What if George W. Bush had done that?

[JVides]

^^^and again you ask me to compile research for you.  I'm stating my opinion, not issuing a dissertation. 

What Bush ran as and what he was perceived as are two different things.  Again, he was widely noted to be a poor speaker, and that led to talk of his intelligence.  I'm sorry I don't have a database compiled to prove this, but really, I don't care enough to compile one. 

And I'm not saying that Obama doesn't ever get made fun of.  I'm saying it's not as widespread as it was for Bush, and it's not nearly as mean-spirited.  And that's fine.   I think you confuse my anger over your line of questioning with some kind of protection of our past President.  I am growing ever more annoyed because you and Spider-Dan keep quibbling over side issues rather than contemplating why Bush got crap for silly stuff and Obama largely doesn't (as the article charges).  I proposed that A- Obama is just better liked than Bush was, B-back then the political environment was far more charged due to the close and contentious election, C-Obama is enjoying a honeymoon period, which in my experience most Presidents get, and D- there's a "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon going on because of all the difficulties the President is encountering.  Can we discuss this rather than whehter the cover of Mad Magazine truly symbolized the American people's sentiments in January of 2001?

[JVides]

Thomas Jefferson was an accomplished writer and founded the University of Virginia.  I don't think anyone questions his command of English (or his intelligence) because of his fear of public speaking or his poor speaking voice.
Saying that Theodore Roosevelt was "noted to be a poor public speaker" is like saying that Franklin Roosevelt was noted for his incredibly fast running or that Gerald Ford was famed for his marvelous golden locks of hair.  Teddy Roosevelt is considered to be one of the greatest orators of the 20th century.

So if Bush cranks out some good prose and founds the "University of Bubba", you're going to change your mind on his level of intellect?  Public speaking skills are not an indicator of intelligence.  People flub their lines due to nerves all the time.  It may be the man was never comfortable speaking to an audience, and not a lack of "basic english skills", as you claim.  As for TR, you have your source, I have mine.  I've read two biographies on TR (as he is my favorite President), and both mentioned his struggles as an orator.  He wasn't an accomplished public speaker.  Animated, yes.  Enthusiastic, definitely.  Good?  Apparently up for debate.

And yes, being able to master elementary-school-level English does reflect on your intelligence.  I find it puzzling that people seem to have this belief that a poor vocabulary or the inability to form a grammatically correct simple sentence somehow does not reflect one's intelligence at all, as if one's intelligence should be measured strictly by one's character or one's ability to recite state capitals.
Your original point mentioned only the cover and nothing of the content or articles.  Gore is also on the cover.  The point is null.

As null as your point about Obama on his cover of MAD?  My original point also included other examples of Bush being mocked as an idiot, and none of THOSE have been "discredited".  AGAIN, if Will Ferrell is famously known for playing the role of George Bush as an idiot on SNL, and he left in 2002, during Bush's war-honeymoon period, then when, pray tell, did he cement his character's legacy?  Gotta be before 9/11.

I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that this same issue has absolutely nothing negative to say about Al Gore inside the issue.  Otherwise, your second point would also be completely invalidated.

And the king of inferences strikes again!  Gore was panned for being boring, which was the national perception then, too.  I didn't mention him because the discussion wasn't about Gore.  The title of the thread reads "What if George W. Bush had done that?" and I was trying to stay on topic.  I know you find this difficult to do, but I try.  I kept the comparisons between the two men.  Gore was irrelevant to this particular discussion, as he wasn't named in the thread title and he was never, you know, President.

I disagree completely:

- every president is picked on by comedy entertainment outlets; that is their job)

Yeah, I think I said that already.  Go on...you're doing well...

- Obama has already been picked on by said comedy outlets

Well, it IS their job, right?

Obama has suffered far, far, far worse political attacks than GWB did from Jan-Oct 2001 (and anything from Sep. 2001 to mid-2002 is idiotic to compare, since GWB enjoyed historically high approval ratings at that time)

For a man so keen on attacking other people's examples, you sure don't provide many.  What political attacks has Obama suffered that were so egregious?  Do you refer to some crackpot religious leader praying for his death?  Not political.  The thing about his "true" place of birth?  Not embraced by the mainstream or entertainment media, and never even a serious talking point among Republican hierarchy.  Crackpot attacks against Obama are the same thing Bush got (he's the anti-christ!!).  Again, what do you see Obama being made fun of for?  What's he attacked for?  Not deserving the Nobel Peace Price?  Being so cool and calm?  Being well liked?  Does any of this undermine his authority as President, or undermine the populace's trust in his ability to lead?  "Golly gee willickers, that Prez sure is a nice, well educated man!  He must be a terrible President!"

