I, too, like the Charles Krauthammer op-ed that the Independent Institute's David Theroux prominently features in this blog post.
My suspicion is that Obama is an empty suit, that his rhetorical skills are mistaken for intelligence, and that even if his I.Q. were 3,000 he is sorely lacking in wisdom and honesty.
Share
{ 48 comments }
← Previous Comments
"My suspicion is that Obama is an empty suit, that his rhetorical skills are mistaken for intelligence…"
The differences between him on and off teleprompter really are striking.
He could be little more than just a dumb news reader like the William Hurt character in "Broadcast News."
Agree with Chris in that watching Obama in an unscripted interview sans teleprompter, he's actually more inarticulate than George W. Bush.
Wow! The fomenting hatred for Obama after a full 6 weeks in office is incredible. Never saw any such complaints about Bush as he trashed both civil liberties and the economy. I don't think there EVER was a post here that challenged George W's intellect. Mostly just denial that any problems existed. But now those last 8 years are all but forgotten. Apparently;y we arrived to where we are in just the last 6 weeks. But this kind of "reasoning" is the same reason no one ever mentions Calvin Coolidge when speaking of the first Republican Lead Great Depression. Watching dead ideologies progress through the Five Stages of Grief is somewhat gruesome. It seems where are only just now transitioning from denial to anger. Yeah..we're in the anger stage, Obama's gonna need to hold on tight.
The Obama Bear Market: âNever waste a good crisisâ
In an essay from 1982, Friedman said, âOnly a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When the crisis occurs the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.â
Oh wait… but that was Lord Freidman so that's different.
Story: I couldn't have said it better myself.
Let's see if muirgeo has any response to your articulate and well-thought out arguments.
And speaking of empty suits, have we ever had a President who has dressed down as often as Obama? Sometimes he comes out of the White House helicopter looking like he was on his way to early cocktails. If President Bush had been this casual in dress all the time, the press would have claimed that he wasn't taking the office and its symbolic role seriously. No wonder China and North Korea are becoming emboldened. Image is everythng, and Obama's image to the world is a whiny, quasi-Yuppie "Can't we all just get along…Please…"
"The fomenting hatred for Obama…"
Saying that his eloquence is mistaken for intelligence is "fomenting hatred? Okay…
"Never saw any such complaints about Bush…"
You obviously weren't paying attention. SNL made fun him for being inarticulate for eight years.
"But this kind of "reasoning" is the same reason no one ever mentions Calvin Coolidge when speaking of the first Republican Lead Great Depression."
I thought you said that was Hoover's fault…
"It seems where are only just now transitioning from denial to anger."
Who's angry?
The only one in denial here is…you. Why do you stubbornly refuse to deal with the arguments placed in front of you?
Muirgeo,
"Obama's gonna need to hold on tight."
He won't be able to. The whole world senses his weakness. Soon, even the faithful will turn on him.
Muirgeo wrote: "Wow! The fomenting hatred for Obama after a full 6 weeks in office is incredible."
Incredible? Not in the least; Don's perspective that "Obama is an empty suit, that his rhetorical skills are mistaken for intelligence, and that even if his I.Q. were 3,000 he is sorely lacking in wisdom and honesty" is validated not only by the past 6 weeks, but also Obama's entire, albeit brief, political career.
The only thing truly incredible is, notwithstanding the HUGE advantages given by the mainstream media to this extraordinarily eloquent teleprompter reader, that this disingenuous empty suit has become our president; God help us until the 2010 mid-term elections give voters the opportunity to throw some of his enablers (both Democrat and Republican) out of the Congress.
We can't escape the fact that he was a magna at Harvard law. Affirmative action may get you in, you're on your own once you get in the door. He is a smart dude. That said, he's either sorely mistaken on most issues, or he's a disingenuous populist. But he's not an empty suit.
"Wow! The fomenting hatred for Obama after a full 6 weeks in office is incredible."
I thought he was an empty suit a year ago.
Not hatred, just an observation….
John wrote:
"We can't escape the fact that he was a magna at Harvard law. . . . he's either sorely mistaken on most issues, or he's a disingenuous populist. But he's not an empty suit."
If Harvard's honors are as meaningful as you suggest, then logically John, I don't think you can claim that he is "sorely mistaken on most issues."
It seems then that you must limit yourself to arguing that he is a "disingenuous populist" solely as opposed to an empty suit. Not a bad argument.
