The Week in Blog: Shockingly Fundamental Edition (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

[Bloggingheads]

[chamblee54]

Mr. Lewis tells us how a rational person should believe.
1- The middle three letters of believe are lie.
2- Maybe, on a certain level, Newtie is "brilliant". However, "other than" that, he is corrupt, promiscuous, hypocritical, sleazy, Catholic, ugly and overweight.
3- A few years ago, he won a re election by 900 votes. If the Democrats had their act together, he would be forgotten today. As usual, it is the Democrats fault.
4- He is a good speaker, and has a certain reptilian charisma. Godwin's law applies here. (With Saddam Hussein in paradise, the job of "Next Hitler" is open.)
chamblee54

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

2- Maybe, on a certain level, Newtie is "brilliant". However, "other than" that, he is corrupt, promiscuous, hypocritical, sleazy, Catholic, ugly and overweight.

Personally, I'm baffled by Newt's continued reputation as an intellectual luminary of the right, and I'm not alone. Here's Kevin Drum's explanation of Newt's Schtick:

Gingrich's favorite debate ploy is to avoid answering tough questions by immediately zooming out to a million-foot level and explaining imperiously how enormously complex everything is. It's all so impressive sounding that he seldom has to bother telling us just what he'd do about any of this enormously complex stuff. Here are a few examples from the most recent debate:

On negotiating with the Taliban:

Look, I think this is so much bigger and deeper a problem than we've talked about as a country that we don't have a clue how hard this is going to be. First of all, the Taliban survives for the very same reason that historically we said guerillas always survive, which is they have a sanctuary....So I think this has to be a much larger strategic discussion that starts with, frankly, Pakistan on the one end and Iran on the other, because Afghanistan is in between the two countries and is the least important of the three countries.

On cutting government:

There are four interlocking national security problems. Debt and the deficit's one. Energy is a second one. Manufacturing is a third one. And science and technology's a fourth. And you need to have solutions that fit all four.

On dealing with a loose nuke in Pakistan:

Well, look. This is a good example of the mess we've gotten ourselves into since the Church Committee so-called reforms in 1970s. We don't have a reliable intelligence service. We don't have independent intelligence in places like Pakistan....This is a very good example of scenarios people ought to look at seriously and say, "We had better overhaul everything from rules of engagement to how we run the intelligence community, because we are in a very dangerous world."

Gingrich is hardly the first blowhard in history to routinely talk this way, but he's certainly made it into a political art form. It all sounds very erudite, but mostly it just allows him to avoid concrete answers. And even when he does get concrete, he most often just ends up spouting buzz phrases like "Lean Six Sigma" and "human capital" and "Agenda 21."

This isn't because he has no concrete answers. When he wants to, he can be perfectly concrete. But when he doesn't feel like getting himself into a jam, he puts on his best world-weary expression, retreats to the million-foot level beloved of management consultants and tweedy professors, and then finishes off with a couple of trendy buzzwords. I often wonder just who he thinks he's kidding with this act, but it does have the virtue of baffling the masses with bullshit so that he can plausibly claim to be the most conservative guy on the stage without ever giving anyone an opening to prove otherwise.

As far as I can tell, the trick is to repeatedly insist that you are an intellectual heavyweight while telling people a potent mixture of what they want to hear and things you just made up that don't actually make sense. I think Thomas Friedman uses a similar formula.

[Don Zeko]

Apparently Bill is getting into the Newt theme as well.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Personally, I'm baffled by Newt's continued reputation as an intellectual luminary of the right, and I'm not alone. Here's Kevin Drum's explanation of Newt's Schtick:


As far as I can tell, the trick is to repeatedly insist that you are an intellectual heavyweight while telling people a potent mixture of what they want to hear and things you just made up that don't actually make sense. I think Thomas Friedman uses a similar formula.

To nab something from Biden( an homage on at least 2 levels ) "Newt is a self aggrandizing statement + topic sentence + an ellipses".

[chamblee54]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

To nab something from Biden( an homage on at least 2 levels ) "Newt is a self aggrandizing statement + topic sentence + an ellipses".

This brings this to mind:Winston Churchill's quotation, made in a radio broadcast in October 1939: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
On a side note, I had heard this quote before. I googled it, in order to get an accurate quote. I had never heard the last line, which puts a different spin on this affair.
The timing is also interesting. This was during the first part of the conflict. Germany had not conquered France. Mr. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, and not yet the Prime Minister. The Soviet Union had a treaty with Germany, and was not yet an ally.
chamblee54

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Personally, I'm baffled by Newt's continued reputation as an intellectual luminary of the right, and I'm not alone.

