Where truth is whatever opinion promotes the GOP at a given moment and Charles Krauthammer knows that his readers will never notice the difference between truth and 'truthiness'.
Duncan Black Marvels at Charles Krauthammer
By Brad DeLong | November 29, 2013, 7:51 pm
Share on facebookShare Share on twitterTweet Share on emailEmail
12 Comments
Duncan Black remembers Charles Krauthammer (2005):
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters…. The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written. What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration…
And Charles Krauthammer (2013):
The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force–a near party-line vote of 52 to 48. This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning…
I was going to use this space to–every other Friday–compliment some part of our press corps that is doing well. Unfortunately, Duncan Black sends us to Charles Krauthammer and the Washington Post, which then exert an irresistible force pushing in the opposite direction…
I mean, what is going on here?
Does Charles Krauthammer not remember what he wrote eight years ago?
Does he assume none of his readers will remember what he wrote eight years ago?
Does he assume that his readers just do not care–that they read him solely for the cheerleading for his side, and not for any kind of analysis or information?
And why does Fred Hiatt tolerate this–why doesn’t he call Krauthammer up and ask him to please not burn the credibility of the whole Washington Post? And why does Jeff Bezos tolerate this kind of thing?
If we are going to have better public policy, we are going to need to have better politics–and a better press corps. But how do we get there?
As long as the ink is dry and the check clears, right Chuck?
Oh, old Chuckles Cabbagemallet isn't the only WaPo opinionizer who needs to be sacked. Richard Cohen, Jennifer Rubin, Marc Thiessen and George Will are all execrable, while Dana Milbank and E.J. Dionne are pretty much worthless wastes of column inches. Jeff Bezos should just clean house and start from scratch.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Sue U wrote:Oh, old Chuckles Cabbagemallet isn't the only WaPo opinionizer who needs to be sacked. Richard Cohen, Jennifer Rubin, Marc Thiessen and George Will are all execrable, while Dana Milbank and E.J. Dionne are pretty much worthless wastes of column inches. Jeff Bezos should just clean house and start from scratch.
Add Niall Ferguson to the list. Otherwise all agreed.
The pundits are all basically whores who will invent or ignore facts, twist logic, and contradict themselves whenever they feel like it. They know that they all have a group of followers who look to them to justify their own (the followers) pre-conceived views on the events of the day. We all have people on the other side of the spectrum who make us want to, alternative, vomit or figure out a way to slap them silly. My personal fave is Krugman.
Regardless, George Will has more insight and better perspective than anyone I've ever read on the Left. And at this stage of his life, he could tell Bezos and anyone else to go pound salt.
People treasure anything which supports their pre-existing belief systems and will go to any lengths to support them; even ignoring bare-assed lying which Will does when it suits him.
But not everyone.
I am inclined to like Noam Chomsky because he is really smart and has achieved a lot in linguistics. I want to respect him and be able to refer to him as an authority, but when it comes right down to it he plays fast and loose with the truth now and again and I have to mark him down for it. It knocks him down pretty far as a resource.
Niall Ferguson (who I have no especial feelings about) is a respected historian who has written widely praised books in his field is a total jackass about economics and lies with amazing gusto which makes me uninterested in reading further.
Ben Stein is a good writer, sometimes funny, and the son of a highly respected economist but his own writings on economics are just painfully stupid and uninformed.
IMO all of those four were motivated by ego and the desire for acclaim to do what they have done.
These are people who have real talents and who could have been valuable, absent this flaw. They aren't like Sarah Palin, or Ann Coulter wholly stupid or wholly corrupt; irredeemable shit. Pity.
Here rube is spinning a fantasy yarn about his regard for honesty, which would be funny enough by itself...
But it's made doubly hilarious by the fact that at practically the same time that he's bloviating about the high value he supposedly places on factual accuracy, (a concern for which he has demonstrated zero respect in the past) in another thread, he's busy trying to claim with a straight face that a source of his is being perfectly honest and not at all misleading by trying to redefine benefit reductions as tax increases...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Based on the bizarre, surreal characterizations about yourself that you've been posting around the board today rube, the only "disconnect" around here is the one between you and reality....
