Who Was Smarter?

[Tim Gratz]

Several members have posted disparaging remarks about the intelligence of the late President Ronald Reagan. My initial comment is that I seriously doubt that at least since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, anyone has been able to be elected president who was not of outstanding intelligence.

Certainly the ability to carry on an intelligent debate and indeed the ability to win a debate against a person of extraordinary intelligence ought to be an adequate indicia of intelligence.

If you will then grant me that Robert F. Kennedy was a person of rather extraordinary intelligence (a belief to which I subscribe) then I can demonstrate to you that Ronald Reagan was of equal intelligence.

You see, in May of 1967 1968 Reagan defeated RFK in a debate.

The venue was a CBS news program called "Town Meeting of the World." Participants included reagan, Kennedy and 18 students from London. (One of whom was a Rhodes scholar and future U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.)

Newswek reported that "It was political rookie Reagan who left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended." Newsweek, May 29, 1967, pages 30-31.

David Halberstam wrote that "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]."

Reportedly RFK was furious with Frank Mankiewicz who had arranged for his participation in the program.

Not surprisibly, the Reagan/Kennedy encounter is not mentioned in Arthur Scheslinger's 1,000 plus page biography of RFK.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas Graves]

Several members have posted disparaging remarks about the intelligence of the late President Ronald Reagan. My initial comment is that I seriously doubt that at least since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, anyone has been able to be elected president who was not of outstanding intelligence.

Certainly the ability to carry on an intelligent debate and indeed the ability to win a debate against a person of extraordinary intelligence ought to be an adequate indicia of intelligence.

If you will then grant me that Robert F. Kennedy was a person of rather extraordinary intelligence (a belief to which I subscribe) then I can demonstrate to you that Ronald Reagan was of equal intelligence.

You see, in May of 1967 1968 Reagan defeated RFK in a debate.

The venue was a CBS news program called "Town Meeting of the World." Participants included reagan, Kennedy and 18 students from London. (One of whom was a Rhodes scholar and future U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.)

Newswek reported that "It was political rookie Reagan who left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended." Newsweek, May 29, 1967, pages 30-31.

David Halberstam wrote that "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]."

Reportedly RFK was furious with Frank Mankiewicz who had arranged for his participation in the program.

Not surprisibly, the Reagan/Kennedy encounter is not mentioned in Arthur Scheslinger's 1,000 plus page biography of RFK.

______________________________________________

Tim,

With all due respect-- who gives a "rat's ass?"

Sincerely, Thomas

Edited November 21, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Dawn Meredith]

Is this a serious question???

IF so my vote goes to Bobby, hands down.

But what's it got to do with this debate????

This is the anniversary almost of the murder of JFK and

you're bringing up old Ronnie?

Why don't you start your own Republican lovers forum, Tim.

You'd have a lot of cheer leaders there

Dawn

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I don't think the intelligence of presidents has a lot to do with how they are perceived. The media could have utterly trashed almost anything that came out of Reagan's mouth. For Example the famous driving down the coast of California into the nurological twilight zone that ended one o his debates. Instead when the speech was over, the commentators would switch from an anayis of what actually had been said, to an analysis of HOW THIS MUST HAVE AFFECTED SOME IMAGINARY EVERYDAY AMERICAN.

The networks were a friend to Ronnie because Ronnie was a friend to Corporate America.

Clinton was perceived as smart in proportion as he moved the Democrats further to the right on almost any issue of a billion dollars or more.

[Terry Mauro]

Several members have posted disparaging remarks about the intelligence of the late President Ronald Reagan. My initial comment is that I seriously doubt that at least since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, anyone has been able to be elected president who was not of outstanding intelligence.

Certainly the ability to carry on an intelligent debate and indeed the ability to win a debate against a person of extraordinary intelligence ought to be an adequate indicia of intelligence.

If you will then grant me that Robert F. Kennedy was a person of rather extraordinary intelligence (a belief to which I subscribe) then I can demonstrate to you that Ronald Reagan was of equal intelligence.

You see, in May of 1967 1968 Reagan defeated RFK in a debate.

The venue was a CBS news program called "Town Meeting of the World." Participants included reagan, Kennedy and 18 students from London. (One of whom was a Rhodes scholar and future U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.)

Newswek reported that "It was political rookie Reagan who left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended." Newsweek, May 29, 1967, pages 30-31.

David Halberstam wrote that "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]."

Reportedly RFK was furious with Frank Mankiewicz who had arranged for his participation in the program.

Not surprisibly, the Reagan/Kennedy encounter is not mentioned in Arthur Scheslinger's 1,000 plus page biography of RFK.

**********************************************************

Reagan was merely an actor, and a B grade one, at that. He was as adept at memorizing his lines and reading a teleprompter as any other media celebrity. File him away with the rest of Operation Mockingbird and its flag-waving lackeys.

[Ron Ecker]

Reagan was dumb and dumber. He was dumb before he got shot and dumber afterward. Or at least he played it that way. Not that the bullet messed with his mind as much as the people who fired it, after they arranged for his limo to be parked far away from where it was supposed to be, so that he had to walk over into the patsy's line of fire. (Was Greer the driver?) George H.W. Bush ran things after that. After his recovery Reagan, for his own good, was content to doze off at meetings, tell jokes, and pop jellybeans, so as not to inspire yet another attempt on his life by trying to interfere with Bush (or "Bosch" as Reagan once strangely called him) in making presidential decisions for the rest of Reagan's two terms.

[Tim Gratz]

Terry wrote:

Reagan was merely an actor, and a B grade one, at that. He was as adept at memorizing his lines and reading a teleprompter as any other media celebrity. File him away with the rest of Operation Mockingbird and its flag-waving lackeys.

Funny, the information I posted about the Reagan-RFK debate demolishes Terry's thesis. As anyone who has ever debated an intelligent person knows, one cannot survive in a debate by memorizing lines and reading a teleprompter. In addition, it has now been revealed that Reagan personally wrote all of the radio speeches he delivered in 1976-1980 period. He often did this while being driven back to LA after a long dsay of physical labour at his ranch.

Gov. Brown dismissed Reagan as "merely an actor", an underestimation that contributed to his defeat.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, the "information" you posted was merely a pair of IMPRESSIONS about the debate. If I recall correctly, in the first JFK-Nixon debate, TV viewers thought JFK won, while radio listeners thought Nixon won.

So impressions prove NOTHING.

Now, if you could come up with either an MP3, a video recording, or even a transcript of the debate, then you might have a case.

Otherwise, your "evidence" is heresay, and therefore I object, counselor, and ask that it be stricken from the record and that the jurors be instructed to disregard the testimony [yeah, I DID watch "Perry Mason"...].

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, sorry, objection denied.

An opinion reported in a reputable magazine is not hearsay. AZt least I believe there would be ways to introduce it in evidence over a hearsay objection.

But is it your really your objection that Halberstam did not make the remark attributed to him?

And re your point (well-taken) about the difference in perception of those who watched or listened to the first JFK-RMN debate, I think that only proves my contention. Both JFK and RMN were intelligent men, both of whom, IMO, made egregious errors in judgment (which I think demonstrates that intelligence alone may be insufficient for a successful presidency). The fact that they were so evenly matched and scored in the debates demonstrates the intelligence of each man.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, my contention is NOT that Halberstam didn't make that remark. My contention is that the remark itself, "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]," is a conclusion with no supporting evidence. It is merely Halberstam's IMPRESSION, and may or may NOT represent actual public reaction (again I cite the first Nixon/JFK debate and the widely divergent IMPRESSIONS of the radio and TV audiences).

Ted Kennedy is obviously an expert on the views of the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh is obviously an expert on the views of the Republican Party. If Limbaugh says President Bush's latest speech "hit a home run," is his analysis any more objective than Kennedy's,who would probably state the exact opposite?

It's not the IMPRESSION that is important; it's the REAL evidence, the videotape, the audiotape, the transcript in lieu of either of the above, that is the EVIDENCE.

There are probably some die-hard Republicans out there who still have the IMPRESSION that Lloyd Bentsen DIDN'T "smoke" Dan Quayle in their debate with the "You are no [JFK]" comment...but that doesn't mean their IMPRESSION is correct.

But that's small potatoe (s) today.

[John Dolva]

Tim, my contention is NOT that Halberstam didn't make that remark. My contention is that the remark itself, "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]," is a conclusion with no supporting evidence. It is merely Halberstam's IMPRESSION, and may or may NOT represent actual public reaction (again I cite the first Nixon/JFK debate and the widely divergent IMPRESSIONS of the radio and TV audiences).

Ted Kennedy is obviously an expert on the views of the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh is obviously an expert on the views of the Republican Party. If Limbaugh says President Bush's latest speech "hit a home run," is his analysis any more objective than Kennedy's,who would probably state the exact opposite?

It's not the IMPRESSION that is important; it's the REAL evidence, the videotape, the audiotape, the transcript in lieu of either of the above, that is the EVIDENCE.

There are probably some die-hard Republicans out there who still have the IMPRESSION that Lloyd Bentsen DIDN'T "smoke" Dan Quayle in their debate with the "You are no [JFK]" comment...but that doesn't mean their IMPRESSION is correct.

But that's small potatoe (s) today.

There's also the 'whatsisname' v 'whatsisname'* which states that copies of originals (if the original exists?) cannot be regarded as anything but hearsay, so any conclusions drawn from that is built on hearsay evidence. However, Tim, all that aside, if that is all the 'proof' that Reagan had a brain, the case is on shaky grounds.

I think I read somewhere a post by you about an assassination attempt on Reagan, anything on that?

One thing that seems clear is that Reagan toed the right wing line, hence was more likey to have his faults glossed over by a sympathetic media..

*don't ask, I have no idea.

[Tim Gratz]

To Mark:

Your last line simply made your post!!!

[Robert Howard]

To Mark:

Your last line simply made your post!!!

I find this thread to be rather peculiar inasmuch as it is rather out of the context of the subject matter JFK Assassination, but personally would like to examine your contention more closely, can you post a edited (just the exchange between Ronald and RFK) or even unedited transcript of the debate on this thread. Inquiring minds want to know). Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mia Maxima Culpa.

[Thomas Graves]

Several members have posted disparaging remarks about the intelligence of the late President Ronald Reagan. My initial comment is that I seriously doubt that at least since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, anyone has been able to be elected president who was not of outstanding intelligence.

Certainly the ability to carry on an intelligent debate and indeed the ability to win a debate against a person of extraordinary intelligence ought to be an adequate indicia of intelligence.

If you will then grant me that Robert F. Kennedy was a person of rather extraordinary intelligence (a belief to which I subscribe) then I can demonstrate to you that Ronald Reagan was of equal intelligence.

You see, in May of 1967 1968 Reagan defeated RFK in a debate.

The venue was a CBS news program called "Town Meeting of the World." Participants included reagan, Kennedy and 18 students from London. (One of whom was a Rhodes scholar and future U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.)

Newswek reported that "It was political rookie Reagan who left old campaigner Kennedy blinking when the session ended." Newsweek, May 29, 1967, pages 30-31.

David Halberstam wrote that "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]."

Reportedly RFK was furious with Frank Mankiewicz who had arranged for his participation in the program.

Not surprisibly, the Reagan/Kennedy encounter is not mentioned in Arthur Scheslinger's 1,000 plus page biography of RFK.

________________________________________________

Tim,

Shall we request that John Simkin move the "JFK Assassination Debate" to another part of the Education Forum and leave you behind to "dialogue" mostly with yourself here on other issues?

Sincerely, Thomas

________________________________________________

[Tim Gratz]

Thomas, I am as innocent of your accusation as most of us believe Oswald was of the JFK murder.

Twas not I who first inserted into the "JFK Assassination Debate" section disparaging remarks on the intelligence of Ronald Reagan. I felt it my duty to God, country and all honorable things to respond.

I am not the one who starts inserting all the extraneous matter here. And there is a lot of it, as you know.