Apart from specific criticism of President Bush’s policies, Democrats have employed an ineffective and counter-productive argument against him.

They say he is stupid.

Some even say he’s retarded, which is just plain silly. While Mr. Bush is certainly no intellectual, he is quite arguably an intelligent man. The notion that he isn’t lets him get away with things he shouldn’t, because the underlying feeling that Bush is just an average Joe suggests that his shortcomings are acceptable.

Democrats are quick to point out Bush’s inability to speak publicly without a script. They note his near-flawless presentation of the State of the Union address compared to his everyday, unrehearsed bumblings, which have come to be known as “Bushisms.”

So what? Lots of people feel insecure speaking in public. That’s normal. Anxiety is the biggest showstopper to public speaking.

Another reason Democrats give for his “stupidity” is the fact that Bush was accepted into Yale — not on his own scholastic merits, but because Yale allows children of graduates to enter regardless of high school performance. They say he didn’t earn his way there, but rather, that it came only due to a life of privilege.

While that is certainly true, Bush did earn a diploma once he got there. Even if his grades were less than stellar, it takes quite a bit of work to graduate from Yale.

Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by seriously talking about this stuff.

Combined with being seen as a “nice guy” (his personal poll ratings, independent of policy, typically hover in the mid 60s), attacks on his intelligence almost give him a get-out-of-jail-free card.

While people like him personally, their expectations of him are lowered. Therefore when Bush makes dishonest statements, the “liberal” media shrugs it off uncritically — why should they bother questioning a nice, trustworthy guy?

Anyone can make a mistake, and everyone knows that. A recent example of the media letting Bush off the hook is his claim, in reference to federal spending, that “we’re going to maintain spending discipline.”

It was a flat-out lie. To maintain disciplined spending, we must already be employing it. The largest federal deficits in U.S. history cannot conceivably be characterized as “disciplined.” To say that this “spending discipline” will continue requires future budgets to be kept under control.

Clearly they won’t be, at least on our current path, given the fact that Bush has no plan to balance the budget and will continue spending like a recent lottery winner.

In fact, he intends to add nearly $1.2 trillion ($3,920 in additional taxes, per American) in federal debt during his second term, if re-elected. According to Fox News, Bush’s 2005 budget doesn’t even include costs for Afghanistan and Iraq. With the future of each in doubt, finding an exact figure is impossible.

The point, however, is the true deficit is even higher than advertised. If Bush wants to spend like a Democrat, he should take some responsibility and tax like one

too.

His conscious gutting of the American taxpayer doesn’t mesh with his image as a “nice guy,” but since the Democrats would rather make childish attacks on Bush’s intelligence, the real issues are degraded and his lies are ignored.

Meanwhile, the Republicans counter that “All Democrats do is attack! They’re so angry!” And thus genuine debate is lost in a myriad of non-issues. These political games serve no one.

Democrats would be wise to abandon ad hominem attacks and replace them with specific arguments against Bush policies.

Is he spending irresponsibly? Do Americans have fewer freedoms since he has taken office?

Has the Bush administration damaged relationships with our allies and increased tensions with non-allied nations?

What about the environment? Women’s rights?

This is just a sample of important issues which have had to compete with the unimportant insult-politics of many Bush-haters. As a result, we have all suffered.