Yup, Bush is smarter than Kerry. Give me a break:
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html

While speech gaffes are funny and indicative of a certain type of "intelligence," numbers don't lie.

And I find the fact that Kerry's dumb enough to strap on a duckhunting uniform to be a sign of stupidity, personally.

I also think that people who get their political cues from the Daily Show are pretty damn stupid, but perhaps I have high standards.

Ah, the indignation begins...

Bush is smarter than Kerry.

Did you watch any of the debates?

So the editors at the NYT are slipping up (again) letting a story like this slip through so close to the election.

With this example and the one at the Guardian, well, two actually, aren't editors long passed their sell-by date?

We'll be able to tell how close to home this story strikes by how quickly the Dems cry that the IQ measure of intelligence has long been discredited.

but perhaps I have high standards.

and yet you are supporting Bush?

It seems your standards are perhaps flexible to be trumped by ideaology when the situation warrants.

Did you watch any of the debates?

Yeah, and Bush won one, perhaps two of them.

The problem with intellectual snobs that aren't intellectuals themselves is the fact that they extrapolate the ability to think from false cues or single factors.

I'm not declaring George Bush a genius, just pointing out that John kerry can't beat him on a standardized test of intelligence, and that Bush scored in at least the 90th percentile on his SAT.

And if George Bush is so dumb ... well your world must be upside down right now, huh postit?

Postit -

What ideology is that? the fact that I'm pro-choice? Agnostic? For unlimited government regulation on stem cell research?

Or is it perhaps because I'm so damn super duper smart, that despite ideology, I know something that you don't know?

Hmmmmm.

"Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said."

Ha! This was definitely an enjoyable article to wake up to...

I'm sure Kerry is "intelligent" in a Senatorial-type of way. When in the Senate, he had the opportunity to tack back and forth on an issue until he found some sort of solution that would satisfy as many people as possible.

Bush's strengths, on the other hand, are in an operational/execution mold. He gets things done. He may not always be 100% correct, but he will analyze all options available and take action.

I've held this position for a while, based on two things.

1) If Kerry's SAT scores or undergrade GPA were better than Bush's, I'm sure they would have been made public by now.

2) Kerry got into Boston College law, not Harvard law, despite being a Navy-decorated Ivy League grad.

So color me unsurprised.

Ah, Grasshopper. You have yet to realize the fundamental truth. facts. Don't. MATTER. The narrative is all. Kerry must be smarter because he is the supported candidate. The Anointed. Anyone who brings up conflicting evidence must be shouted down. As Lawrence O'Donnell did to John O'Neill on Scarborough Country.

1206 on the SAT back in those days was quite good. The braniacs beat 700/700. Regular old smart kids beat 600/600, as Bush did.

"With the same energy ... I put into going after the Viet Cong and trying to win for our country, I pledge to you I will hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists before they harm us," Kerry said. "And we will wage a war on terror that makes America proud and brings the world to our side.

So he is going to spend 4 months going after the terrorists, then give up?

Postit — "Did you watch any of the debates?" Apparently a lot of people did, judging by the polls...

My candidate is smarter than your candidate. Look at his SAT scores. Look! And my dad can beat up your dad, too.

Yawn.

Off topic post...but i thought u might read it here, rather than farther down the page.

MONDAY surprise:

FOXNews is reporting that Saddam may have tried to buy votes on the UN Security council. Therefore....my bet is the story is the Wash Times is going to reveal memos naming names of bribed government officials in France, Germany and/or Russia. This covers both Kerry's foreign policy criticisms of Bush and casts doubt on Kerry's ability to garner support of "allies" who aren't playing both sides and taking MASSIVE bribes. If correct, do I win a prize? Autographed picture maybe?

In 2000, the SAT scores of Bush, Gore, and Bradley were all outed [by the way, the lowest belonged to the "cerebral" Bradley].

The SAT is, by the way, more of an achievement test than an intelligence test. Apparently, the tests referenced in the Times article were more in the nature of pure intelligence or IQ tests, which makes sense in that context.

