Best description of the anti-Bush phenomenon I've ever read.
The best description of Wes Clark I've ever read: He knows much but understands little.
That comment also applies, in my mind, to Al Gore. But it applies in the reverse to George Bush as well as Reagan.
Too often I see people confuse information with wisdom or even information with knowledge. It is one thing to be able to name every Central Asian republic and another thing to realize which is important and which is irrelevant. Bush, and Reagan before him, may not know a lot of facts, but they know what is important in the world. They understand human nature and they know how to act. They get results, despite their apparant inability to memorize vast amounts of irrelevant facts.
To me, that is the heart of the Bush-haters hatred. Bush, as Christopher Luebcke states, was a "mediocre student" (who graduated from Yale and has a Harvard MBA) and an "incompetent, disinterested businessman (who made millions).
What an interesting dichotomy - a mediocre student with a Harvard MBA and an incompetent disinterested businessman who made millions. In their hearts, the Bush-haters hate Bush for the same reason radical Muslims hate America. Both Bush and America are succesful when, according to those who hate them, they shouldn't be. How can Bush be succesful if he doesn't conform to MY view of how to suceed in the world. How can America succeed when Allah is on my side. It is a hatred born of confusion and the resulting resentment and envy. It is the reason Khomeini labeled the U.S. the Great Satan. How else could you explain American prosperity other than Satan must be behind it. There is nothing rational about it, so I don't even try to argue with Bush-haters anymore than I would try to argue with Osama bin Laden about the benefits of democracy and capitalism. My arguments would be incomprehensible to them. All I can say is that perhaps Christopher Luebcke does not understand the key to academic, business or political success. He may have theories, but those theories don't explain Bush. Therefore, rather than modifiying his theories to match the facts, he seeks to explain Bush's success as the result of nepotism, cheating, lying, etc., anything but to admit that a blandly good looking, good ole Texas boy may understand the key to success better than Luebcke.
In the end, Bush-haters, like Clark, may know much but they understand little.
Lifted verbatim from a post by David at Cold Fury. It may not be entirely grammatically correct, but it's dead on.