Posted on 01/02/2009 6:30:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Karl Rove's recent revelation of President George W. Bush's passion for books wasn't a surprise to me. In a Wall Street Journal column last week, Rove explained that for the last three years, he and the president have had a friendly rivalry to see who could finish more books during the year. Rove won each year -- but the president was no piker. In the three years of the competition, the president read 186 books to Rove's 250.
Much of the intelligentsia no doubt will be shocked to learn George W. Bush is an avid reader of serious books, but it simply confirms something I already suspected. During the first real discussion I ever had with then-Gov. Bush in 1998, he brought up a book written by a former colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute.
Myron Magnet's "The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties' Legacy to the Underclass" isn't the sort of book you come across if your taste goes to light reading. A scathing dissection of good intentions gone awry, Magnet's book lays bare the folly of liberal interventions on behalf of the poor and the devastating role of the counterculture in creating the underclass. But it's no red-meat screed of the sort that has propelled many well-known pundits to the top of the best-seller list either. Magnet is not a polemicist, but a serious scholar and elegant writer. Bush's reference to the book spoke worlds to me.
Liberals have always believed they have a monopoly on intelligence. Of all the Republican presidents in my lifetime, I can only recall one who was given high marks for raw intellect: Richard M. Nixon. But he was considered by many liberals as a Machiavellian exception that proved the rule that conservatives are dopes. In liberals' telling, Eisenhower and Ford were middle-brow Midwesterners who preferred the golf links to books; Reagan was a B-film actor capable of giving a good speech that someone else wrote; and the two Bushes were Yale graduates by way of money and pedigree, not merit.
Of course we now know -- thanks to the publication of "Reagan, In His Own Hand," a reproduction of Reagan's early handwritten speeches -- that Ronald Reagan was often his own best wordsmith and that his ideas were original, not borrowed. And perhaps liberals will now grudgingly acknowledge that Dwight D. Eisenhower must have had something on the ball, if not for his role in defeating the uber-smart Germans during World War II, at least for contributing to the gene pool of granddaughter Susan Eisenhower, who proved how smart she was by endorsing the brainy Barack Obama.
Contrary to the stereotype that all conservatives are narrow-minded dummies, I've found that conservatives are far more likely to be familiar with liberal intellectual thought than liberals are with the views of conservative intellectuals.
Bush's reading list was instructive not just because it was so long but because it included authors whose political orientation was different from the president's own. Included on the list provided by Rove were works by authors David Halberstam, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and James M. McPherson, all liberals, as well as the novel "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, generally regarded as an existentialist, though he eschewed the label.
It would be a little like learning that Bill Clinton's reading list in office included works by James Q. Wilson, Stephan Thernstrom, and Harvey Klehr, as well as Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." But what we know of his reading habits reveal Clinton to be predictable. A list of his 21 favorite books, compiled for his presidential library, included authors Maya Angelou, Ralph Ellison, Taylor Branch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and, naturally, Hillary Clinton -- all well to the left on the political spectrum.
Bush's book list isn't likely to convince his critics that the president's intellect is equal to their exalted own. And I can even imagine some complaining that the number of books the president read proves he was ignoring his job. But perhaps Rove's article will at least dispel a favorite caricature: Bush the Dummy.
Great. So Bush spent more time competing with Karl Rove on how many books he could read instead of being a leader. Bush should be arrested for being AWOL from the Republican Party and it’s ideals.
“But what we know of his reading habits reveal Clinton to be predictable...” Yeah, -Hustler, Swank, Penthouse...
His mother taught him well and his wonderful wife continued the molding of a good and very bright man!
"How to Use the Veto",""Standing Up for Proven Conservative Principles","Tough Love:Saying No to Bailouts and Handouts!","Why America is a Republic,and the Dangers of Democracy"
You forgot BUFF for Men who like PLUS SIZED Gals. LOL
We have two choices, either he is stupid like the liberal stereotype goes or he is a liberal mole that was determined to destroy the republican party and capitalism, and give democrats absolute power. Either way he has earned our contempt.
save GWB failed legacy ping
There’s a third choice I incline toward: both.
I’ve no doubt that President Bush is an intelligent man.
My problem with him is that, while claiming to be a conservative, he has presided like a Republican.
I suspect Obama doesn't actually read much, preferring the "digest" books electronically. But, no matter how much one dislikes Bush - over the course of the next 8 years, people will long for his days in office. Our worst days are ahead....despite the fact that the MSM and libs are telling us that "the one" has arrived and will cure all.
And, spare me the rose-colored-glasses routine about the GOP rising again. If you think Bush was flaccid....he was only reflecting his party "leadership."
Conservatives do not vote for anti-Conservatives. Today’s Republican party is DOA.
Boy, is that the truth. They have no idea what we actually stand for. If you ask, they launch into some caricature of a drunken redneck.
The president would have to be turning over a book roughly every two days, no matter what. Rove would be turning over two books about every three days, no matter what. Both these men have ultra-demanding jobs, families, other hobbies, etc. How do either of these claims pass the laugh test? At best, they are both sitting and flipping pages in order to win their stupid bet. (I wouldn't put this past either of them knowing their well-documented competitive streaks.)
There is no earthly way either of them could read and internalize 200 books on top of the memos, letters, policy documents, proposed legislation, etc. they are presented with every day. It's not possible.
Reading as a hobby is a sure sign of intelligence. I think we can all agree that the president is intelligent whether he is an avid reader or not. He wouldn't be able to function in the presidency without high intelligence. However, claiming to have read absurd numbers of books in order to rebutt the liberals’ claims of “stupidity” is not helpful. It only makes the president look defensive on the matter.
I'm positive he hasn't written any letters to the martyred Campean and Ramos.
Those two individuals are the hallmark of el presidente Bushie's legacy. That's what he's all about!
Republicrats: you're on notice. If you don't get in there and fight, and I mean really fight, you're toast. Not only won't you be eating government grub nor will you be sucking up the bucks, but your DemocRAT buddies will be long gone as well.
You are as useless as boar tits.
In fairness, I misread the article. It was 186 and 250 over a three year period.
It’s still a little more than a book a week. Do-able for someone who spends a ton of time on international flights, but still seems high to me.
“If you ask, they launch into some caricature of a drunken redneck.”
Very true, but one has to admit we have our own stereotypes for liberals.
I know a few highly intelligent and moral ones: Their goals are actually similar to ours, but they see a different path to get there.
I just don’t agree with them.
It's called generating a legacy from a failed presidency. Clinton did the same thing. September 11 and GWBs initial reaction made Clinton look like the sex and party administration and republicans look like the nation's natural leaders.
Now GWB has got the public to trust democrats on all issues over republicans. He truly has earned our contempt, and I dont care if liberals hate him. He is the gift that keeps on giving democats.
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.