Are Americans/Politicians losing intelligence per new generations?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
They sure as hell aren't in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the founding fathers succeeded after all.

I would suspect, though without much basis in research at all, that there were a small handful of founding fathers who were truly brilliant --- the others were in the right place at the right time.

[W00lygimp]

Yes there are bright politicians, but I'm saying ...
Alexander Hamilton was so brilliant, that he did more than any other person to set up the U.S. economy. Brilliant man from what I've learned of him in my College U.S. History Class.
Abraham Lincoln is another brilliant person, I'm sayin can you imagine a world with Bush, Kerry, or Clinton being placed in the shoes of Lincoln, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin? I just don't see Bush being able to write the constitution. I don't see Clinton giving the gettysburg address and mending a war-torn nation. I don't see Kerry setting up the entire U.S. Economy.

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes there are bright politicians, but I'm saying ...
Alexander Hamilton was so brilliant, that he did more than any other person to set up the U.S. economy. Brilliant man from what I've learned of him in my College U.S. History Class.
Abraham Lincoln is another brilliant person, I'm sayin can you imagine a world with Bush, Kerry, or Clinton being placed in the shoes of Lincoln, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin? I just don't see Bush being able to write the constitution. I don't see Clinton giving the gettysburg address and mending a war-torn nation. I don't see Kerry setting up the entire U.S. Economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree with you about Clinton. If you've ever seen him speak, he is absolutely mesmerizing. He can give a 2 hour speech without notes, and you'd never notice a difference. I can absolutely picture him giving a Gettysburg address, or helping write the Bill of Rights. The man is a Rhodes Scholar... not exactly a schlep.

I have to agree that Kerry, Bush (41 and 43), and Reagan cannot compare to the founding fathers. The problem is that today, people want a President who's an average guy like themselves. Candidates get crap during campaigns for being "too" smart. Maybe we need to change America's perception that smart is bad!

[W00lygimp]

I disagree. Americans wan't a good man as a president, Clinton doesn't qualify as a "good man". The common perception is that most of the rich educated men in our society are ambitious, ruthless, and deceptive. They just want an all around good guy they can relate to, and thats not mutually exclusive with being smart. I'd rather Bush over Clinton, but Clinton (assuming he was a better person) over Bush. Clinton has some bad history... I remember the whole scandal in arkansas (Whether true or not).

Abraham Lincoln was a great man, smart, and trustworthy-- Most people don't want a devoutly religious President but this man (considered the greatest U.S. President) was. He had it all. He was intelligence, smart, had morals, good man, a bit weird lookin but... Why can't we get another Abe??

[tolbiny]

"I disagree. Americans wan't a good man as a president"

Bullplop.
If you asked each person individually who they wanted as president they might answer as such, but the voting history has shown otherwise.
1. You state that clinton doesn't qualify as a "good person" so how did he get elected twice?
2. GWB won the primaries against John McCain. McCain adopted a child (i believe from East Timor) who has dark skin. 527 group ads run in SC remided voters that he had a child with dark skin. SC went to Bush. Bush also never stood up and condemmed these ads. Ads were also run against McCain for "betraying" his comrades while a prisoner of war. McCain was a prisoner for 4+ years i believe and had his arms broken so badly that he cannont raise them fully over his head anymore. Bush again said little/nothing about these ads. There have been rampant rumors and some evidence that Bush was an acoholic and abused cocaine in his youth. Please tell me who is the better man, Bush or McCain, cause i will take McCain any day of the week.
3. Since the advent of television the taller person has won the election EVERY SINGLE TIME except for the 2000 election. Coincidence?
4. on a smaller scale, Arnold (i won't even attempt to spell his last name) is now govenor of California. Stories about sexual misconduct with women, steriod and drug use didn't hurt his popularity one bit.

the american populace doesn't want a "good man", thye want someone that they can have an emotional attachment to. Tall/goodlooking/friendly and familiar. Clinton was fantastic at connecting with crowds (became an instant supporter myself after hearing him speak and found myself pushing to shake his hand as he walked away- he could hold a room like no other speaker i have seen), no one gets elected (to a national stage) because they are "good men".

[tolbiny]

"Then when things get tough, you blame Bush. He received the same Intel we received, its the CIA's fault for misleading us"

How can you possible state this? His own, hand picked Secretary of state and national security advisor both stated at some point prior to the invasion that they believed Iraq's capabilities to create WMD's were severly limited. Buch quite clearly had evidence available to the contrary. He made the decision to go to war and then he set about convincing the country. A country that was emotionally distraught over 9/11 and also very proud of the way we pulled together and the immediate military victories in Afghanistan. Bush played upon these emotions to convince people his view was the correct one. He played up the angle that Iraq had ties to 9/11, he still hasn't shown any proof of any amout of substance that this was so. Not even what he himself had to base this decision on. Large groups of emotionally charged people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions- this doesn't absolve an indivdual from their decisions, but when a leader uses these emotions he must take responsibility for the outcome.

"it's wrong to criticize Bush on a war we all supported."

This is worse than garbage. to avoid comparing him to hitler, how about Neville chamberlain? Prime minster Chamberlin negotiated a peace treaty with Hitler in an attempt to avoid war. The treaty was signed, the vast majority of England and France were relieved. You know how that turned out. Historians have pointed out that had Chamberlin looked at certain points of evidence better and not been swayed by public opinion a stand might have been made that could have saved millions of lives. So we absolve him simply because what he did was popular. Trash. If an action is wrong, even if we only discover so in hindsight, it is wrong, we need to admit it, discover why we made the wrong choice, learn from it, BUT NOT EXCUSE THOSE WHO WERE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE!

[Cyrus]

Hey, W00lly ?

Fuh get about all those things I said about Dubya and Iraq and the deficit and whatever, OK? I think you're right on all those points. I have given it some thought and you are right on all those points. Totally totally right.

I even think you are right on all the points you haven't made YET.

No hard feelings?..

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]