[lbo-talk] letter to the editor

3.3.3. lslelel at gmail.com
Thu Sep 27 11:54:23 PDT 2007


The fun part is that someone else is probably coming down the line to make Bush look reasonable also. It's a turtle race to the bottom, and we are all forced to watch...

On 9/27/07, Robert Wrubel <bobwrubel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But what difference does it make whether Bush is
> stupid or not? What difference did it make that
> Clinton was glib? Reagan was even stupider than Bush,
> verbally, and he accomplished far more for the right
> than Bush has. Bush is merely finishing off the job
> Reagan started.
>
> BobW
> --- "B." <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jon Stewart mentioned that Bush doesn't talk like
> > he's
> > a moron -- he talks like *you* are a moron.
> >
> > Aside from whether Bush's being dumb is a
> > "comforting
> > notion," when you compare Bush's public talks with
> > nearly anyone else in politics, and esp. folks like
> > Bill Clinton, it's hard not to notice something is
> > different about the guy -- that is, when Bush deigns
> > to give press conferences, which is a rare thing
> > anyway, because of his collisions w/ English. Bush
> > openly acknowledges his legacy as a C student. I
> > don't
> > think he's too bright -- sort of the Howdy Doody
> > face
> > on a very pernicious agenda that does have a lot of
> > legit, though sinister, brain power behind it, in
> > the
> > form of Bush's handlers, minders, cabinet officers,
> > colleagues like Cheney, etc. And the amount of
> > official correction on the White House transcripts
> > is
> > pretty high. Thankfully we live in a YouTube world,
> > and they can't edit those. Some news outlets have
> > noted that not only is Bush's diction cleaned up on
> > paper, sometimes the reporters' questions are
> > changed
> > in the final record.
> >
> > -B.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Wrubel wrote:
> >
> > "In defense of Bush, or warning against the
> > comforting
> > belief that he's a moron, almost every national
> > politican uses phrases like 'national interest',
> > 'strong defense', 'progress', 'the American people',
> > without having the vaguest notion of what they're
> > talking about. Or knowing full well they're talking
> > about nothing."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "B." <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > "That was a good letter. And let's not forget that
> > even if we're not at Bush's speeches personally
> > we're
> > still not not given an opportunity to laugh at them,
> > either, because often the White House charitably
> > corrects Bush's grammar and pronunciation flubs when
> > they type up the official transcript."
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list