But if you're someone who really, really wants to be able to call Bush a moron it's way too high. Unbelievable in fact.
Point is, if he got 1200 on his SAT, then he's in, what, I think the top 3% of the population in IQ. My guess is (this is purely a guess) that most of the country does not think that Bush is a moron, that the minority that does think that Bush is a moron are also mostly in the top 3%, and that people who are "media pundits" or write op/ed columns for the New York Times and so forth, in other words the people with the access to get their views out there, also are mostly in that top 3%. But when people say "moron," its hyperbole. I call Bush a "moron" all the time in casual conversation. I don't think he meets the technical definition of "moron" as psychometricians have used it; i.e., I don't think he has a below average IQ. But I think many of the things he says can be aptly described as "moronic," in the colloquial sense that they don't reflect much deep thought or very sophisticated analysis. And this is in comparison to others who have occupied the presidency--Bush seems much less intelligent than his father, to me, even though I disliked their policies about equally. To be sure, there's also a lot of anger in it. I quite literaally hate Bush, even though I've never met him, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rationally, I am capable of seeing that this means that my judgment of him isn't objective. But I doubt too many people do have objective opinions of political leaders.
I have to conclude that these are pretty subjective observations – especially since probably half of the country will disagree come election day. In any event, I see none of what you’ve described.
Of course they are subjective observations. That was the point of my post--I was trying to explain what the subjective observations are that have led me to feel that Bush is a "moron."
I can understand how you can not see some of those things, but not to see that he is inarticulate? Please, what are you watching. Not to see that he views the world in simplistic dichotomies? What are "evildoers?" It's a laughable world view. However, your point that these don't necessarily reflect a lack of basic intelligence I agree with--again, I thought that was one of the points I made in my own post.
You left out the more objective stuff which indicates otherwise. First, Bush learned to and became a military jet pilot. Graduated from Yale with a BA. Graduated from Harvard with an MBA. (while Gore, the 'smart one, dropped out of law school) Started a number of different types of businesses from oil to baseball. Convinced the voters in Texas to make him governor, was re-elected and was later elected President.
Well, with all due respect, none of these things really require exceptional intelligence. He got into Yale because he is a Bush, not on his merits. (Yes, this was true of Gore and Harvard as well--if Gore had been a nobody, he would not have gotten into Harvard.) Once admitted, it's not that hard just to graduate from even the best colleges. Same goes for Harvard Bus School. Have you ever looked into the bus school curriculum? it is not really an intellectual endeavor. MBA programs are more about networking etc than rigorous intellectual work. Which is fine, no reason they shouldn't be, that's the purpose they serve. But getting an MBA is not a sign of intelligence. Learning to fly a jet? OK, whatever, I guess I would say you probably need a slightly above average intelligence to do that, but hand eye coordination and good reflexes are probably much more important. As for the businesses, he didn't "start" a baseball team, he bought one, and the anti-tax crusader then strong-armed the taxpayers into financing a new stadium for him, which made him a lot of money. The rest of his business career was (as pointed out in F911 and many other sources) made open to him because of the family connections. He has zero business achievements to point to. Getting elected governor of TExas? How does that reflect intelligence? There's no doubt that he is able to project himself as a populist and that many voters like him. What does that have to do with his intelligence?
Also - I wonder if IQ / SAT "smarts" is even all that necessary to the "presidency." I'm sure it's on the list somewhere but, like a lot of jobs, leadership skills and projecting an image may matter more in bringing about a 'successful' Presidency.
This I would agree with completely. I think Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, but it's not because of his IQ (and anyway, as I said, I think he probably is above average in IQ, he just doesn't use it.) The president needs to exercise leadership, have a vision, inspire the people, etc. For the policy details, that's why he has advisors. I call Bush a "moron" out of frustration, anger and disgust, but the reason I feel he is a bad president is his lack of ethics, his dishonesty, his anti-environmentalism, his tax policies, his cynical exploitation of thye "war on terror," etc. Not really because of his level of intelligence.
Waterdog