Me too, but if they want to think so and nominate him based on it and some ridiculous grandstanding with the press, etc., I'm not going to complain.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Me too, but if they want to think so and nominate him based on it and some ridiculous grandstanding with the press, etc., I'm not going to complain.

Oh, yeah. Er, I guess I would like to revise and extend my remarks. Heavens no, don't nominate Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain! There's no way that Barack Obama could withstand the withering glare of Newt's keen analytical mind, and Herman Cain's presence on the ticket would mean 20-25% of the black vote going Republican, easy. And whatever you do, don't throw me in that briar patch!

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Personally, I'm baffled by Newt's continued reputation as an intellectual luminary of the right, and I'm not alone. Here's Kevin Drum's explanation of Newt's Schtick:

Kevin Drum misunderstands the actual problem. First of all, the members of this board seem to be of above average intelligence, more or less. Since this is the case, only partisanship can blind someone to the clear superiority of Newt's intellect. He is obviously one of the most intelligent people in politics.

The problem is that Newt has Clintonitis. He's obsessed with this "80%" framing, just as Clinton thinks he re-invented the wheel with triangulation.

What he does when we elaborates on the nature of the problem is to demonstrate he grasps the issues relevant to voters in intimate detail, and leaves Conservative voters with the impression that he will address them correctly, while dazzling the squishes with the breadth of his knowledge.

This is the thing I like least about Newt. I prefer that ideological ground be staked out regardless of popularity, and allow that to be the pole against which the failures of establishment are measured. Despite all of the signs of decline around us in the form of leftist success, it is easy to forget the progress that has been made in throwing these people back. Obama is terrible, to be sure, but LBJ was much worse. NIXON was much worse, as Don Zeko mentioned elsewhere. We got here by recognizing long term national trends as to be the place where the struggle is to be had, not each individual election. This was done by men like Goldwater and Reagan staking out clear, sincere, conservative cases.

Power is worthless without the will to exercise it in service of conservative principle.

That being said, there is little appealing about Romney. So I'm interested in seeing this Gingrich train on the move. He has little discipline, but he might surprise me. I'd like it if he did; he has it within him to be a great man.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Since this is the case, only partisanship can blind someone to the clear superiority of Newt's intellect. He is obviously one of the most intelligent people in politics.

When Matt was making statements like this in the DV, I legitimately couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, verbal cues notwithstanding. Newt always sounds to me like the kid in class who didn't do the reading and is trying to fluff the prof with intelligent-sounding drivel to get out of the situation.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

When Matt was making statements like this in the DV, I legitimately couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, verbal cues notwithstanding. Newt always sounds to me like the kid in class who didn't do the reading and is trying to fluff the prof with intelligent-sounding drivel to get out of the situation.

How can you say such a thing about a man who wrote his PH.D. dissertation on Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960 (Tulane 1971)?

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Power is worthless without the will to exercise it in service of conservative principle.

Allahu Akbar !!1!!!

[chiwhisoxx]

I don't see Newt as an intellectual titan either, but then again I've never felt that way about a politician. People like to gush about how smart Obama is, but I've never seen, heard, or read anything suggesting this to be the case. How do we even determine if a politician is smart? I remember Glenn Loury remarking that Obama's alleged intelligence is a kind of "performed intelligence", where people essentially have skills that we equate with intelligence: the ability to give a speech, be articulate, utilize certain rhetorical flourishes, etc.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I don't see Newt as an intellectual titan either, but then again I've never felt that way about a politician. People like to gush about how smart Obama is, but I've never seen, heard, or read anything suggesting this to be the case. How do we even determine if a politician is smart? I remember Glenn Loury remarking that Obama's alleged intelligence is a kind of "performed intelligence", where people essentially have skills that we equate with intelligence: the ability to give a speech, be articulate, utilize certain rhetorical flourishes, etc.

I think that sums it up, basically. Obama has impressive formal qualifications, and he has demonstrated an ability to speak cogently in the style that we expect of politicians and about the sorts of subjects that politicians discuss. Whether this proves that he is smart or not depends upon what exactly we mean by smart, but I think it's fair to say that you can't speak in any level of detail about the breadth of topics that a presidential candidate must discuss without being both pretty sharp and well prepared. If you want to see what happens if you either aren't that smart or aren't that prepared, just look at Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Herman Cain.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

If you want to see what happens you either aren't that smart or aren't that prepared, just look at Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Herman Cain.

Exactly, if the politics is the art of persuasion who are these individuals going to persuade ?? Somebody who already holds their view I imagine.

[kezboard]

Actually, I think it's more simple, it's all about the sneering and the disdain. It's so funny, both that Newt decided that the winning strategy for him was to be a total dick, and that it's actually working.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

When Matt was making statements like this in the DV, I legitimately couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, verbal cues notwithstanding. Newt always sounds to me like the kid in class who didn't do the reading and is trying to fluff the prof with intelligent-sounding drivel to get out of the situation.

Quite strange. You seem to doubt that Newt is even knowledgeable of the subject matter, when that is obviously false. It is interesting to see this clinging to elite bias, amusing too.

The definition of intelligence among the professional political left seems to be pronouncing the names of states in the way of the natives. So Obama is a sophisticated foreign policy wonk with his Pak-e-stan.

I doubt one out of a hundred people in federal office could tell you a thing about the history of the Punjab that wasn't provided to them by the state department, or the nuances of American policy historically in the Pacific. I have no doubt that Newt is familiar with these matters. I am fairly sure Obama is not.

Obama did go to all the right schools though, so he must be a great mind. Like Bush.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

What he does when we elaborates on the nature of the problem is to demonstrate he grasps the issues relevant to voters in intimate detail, and leaves Conservative voters with the impression that he will address them correctly, while dazzling the squishes with the breadth of his knowledge.

I wonder. I used to work with this fellow from one of the colonies, who spoke with what sounded to us North Americans as a British accent. He also had a pretty big vocabulary and used a lot of big sentences. We all thought he was smart. And yet, somehow, he managed to make the most fundamental mistakes of math and logic (not to mention simple activities of daily living). It was only then, in trying to puzzle out how someone so smart could do such dumb things, that we made an attempt to listen to the content of what he was saying, not just the tone and quantity. It turned out, he was literally not saying very much. He was just using a lot of big words.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

How can you say such a thing about a man who wrote his PH.D. dissertation on Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960 (Tulane 1971)?

And what an interesting topic! And how refreshing it is to have a politician running for high office who isn't afraid to release his academic records.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I wonder. I used to work with this fellow from one of the colonies, who spoke with what sounded to us North Americans as a British accent. He also had a pretty big vocabulary and used a lot of big sentences. We all thought he was smart. And yet, somehow, he managed to make the most fundamental mistakes of math and logic (not to mention simple activities of daily living). It was only then, in trying to puzzle out how someone so smart could do such dumb things, that we made an attempt to listen to the content of what he was saying, not just the tone and quantity. It turned out, he was literally not saying very much. He was just using a lot of big words.

Sounds like the current President of the United States. I remember being sick to my stomach at the cult of personality that developed around that guy in 2008. It was revolting. The Left seems to construct these personality cults with some regularity. Other than with Reagan, this is largely absent on the Right.

Doesn't really sound like Gingrich though. Perhaps you can point me to what you're thinking of when it comes to empty content.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Sounds like the current President of the United States. I remember being sick to my stomach at the cult of personality that developed around that guy in 2008. It was revolting. The Left seems to construct these personality cults with some regularity. Other than with Reagan, this is largely absent on the Right.

Doesn't really sound like Gingrich though. Perhaps you can point me to what you're thinking of when it comes to empty content.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Noooo way pal. Bush was no "hero" to the right, just like Bill Clinton was no hero to the left. People defended him, and even liked him, for his enemies.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Noooo way pal. Bush was no "hero" to the right, just like Bill Clinton was no hero to the left. People defended him, and even liked him, for his enemies.

Really? I mean yeah, you guys decided that he wasn't really one of you in 2005 or so when he started to get unpopular, but I'm not talking about that. i'm talking about 2002-2004 Bush. are you really going to force me to dig up something embarrassing written about the guy? Does the non-ironic caption on that picture not cut it?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Really? I mean yeah, you guys decided that he wasn't really one of you in 2005 or so when he started to get unpopular, but I'm not talking about that. i'm talking about 2002-2004 Bush. are you really going to force me to dig up something embarrassing written about the guy? Does the non-ironic caption on that picture not cut it?

It doesn't matter what some excitable pundit says about the matter, I'm talking about the conservative base as a member of it. I remember some leftist saying that liberals in the country owe Clinton some obligatory blow job because of how great a progressive he was; does that make you a devotee of Clinton?

The time frame you cite covers exactly the prescription drug benefit, which was pretty unpopular among conservatives as a budget buster. Indeed, among the writers of NR there was a great skepticism about "Compassionate Conservatism" from the beginning.

[Ocean]

It's that simple!

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

It doesn't matter what some excitable pundit says about the matter, I'm talking about the conservative base as a member of it. I remember some leftist saying that liberals in the country owe Clinton some obligatory blow job because of how great a progressive he was; does that make you a devotee of Clinton?

The time frame you cite covers exactly the prescription drug benefit, which was pretty unpopular among conservatives as a budget buster. Indeed, among the writers of NR there was a great skepticism about "Compassionate Conservatism" from the beginning.

And there wasn't skepticism about Obama on the left from the beginning? Seriously, read Jane Hamsher's blog, it'll be an education. Insofar as the reaction to Obama is a "cult of personality," there was certainly a similar phenomenon around Bush for the first few years after 9/11. If skepticism about the prescription drug benefit is enough to prove that there was no cult of personality around Bush, then I can muster plenty of similar evidence around Obama: complaints about the public option, caving to centrists in general, not closing Gitmo, etc. etc. etc.. Political movements always seem more radical, better coordinated, and more unified to their opponents than they do on the inside, so I suppose I can forgive you for this impression, but the idea that Obama has been the center of a personality cult has always been overblown.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

but the idea that Obama has been the center of a personality cult has always been overblown.

Barack Obama's election night





George Bush's election month

[Don Zeko]

So your evidence that Obama is the center of a personality cult is that...he got large crowds to turn out for his successful presidential campaign? Politicians giving speeches before large crowds! Who could imagine such a thing?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

the idea that Obama has been the center of a personality cult has always been overblown.

To be fair, in addition to the forces you cite, it's always more comforting for the longer-standing politicians who were beaten by him to think this, and have this narrative out there.

In addition to various GOP folks who still don't understand why he beat (mccain)/PALIN!!, there are also the HillaryIs44 holdouts.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

George Bush's election month

Yes.

And there was absolutely none of this:

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

So your evidence that Obama is the center of a personality cult is that...he got large crowds to turn out for his successful presidential campaign? Politicians giving speeches before large crowds! Who could imagine such a thing?

More important to Obama than an alleged cult of personality is that he has a nice personality. As Joe Biden infamously noted, he's neat, clean and articulate. IOW, he's a nice, well-educated, polite, cool guy. What's not to like?

Republicans have a lot of advantages going in to the election, including poor performance polling on Obama, but they can't run a generic. They will have to run an actual person, and Newt is just too obnoxious, arrogant and egotistical to win. He's a sarcastic dick. When has someone like that ever been elected president? No one that creepy has run since Nixon.

Romney, is more likeable and presidential-looking (despite the stories about how wooden he is or how he tied the dog to the roof of the car), but the Republican base loathes him.

Herman Cain is the only one among the Repub. debaters who had an expansive warm personality that could attract voters. Unfortunately for Republicans, on substance he is a preposterous candidate.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

And there wasn't skepticism about Obama on the left from the beginning? Seriously, read Jane Hamsher's blog, it'll be an education.

I did read Jane Hamsher back when she was briefly relevant; and she seemed to be run out of your movement on a rail when she became a health care heretic.

Insofar as the reaction to Obama is a "cult of personality," there was certainly a similar phenomenon around Bush for the first few years after 9/11.

LOL How is that comparable? The nation rallies around a President after three thousand people are slaughtered by enemies of the Republic, versus the bizarre quasi-religious deal that surrounded a candidate for office whose primary experience was in a state Senate. My neighbor is a state senator.

And no, even in the weeks after 9/11, there was nothing like this for GW Bush:



Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHA_ZTvOgUM

Watch that video and tell me you aren't at all creeped out by it.

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVi4rUzf-0Q

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roUTdnL0ZSI

No sir, there is little argument that 2008 was about a personality cult.

If skepticism about the prescription drug benefit is enough to prove that there was no cult of personality around Bush, then I can muster plenty of similar evidence around Obama: complaints about the public option

LOL No, that was inane. The problem Conservatives had was that the prescription drug bill was being PROPOSED, not that it didn't go far enough. Your version of the complaint would be the equivalent of a conservative President doing away with the Department of Education, but failing to do away with the Department of Energy. We would rejoice such progress; but you people just complain that you didn't get everything you wanted.

You complain, and then because you're doing it, suggest the massive expansion of government is "centrism". No one's buying it.

, caving to centrists in general,

That's because he isn't particularly competent at his job, not because he's a moderate. Oh, no doubt the personality cult is gone now. Mostly because the journalists know that he deserves a lot of the blame for the current political situation, if what the inside beltway talk about disgruntled Democrats in Congress is true. That doesn't mean it didn't exist in 2008.

not closing Gitmo, etc. etc. etc..

Oh, you people still care about that? The rest of us can't tell, because of the deafening silence on the issue since he took office.

Political movements always seem more radical, better coordinated, and more unified to their opponents than they do on the inside, so I suppose I can forgive you for this impression, but the idea that Obama has been the center of a personality cult has always been overblown.

Find me comparable stuff for Bush, please, then we'll talk about it some more. Bush was the beneficiary of a real political movement that he ruined. Obama was your movement.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

To be fair, in addition to the forces you cite, it's always more comforting for the longer-standing politicians who were beaten by him to think this, and have this narrative out there.

In addition to various GOP folks who still don't understand why he beat (mccain)/PALIN!!, there are also the HillaryIs44 holdouts.

This is an example of skewed partisan perspective. No one who is a regular political consumer on the right ever thought McCain was favored in 2008. Or any Republican, really. I voted for McCain in the primary because I thought he would be the only Republican to even have a chance with the media against the first legitimate black Presidential candidate. The only people who think 2008 are Democrats who feel some need to make the election some sort of "triumph" rather than the cakewalk it was, and who believed Americans were secret racists who would vote differently than they responded to polls.

That being said, John McCain ran the worst political campaign I've ever seen in my entire life. Or read about. Hillary is the only significant political campaign Obama has ever run against. Every other race he's run has been a gimmie.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Yes.

And there was absolutely none of this:

LOL That is a cult of personality? Not even close. Watch those videos I linked in my earlier post.

[basman]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...gingrich-smart

I'm not good at this.

I hope the link takes.

Itzik Basman

[basman]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

More important to Obama than an alleged cult of personality is that he has a nice personality. As Joe Biden infamously noted, he's neat, clean and articulate. IOW, he's a nice, well-educated, polite, cool guy. What's not to like?

Republicans have a lot of advantages going in to the election, including poor performance polling on Obama, but they can't run a generic. They will have to run an actual person, and Newt is just too obnoxious, arrogant and egotistical to win. He's a sarcastic dick. When has someone like that ever been elected president? No one that creepy has run since Nixon.

Romney, is more likeable and presidential-looking (despite the stories about how wooden he is or how he tied the dog to the roof of the car), but the Republican base loathes him.

Herman Cain is the only one among the Repub. debaters who had an expansive warm personality that could attract voters. Unfortunately for Republicans, on substance he is a preposterous candidate.

Not a word I disagree with here though I reject the insidious subtext about a one state solution.

Itzik Basman

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by basman

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...gingrich-smart

I'm not good at this.

I hope the link takes.

Itzik Basman

He actually only addresses one single thing Gingrich says, doesn't provide any of Gingrich's comment verbatim, and it ends up that he simply disagrees with the conclusion.

John McWhorter is starting to seem like the Weekly Standard's newly grown Frumm clone.

[basman]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

He actually only addresses one single thing Gingrich says, doesn't provide any of Gingrich's comment verbatim, and it ends up that he simply disagrees with the conclusion.

John McWhorter is starting to seem like the Weekly Standard's newly grown Frumm clone.

Hope this helps: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...le-things-list

Itzik Basman

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by basman

Hope this helps: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...le-things-list

Itzik Basman

What is supposed to be particularly egregious about any of these things?

[harkin]

Listening to the left deny Dear Leader's rented marble column cult of personality (does NBC still have its Obama store?), praise his speaking (without a teleprompter, not so great) his intellectual heft (57 states, corps, hawaii is in asia etc) all the while pleading for the right to perform a type of surgical investigative reporting that so far has been completely absent from the msm regarding Obama (but hey they are willing to draft readers to scour Palin's governmental emails) is toooooooooooooo funny.