Still, I think it is possible to be well educated in some things and still be an empty suit on others. Jimmy Carter was not disingenuous, like I think Obama is, but Jimmy was an empty suit (grossly misinformed) about all things economic.
You could certainly argue that Obama is sorely lacking when it comes to emotional intelligence.
Markets are at the core one big exercise in psychology with mushy things like trust, perceptions, and prospects far outweighing things like facts.
Obama doesn't appear to get this.
Obama wouldn't be the first SAT-smart person to fail due to a lack of emotional intelligence.
Think Jimmy Carter.
John D: Good point
But I am sure we all know highly intelligent people who are ignorant of basic economics. Think of Noam Chomsky or Paul Krugman…
Its like Hayek said, great intellectuals often find it hard to reject top down solutions from people like themselves. Academia especially. When it comes to economic topics Obama is an empty suit.
"profit and earnings ratios…" was it?
"I don't think there EVER was a post here that challenged George W's intellect. Mostly just denial that any problems existed."
Anyone who knows Texas politics knows that Bush was a product of that culture. In that culture booksmarts are regarded with suspicion and the best folk are regular folk.
"But I am sure we all know highly intelligent people who are ignorant of basic economics. Think of Noam Chomsky or Paul Krugman…
Its like Hayek said, great intellectuals often find it hard to reject top down solutions from people like themselves. Academia especially. When it comes to economic topics Obama is an empty suit."
Many Liberals that I know believe that Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king
…is truly possible and, more importantly, that they personally could pull it off.
I would bet a large sum of money that in Obama's heart, he holds that view. I would also bet that many people who voted for Obama also wanted him to be their Philosopher King.
Thus the support for the massive increase in the size of the government.
Of course, in truth it's hard to distinguish between a Philosopher King and a Benevolent Dictator (and at the end of the day a Benevolent Dictator is still a Dictator).
I think you overestimate the value of honors at Harvard. I got a (mid-life) masters degree in 2001. That year, 93% of the undergrads graduated with honors. That's right – 93%. That's academic rigor for you. Harvard's MO is to screen during the admissions process for who it thinks will fit its profile. It then spends the next 2,3 or 4 (depending on the program) telling the students how special they are and how they have the ability to change the world, of course using the Harvard mold. I haven't seen recent graduation rates, but I suspect they exceed 95%, because in the end, while it may be hard to get into Harvard, it is easy to get out. If the student doesn't graduate that would mean that Harvard made a mistake, and we all know that is not possible.
A Harvard grad thinking he could be the Philosopher King? Uh, yeah. That is what is drilled into every student.
Couldn't agree more. Mr. Teleprompter orator does not have the grounding in real lie economics to be wise. He can nicely deliver a well written speech though.
I thought he was an empty suit a year ago.
So did a lot of democrats, and they tailored their approach appropriately. To their credit, in the end they bet on his charisma and on the risk appetite of voters. You could say they sucked out on the LEH/AIG fallout, but they obviously made the right call.
Obama and the democrats remind me of a guy I knew who was way over his head in debt, and knew that he about to go bankrupt, so he traded in his old car for a brand new $40k pickup.
In the words of Captain Jack Sparrow; "Take what you can. Give nothing back."
I had the chance to hear Obama in a small-group setting in 2004, when he made a presentation to the National Conference of Editorial Writers at its September convention in Chicago. He was very engaging (I know it is not permissible to say "articulate"), obviously very smart, but intellectually a lightweight. Success in law school is not evidence to the contrary.
This was a very admiring audience — another skeptic who was also there later described it as "fawning" — so it should have been an easy occasion. But it was unscripted, and he simply didn't know very much.
haha, typical muirbot. When he was expressing his endless hatred for Bush, that was A-OK! But pointing out Obama, empty suit is BAD! Reminds me of Animal Farm.
Muirgeo's feelings are hurt. How dare you criticize his Marxist hero? If his hero could do so much destruction in 6 weeks, please allow him continue down that path for another 8 years.
"The Obama Bear Market: âNever waste a good crisisâ
In an essay from 1982, Friedman said, âOnly a crisis, actual or perceived, produces real change. When the crisis occurs the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.â"
-Muir
Quoting Naomi Klein quoting Friedman, huh? You're pathetic. Oh, and by the way, Klein was wrong about the origin of the quote. It wasn't from an essay, but from his book "Capitalism and Freedom".
As a fan of Friedman, I could respond, but I'll let Johan Norberg do that. He's great at keeping things simple so MAYBE you're simplistic grasp on reality will be able to comprehend.