I just fundamentally disagree with the entire premise at a foundational level.  The idea that Obama is coasting through on easy mode without criticism is just absurd.

NOW you're arguing something!  Huzzah for everyone, he's on topic!  Guess what?  I agree!  I never said he's getting away with anything or not getting his just due!  I said he's not getting attacked with the same vigor as Bush was, and tried to explain my reasons for this belief.  He's criticized, all right, for policy decisions, which is the way it should be, not some defect in his personality!

[bsmooth]

Actually Obabma is currently getting flax for his wanting to play ball with the guys, and not allow women in. I think it is stupid, but that is how it goes.
I remember Ford getting hounded without remorse for his clumsiness, and Carter is still mocked to this day as a goofy southern peanut farmer. Do you not remember Dana Carvey having a field day with Bush Sr and his "read my lips", and "not gonna do it". God's that was everywhere and everyone was doing it.
I will say it again. Stop comparing the mockery of Bush against just Obama, you have to weigh it against all the other presidents who had to face it also. Your insistance to just compare these two presidents when others have faced it too, flies in the face of your assertion you do not have a horse in the race.
Was/is Bush mocked for his complete and utter lack or oratory skills and vocabulary? Yes. Did he deserve it? Hell yes, by running for that level office you put yourself into the crosshairs.
What do you think is going to happen to Palin should she actually win? It will be a massacre, or comical gold, depending on your outlook.
Obama also has not given much for the comedians to really work with, where as his VP has, and I have seen John Stewart and others absolutely tee off on him for his "gaffs".
Show me where there has been obvious incidences that comedians have passed. John Stewart had a great one with the picture that looked like Obama was staring at the ass of the young girl.

[Spider-Dan]

So if Bush cranks out some good prose and founds the "University of Bubba", you're going to change your mind on his level of intellect?

If Bush is the primary author of a document that is used as a formal declaration of independence for a nation, works to draft a national constitution that goes on to be one of the most influential and important documents in the history of the world, and then does the architectural planning for a University that he founds, along with being an accomplished inventor, then sure.  I will take back everything I've said about his intellect.

I mean, seriously?  You're comparing George W. Bush to Thomas f*cking Jefferson?  Really?

Public speaking skills are not an indicator of intelligence.  People flub their lines due to nerves all the time.  It may be the man was never comfortable speaking to an audience, and not a lack of "basic english skills", as you claim.

Do you have a source for this claim?  Or are you literally just making it up on the fly?

Not once have I ever heard that GWB has a fear of public-speaking.  You are making excuses, and poor ones at that.

As for TR, you have your source, I have mine.  I've read two biographies on TR (as he is my favorite President), and both mentioned his struggles as an orator.  He wasn't an accomplished public speaker.  Animated, yes.  Enthusiastic, definitely.  Good?  Apparently up for debate.

And of course, when you say "up for debate," you mean that you will provide no sources for your claims.  Kind of like if I claimed that Woodrow Wilson was an outstanding basketball player.  I mean, it's possible, right?

For every source you can find that claims that TR was a "poor public speaker," I can find five that say that he was one of the greatest.  Now obviously, you can find crackpots that believe that FDR was in cahoots with the Nazis or that Reagan engineered 9/11.  That's fine.  But the overwhelming historical record regards TR as an exceptional orator.  Putting him in the same league as GWB is obscene.

My original point also included other examples of Bush being mocked as an idiot, and none of THOSE have been "discredited".  AGAIN, if Will Ferrell is famously known for playing the role of George Bush as an idiot on SNL, and he left in 2002, during Bush's war-honeymoon period, then when, pray tell, did he cement his character's legacy?  Gotta be before 9/11.

I let this one slide before, but since you brought it up again:  you do realize that Ferrell has returned to SNL to play GWB many times since 2002, right?  You seem to be adverse to research, but I'd suggest searching YouTube and looking at the dates that the various Ferrell GWB videos are posted.  Or, hell, just try Googling "will ferrell george bush 2002" (replacing the year with 2003, 2004, etc.) and look at the results that you get.

And the king of inferences strikes again!  Gore was panned for being boring, which was the national perception then, too.  I didn't mention him because the discussion wasn't about Gore.  The title of the thread reads "What if George W. Bush had done that?" and I was trying to stay on topic.

"The entertainment media jumped on Bush from the very start! Look at this magazine cover from 2001!"
"Um, Gore is also on that cover."
"The cover doesn't matter!  Inside the magazine, they probably said that Bush is dumb!"
"They probably also said that Gore is boring."
"We're talking about GEORGE BUSH!  Stay on topic!"

Give me a break.  If your response to counterpoints is to claim that we're not staying on the topic of Bush, what the hell do you expect anyone to bring up as a counterpoint?

For a man so keen on attacking other people's examples, you sure don't provide many.  What political attacks has Obama suffered that were so egregious?  Do you refer to some crackpot religious leader praying for his death?  Not political.  The thing about his "true" place of birth?  Not embraced by the mainstream or entertainment media, and never even a serious talking point among Republican hierarchy.  Crackpot attacks against Obama are the same thing Bush got (he's the anti-christ!!).

Show me a CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox anchor that devoted several segments of his mainstream, primetime show to indulging crackpot leftwing theories in 2001.  Because Lou Dobbs has been encouraging birthers for months.

Show me a "news network" that actively promoted anti-federal-government rallies in 2001.  You know, like Fox did with the "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."

Are you kidding me?

[JVides]

On Jefferson: Don't be a fool.  You know damned well there's no comparison.  I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your  inference that public speaking is an indicator of intelligence was.  If this is true, and Jefferson was a poor public speaker, then Thomas Jefferson was an idiot.  Your logic, not mine.  You came up with caveats, and I challenged them.  Done and done.

On Ferrell:  If his Bush character had not struck such a chord with the American public before he left the show, he would not have constantly been brought back on to repeat it. 

[urlhttp://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2001/09/22/05[/url]  Transcript of a Will Ferrell interview, Sept 22, 2001 

Notice Ferrell is described as "famous for his savagely funny impersonation", and also notice the commentary on whether a caller would find his impression funny after the attacks.  Is THAT good enough for you, king of research?

As for the MAD cover andthe ensuing discusion (which included your crack research onto a mag "making fun" of Obama, I SAID THEY SAID GORE WAS BORING - YOU didn't - because I read the issue and may still have the effing issue in a box somewhere!  You couldn't even research this own thread, and you crack on my research?  Nice one, dude!  I mean, I am the guy in bold, right?

If you choose to remember Bush's pre-9/11 time as one of dignity and respect, despite all the evidence I gave to the contrary, and despite what I am sure is engraved in your memory, then so be it.  I'm not your research center.  I don't need to triple-reference each of my arguments.  God KNOWS you sure as hell don't.  You don't even bother to read posts for key words and phrases in order to determine tone, instead jumping into attack before realizing that, hey, this dude's not attacking my party or President, he's trying to make sense of a question asked in the title.

Dan, I provide the board with links to almost everything I write to support an opinion.  I cite sources.  Not having the page number to TR: The last Romantic's chapter that discusses his troubles with public speaking is something I'm just not going to apologize for.  You should know by now that I don't "make things up on the fly".  To accuse me of this is just stupid. As you contribute nothing to the discussion, instead spending your time arguing about trivialities, I'm done.  You're the guy who responds to an argument with "well, your momma dresses you funny."  You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of adequately reading a post for meaning.  I'm not going to continue to go in circles with you because, frankly, it's beneath me.  I attempt to engage in intelligent discussion and share ideas without entering into bitter argument, but you insist on going there because, well, I don't know why. 

Last, now you're calling Fox new a real news agency?  I thought all they did was hire crackpots, which is why I don't watch them or pay them any attention.  It's comical that those who hate the network so much are so engrossed by its activities.  And now protests against excessive taxation are "anti-government"?  No cites to indicate where the "anti-government" part came from.  Tsk, Tsk!  No cite or actual mention of the "far, far worse" political treatment Obama has received.  Even your last example, if even on point, would refer to an attack by the media, not a political party.  Tsk, Tsk!  Who's making what up on the fly again?  Again - done.

[JVides]

I remember Ford getting hounded without remorse for his clumsiness, and Carter is still mocked to this day as a goofy southern peanut farmer. Do you not remember Dana Carvey having a field day with Bush Sr and his "read my lips", and "not gonna do it". God's that was everywhere and everyone was doing it.
I will say it again. Stop comparing the mockery of Bush against just Obama, you have to weigh it against all the other presidents who had to face it also.

But I MENTIONED several ofthe other Presidents and what comedians portrayed them as, MAN!  Are you guys fucking kidding me?  I haven't compared all the Presidents for hurtfulness or level of mockery because the freaking topic of the discussion thread relates, specifically, to Obama and Bush.  I'm not interested in comparing everyone else.  You go on to your heart's content, but I won't, 'kay?  I'm rooting for ya, buddy!

[bsmooth]

But I MENTIONED several ofthe other Presidents and what comedians portrayed them as, MAN!  Are you guys fucking kidding me?  I haven't compared all the Presidents for hurtfulness or level of mockery because the freaking topic of the discussion thread relates, specifically, to Obama and Bush.  I'm not interested in comparing everyone else.  You go on to your heart's content, but I won't, 'kay?  I'm rooting for ya, buddy!

Wow, you sure have a big bone to pick because one president in your opinion is much more harshly mocked than another one in a specific timeframe.

[JVides]

^^^Smooth, you refuse to read that I don't care and you ignore it.  I said it in my very first post and at least twice after.  You choose not to read?  Not my problem.  Don't infer when there's no need to.  I've explained, over and over, that I don't think the comparative treatment is fair or unfair; it is what it is.

[Spider-Dan]

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your "public speaking is an indicator of intelligence" comment was.  If this is true, and Jefferson was a poor public speaker, then Thomas Jefferson was an idiot.  Your logic, not mine.  You came up with caveats, and I challenged them.  Done and done.

That would be an outstanding point, had that been anything remotely near what I actually said.

I said that GWB had an appalling, embarrassingly bad grasp of the English language.  YOU were the one that translated that into "poor public speaking," as if there's any reason to believe that GWB has any better command of the language when not speaking in public (when there's plenty of reasons to believe that of Jefferson).

On Roosevelt:  for shits and giggles, let's see what happens when you google Theodore Roosevelt, "poor orator".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=theodore+roosevelt+%22poor+orator%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

High comedy.  In the first ten links of that search, the phrase "poor orator" refers to:

1) William Jennings Bryan (this was a wrong answer on a multiple choice question)
2) hypothetical person (the very next sentence talks about how inspiring Teddy's speeches were, in contrast)
3) not in document
4) Bobby Jindal
5) James Madison
6) hypothetical Congressman
7) Dwight Eisenhower
8) George H.W. Bush
9) Thomas Jefferson
10) unnamed MP of British Parliament

If this is what you call research, I suggest you give up this whole Google stuff.  You just conclusively disproved your own point.

On Ferrell:  If his Bush character had not struck such a chord with the American public before he left the show, he would not have constantly been brought back on to repeat it. 

But that's not the point you made.  Your point was that Will Ferrell somehow crammed all of his Bush portrayals in before 2002, when the truth is that he was playing Bush on SNL repeatedly after he left the show, even up to the 2008 election.

As for the MAD cover, I SAID THEY SAID GORE WAS BORING - YOU didn't - because I read the issue and may still have the effing issue in a box somewhere!  You couldn't even research this own thread, and you crack on my research?  Nice one, dude!  I mean, I am the guy in bold, right?

You do realize that those weren't actual quotes, right?

And as for your crack research, your amazing revelation that Gore is boring (gasp!) just happened to come directly after I mentioned that the magazine likely had something negative to say about Gore as well.  So, Mr. I-Have-The-Issue-In-Question, if you knew that Gore was also on the cover and you knew that the article bashing GWB for being stupid also bashed Gore for being boring... why even bring it up in the first place?  What POSSIBLE point were you trying to prove... that GWB was just-as-frequently-attacked as his counterpart?  What an incredible discovery!

If you choose to remember Bush's pre-9/11 time as one of dignity and respect, despite all the evidence I gave to the contrary, and despite what I am sure is engraved in your memory, then so be it.

I actually "choose" to remember it as many, many times more cordial and courteous than what Obama has went through since January.  I mean, we have hosts on major news networks saying that Obama is a racist and has a deep-seated hatred of white people.  Do you recall something similar happening to Bush in 2001?  I doubt it.

The rest of your post is comprised entirely of whining and name-calling, which is quite ironic when considering that that's what you're accusing me of.

[bsmooth]

^^^Smooth, you refuse to read that I don't care and you ignore it.  I said it in my very first post and at least twice after.  You choose not to read?  Not my problem.  Don't infer when there's no need to.  I've explained, over and over, that I don't think the comparative treatment is fair or unfair; it is what it is.

I am curious if a treatment is not fair or unfair, what is it?
 The tone and language of your postings could make one think that you do indeed think that the treatment of one person is less balanced than of another person in the same position, and to most people that would probably  meet the definition of unfair. 
Your preception of the amount of ridicule that comedians put Bush through vs. Obama is obviously markedly different from what both I am Spider think based on our own personal pbservations.