Confining that question to the current "mainstream" GOP of Congress, I'd definitely would say yes.
I would add the word "cowardly" to "dumber."

As a Conservative Libertarian, I agree: It is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom", and anything else that the Founders and the original Constitution didn't give them authority to do.

Does 2 or 3 or 5 IQ points really make a difference? Applying quantitative analysis to a qualitative discussion is inherently flawed. A statistician might look at these results and wonder the same.

Seems to me this article summarizes a study that says the republican liberals are smarter than democrat liberals, and the strongly social conservative republicans (mostly religious) are bringing the average down for conservatives. The author may not like this characterization, but I think it isn't far off.
Look are Trump running away, supported by the Walmart lemmings, that want change, but don't know how to get it, and would rather watch the Apprentice than read.
I consider myself very liberal, depending on the definition used. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, breaking down the present barriers in healthcare, et al. However, I also support the simple, monotonic feedback loop where freedom = responsibility, which is completely broken by welfare and socialism. Why else do I think I am liberal? I didn't start out this way. My mother is a baptist semi-southern democrat, and my father was an Eisenhower republican. My brother and I found our way to libertarianism and atheism independently. Do not some others here consider themselves socially liberal and at odds with big government republicans?
"Progressive" is a negative totalitarian term, not too far from Mussolini. Liberal goes both ways (pun intended).

The sample was still flawed.
In keeping with my belief that there are 3 types of liberals
1. Those that can afford to be liberal. Limousine Liberals
2. Those that can't afford not to be liberal. Welfare Liberal
3. Those that don't know what it is to be liberal. Those that want to be a Type-1 Liberal, but feel they could become a Type-2 liberal.
I would wager a bet that the group that "can't afford not to be liberal" are ignorant as dirt.
That would included any conservatives that live off the dole while complaining about "their tax dollars paying into it". Those individuals are Type-2 Liberals in denial.

I think it is more a matter of lower IQ people (media talking heads, teachers) are drawn to the liberal agenda, as the talking points make it easy for them. No thinking required. Obama, at apx. 117 IQ, does not have the critical thinking skills to handle world problems.Gore falls in that category as well. Those who do have higher IQs, tend to think about things and are drawn to more conservative ventures, or at least fiscal conservative issues. Some of the best critical thinkers I have met, were plumbers and truck drivers, having worked for their money for years, they get it.

Actually they are not but a lack of understanding our founding and our founders pervades the culture.

There is Nothing dumber than a 'liberal' not even the rocks in my yard.

Professor Edward de Bono, in his book de Bono’s Thinking Course, has an excellent example of the difference between intelligence and efficient thinking. He says:

The car may have a powerful engine, a smooth gear box and wonderful suspension. But the skill of the driver is something different.

Indeed, the very power of the car may place extra demands upon that skill. In no way does the power of the car ensure the skill of the driver. In the analogy the engineering of the car corresponds to the innate intelligence and the driving skill of the driver corresponds to the operating skill we call thinking.

It is also often the case that a more humble car has a better driver. Driving skill can also be learned and practiced and improved.

Why is Critical Thinking so Hard to Teach? See an article by that title at
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/15-03...

I wonder if people just stumble and tell the truth when they're drunk or under pressure. :)

That is an amazingly ridiculous question to ask an Objectivist. Is it one of those silly internet questions, or a Sunday supplement question, or just the inquiry of someone with too much time on one's hands? It is unanswerable on more levels than I care to illustrate.

AR said, "Never use emotion as a tool of cognizance." Liberals "feel," conservatives (for the most part) "think." This suggests to me, that liberals use their brain less and, thus, by extension, don't have much there.

That's funny. I seem to recall an article not so long ago that tested the scientific and mathematical acumen and correlated it to political persuasion and found that conservatives scored significantly higher than liberals.

NO, they are equally dumb and you can include the demos in with the group.

This article's claims ring true, and I agree with them.
" it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."
Here are my guesses on this puzzle.
1. I suspect it's because when gov't spends money on things "industries" develop around keeping that money flowing. People who work for military, prisons, and social programs have armies of people writing articles and doing talk shows about how that spending critical the existence of the country. There is less incentive to have an army lobbying against those things because any one of them is a small percentage of taxes but it's the livlihood for people receiving gov't money to work on those programs.
2. It takes one thought step to answer what do you think of gay people, the Christian religion, helping the poor, researching cancer, etc. It takes two steps to say what do you think of them and should the gov't be involved. That sounds like nothing, but it's hard when you hear about things like the story of a business that won't serve people on account of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc. If you really feel strongly about those things, it takes some restraint, restraint that comes from reason, to say those people are wrong but sending men with guns to make them do the right thing is not the answer.