I stand by my observations. The issue isn't, and never was, quantitative: raw mental horsepower as measured by something like an IQ. The issue is qualitative, the quality of a President's thinking in combination with other factors, most notably eloquence, that add up to leadership.

The remarkable contrast between Bush and all the other Presidents we're discussing is that, while people often vehemently opposed the others, their basic legitimacy to hold the office was rarely questioned. People who disagreed with Ronald Reagan never doubted that he really was the President of the United States, because he exhibited all the qualities we want in a President. While Reagan could never have been considered an intellectual, he was widely credited with a good understanding of people and of human affairs, and of course his gift for communicating was memorable. In one of Henry Kissinger's interminable memoirs, he devotes many pages to expressing his admiration for Reagan's "gut" instincts as a statesman. Reagan couldn't have articulated a rational basis for his policy toward the Soviet Union, but he ended up not only seeing its fall, he made friends with Gorbachev and tried to accompany Russia during its transformation.

Reagan didn't need raw intelligence. It was the synergy of the whole package that made him President.

On a personal note, my second ex-wife was in PR in the 80s, and once took a group of schoolkids to the White House to meet the President. She describes, with poignant pride, spontaneously bursting into tears standing beside Reagan, transfixed by his palpable aura as truly The Most Powerful Man on Earth. Love him or hate him, Ronald Reagan truly was President of the United States.

I seriously doubt whether Bush inspires the same reaction in people today.

In the case of all the other Presidents, people who knew them personally uniformly described them as the same in private as in public. It wasn't a matter of delivering a prepared speech, it was a matter of intrinsic ability to communicate and make connections with other people. They could speak off-the-cuff in complete sentences. They had "it" and people who knew them recognized "it".

How do people describe the private Bush? Also the same, even more so; but unfortunately in Dubya's case that means NASCAR lowbrow and a crass style we haven't seen since LBJ showed off his appendix scars and hauled up his basset hounds by the ears (maybe we'll finally learn never to elect Presidents from Texas). Somebody who bestows demeaning nicknames instead of inspiration on the people around him. A man without the wit to realize his limitations and enlist the help of others in his purpose. An empty suit.

You're swimming upstream in the mighty Mississippi, Tom. Challenge my low opinion of Bush's intelligence and you only get me to thinking about all of his other shortcomings as President. It isn't just one thing like his dim intellect, it's how the package all fits together. After six years on the job, George W. Bush still has not grown into the job.