Is Dubya the Dumbest President? Released Study says Yes

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
Report: President Bush Has Lowest IQ of All Presidents of Past 50 Years

If late night TV comedy is an indicator, then there has never been as widespread a perception that a president is not intellectually qualified for the position he holds as there is with President GW Bush.

In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155.

President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language 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. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, think-tank includes high-caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.

This study was commissioned on April 1, 2003, and released on February 13, 2004, to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.
Lovenstein Institute
 
EG, You sure do do some crap.. Ha!ha!ha!

Why don't you just wear a big red star on your forehead.. If you were any farther left, you'd fall off the edge..

:cool:
 
No, George Washington didn't even know what a radio is!
 
Shoot Gunner , sorry I missed the link there.Guess they should be colored. I started reading a piece of Bullchit I knew belonged in the joke forum and just did a knee-jerk reaction.

Please next time, tell us if it's real or not, it's so hard to tell with what you post.
 
MarS,

Yeah, it wasn't that obvious. I think we need to hammer on Del to change the clors of links. There have been a couple of threads where the links don't show up.

And if you hadn't of been the first person, could you imagine all the flames I would have got for posting "biased" stuff....

I have been trying to post stuff to start discussions about things other than Salmon, Fat-Assed ATV riders, and Welfare Ranchers, but I keep getting slammed for the attempts.

It is actually kind of educational to look for this stuff, and look at the both sides. I have never been a Democrat before, so I am learning to read things with a different slant. I don't know that I ever realized how closed minded Republicans are.
 
yeah but if Republicans weren't so closed minded, where would we be? a one party system?

I applaud your efforts because the ATV riding fat assed dam breaching salmon stuff was stale after the second year of it.

Want some real topics? go to www.democraticunderground.com and read a bit. Those people there are more in line with Kerry's beliefs than any of the camo greenies (said with respect) who will vote for him.
 
MarS,

It is kind of funny what topics get plenty of response, and which ones are stillborn. Hard to predict.

A couple of time I have tried to start a discussion on the NRA, and it seems like nobody will bite on that one.

Oddly enough, it seem like you can bash the NRA, and nobody gets upset. Make fun of Dubya, and they come unglued.

I do worry a bit about the "Idaho" focus, and I don't know if it is due to Ithica and I residing here, or if there are just more issues in Idaho.

I am not sure if the lack of public lands in the mid-west and back East keeps you guys from having "Sportsmans Issues", but even the theads I tried to start on the Missouri River went no where. I am not sure if people back east are satisfied with the current situation, or they just know, due to land ownership, that they have it as good as it gets.

In any event, I do learn a lot from other's posts, even the wrong ones. And researching to make sure mine are correct, just adds to my understanding.

The irony is that I do care about the Salmon, Grazing, Breaching, and Wilderness issues, but I feel like it is better to start issues on Bush vs. Kerry, or defend Gay Marriages, and other issues that I care nothing about.

The other place for some good topics is the RNC' website. There they bash Kerry pretty good.
 
I tried about a thousand times to get SI posters to start topics on subjects other than my favorites, but never had much luck. I could probably start a fatassed ATV rider topic or wolf topic today that would get pretty hot, but I couldn't think up a topic on an issue in NJ that would get two responses. I'm sure you've noticed that anytime anyone bitches about my choice of topics I throw a challenge right back at them to start a few of their own, but nothing much comes of it. :(
 
The back east topics don't get much response, I think it' because we already know we're screwed and there ain't much we can do about it.

The NRA topics die for reasons unknown to me either , thousands of dollars spent begging for more money when they could probably do just as well without the mass mailing. La Pierre is a joke and a traitor to the cause. lots to work with..

Ithaca's right, lot's of bitching about the topics but no real competition, exception being CJCJ's thread.

I've tried a few times but with the deck being stacked to western members it's an uphill battle.
 
What Mars said. And, too, we don't have the polarizing issues here that you do out there (in regards to "Sportsmen's Issues"). We have three distinct classes for any issue: those who are for, those who are against, and those who don't give a chit. No great oratorical battles are fought because everyone has made up their mind already. Few of the "regular folk" get very worked up about anything but hyper-local issues (you should have seen the local battle over Super Wal-Mart! :eek: ).

You guys, on the other hand, have ranching, which pulls at the heart strings of any western movie fan; mountains and prairies (ibid.); and wolves (ibid. again). You get all the local reactions, but you also get input from people like me and Mars who have predisposed popular opinions on these things but have to sort through the emotional and sensational nonsense and try to figure out what's really fact. You also get feedback from wingnuts who only know what their pals in PETA (or the NRA or whoever) told them, and quote it chapter and verse.

Bottom line, nobody really gives a rat's ass what goes on in Backwash, Kentucky. We've little else to lose, where you guys have a lot. In other words, your topics are a lot more interesting than ours.
shhh.gif
;)
 
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,589
Messages
2,026,160
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top