this has nothing to do w/ Yale (or maybe it does...)

<p>Here's a link to the article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Tom Brokaw where the subject was broached: </p>

<p>Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."</p>

<p>Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."</p>

<p>Brokaw: "Do you think too many people in your party underestimate?"</p>

<p>Kerry: "I think people have always underestimated President Bush. But I'm proud that in those debates, I didn't underestimate him. I like the President. I just disagree with his choices.</p>

<p>I am not trying to prop up Bush's higher IQ to show that he was a better candidate than Kerry (it's what you do, not what you scored on a test, that matters); I am just so sick of people who, when they can't make valid arguments based on policy, feel they need to malign the president in such a vicious way. If name calling and baseless ad hominem arguments are the best that the supposed great minds of tomorrow can do, I am more concerned for the future of this nation than all of the liberals purport to be after the president’s victory today.</p>