For some reason, no one has been able to pry Kerry's SAT scores out of Yale, yet Bush's got out.

Didn't any of you read the article to the end? It says Gore's IQ is ten points higher than Bush's bringing Gore to a very respectable 135.

Sure?

That's why Gore even flunked out of divinity school and Hanks' performance of Forrest Gump was based on Gore.

It's funny how information about Republicans is out there, but everything about the left is closely guarded. A poster above said it all. If Kerry or Gore's or Clinton's medical,
scholastic, military or even boy scout records were outstanding, they would have been on the front pages above the fold.

Any psychologist will tell you that IQ tests are no where near capable of judging IQ. There are too many ways to rate IQ, let alone the debate going on about what Intelligence actually is.

BTW my IQ is 135 and my SAT score was 1200. Would have been higher but I'm certain noone wants to here my excuses.

Either way I think this thread is stupid.

I think Bush really does benefit from Democrats misundersestimating him. If you guys want to help him, you really shouldn't let the cat out of the bag. Instead, you should opine loudly about how dumb Bush is; you should complain about how you are forced to vote for such a dummy only because he takes the right positions; and you should do it where as many gullible smug liberals as possible will hear you.

As a liberal Democrat, I've never thought Bush was dumb, and when my friends and family call him dumb I always try to correct them. I believe he is a very capable and savvy politician, and we Democrats forget that at our peril.

What bothered me about Bush in the 2000 election wasn't that he was dumb; it was that he seemed to be so shockingly incurious and uninformed about foreign affairs for someone running to be President. Obviously, he's had to learn a thing or two since then, but my doubts about him have only been confirmed. I can still hardly believe that the leader of the free world has boasted he rarely reads newspaper stories. And officials who have left the administration report that Bush isn't good at carrying on serious policy discussions or listening to people who disagree with him. This isn't a matter of lack of intelligence; it's a lack of intellectual curiosity, a lack of willingness, even eagerness, to grapple with opposing points of view. This is reflected in Bush's unwillingness to do many unscripted press conferences, his demand that only professed Bush loyalists can attend rallys for him, and his clumsiness in the first debate with Kerry where he was forced after a long hiatus to finally carry on a conversation with someone with a strongly opposing viewpoint.

This is actually much worse than a lack of raw intelligence would be. In foreign affairs, Bush seems to operate almost entirely on his gut instincts, unchecked by critical analysis, and in my opinion this has done an immense amount of damage. Having good instincts is vital, but it's not enough in and of itself. But I have never called Bush dumb, and I doubt I ever will.

Anyway, those are my opinions.

*** Are Kerry's positions really incredibly complex, or is he just confused about keeping them straight?

Neither. Kerry's positions aren't incredibly complex, but he's poor at communicating them clearly. Obviously, this is not a good quality for a President to have (though he is getting better). Kerry isn't helped by a mass media that likes to oversimplify issues.

*** Could any intellectual possibly be this bad at pandering and naked political calculation?

First, Kerry's not an intellectual (and I don't recall many liberals claiming he is one). Second, of course an intellectual could be that bad (or even worse) at pandering and naked political calculation. Maybe that's why so few intellectuals become politicans. Clinton is the only modern politician I can think of who was both very smart in the conventional sense and very politically adept; it's a rare combination.

--Rick Taylor

The column takes great pains to point out that the small difference in IQ is between a "young George Bush" and a "young John Kerry". A difference of four points in IQ between two people would not be perceptible in everyday interaction. For all intents and purposes, there is no practical difference here.

However, someone's IQ measured around the age of 20 is not the same as comparing how their intellect matches up today. The debates made that pretty clear.

To Bush-bashers, this is hardly cause for fury, but simply an opportunity to point out the effect that Bush's presumed drug use and heavy drinking until the age of forty (and I for one presume he didn't go cold turkey that very year) have had on the man's brain.

If you were to measure their IQs today, I wager you you would find some very different numbers.

