But I did make the statement about Bush with a straight face, and I can’t believe you disagree, with a straight face.

There is no agreement on a definition of intelligence, but if you think it’s possible for someone who does not have a sharp, active, highly capable intellect to graduate from an Ivy League school, manage the demands of being a state governor and a president, be successful in business, etc. then you have a pretty warped definition of intelligence.

I agree he is a lousy speaker, and says some pretty silly things. Oratorial skill is not proof of a lack of intelligence. Is Joe Biden an “idiot” because he asked a paraplegic man to “stand up”?

The point was that Obama’s so called intelligence was not a reason to vote for him. Intelligence can be an asset to a leader; to someone who is a poor leader, all the intelligence in the world will not save him or her. The fawning over Obama’s intelligence, to me, smacks of a voter sentiment bent on retribution for the 2000 election. There is talk that this election has become a referendum on Obama. I think a significant portion of this election is an angry attempt at retribution for 2000, and an expression of hatred toward Bush…having nothing to do with either candidate.

JP, I can’t believe you really wrote that with a straight face… you failed to ask your own skeptic questions; “Where are the term papers and essays to prove this supposed intelligence? Why haven’t they been released? What is GWB trying to hide?”

If Michael Malone is a “media insider”, so am I. Careful there…

The only people who whine about the Biased Media are the ones who think they are running second.

“…he gives a pretty convincing explanation for it, too.” I think not. Sounds like he’s got an axe to grind. Trust me.

But then again… Where were we all without the song stylings of Michael Malone? That great American.

If you assume the press is biased, which most people do, you can’t expect any “objective” news story of their bias; it’s a non-sequitur.

The point of that piece is - and I think it’s powerful - is that a media insider is confessing that the degree of leftwing bias in this election apalls him. He is indicting the entire media enterprise, and he gives a pretty convincing explanation for it, too.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

This is people working in a free system. It is philosophically different from what Obama and many Democrats have said they’ve wanted for years: for the government to guarantee a college education (or healthcare or a home) as a “right” for citizens.

It ain’t Rush Limbaugh I’m quoting. It’s closer to Ayn Rand.

How typical to call me a racist. When did I write anything even implying anything about race?

Why don’t you define ‘white’ and ‘rich’ for me?

Who ever said the bank bailout wasn’t socialistic? Did I? But your whole concept of what they did is off base. It wasn’t a cash swap to “rich bankers.” The government did not raise taxes on the population and then send rebate checks to CEOs of banks and Wall stree firms. The idea, according to the Treasury secretary, who allegedly is some sort of guru on the great depression, is that you inject capital into the markets so that lending will resume. The lending is necessary to allow businesses and individuals to get access to funds and keep the economy moving. Banks employ far more middle class people than they do rich people, Tim. Isn’t keeping the bank afloat helping everyone who works for the bank?

“Socialism is one of the most vile, detestable concepts, philosophically, that man has ever created.”

And the bankers say, “AMEN!” Maybe some of that moolah will trickle down to the middle class.

As for your statement… “Freedom and fairness for all” means guaranteeing everyone’s right to live and work productively. It does not mean the right to have the same amount of income as your neighbor, or the same access to a college education, or the same access to healthcare. It is in the best interests of a government to create a society in which all of these things are as affordable and accessible as possible, but extending them the designation of “rights” violates the most fundamental right, the right to life itself.”

You’re on your own on this one. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh might have said. I love the, “same access to a college education, or the same access to healthcare..” part. That’s classic! Same? Define “same”. White? Rich?…