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.

[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)?

[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.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

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.

Interesting perhaps, but rather narrow in scope, even for a Ph.D. thesis. Gingrich is certainly to be commended for releasing his academic record (career), especially since it isn't exactly impressive, but I imagine that in a country where Palin, Perry, Cain etc. can aspire to the presidency, most Americans couldn't care less about his academic performance.

The few times I have heard Newt speak, he has struck me exactly as DZ describes him. Vacuous, portentous. Not that that disqualifies him from being president.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Florian

Interesting perhaps, but rather narrow in scope, even for a Ph.D. thesis. Gingrich is certainly to be commended for releasing his academic record (career), especially since it isn't exactly impressive, but I imagine that in a country where Palin, Perry, Cain etc. can aspire to the presidency, most Americans couldn't care less about his academic performance.

Are people who aspire to the presidency in France better educated? And do the French care more than do Americans?

The few times I have heard Newt speak, he has struck me exactly as DZ describes him. Vacuous, portentous. Not that that disqualifies him from being president.

This may be a case of the kettle being critiqued for its color by the pot.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Are people who aspire to the presidency in France better educated? And do the French care more than do Americans?.

Yes, they do.

This may be a case of the kettle being critiqued for its color by the pot.

And this may be a case of another badhat comment that makes no sense.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Florian

Yes, they do.

Really? because I checked the last three and there didn't seem to be any prizewinners among them.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Really? because I checked the last three and there didn't seem to be any prizewinners among them.

No prizes from the prizewinning libertarian numbskull badhat (who knows nothing about France) for Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkozy? I am sure that must mean something, but it means nothing to me.

Originally Posted by Florian

No prizes from the prizewinning libertarian numbskull badhat (who knows nothing about France) for Mitterrand, Chirac and Sarkozy? I am sure that must mean something, but it means nothing to me.

Well, they are definitely qualified in certain respects: Mitterand in the field of adultery, while Chirac has a Ph.D. in corruption and thieving. Sarkozy may aspire to reach those same heights, that would explain why he brought back the disgraced Alain Juppe.

As for badhatharry, she is no libertarian, she's a bona fide conservative.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by apple

Well, they are definitely qualified in certain respects: Mitterand in the field of adultery, while Chirac has a Ph.D. in corruption and thieving. Sarkozy may aspire to reach those same heights, that would explain why he brought back the disgraced Alain Juppe.

As for badhatharry, she is no libertarian, she's a bona fide conservative.

Thank you for your, as usual, keen and well-informed insights into French politics and French politicians.

I would rather be governed by any of the three men you mention than by almost any American president I can think of in the last 40 years.... with the notable exception of Obama.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

Interesting perhaps, but rather narrow in scope, even for a Ph.D. thesis.

I prefer specificity.

Gingrich is certainly to be commended for releasing his academic record (career), especially since it isn't exactly impressive, but I imagine that in a country where Palin, Perry, Cain etc. can aspire to the presidency, most Americans couldn't care less about his academic performance.

The reason why I said that, and this might not be something that is well known outside of the United States, is that Obama has refused to release his academic record. Now, why is this relevant? For the past eleven years, the Left in this country has acted like the pretentious second year college student halfway through his first beard and Social Problems class. It seems the height of delusion to me for people like that to be attacking someone with a PhD in European History as lacking in intelligence when their political avatar is a lawyer. Who majored in political science. ( )

Other than hard sciences, there is no better college pursuit than history.

The few times I have heard Newt speak, he has struck me exactly as DZ describes him. Vacuous, portentous. Not that that disqualifies him from being president.

Can you point me to an example of vacuity?

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The reason why I said that, and this might not be something that is well known outside of the United States, is that Obama has refused to release his academic record. Now, why is this relevant? For the past eleven years, the Left in this country has acted like the pretentious second year college student halfway through his first beard and Social Problems class. It seems the height of delusion to me for people like that to be attacking someone with a PhD in European History as lacking in intelligence when their political avatar is a lawyer. Who majored in political science. ( )

Other than hard sciences, there is no better college pursuit than history.

I wasn't really questioning Gingrich's intelligence, or suggesting that Obama is "more intelligent," whatever that means. I don't think Don Zeko was either. I would probably even agree with you that someone with a PH.D. in European history would make a better president than someone with a PH.D. in political science --to the extent that a PH.D in any subject is a qualification for political office. Gingrich strikes me as an "intellectuel manqué," someone who is always trying to impress his audience with his clever ideas, even when they are not so clever or too clever by half, in short vacuous.

But I can't really give you any examples of Newt's vacuity because I haven't lived in the US for years. I only remember him from the early 90s when I was living in Boston and occasionally saw him blabbering on TV.

[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.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

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

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.

First, if you're not going to argue support your arguments about Newt's intelligence with anything other than an assertion that I must be blind and deaf not to realize his immense genius, then I feel pretty comfortable saying that I don't get that impression from him at all. I might also note that I'm hardly alone in thinking that he's basically been faking it for the past few decades.

Second, a gentleman's C at Princeton is not at all the same thing as being president of the Harvard Law Review. And of course the idea that it's elitist of me to assume that somebody can't produce those sorts of academic credentials without being pretty smart is silly. I didn't say that he must be smarter than people that went to school elsewhere, nor did I make any sort of claim that the form of meritocracy practiced in the Ivy League isn't problematic in all sorts of ways. And beyond all that, you yourself were playing the credentialism game like two posts ago to defend Newt.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

First, if you're not going to argue support your arguments about Newt's intelligence with anything other than an assertion that I must be blind and deaf not to realize his immense genius, then I feel pretty comfortable saying that I don't get that impression from him at all.

I find that position pretty unbelievable. Like denying someone is tall. How would you propose I convince you of something that should be obvious? His PhD doesn't do it, nor does his clear ease with language and complex historical, economic, and social questions.

I might also note that I'm hardly alone in thinking that he's basically been faking it for the past few decades.

No, you're among friends with a crowd that doesn't like Gingrich. That of course doesn't hold weight as an objective critique though.

Second, a gentleman's C at Princeton is not at all the same thing as being president of the Harvard Law Review.

Aren't you at all interested in what kind of work gets someone to be President of Harvard Law Review?

I actually have a theory on this whole thing. I don't believe Obama's work in school was mediocre. I think his subjects for writing would provide particular embarrassment to him now. Probably heavily race oriented, according to how he describes his college persona, and probably Marxist like most soft science students.

But because of the self-justification for the Cult of 2008, it is "irrelevant" what he did. Simply that he received awards for doing it.

Like the Nobel Peace Prize, right? Tell me how well deserved that was.

And of course the idea that it's elitist of me to assume that somebody can't produce those sorts of academic credentials without being pretty smart is silly.

Right. Which is why you're suggesting someone with a PhD in European history isn't pretty smart?

I didn't say that he must be smarter than people that went to school elsewhere, nor did I make any sort of claim that the form of meritocracy practiced in the Ivy League isn't problematic in all sorts of ways. And beyond all that, you yourself were playing the credentialism game like two posts ago to defend Newt.

I value history more than political science. Does that seem strange? Is it odd to find little value in that field of study?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Right. Which is why you're suggesting someone with a PhD in European history isn't pretty smart?

Pretty smart? Sure. Obviously the most intelligent candidate in the field? A leading intellectual luminary of the conservative movement? An expert on even half the shit that he claims to be such an expert on? Hell no.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I value history more than political science. Does that seem strange? Is it odd to find little value in that field of study?

What does political science vs. history have to do with anything?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What does political science vs. history have to do with anything?

Comparing the academic achievement of Gingrich with Obama. If memory serves, Obama majored in PoliSci.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Comparing the academic achievement of Gingrich with Obama. If memory serves, Obama majored in PoliSci.

Well I, for one, don't buy your poli sci hate, but that's not an argument we need to have for several reasons. For one, I never said that Gingrich was stupid. I said that he isn't as amazing a scholar as his supporters make him out to be and that what he actually says in public to bolster his intellectual reputation is pretentious nonsense. For two, I didn't bring up an Obama-Newt comparison, I just called Newt a fraud. And for three, Obama's relevant academic credentials aren't an undergraduate poli sci degree. He went to Harvard Law.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

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

Allahu Akbar !!1!!!

[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 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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by basman

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

Nice!

[harkin]

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?

When he's actually challenged on his lies and incompetence the way Paul Ryan did, not so cool. He had murder in his eyes.