Ben,

"Any psychologist will tell you that IQ tests are no where near capable of judging IQ. There are too many ways to rate IQ, let alone the debate going on about what Intelligence actually is.

BTW my IQ is 135 and my SAT score was 1200. Would have been higher but I'm certain noone wants to here my excuses."

I agree on the unreliability of IQ tests. I scored 1400 on the SAT (700 verbal, 700 math), and have scored anything from 128 to 162 on various IQ tests.

Re. this from the article: "Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test."

A difference of 4-5 points on two different extrapolations (not tests, extrapolations!) is utterly and completely meaningless. Also, note that the (somewhat biased) author of the article appears to equate "suggests IQ in mid-120's" with 125, and "about 120" with 120.

Maybe it makes the author feel better about supporting "the smarter guy" based on this morsel, but I look forward to the comeback that Bush killed a heck of a lot of braincells in the meantime.

Re: Exhibit B

Marginally related to the above discussion, this latest from Bill Maher:

Can't [Kerry] get [his message] across somehow? That some, that somehow life is complicated and I'm not going to pretend to you that, that it's simple and I will do my best to –

I would hope so. All he has to do to find his inspiration is look at old clips of him. Look at himself in 1970. You know when he came back from Vietnam, going to Vietnam was a very brave thing. And then he was double-brave. Then he, then he came back and spoke against the war. When he said that line to the Senate, and I think in 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Just replay that for this war, because it certainly is absolutely apropos right now.

First - leftie Rick Taylor gets a cookie for a great post. Next ...

Either way I think this thread is stupid.

Well, someone doesn't have all that much fun with life, do they? The point is to bust steroetypes, and to crack wise on Kerry, who I don't think is exceptionally smart or sensitive. Neither is Bush, to be honest.

However, someone's IQ measured around the age of 20 is not the same as comparing how their intellect matches up today. The debates made that pretty clear.

Actually, IQ reflects the capacity to learn, and its measurement earlier in life is a more accurate assessment. Re: debate - Intellectual snobs give me a headache.

I agree on the unreliability of IQ tests. I scored 1400 on the SAT (700 verbal, 700 math), and have scored anything from 128 to 162 on various IQ tests.

Looks like a sig correlation that you have a moderately gifted to very gifted IQ AND score well on tests. It's also important to note that IQ tests are age dependent.

Of course a 5 point extrapolation doesn't mean much, I'm not seriously saying it does, but it certainly invalidates the narrative that Kerry's a genius and Bush is a dumb-ass, considering Bush beat him on a standardized test of intelligence.

I'd think that anyone with an IQ over 70 would get that ...

I'm starting to think that I must be so damn smart, that none of you understand the point of any of my posts. Or the reverse, actually.

If he hunts down terrorists with the same dedication he showed towards hunting down the VC, he'll fight it for about four months before pulling out on a technicality.

Fear not Bill, I get it. I love that line, "did you watch any of the debates"? Yes, all three, and while Bush was not as good as he shoudl have been in pointing out the absolute stupiditityof almost every single Kerry position, at least he is smart enough not to have taken those positions to begin with.

"Work with the corrupt UN and our 'allies'"? If you honestly believe that, you can't be very bright. "Government healthcare is a right for all". Moronic and destructive. "Reduce costs of drugs by importing from Canada". Now we in damn near mental deficiency area. Costs and Prices are not the same. Canadian prices are low because the government fixes prices below cost and the Pharmaceutical companies are too stupid to tell them to go screw. That won't last long. Kerry's positions reflect ignorance.

Chris, sorry to effectively repeat your earlier comment. (Note to self: read all the comments before jumping into the breach.)

Slate has an interesting article on Kerry's infelicitous stump-speech skills. There's more to learning than simple IQ; there's also discipline and, in the case of interpersonal skills such as public speaking, self- and environment-awareness. Kerry's woeful performance on the stump after all those years as a politician indicate real deficiencies in places where I don't want a President to be deficient.

