Monday, September 27, 2004


I'm pretty much a plain talker. I think straight forward is better. Call em like I see em, don't pull punches, too bad if it bothers somebody. This is sometimes confused by pseudo intellectuals as being stupid. Maybe this is all the fault of lawyers...I worked on filing some patents recently and a lawyer turned the word "several" into "a plurality of". I have a plurality of children living in my that's just plain stupid! So where am I going with this....well my favorite op/ed guy (James Taranto of the WSJ) has a funny bit on what I think is a classic liberal (oops I mean pseudo intellectual) mistake in judging someones intelligence based on their vocabularly or number of words they use to make a point. If you spew several words per sentence that most people have to look up then you're smart....I swear the dems claim to be the party of the people, many say they relate to the "common man" better than republicans or Bush. Who the F is this common man? Did those M-Fer's just call me common? Dems are a bunch of snobs. From today's WSJ op/ed "Best of the Web"

We were reminded of that joke when we read this hilarious piece in the Capital Times of Madison, Wis., in which Ann Richards, the one-term governor of Texas who lost her seat to George W. Bush in 1994, explains that Bush is hard to beat in a debate because he is stupid: [John] Kerry, like Richards and other Democrats who have faced Bush in past debates, probably knows too much.

"As a consequence, we see issues in less simplistic terms than the president. The president speaks in terms that are so simple on the most complex issues that it sort of leaves you with your mouth hanging open," says Richards, who was unseated by Bush 10 years ago this fall. . . .
She contends that has been part of Bush's political strategy for years, citing an exchange during the presidential debates four years ago when he and Vice President Al Gore fielded a question about Medicare and health care costs.

Richards recalled that Bush responded, "I think Medicare needs to be reformed." "That doesn't tell you anything about what he's going to do, it's simply a simplistic answer," Richards added. "And he does that on almost everything. You give people a simple answer and then you don't have to answer the complicated questions that matter."

Richards also puts her superior intellect on display, saying Bush has "been the most disappointing to women, who thought with all of his commitments and promises that things were going to change for them. Things didn't change; they got worse." So things got worse without changing? Must be some quantum-physics deal.

No comments: