It's amazing to me that intellect is being so ignored as an issue by the mainstream press in this election, while far less important, more abstract, more subjective character issues like "steadiness" have somehow become not only acceptable but an actual part of the mainstream discussion.
We can and should change the dialogue to include serious questions about Bush's intellect.
It has become commonplace for the media to mention the stupid questions that have been raised about Kerry in regards to character issues like "steadiness" that Karl Rove made up. It's bad enough that they're recasting subbornness as a virtue. But can anyone recall
ever hearing the word "steady" applied to a human being prior to this Bush campaign?
This media's buzzing with talk of these nonsense character issues, and we even see mainstream anchors mention in their "he said, she said" way the silly smears about John Kerry's Vietnam service. You can't get any less legitimate or more tasteless than that, yet they report it.
So why, then, are they so fearful of mentioning that a very large portion of this country thinks George W. Bush isn't smart enough to be President?
Certainly this isn't the same as calling him an "idiot," which is a more debatable point, depending on your definition of idiot. But just about anyone would agree that he's not smart enough to be a rocket scientist. Why isn't it okay to suggest that leading the free world well should require similar intellect or expertise?
It's a very relevant, very important concern. Yet it's been condemned to late night comedy fodder status, mentioned only in equivalance to truly irrelevant things like John Kerry's "horse face." This must change.
We need to stop fighting the "character" war on their artificial turf of Rove-invented traits. We've got this much more volatile and substantive issue just sitting on the sidelines. George Bush isn't smart enough for this job. That's a powerful truth that we can use to play offense, rather than defense, on the field of character.