I had the same reaction as Mark Poling. You would think that Kerry would avoid comparisons with his Viet Cong hunting days. Or can we 'look forward' to visiting the Al Qaeda Hall of Heroes in Judenfrei Israel and seeing his bright smile.

The question is what has Bush done with this intelligence? He was a slacker through school, and used his family connections to get by in business. His record as a businessman shows mostly failures.

He jokes that he has trouble speaking, but he can articulate his beliefs on religion perfectly well. But when it comes to talking about military or economic issues he stumbles without a prepared speech.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste!!

Not to be a wet blanket, but IIRC, the SAT scores of the candidates in the original article were from their own recollections. And I remember remarking that Bush must have misremembered his score, or that they used to score it differently, because no individual makes a 1206. A 1200, or 1210, yes, but there is no value in the fourth digit in an SAT score (at least not since 1979, when I took it). When you get your notice from the College Boards, it tells you that you made, for instance, 58 on the verbal and 63 on the math, then gives you a 1210 score. I don't know why they do it that way, except perhaps to allow for averaging without using those troublesome percentages.

rumour has it that Karl Rove wrote the SAT and the IQ tests for George W. Bush. Dan Rather has the proof in a memo form that will be faxed from the Abilene Kinko's momentarily.

Yeah, jet fighter pilot. Real shameful use of intellect there. Might as well have been a shoe salesman.

Hah, you really got under their skins with this one, Bill.

I figure that the level of intelligence these two are at is probably about the ceiling for candidates. Any dumber and you just aren't quick witted enough to stay in the game. Any smarter and you can actually figure out how to have a huge influence on say...jobs...without having to run for president.

Not really under my skin. I get the point of the post, Bill, but since I never bought into the "Bush is dumb, Kerry's smart" delusion its not surprising. I think they're both dumb politicians, regardless of their IQ scores, SAT scores, or notes from their mothers.

So it's not a stretch statistically to say that 95% of the people calling GWB stupid are in fact, not as smart as GWB.

"I'm not seriously saying it does, but it certainly invalidates the narrative that Kerry's a genius and Bush is a dumb-ass, considering Bush beat him on a standardized test of intelligence."

I haven't seen anyone suggest that Kerry's a genius. Maybe that's the word over at DU, but I only went there once, and left in a hurry. Intelligent and disciplined, sure, but a genius... I take it, Bill, that this is a rhetorical exaggeration?

As for Bush being of lesser intelligence than would be desirable for the position he holds, yes, that has been suggested in many places. If an extrapolation from two different tests from thirty years ago is what it takes to make people think he's smarter than Kerry (by what amounts to a negligible percentage), then that alone speaks volumes.

Doing well on a test thirty years ago doesn't mean much when stacked up against the numerous accounts of Bush's lacking intellectual curiosity, even going back to the time when he took this test. That, after all, is closer to the definition of an intellectual: not just intelligence, but a desire to accumulate (even esoteric) knowledge. Aren't intellectuals often ridiculed for speaking in unnecessarily complex terms or about obscure subjects? And don't Bush supporters value him not doing that?

Clearly, Bush and Kerry started with similar intellectual acumen. Bush got drunk for about twenty years, if not longer, indulged in recreational drugs, and didn't do much to educate himself. It shows.

"So it's not a stretch statistically to say that 95% of the people calling GWB stupid are in fact, not as smart as GWB."

... when he was twenty.

garnet,

When I took the SAT (1984-85), it was all in multiples of ten. The other numbers you mention ("for instance, 58 on the verbal and 63 on the math") sound more like the PSATs, the final score of which is one of those numbers doubled (I forget which one) plus the other number, so either 179 or 184.

But somehow I do recall that the SATs earlier were not in multiples of ten.

I should note that I don't think Bush, Kerry, or Bill INDC are stupid.

However I do believe Bush makes his messages simple, which leads people to believe that he is too, while my thinking is he makes things simple to appeal to simple people.

People think Kerry is smug, because he explains complexity of complex issues, or at least says "they're complex, while not explaining all together the complexity". Which appeals to people who don't believe the simplicity of what Bush says.