See page 2 "Dr. Friedman and Mr. Hyde"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf
…and stop quoting from the "Shock Doctrine" it only makes you sound dumber.
So according to Naomi, you are not supposed to take advantage of the crisis.
Don, I don't think Obama is dumb. But, first, the skills he's honed for 30 years have everything to do with prospering in school and in academia — and zip to do with leadership out in the real world. As far as his actual experience doing actual stuff that would be relevant to being President, electing him is pretty much the equivalent of electing a teenager straight from high school, who probably has good intentions and a head full of academical theories, but nothing else, not even a few summers working the cash register at McDonald's, since he spent summers "interning" with some "community organizing" agency not required to fulfill any actual useful social function.
Second, Obama's entire political career is based on seeming cool, confident, totally relaxed. That makes it very hard indeed for him to admit doubt, lack of knowledge, inexperience, and get help. Furthermore, he's surrounded by hipsters who depend on his oracular leadership. They're not going to point out when he's goofing up and suggest an expert they know. This is always the problem with quasi-religious adoration of your leader. Your apostles tend to be blind idiots.
Third, and I realize this is anathema in most quarters, George Bush made the basic day-to-day functioning of the Presidency look easy. He was unbelievably disciplined, and he was in general extremely good at picking out very competent subordinates who would just get the job done without making an ass out of themselves in public. (The fact that Bush's enemies have to manufacture a bogus "indifferent government" crisis in Katrina, and reach all the way down to the head of FEMA to find a Bush doofus, is telling. Previous Presidents have had multiple doofi in the Cabinet.)
Bush always had a definite plan, and managed his time and priorities very well. To be sure, his goals and methods outraged the Angry Left all the time, and annoyed and frustrated even his supporters routinely. But he got stuff done, without fuss, on time (if not, alas, under budget).
We have mercifully forgotten Bill Clinton, who was always late and sloppy, who had whims and passing fancies, who dicked around and then pulled all-nighters, the stereotypical brilliant but undisciplined kid. And even he at least had relevant executive experience, running Arkansas.
In short, I agree Team Obama is in way over their pretty little heads. But the job is actually quite difficult. You can be pretty book-smart — and I think they are — and still mess it up good. Indeed, history suggests the more book smart you are (cf. Carter, JFK, Wilson) the worse you are as a President.
Carl – at least Clinton wasn't so arrogant as to think he knew it all. He understood that he had to reach across the aisle. Also he never subscribed to Saul Alinsky tactics. Heck, these days I'm pining for the 90s!
Anyone who knows Texas politics knows that Bush was a product of that culture. In that culture booksmarts are regarded with suspicion and the best folk are regular folk.
I would rather be governed by the first five people I can find in the Dallas phone book than by Obama and the pigs in congress now. That's my take on the famous quote.
Obama is a nightmare. Trading him for Bush is like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. I don't care if he has a genius IQ or if he is retarded. I don't even care about his intentions because I've rarely met a politicians with any intention other than the acquisition of power for personal gain. What matters is how his actions effect us and everything I see confirms my worst fears.
I love the way Don put it: "that his rhetorical skills are mistaken for intelligence, and that even if his I.Q. were 3,000 he is sorely lacking in wisdom and honesty."
That does not imply good decision making in the future.
Well you guys are hating on Obama but you're too enamored in ideology to realize who to hate. You are apparently all upset with the stock market while ignoring the basic problems with the real economy. When the stock market was high in 2007 you were happy and brushed off the nay-sayers who warned of problems with the underlying economy. Now the market drops further and you assume it has something to do with Obama's actions.
The stock market and the economy are in the situation they are in because Wall Street Lobbyist spent $5 billion dollars to be allowed to create one thousand trillion dollars of bad assets. Now because the shattered vase ( i.e. the untenable knot of CDO's and Complex Derivatives) can not be restored from its shattered condition by Obama you place all the blame on him.
You are child-like in your ability to rationalize.
He's great at keeping things simple so MAYBE you're simplistic grasp on reality will be able to comprehend.
Fantasizing again, eh MWG? The difference between the two quotes is the difference between these two:
"Honey, when I look at your face, time stands still."
and
"Honey, your face could stop a clock."
Morongeo won't see the difference. I'm willing to bet big money on that.
"I think you overestimate the value of honors at Harvard. I got a (mid-life) masters degree in 2001. That year, 93% of the undergrads graduated with honors. That's right – 93%. That's academic rigor for you. Harvard's MO is to screen during the admissions process for who it thinks will fit its profile. It then spends the next 2,3 or 4 (depending on the program) telling the students how special they are and how they have the ability to change the world, of course using the Harvard mold."
