Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lowbridge
Based on the report´s findings, Democrats are smarter than Republicans -- quite a bit so, in fact. The three smartest Democrats were -- in order of intelligence -- Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy with IQs of 182, 175 and 174, respectively.

If this is true, then IQ is an absolutely useless statistic.

9 posted on 01/26/2006 11:01:24 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

Been debunked. The only president ever telling anyone his IQ was Carter, and I even doubt his.


20 posted on 01/26/2006 11:06:58 AM PST by RockinRight (Attention RNC...we're the party of Reagan, not FDR...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

The results are not an IQ test like you take in college.

They are 'ratings' given based on:

"Criteria for the study included any writings they generated on their own without help from staff, their ability to “speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors” that were “scored using the Swanson-Crain system of intelligence ranking.” It´s considered accurate to within five percentage points." (of what?)

Of course, IQ isn´t everything. Jimmy Carter, for instance, was among the brightest but certainly not among the best because he lacked the charisma and forcefulness needed for true leadership ability. Genius and sincerity alone aren´t enough.

Ronald Reagan had the charisma and the sincerity and the public appeal but not the brains, which allowed him to be led around by forces he wasn´t even aware of.

When it comes to GWB, he´s not only short on brain power and charisma, he also has this disconcerting air of detachment -- even indifference -- about him. When told about New Orleans, his first response was, “I used to party there.”

His father before him projected that selfsame air of disengagement -- best illustrated when he glanced at his watch with an irritated look on his face during one the “debates” that are really nothing more than canned questions and predictable answers.

According to the Lovenstein study, GWB´s poor showing as president comes from his difficulty with the King´s English “in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.”

Said Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein: “He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking.”


IN OTHER WORDS, they rated the DEMS on preprepared speeches, and written documents that were done by a team of specialists, but GWB was rated by his responses to the MSM.


57 posted on 01/26/2006 12:01:30 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (When I learn everything, I will know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson