Special Olympian

A quick note about something I heard this morning on the drive to work--I was running a little late, and caught the first couple of minutes of the Jim Engster Show--which is locally produced by WRKF (NPR affiliate here in Baton Rouge).

Engster interviewed Bob Livingston's former press spokesperson (damn, I think Timshel posted something about him the other day--as for me, I've forgotten his name already). Anyway, the guy suggested that Bush "won" Friday's debate because he proved to the public that he was, in fact, capable of "walking and chewing gum."

Is THAT how low some have sunk when it comes to judging the qualifications of George W. Bush? The guy is "presidential" if there's no visible drool on his necktie? Sadly, this seems to be the case.

Four years ago, Bush famously came up sort of one for four when asked if he could name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India, and Pakistan. His response was to lash out at reporter Andy Hiller:

"What I'm suggesting to you is that (because) you can't name the foreign minister of Mexico, therefore you're not capable of what you do. But the truth of the matter is you are, whether you can or not."

Whatever.

Presumably in the four years since he took office Bush has managed to get just a little better with his world leaders--he's managed to cite Kwasniewsky and Blair during both debates--but can he, for instance, tell us who's in the "Coalition of the Willing" without a crib sheet?

The job of president requires a little more gray matter than that necessary to walk and chew gum. To suggest otherwise, as was done this morning, is yet another reason why the "global" war on terror is going so poorly--if you're going to have a global strategy, it's important to understand the globe. This president--and his supporters--seem to think that's unimportant.