Whether that's right or wrong should be questioned.

My belief is if you don't know what they're ( politicians )talking about and need it summed up into a 5 words sentence you probably shouldn't be voting or if you are voting at least speak to someone you trust and that is knowledgable about the subject.

"Is anyone with a brain in their head failing to chortle at painfully dumb statements like this?"

Yes.

Some conservative bloggers who are upset that Bush isn't "conservative" enough are kidding themselves into thinking that Kerry will aggresively prosecute the GWOT because "he has to." They figure that by not voting for Bush they will punish the center-right voters that are happy with Bush, and not have to worry about the negative consequences of their vote when it comes to terror. These bloggers don't have much in "brain" or "smarts" categories.

There's certainly nothing wrong with simplification. That's what makes the whole of science and engineering worthwhile.

Not really under my skin. I get the point of the post, Bill, but since I never bought into the "Bush is dumb, Kerry's smart" delusion its not surprising. I think they're both dumb politicians, regardless of their IQ scores, SAT scores, or notes from their mothers.

Then why bother reading and commenting on a post that obviously wasn't aimed at you?

Confusing.

Clancy, IQ scores for most individuals are surprisingly constant over time. That's one of the principal defenses of IQ as a valid psychometric value. So unless you've got real evidence of organic brain damage in the President, you're harping on the results being from the candidates 20s is nothing but a red herring.

Sorry, Bush isn't dumb, Kerry isn't brilliant.

(For what it's worth, being able at 40 to turn your life around is an excellent indicator of psychological resiliance. "Burn outs" don't do it.)

Good point. Please disregard.

People over a certain age will know what I'm talking about when I say that listening to Kerry speechify often times reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey.

I hasten to add that just as I see don't see rule of Law as an end in itself, neither do I see IQ. Agree or disagree with GW, he has a fairly clear and straightforward moral foundation, with articulated and sincere values. Kerry is an empty suit.

And since we are all in a sharing mood... My SATs (fall 1970, junior year in high school) were 1350. Of my 4 daughters, 3 have been GATE students, #1 daughter tested for GATE in 4th grade with IQ 145+ and didn't do so hot on her SATs in high school. She's a paramedic and her street smarts are extraordinary.

whoops... PIMF... mangled editing, second paragraph should be "just as I don't see ..."

I think Bush likes being thought stupid by his opponents. Also, I think it shows that Bush has more intelligience and leadership ability, when he is able to put his positions in terms the average person can understand-this is something I am yet to see Kerry do. I honestly believe Bush and Kerry probably have very similar IQ's, but I think Kerry sucks in his leadership ability.

Bill-I also got a laugh out of Kerry's comment about being a great leader in Vietnam-yeah he was such a great leader, he packed up and went home after three minor wounds (there are a lot of men who refused to accept those third purple hearts, because they wanted to stay with the men they were leading).

But I think Bush sees his "dumb" reputation as being a help and not a hinderance to him, and I don't think he is nearly as dumb as the left likes to paint him.

The "Bush is Dumb" conceit says more about the people who believe it than it does about W.

So convinced are they that no "intelligent person" could possibly hold an opinion different from their own that they naturally describe any such person one of two ways - he's either evil or he's stupid (they even claim both, where W's concerned).

What's ironic is the tactics the so-called intellectuals use these days.

Do they try to convince people they're right? Nooooooooooo.

They slander, they smear and now, this year, they try to intimidate.

We've entered the age of the intellectual thug - isn't it wonderful?

Bush is dumb like a fox. People with a lack of intellectual curiosity do not run for POTUS. That someone would suggest Bush has no intellectual curiosity vastly underestimates the presidency. "Yup, think I'll run fer president, so I wont have to read or think or anything.." Balderdash!
My father wasn't a smooth talker, but was a great thinker. One of his best lines: "I don't learn anything listening to myself talk."

Mr. Bush is smart enough to know who and what he is and to fill comfortable in his own skin.

Mr. Kerry hasn't figured that out for himself I think.

