What kind of stupid is *?

[El Supremo]

After reading Jacob Weisberg's opinion in Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064 / , what do you think?

[codegreen]

1. he is religiously stupid. i'd say that falls under 'chooses'

[theivoryqueen]

2. he is sly and hypocritical and has an enormous ego

as well as self-absorbed, willfully ignorant and negligent, and fully aware (in a strictly legal sense) of what he does and why. It's all about the money, power and control. He's been around for a while, and hasn't managed to muzzle all those who have had contact or dealings with him. The city of Arlington, Texas can attest that he is a consummate blackmailer and will balk at no threat or action to get what he wants. (Usually money) Which, surprisingly, he almost always does. In Texas, we always knew his would be a presidency "for profit".

[El Supremo]

8. *'s successes.

I disagree with Weisberg's assertion that the Texas Rangers was a success because of his evengelicism or whatever. He sold his stake in Harken and the Rangers after taking advantage of the stockholders and taxpayers. His only success was that he learned how to be a successful crook.

[drthais]

3. there are not enough categories here

I cannot choose
oh my

let's see now
what kind of 'stupid' is *

He is a narrow-minded idealogue, self-centered and spoiled little rich boy. He cares not for the country or the people of the country, he is interested only in increasing his standing with those in power by delivering to them all they request - at the expense of our economy, the health of our environment, and our standing in the world.

thats what kind of 'stupid' he is
because, in the end, we lose our country
great trade-off, don't you think?
not a very well developed long-range view.

[QC]

4. I'm with Weisberg and Mark Crispin Miller on this.

Bush is not really dumb--he has good political skills, for example--but he is incredibly smug and incurious.

I've taught enough members of the Lucky Sperm Club to have seen this before. Such people are often firmly convinced that they have it made and don't really need to know anything. They will never lack for money, and that fact, along with connections and the usual gift for schmoozing, gives them influence. Learning, as they see it, is for folks who are going to have to work for a living. Work for them, of course.

Bush has that attitude in spades.

[woofless]

5. W asks "What kind of a dumbass do you take me for?"

Answer: "First Class."

[Rosco T.]

6. I can't decide..

but he certainly fits the title 'ferbrains

[Canuckistanian]

7. He's the "anti-elitist"

So therefore, he must constantly downplay any sign of intelligence. It's how he maintains his base. And why he'll never expand past that point.

[salin]

9. other - intentionally intellectually lazy

basic sloth - just doesn't want to be bothered. Indicated that while the pre911 intel was coming in ... at the important briefing... he couldn't even be bothered to read a 1 1/2 page memo. Indicated that he didn't read the 6 page intel memo on the Niger information (which had the caveats - and on that one Condi claims not to have throroughly read it either). Indicated in an interview (puff piece) on Condi and her relationship with Bush (in Time mag, I think) that even after 9-11 and after the iraq war bush can't be bothered to read briefing papers - she has to condense the papers down into bite size bullet summary points for his consumption. NOTHING is so serious to this man to make him actually READ policy. He is LAZY and likes it that way. And oddly enough he is very self-righteous in his "reading body language is more important than hearing policy talk or anything the fancy-pants intellectuals might come up with"... to the point of making that point when talking about his joint appearance before the commission - that it was imp for the 911 commissioners to "see the body language" between bush and cheney (wtheck?)

[El Supremo]

10. I like that, so I added it to the poll.

[salin]

12. then you can move one "other" to lazy n/t

[Mattforclark]

14. I think you should change it again

I thought "too lazy to learn" meant I am too lazy to learn why he is stupid, not that he himself is too lazy to learn. If you put a "he" in front, it would be clearer.

Thanks :)

[Warpy]

11. He is monumentally lazy, wilfully ignorant

...arrogantly incurious, and that all adds up to stupidity. According to the Harvard prof who was unfortunate enough to have him in class in B-school, he is incapable of thought or analysis in any depth, is given to simplistic blanket statements, and uninterested in any of the course material.

He also considered the height of wit to fling spitballs in class, something I think most of us gave up by the age of 12.

On top of all this, he does have obvious brain damage from drinking heavily for decades. You can tell by the slurred speech, shifty gaze (nystagmus) poor balance, and confabulation when he clearly doesn't remember events.

Please get this man out of power forever.

[Th1onein]

13. He's stupid, lazy, and chooses to be both.