If you're anxious for to shine in the high aesthetic line as a man of culture rare,
You must get up all the germs of the transcendental terms, and plant them
everywhere.
You must lie upon the daisies and discourse in novel phrases of your complicated
state of mind.
The meaning doesn't matter if it's only idle chatter of a transcendental kind.

And everyone will say,
As you walk your mystic way,
"If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man must be!"

Gilbert & Sullivan (Patience)

Sailor has been a harsh critic of the Iraq War, however he came to the Republican's aid in discussions regarding the proposition (meme?) that the average IQ was lower in Red states than in Blue states. Turned out that was a myth. Estimated IQ was about equal.

Nothing Sailor can say though that overcomes the rather obvious problem Bush has with public speaking which has been a significant problem in this campaign. (IMHO IQ shouldn't count for much in elections anyway, as long as some minimum threshold is passed)

I don't believe in the concept of IQ, nor the ability of multiple-guess tests to assess general intelligence -- if, in fact, we possess a general intelligence rather than a suite of particular intelligences.

Bush's inability to speak clearly or to find the word he wants suggests a disorderly mind, though not necessarily stupidity. He educable, though, as he's gotten quite a bit better in the past few years.

I don't know much about Bush's education? Did he go to public high school?

A difference in IQ of a few points extrapolated from two different tests tells us precisely nothing about many things, not least about how they've developed in the 30+ years since then. These 'measurements' were taken when these guys were in their late teens/early twenties.

But why beat around the bush?

Bush drank heavily until at least the age of 40. Few people who know his background would dispute that he's dabbled in recreational drugs. It's had an obvious impact. Why deny it?

The Bush you see today is not the same Bush as of even ten years ago. I'm sure some people here have seen Bush shine in debates against Ann Richards, where he indubitably sparkled. He is so clearly not the Bush that we've seen since 2001.

Peter, I was thinking of Bunthorne as I read it too. Thanks.

creeper:

Then why has he been so successful?

Folksy appeal, carefully staged media appearances, and some very cunning advisors who place election/re-election above most other things.

Face it, the Bush we've seen as president is not as swift mentally as the one who debated against Ann Richards 10 years ago.

Bush's debating style in Texas was worse, not better, than it is now, evne if out-of-staters find that hard to believe. He won in 1994 by staying almost ruthlessly on message about his four campaign points (criminial justice reform, tort reform, juvenile justice reform and school reform) to the point that many papers and TV stations just gave up reporting the same thing day after day after day.

But to the public in various parts of the state, what they heard in person was new to them and they liked what he was saying, while Ann Richards suffered from being tied too closely to the national Democrats and Hillary-care, even though her effort to govern as a liberal Democrat was shot down in flames in 1991 and she spent the final three years taking far more moderate stances. And going dove hunting. But then she called Bush a jerk five days before the election and that seemed to really do it for the undeciideds.

(And if you really want to see a bad Bush debate performance, get a tape of his 1998 tussle with Garry Mauro. He was five miles ahead in the polls and it showed in his debate prep effort, which ended up costing him virually nothing in the general election. Debate 1 this year was the closest equivalent to that poor showing)

creeper:

Isn't thius the same Bush y'all tell us has failed at everything he ever tried in his life? When was this mysterious epoch of acuity you now say he enjoyed?

The debate vs. Ann Richards in 1994. There's a link here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm. (Ignore the cheesy soundtrack.)

I haven't seen Bush speak like this since he got into the White House.

creeper:

every major speech he's given except this year's State of the Union has been terrific.

Bush generally isn't bad at giving scripted speeches. See my mention above of "carefully staged media appearances".

It's when he has to speak ex tempore that he runs into trouble, especially if he is faced with an unscripted question.

And it's clear that this wasn't always the case, that he used to be better at that kind of thing.

When? He just won the debates with Kerry despite his difficulties in such settings.

Presidential intelligence is one of the stupider matters we can ever discuss. It reminds me of when I took the SATs in high school and we actually believed that 20 point differences in score actually signified something.

The most important thing we need to know about a President relating to intelligence is that he is smart enough to know he doesn't know everything and that he must be willing to pick strong-minded, tough, experienced advisers. Being Ethelred the Unready didn't work in 10th century England and it certainly doesn't work in 21st century America.

Bush impresses me because as a rule he has very competent advisers to whom he listens and of whom he seems to be smart enough to ask the right questions. He has people like Rumsfeld, Rove, and especially Cheney in key positions. I'd like to see him appoint a similarly serious person into domestic policy roles like Brad Reynolds, or even Robert Bork as AG, but Snow is much better than the ludicrous Paul O'Neill.

Kerry listens to obvious failures and hacks like Holbrooke. The difference in quality is staggering.

Also, Bush actually has a center. He seems to have an understanding of where he wants the nation to go, of what he wants it to look like. Does Kerry have any underlying center besides that being a gigolo is something one can take pride in?

But the question of whether Bush has an IQ of 120 while Kerry's is 123 or whatever is just plain dopey.

"When? He just won the debates with Kerry despite his difficulties in such settings."

?? Umm... so you're saying Bush won that first debate? It ended his momentum, cost him his lead, and effectively made Kerry a contender again. If that was winning the debate, what would losing have looked like?

The second and third debates were closer, but still polls indicated that the public perceived Kerry as the winner. Bush's strangely half-paralyzed face in the third debate also brought up questions about the state of his health.

His "difficulties in such settings" were clearly on display, and they cost him, in the words of one of his handlers, months and millions of dollars of carefully positioned PR handling.

>It reminds me of when I took the SATs in high
>school and we actually believed that 20 point
>differences in score actually signified
>something.

I got snubbed as a "hopeless retard" once because my IQ was ONE POINT below the Genius making the value judgement.

Harry:

Bush went to prep school in New England. I suppose he attended public schools as a young child, but I don't know.

Ah.

SAT scores measure, to the limited extent that they measure anything, exposure to information.

1206 from someone is prep school is mediocre. Prep schools are designed to expose children to a lot of the kind of information they will encounter on an SAT test and, later, in college

I'd bet Bush would have scored higher if the test he took had had a higher proportion of baseball information on it.

Or anyone who reads much. Prep school has nothing to do with scores.