All I know is that I listen to Kerry's stump speeches and then have no idea of what his plans are. Reams of confusing verbiage, no matter how pompously delivered, are not a sign of superior intelligence.
Go back to early in the campaign to that photo op in Philly. I ask you, how smart do you have to be to know how to eat an effing cheese steak?
Mr. Kerry is a classic example of the old saw. "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

I'm with Rick and Kathy on this - Bush is "Stupid like a fox". He's been extremely effective in creating a public persona that, while earning ire from libs and "intellectuals," strongly rallies anti-intellectuals.

Ever wonder how long he had to practice "nukular" and "'Murka" before he got them just right?

And there's no doubt that, regardless of his native intelligence, Bush is firmly anti-intellectual, and has had a keen resentment of "know-it-alls" since his college days. This resonates with a lot of people, apparently ("What's the Matter with Kansas," in fact, postulates that this sentiment is the moving force behind modern Red-State conservatism).

The "Bush is stupid" meme is a concept libs adopt at their peril. Mr. Bush is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

-Fe Wm.

Dave,

"Mr. Bush is smart enough to know who and what he is and to fill comfortable in his own skin."

The Mr. Bush I saw at all three presidential debates looked anything but comfortable in his own skin.

clancy

sure GW was exhausted at the 1st debate... that's what happens when you spend a few days, including that one, viewing hurricane damage and meet and comfort the victims

rather than having a manicure and your mantan adjusted.

Mark Poling,

"Clancy, IQ scores for most individuals are surprisingly constant over time. That's one of the principal defenses of IQ as a valid psychometric value. So unless you've got real evidence of organic brain damage in the President, you're harping on the results being from the candidates 20s is nothing but a red herring.

Bush dabbled in recreational drugs and drank like a fish until he was at least forty. There is also some evidence that he still drank at least occasionally after he said he had quit.

There is a perceivable deterioration in Bush's speaking abilities from even ten years ago. (You can have a look at the Bush we didn't get to see at this year's debates here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm)

Real evidence of organic brain damage would require a medical and psychological assessment that the president and his handlers would most assuredly not welcome. (Come to think of it, Bush skipped his physical this year, which may or may not be related.)

I feel..."cheated" somehow. When I showd up at collidge, I had my GI bill entitlement docs and a Visa card. I think I passed THAT "test"--probaly as a jeanius...heh

I larned a lot (having gone to skool in Jethro Bodine's neighborthood)--wanna hear my timzin and gosintas??
Mama allus said..ignorance has a cure...it's called edumacation...there ain't one for stoopid, though..like ugly, it's to the bone........heh

"Intellectual snobbery" is intimately attached to an inate sense of moral superiority (forget which way philosophers tag it, i.e., flowing from or leading to)but in the sense of a Victorian / Edwardian outlook...(feel free to connect that observation to a world view and how one would hence apply it to "foreign policy"--i.e., a Eurocentric application of a 19th century "moral compass" to 21st century "complexities"--

Another "Bill" sums it up rather simply, (I wonder if he's not too smart, therefore??)
armchair experts in "situational ethics" and moral equivalence who
"...whine about ethics are hypocrites who as usual want to have things both ways in order to preserve that essential fix of moral superiority that seems to be the only thing to make life worth living for the Bitching Classes."
Strength (ptII) EjectEjectEject.com

Nice needle, Mr Bill...RISLMAO

Choose...Domesticate or Eradicate

"While speech gaffes are funny and indicative of a certain type of "intelligence," numbers don't lie."

Bill, give me a break. IQ numbers are barely indicative of one's intelligence. I've met people who have scored high on an IQ test, but for all intents are purposes, they are socially retarded. I won't deny that the test can be indicative of intelligence, but the numbers can lie in this instance. Have you taken an IQ test Bill? I have a very high IQ, but I consider you, Bill, more intelligent than me.

This argument seems like one you would hear from the left, but not the right - "Look, I have a test that proves I'm smarter than you."

Clancy, I watched the video, and it's "apples and oranges" stuff. But then you know that. Bush does well in certain speaking situations, poorly in others.

