June 7, 2005
WHY DO YOU THINK I'M A CABANA BOY?:
Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student: His 4-year average on par with Bush's (Michael Kranish, June 7, 2005, Boston Globe)
During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.
The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record. During the campaign the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file. Late last month, Kerry gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Globe.
It didn't matter in 2004, because he was running against an invcumbent, but it's wise of Mr. Kerry to play up his own scholastic mediocrity if he plans to run in '08. The candidate perceived as smarter has never won an open presidential race in at least modern times. Americans despise intellectuals. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 7, 2005 8:57 AM
"The candidate perceived as smarter has never won an open presidential race in at least modern times."
Carter vs. Ford '76?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 7, 2005 9:15 AMThere have been two of what I would consider world class intellectuals elected President in my lifetime: Richard Nixon and William Clinton. Nixon's post-Presidential writings on international affairs show him to have been a brilliant man with a very subtle grasp of some of the world's most complex issues. And of course, we've been lectured many times that the Clintons (both him and her) are among the smartest of the smart in every possible way.
Yet would anyone consider those to be successful presidencies?
It's helps to be smart. But intellect alone does not make you a good person or a good President. I, for one, prefer to be led by a person with a decent head on his/her sholders, and who is guided by a rock solid character.
We've been blessed with two of those in my lifetime: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Posted by: JonSK at June 7, 2005 9:34 AMclinton has a good memory and a facile way of speaking. if that makes him smart then someone call up websters, because the definition of the word has changed considerably. there is no evidence whatsoever that clinton is anything but a mediocre thinker.
Posted by: cjm at June 7, 2005 10:08 AMIt has been highly amusing to see the press try to portray Bush's two opponents as being brilliant minds, so far above the rest of us that we can't comprehend their subtlety and nuance. Hmmm. Seems like the simpler explanation would be that the speaker is an idiot, not the entire audience...
Posted by: b at June 7, 2005 10:30 AMWait - If Bush had a cumulative score of 77 in just 3 years (25.7 per year), and Kerry had a cumulative score of 76 in 4 years (19 per year), isn't Bush way ahead? If they took 10 courses per year, Kerry averaged 1.9 (C-), Bush 2.57 (B-).
If A is 4, B 3, C 2, D 1, you can see that Kerry's 4 D's his freshman year would put him way behind Bush.
Calling this a "virtually identical grade average" is very misleading.
Posted by: pj at June 7, 2005 10:30 AMI don't know how much of it should be credited to speechwriters, but from the things I've read, Reagan comes across as pretty darn sharp.
Posted by: Guy T. at June 7, 2005 10:43 AMGuy, read In Reagan's OWn Hand, IIRC.
It's the stuff he wrote on his own.
If he had only been sharper after the Beirut bombing.
We'll never know how much was really taken out of him after he was shot.
Posted by: Sandy P. at June 7, 2005 10:53 AMThe only thing less trustworthy than an actual intellectual is a dumb person who thinks he's an intellectual. That's why Gore and Kerry would have been so dreadful (and so much worse than Clinton or Nixon were).
Posted by: rds at June 7, 2005 11:12 AMpj--
It's a bit confusing. They mean cumulative as in "averaged over every year" not "sum total." These averages are on a 100 point scale for both of them. 90-100 A, 80-89 B, and so on.
Posted by: John Thacker at June 7, 2005 11:24 AMThere was a puff piece on Kerry in the Boston Herald yesterday. It is amusing to watch all these people portray Kerry as the great Dem hope in '08 when he probably will be out of once the Hillary steamroller gets going.
Posted by: AWW at June 7, 2005 12:08 PMBueno! The question for the ages has been settled. Neither Kerry nor Gore is Bush's intellectual superior.
BTW - How did old Hayek know we were going to have an EU in our future?
"the warning of F.A. Hayek, that it is impossible for small groups of elite bureaucrats to make decisions which will operate efficiently"
Posted by: erp at June 7, 2005 12:12 PMThe photo of Kerry that accompanied this article was truly atrocious -- he really does look like Lurch.
Posted by: jd watson at June 7, 2005 12:13 PMJonSK's comment on Clinton alleged brilliance reminds me of Peggy Noonan's take on the subject:
(paraphrasing)
'If Clinton is so brilliant, it must have taken a real effort of the will to talk in public for 8 years and never say a single thing of any intellectual interest.'
Ain't he pretty? Got him as my screen saver now, he took over from the Schroeder-Chirac "pop-goes-the-weasel" shot.
Posted by: joe shropshire at June 7, 2005 1:56 PM