Replies

Great to hear. Why is it liberals and those that trash Bush always have to throw in "weak intellect" or some such statement? As if, it is the obligatory talking point.

I really do not believe for an instant that a man will be elected governor of the State of Texas and President of the U.S. with a "weak intellect". Surely America is not forced to pick from only "weak intellects" to lead them.

No, Bush is very intelligent - he just does not "show" it in the manner they value as elite intellectuals. Some people are detail oriented and others are the visionaries of the big picture. Both are needed but for different jobs.

However, I am impressed that after only 3 years this author was able to see the qualities, the strengths that have made us love and value him as a great leader before he was elected. Slow but he comes around I guess.

Talk about "weak intellect" - I guess you could look at half the Senate and all the liberals who still cannot understand what we are fighting for and why we had to take the battle to the terrorists. There are some "weak intellects". Thank the Lord they were not elected President.

I really do not believe for an instant that a man will be elected governor of the State of Texas and President of the U.S. with a "weak intellect".

Although he was never a Texas Gov., we did elect Jimmah Carter to be president. There's a weak intellect if ever I saw one!!

"Why is it liberals and those that trash Bush always have to throw in "weak intellect" or some such statement?"

Because it's the same thing they said about Reagan, Ford, Quayle and even Eisenhower. Because if you can't argue against the ideals, then the next best thing is to attack the qualifications of the person who represents them.
Another reason is plain old liberal arrogance. To their minds, the only reason someone could disagree with them is because they're just not smart enough to understand the complexity of the issues like the liberals do.
Think about how arrogant liberals are; the man who won the Cold War and the man who engineered the D-Day invasion were "weak intellects" to them. (I suspect that one of the reasons liberals were so vitriolic toward Newt Gingrich was because they could never get away with labeling a college professor as a dim-bulb).
I had an argument about Bush's intellect with one of my left leaning friends. So I asked him, "How many Ivy league degrees do you have?"

"I really do not believe for an instant that a man will be elected governor of the State of Texas and President of the U.S. with a "weak intellect". Surely America is not forced to pick from only "weak intellects" to lead them."

The "weak intellect", Is coming from the accusing side. Dumbocrats seem to , more and more, accuse the Republicans of what they are guilty.

Another example is when say we are Nazi's.

Anyone, with a average Intellect, can see that we are the farthest from Nazism as one could get.

Compare Nazism with Socialism, (which is what Naziism was), and the Democrats come awfully close to Nazism.

It's a standard tactic when liberals are trying to tear down a Republican leader, from Reagan to Bush and every politician and pundit in between, to paint their opponent as stupid and simple-minded. After all, if you disagree with the liberal position (which is, as we all know, correct), how could you not be a moron?

This is why they conveniently gloss over Bush's Harvard MBA, or try to dismiss it as something he has handed because of who his dad was. But I have a friend who is a brilliant financial advisor with a Harvard MBA, and he told me what you have to go through to get one. He said it makes no difference if your dad is Jesus, if you don't know the material backward and forward, and you aren't able to present your arguments and back them up on the spot, you make an F and you don't get a Harvard MBA. But then, my friend is a Republican, so liberals would probably just say he's far too stupid to know what he's talking about.

They throw in his supposed weak intellect, yet the next noise eminating from a liberal's piehole places Bush as the mastermind of an evil plot to do "something." Note that the "something" is never clearly delineated, or if it is, there is never a hint of what the libs would DO to rectify the "problem."
And about thirty percent of the population willingly drinks the demoncratic Kool-Aid every time it is offered.
The 'Rats could have a field day if they honestly evaluated some of Bush's policies and offered real alternatives(and a candidate who is more animated than the typical corpse),but they are incapable of this.