claim the opposite and he doesn't correct them.
I suppose he may think others will correct the record for him but they rarely do. He also seems content for history to set the record straight. That could take a long time if the Democrats regain power and rewrite history as is their want. The Clintons are wonderful examples.
I greatly respect your candor (and your credentials). I would guess that you also had a problem that I encountered 'way back when' and that is that I was always about two steps ahead of my parents and teachers when I was a kid - they all hated that! :)
Now for a suggestion for you that, unexpectedly, really helped me when I, for reasons I won't go into, tried something an expert suggested. Namely, every morning I started getting up BEFORE anyone else was awake (yeah, it's still dark) and would sit quietly by myself and really focus on my breathing and my body, mentally calming my mind and everything else. After some months I found that I could 'do that' mentally when I was standing in front of a group, in a circle of strangers, anywhere. It has changed my life because I have used it to 'slow things down' so that I don't outpace everyone around me, or my own ability to form words etc. It changed my life socially and has helped me professionally more than I can say.
Thanks! I'm not a morning person, but I'll give it a try!
No, Linda R. was never married to Jerry Brown. It is my understanding that his interests lie elsewhere. Her role when he was governor was to provide cover for him.
I heard once about a Colonel who wanted to be a general. He arranged for a tough assignment, managing Army Computer systems. He knew nothing about computers, so arranged a traffic accident for a computer genius, with a following brain transplant.
The day of the operation, he didn't show up. His doctor, (a West Point classmate) called, to remind him to show up to prepare for surgery.
"Oh, I got my orders for General this morning! I don't need brains any more!"
Tell me, aside from the naval academy trade course, what education did Jimmy Carter have? That would put him in the same category as Eisenhower, who graduated from the military academy trade course.
Seeking knowledge on that minor nit, I would agree that there is a big difference between educated and useful. I was at a course provided in association with a major western university, and the primary instructor landed like a ton of bricks on any suggestion from a student during class, but agreed every time I approached him after class to clear up. Just an ego thing this particular 83 year old professor had.
As for Bush, he has always been at his best when he's allowed to be himself. He gets into trouble when he has to read from a script or is in a more formal setting where he thinks he has to sound more "Washingtonian."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.