Who is more intellectually challenged--Reagan or Bush II

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Who is more intellectually challenged--Reagan or Bush II

Both Reagan and Bush II are not considered intellectuals--if Reagan had a saving grace is that he could at least read a prepared speech on a teleprompter without difficulty. But intellect-wise who do you think was/is smarter? Reagan or Bush II

[gratuitous]

1. Hmmm, well now that Reagan's dead

I suppose Bush inches ahead of him in intellectual firepower, but it's still pretty close.

[Wapsie B]

2. A brain in the ravages of Alzheimer's

or dulled by years of hard living with alcohol and coke. Toss-up to me.

[LittleApple81]

3. Your heading and the question for the poll don't match. I cannot

respond until I know which one is correct.

[Cannikin]

4. Reagan may have lost his faculties in the end.....

But at least HE had them to begin with!

[Options Remain]

6. regan could read

n/t

[NoPasaran]

5. I'm intellectually challenged by the poll

Title asks who is dumber... text asks who is smarter. Is this some kind of liberal media trick?

[DemExpat]

7. Your subject line question is different from the question

in the message...or am I mentally challenged today???:-)

I answered the subject line question....

:kick:

DemEx

[madrchsod]

8. ronny was not stupid

he did graduate from a decent college with better grades than bush. he also "worked" for everything he got-he was lucky and took advantage of hs breaks-he didn`t have a rich daddy to bail him out...and according to two people here that are still alive he taught sunday school when he was a teenager and he saved 77 lives and he was dixon`s heart throb when he was a life guard.....sorry i live in dixon,it`s in the air today

[Bluzmann57]

15. Hiya Dixon. I'm in the Quad Cities

and its all over the place here too. He worked at a local radio station a looooonnnnggg time ago and allegedly dated a woman who is still alive but in a nursing home. It was in today's paper. But as far as the poll question, Reagan, even dead is smarter than bushII. He was a lousy president, but he could read and write.

[drscm]

9. I answered the header since it is different from the text.

At least Reagan was capable of memorizing a few lines, which takes some intellectual skill, even if the lines were not his. This requires some ability to understand what he says.

Chimpy is only capable of using his reptilian brain to react inasppropriately to situations and is incapable of understanding what he says.

[jfxgillis]

10. Lib/lefty caricature to the contrary ...

... Reagan was a very bright guy, much closer to the classic "Saturday Night Live" sketch of a secret genius than the amiable dunce stereotype.

He was literate, active, knowledgable and engaged in the politics of his time (1930s to 1980s).

He did have one very grave intellectual problem, though: His ideology became rigidified sometime in the '50s or early '60s. Afterwards, he simply could no longer tolerate facts that contradicted his ideological framework (his famous Iran/Contra speech is the classic example).

But that is a FAR different problem than Bush's, who was NEVER literate, NEVER knowledgable, NEVER active and NEVER engaged in public policy.

[WI_DEM]

I actually agree with you on that

[BringEmOn]

11. My vote Bush II more intellectually challenged, not smarter.

[aintitfunny]

12. I always suspected that Reagan

was put on stage and read whatever was put in front of him. Even though he may have been suffering from early Alzheimer's symptoms, he could at least form a sentence on his own occassionally without butchering the language.

[hlthe2b]

13. I don't think intellect is the issue, but both werefrequently unengaged...

think about it: Reagan was in his 70s, a time when memory begins to fail in the most healthy of individuals. To top it off, he had the early stages of Alzheimers. Yet as an actor (good or bad), he'd been able to memorize and deliver volumes of lines. I'm not sure Bush* does not have to have his own name written out for him.. More to the point, there has been no indication in Bush* earlier life that he was even average functioning in terms of reading, writing, memory comprehension, per his Harvard professor and others who have spoken out before...

Reagan was no genius, but he certainly was of at least average intellect and even fairly exceptional in terms of emotional intellect (that predicts ability to read and react to others, anticipate ones effect on others, etc.)

I suspect that Bush* had a severe learning deficit and as a nature of his exhalted status as the son of wealth and priviiege was never forced to work harder to overcome his deficit. Excuses were made for him and he was able to deflect those who might criticize him with his frat boy congenial routine and by disparaging (as most insecure bullies do) those who so greatly surpassed hiim in intellect and hard work. Add years of heavy drinking, probable cocaine and other drug use, and the neurologic damage that resulted...The guy was never of even average intellect. Add to that his personality disorders and chronic neurological damage..... No way for him to compensate....

The only comparison I see is the ready ability for both to be manipulated by those around them--who also cover for them--while rendering them mere puppet figureheads much of the time.

Both clearly underscore the need for comprehensive psychological exam in addition to comprehensive medical exam for those running for that most powerful of offices. I don't know what it will take for this to occur, though...

[Cat Atomic]

14. No comparison at all. Reagan was no idiot.

He had a screwed-up belief system, and he was basically a puppet, but he wasn't a fool.

Bush is an imbecile.

[Not Me]

16. Tough one...

Reagan was not the sharpest knife in the rack, but could get his point across eloquently.

Chimpy is (I believe) not as dumb as he looks, but can't put a noun and verb together to make an understandable sentence.

[IrateCitizen]

17. You need to edit your post -- it's misleading

In the header, you ask who was more intellectually challenged. However, in the post body, you ask in your last sentence who was smarter.

I'm assuming that the real question is in your header, but you might want to edit the body text to address this contradiction.