Weird as it may seem to you, I see the evidence of his competence in his policies and his leadership, and yes, in his stump speeches. The first-person accounts I've read of his meetings with "regular joe" citizens portray Bush as engaged and perceptive. Maybe we're both just seeing what our biases want us to see, but I'm comfortable with the evidence for competence.

As a side note, lifestyle criticisms coming from the same folks who enabled Bill Clinton's follies seems a bit rich. How low do you folks want to go?

Mark Poling,

hey, you're welcome to dismiss it as apples and oranges. It's the same guy in a similar setting, with very different results. In one he's rattling off clear sentences and complex, reasoned paragraphs. I do know that the examples picked from the recent presidential debates were chosen to be particularly embarrassing, but I have not seen Bush speak unscripted in the past year with any kind of eloquence comparable to that debate from ten years ago. It's not just a matter of him supposedly being 'exhausted' on one particular occasion.

It doesn't seem weird to me at all to look for evidence of Bush's competence in his policies and his leadership, but there Bush is also severely lacking, be it how he has handled what he has chosen to be the central battle in the War on Terror, the long-term future of Iraq, or his economic stewardship.

We can easily agree to disagree. There are those who will happily sign on for another four years of Bush's leadership, but they are in the minority.

As for lifestyle criticisms, I for one did not make any. I don't care whether Bush drank like a madman and gobbled up some recreational drugs. I wouldn't care if he cheated on his wife or if he liked dancing around in a tutu with a mariachi. Whatever he wants to do in his private life is up to him – as long as it isn't illegal and doesn't impact his job performance, I as a social liberal don't mind. If, however, his mental capacities have suffered as a result, then it would be an issue relevant to his ability to do his job.

The same goes for Clinton. If he had contracted some kind of 'social disease' as a result of his extramarital escapades that was somehow rotting his brain, then that would be a problem. But as it is, I'm happy to enable both Clinton and Bush doing whatever the heck they want that makes them happy in their private life.

It makes me laugh to see liberals pontificate about intelligence. They claim ZarKerry is intelligent because he speaks well publically, but they ignore the fact that he can't communicate. The message might sound pretty but that doesn't make it clear. If your not smart enough to listen to your handlers and stick to the script, then your not smart at all.

The most intelligent person I have met to this date, could barely get out a sentence and yet he still has this uncanny ability teach the subject of his mastery, organic chemistry. Oh and his hobby Physics. He was my Prof in College and his brain operated so fast that he would trip over his words and "mangle the language" But his message was short and to the point and we all learned many great things from him.

He reminds me of somebody.

Bryan: It makes me laugh to see conservatives use the word "pontificate" so much. Do you all attend a camp where you learn keywords for political discourse?

Ok, this was a stupid comment from me, but really, it has been driving me nuts!

OK, how about Blather.

I've always laughed at democrats who call bush stupid, as the simple act of calling someone stupid - in itself is stupid.

Calling someone a more grammatically rich word - like for instance - AssHat, or Dickbite reeks not only of intelligence, but shows that someone truely has a handle on enriching their communicative skills..

That's why I wouldn't call Kerry Stupid - but he surely is an asshat...

Sorry.. figured I better post this enriching link for those of you who would like to enrich your communicative skills... (those of you who don't know what an asshat is.. )

:p

OK so tags don't work here?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ass+Hat

Dear Asshat (JT), if you want to put a link in your post use:

a href=http://www.asshat.com/">Link

I can't put the full code above because then you wouldn't be able to see it, so, make sure you put "" at the end. Give it a try toolbag.

PS. If pre works on this blog then you should be able to see the full code below:

Toolbag

JT: That post got totally screwed up. Basically, you just need to put the full link code in your post. There are plenty of HTML websites that show how to do it - banana hammock.

IQ is not necessarily what Americans look for in a President. Nor is it the most important.

Look at the original JFK and Bill Clinton. They clearly had high IQ, but not the smarts to keep their pants zipped!