Blondes Are Smarter
Posted by Lurch on September 12, 2006 • Comments (7)Permalink

Sidney Blumenthal, who’s normally quite bright, seems to have stubbed his toe:

No one predicted just how radical a president George W. Bush would be. Neither his opponents, nor the reporters covering him, nor his closest campaign aides suggested that he would be the most willfully radical president in American history.

Susie Madrak begs to disagree:

"... I have to wonder (again) why they couldn’t see. I mean, it wasn’t rocket science: I simply looked at Bush’s personal history of continued failure and evasion of responsibility, his past enthusiastic embrace of his campaign duties as his father’s “dirty tricks” director, his political track record in Texas and his selection of running mate Dick Cheney, who for some reason, was universally hailed as an elder statesman by the Beltway establishment. (Ew. Ick.) And of course, there was the drug and alcohol abuse.

Add that to my gut, which told me he was a spoiled little rich boy.

I remember I was in physical therapy for my neck at the time of his campaign, and my Republican PT (for some reason, they all seem to be Republicans) was announcing his intention to vote for Bush. I told him he was nuts; I asked why on earth he’d put someone who had no real success in charge of the country.

He gave me the “says what he means and means what he says” response. I said okay, but he has no experience that prepared him for something like this.

“I thought about that,” he said. “But he has Dick Cheney, so that makes me feel better.”

Oy. So I switched tactics. “Have you ever worked for an owner-operated business?” I asked. Sure, all the time, he said.

“Ever work for one where the boss retired and put his son in charge?” Actually, yes, he had.

“Tell me if you’ve ever seen anything like this. The father knows the kid doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, so he leaves his best guy there to reassure the other employees, keep things running smoothly. Because he knows his kid can’t be trusted.

“Okay, so dad leaves, and for the first year or so, everything’s fine. But then junior decides he doesn’t need anybody to tell him what to do and starts changing things. It becomes a total disaster, and the business goes down the tubes. Why? Because human nature being what it is, the whole arrangement depends on junior’s willingness to be told what to do. Once junior starts feeling his oats, he wants to make his own mark, and that means getting rid of daddy’s advisors.

“You ever see a situation like that?”

The PT aide said yes, he did. But he still thought Cheney would be the man in charge.

Well, turns out he was right. But still.

And people who say blondes are stupid have never dealt with an Uberblonde.

Comments

Posted by: The Fat Lady Sings at September 13, 2006 01:56 AM

I'm with Susie on this. I said similar things about Reagan - and received the exact same canned responses. I had lived in California when Reagan was governor. I lost my job, my father lost his job, my then husband lost his job. Reagan ran California into the ground. It went from being the richest state in the union to one barely able to support its population. All thanks to Reagan. But the country bought his Will Rogeresque charm. Bush has charm too; but I'd classify it as more Lonesome Rhodes than Will Rogers – and we all know how that played itself out.

Posted by: Lurch at September 13, 2006 04:11 AM

Thanks for visiting once again, Fat Lady. I think many of our readers might not understand the reference to Lonesome Rhodes, but you're right, of course. A privileged rich frat boy from New England deliberately tried to remodel himself as a good ole boy from the Oil Patch, ineptly failing in one business venture after another. Hell, he couldn't even find oil in Bahrain!

As a nation, Americans began to lose the faculty of discriminative logical reasoning a generation ago.

As for the Ronald Reagan comparison... well, there you go again. ;)

Posted by: Gordon at September 13, 2006 05:49 PM

I too lived in CA when Raygun was governor. he was the worst governor we've had in my lifetime (I think Earl Warren was guv when I was a kid - you know, 'the Warren court'), and he wasn't any better as prez. Ooh, be back later, Blumenthal's on 'Hardball'.

Posted by: Gordon at September 13, 2006 05:56 PM

Commercial. Blumenthal might have stubbed his toe a little, but I read the whole 7-page article (and printed it to read again - 14 pages) and I think he got it mostly right.

Bush is nominally in charge, so it's on him. He's a weak man, easily, too easily, led. People with no conviction, or an inferiority chip on their shoulder, are like that.


BTW, 'conviction' is a lovely word. Perhaps Bush'll have one or more soon.

Posted by: Lurch at September 13, 2006 06:42 PM

Having a television AND a computer smacks of "elitism", Gordo

Are you one of those effete California liberals Mr Bu$h and his Yellow Elephants keep warning us about?

Posted by: Lurch at September 13, 2006 06:45 PM

Gordo, you've hit the nail on Mr Bu$h, although I think he's most amenable to flattery. I seriously doubt he'd react well to someone telling him "you must do this, or else something terrible will happen." But if he was shown how'd he'd score a couple million out of the deal he'd be on it like flies on a dog turd.

Posted by: Gordon at September 13, 2006 09:59 PM

I have a stereo and pinball games on ma 'puter as well. I'm a reet elite with a neat pleat!

Post a comment




Remember Me?