First of all the Lovenstein site is bullshit and their scoring is ridiculous. Clinton is John Nash / Steven Hawking smart while the Bushes are borderline functioning retards? Please.
Problem is that doesn’t work in reality. A person leads. A person makes decisions and takes responsibility. “People” don’t lead except in the form of mob mentality.
Because it has not been done does not mean it cannot be done.
“Your people, sir, is a great beast” - Alexander Hamilton.
Always prefered Paine, myself.
[SHAMELESS BUSH-WHACK]
Why the hell not? What else could he possibly do to worsen our current position? 
Kerry doesn’t provide much humor grist. He is NOT presenting a friendly appearance–too serious.
[/SHAMELESS BUSH-WHACK]
So what you’re saying, then, is in all situations, our elected officials should take a poll of their constituents, and then act on what the majority want? Doesn’t seem practical to me.
And yes, people die when our leaders make bad decisions. People die when they make the right decisions too. It’s sad, but that’s what happens when diferent cultures, drives, and even varying levels of information clash.
I would rather have an intelligent person in charge than a charismatic person in charge. I believe that an intelligent person will make the right, although sometimes hard, decision, but a leader who relies on his/her charisma will only pick the option that makes them look better.
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
So what you’re saying, then, is in all situations, our elected officials should take a poll of their constituents, and then act on what the majority want? Doesn’t seem practical to me.
It does to Bush. The problem is. his constituent is God.
Now, it´s probably a coinincidence, but GW´s constituent seems to favor the un-needy - the “haves and have mores,” as the resident Moron in Chief likes to characterize them.
I guess all this stuff about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and giving drink to the thirsty, comes from a different God for a different set of people. Kind, loving people. I wonder who they might be.
Well the bias of the institute is beyond doubt… 
Still those same Bushisms on the side seem to indicate that Bush is no genius. I’ve seen his IQ posted as 105 or 108… which is average… 98 is not dysfunctional actually… its right on average. Bush Senior is certainly smarter than his son too… he was the CIA director if that means anything.
I’d say republicans were more “leader” types and democrats “smarter” types… but that would generalizing. Do notice that Sharon Stone is supposed to be near or above 145 IQ … which would make her smarter than most presidents of both parties… sad.
In the end presidents don't govern alone... they have staff (or handlers) to help them out. Advisors of all sorts. Intelligence helps and certainly intelectual curiosity means a president would learn whilst in office more. So intelligence is important.I’m sorry, I thought this thread was in GD, not in The Pit.
And can we please stop using that absurd list in the OP as a basis for this discussion? As stated time and time again, this is merely a prank website with absolutely no basis in reality. Unless, of course, the subject isn’t to debate whether intelligence is the most important leadership quality.