Many big, prestigious universities are moving or have moved in this direction.
Many classes are basically just pass/fail.
Muirgeo,
"Now the market drops further and you assume it has something to do with Obama's actions."
No, not entirely. Certainly his anti-productive class rhetoric has had significant impact, but the root causes of the situation go back decades, not months. Nonetheless, blaming Obama makes for great counter propaganda, so I'm going with it. The fascists must be stopped, and the ends justify the means.
Randy:
"The fascists must be stopped, and the ends justify the means."
Hurrah! Taking a page from the Saul Alinksy playbook. Rahm Emmanuel would be proud.
Crusader,
That playbook goes back much further than Saul Alinsky. In fact, Alinsky's only real contribution was to reveal the true nature of the Progressives. Before Alinsky, most only suspected their propensity for fascism – now we know it for certain.
Linking videos of a quasi-pedophile/racist/women hating morons doesn't make you look smart either muir.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=olbermann%20racist&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#q=olbermann+richardson&hl=en&emb=0&start=20
http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=olbermann%20racist&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#q=olbermann+richardson&hl=en&emb=0&start=20
Off topic question: How do you create links in a comment?
How to link to things
Obama is not an empty suit. He's a suit filled with the ideas of the old American Left in which he's been immersed his whole adult life. As such you would never expect him to think outside of the central planner box, and he won't. He is therefore predictable. Markets adjust down only at the concretization of those ideas.
We can only hope that his like-minded group thinkers in Congress will loose power in 2010 and we will at least have a restoration of partisan politics as a check on the Left's newfound power.
Wall Street Lobbyist spent $5 billion dollars to be allowed to create one thousand trillion dollars of bad assets.
Doesn't the fact that Lobbyists are so successful temper your enthusiasm for big government? Big government = big target for lobbyists.
I suppose public choice theory doesn't apply to democrats. Like standard economic theory did not hold in the Soviet Union?
Or maybe Obama is the "new man" that socialism is supposed to create?
"Like standard economic theory did not hold in the Soviet Union?"
The experience of chronic shortages in the Soviet Union was a "market failure". ;->
Please note that Mierduck has still not produced any evidence to back his claim that we 'cheered on' Bush's economic agenda.
Apparently, all of the denouncements here of the TARP, and other Keynesian solutions that Bush was putting forth were 'cheering' him on.
quack… quack… quack…
"Please note that Mierduck has still not produced any evidence to back his claim that we 'cheered on' Bush's economic agenda."
-brotio
This confirms my barking/biting dog theory in the last post.
Charles Krauthammer is writing about intellectual honesty!
Thanks Kevin.
Wow!
"Anyone who knows Texas politics knows that Bush was a product of that culture. In that culture booksmarts are regarded with suspicion and the best folk are regular folk.
Posted by: Chris O'Leary | Mar 10, 2009 10:51:03 AM"
Be you sure you're on solid ground with a statement like that, Chris?
Real respect here in Texas is reserved for th person who is highly educated but doesn't let that get in the way of common sense and practical reality.
As for the discussion about IQ and intellectual capability, one is not necessarily the other.
You can take a person like muirduck and educate him in a specific field such as medicine and like a good computer he will program very well and be very productive in that specific field, yet take him out of that field and try and get him to perform in, say economics, and you find his intellectual capability is nigh onto zero.
He demonstrates this on virtually a daily basis.
Obama is no different, having a high IQ, if indeed he does, does not mean that he is capable of real practical common sense thought. Again, I have to beat the same drum, being a believer in socialsim as Obama is, is proof of his lack of intellectual capability. When a person can't even show he understands what theft is and the immorality of theft, then you have someone who is not intellectual nor even a "thinker" of even slight degree.
Muirdog?
"Muirdog?"
-Crusader
Oooh, I like that…
You are child-like in your ability to rationalize.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2009 1:47:14 PM
This, from Obamarama's head cheerleader, and troll with the worst reading comprehension.
Go brush up on your reading skills, muirfraud.
being a believer in socialsim as Obama is, is proof of his lack of intellectual capability
Reading certain kinds of fiction requires a "suspension of disbelief" for the sake of enjoying a story.
Believing in socialism requires a suspension of intellectual capability, or a lack thereof.
Now we can say it, regardless of any of his statements to the contrary, GW Bush is a socialist as well.
{ 3 trackbacks }