Real Question

[Mr. T]

Steve, good luck trying to convince Heck of anything different than what he has been programmed to say or change his beliefs.

The poor boy plays like a an old 33 album with a scratch and he continues to skip back and repeat the chorus.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And some more fun Newt: "The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and Republican, called the Gingrich allegation "ludicrous." "I think if you parse that phrase carefully, he got one out of three right," Holtz-Eakin said. "I do agree it is an institution. If you're playing baseball, that's a decent batting average."

[Westside Steve]

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Oh, God. I'm going to withdraw from this one. Nobel Prizes in Economics are still like Nobel Peace Prizes. (Wait until we get you started on Nobel Prizes s in Physics!) And also like Oscars. And when you said Krugman's quote was autobiographical, you didn't mean that it was about him. You meant it was about you..

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Thanks Heck.

But, let's recap.

He said that Gingrich is the kind of person that stupid people think is smart!

I said that sounded autobiographical.

Why would that be?

Because it seems more like Krugman himself is the type of person that stupid people think are smart.

I hope that's not too difficult to understand.

( And yes I understand that krugman is trying to insult me than anyone else feels that way. Just another reason I find krugman to be an asshole.)

Happy thanksgiving old buddy.

Don't forget to order from the 99 cent menu!

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Again, why is it always some thing that a rep said that is proof of their stupidity?

But the ignore the dems stupidity in making statements.

Like Pelosi. And Reid.

But mostly, the "57 states"...

and the most recent? "here in Asia" (when Obamao was IN HAWAII)....

come on. Please Heck, TRY just once to be sincere and stop the ignorant leveraging democrat attacks to see what works ?

[Westside Steve]

Of course you're right Cal.

I'd be very surprised if george will would be Hecks gold standard for every opinion we have here.

But for you Heck let me ask this:

Is it your position that ideology has no place inside the nobel selection committee?

Also how would you describe Krugman's job category today?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The Nobel Prize in Economics has no discernible political motivation, no. You seem to think the Peace Prize and the awards for economics and physics are all the same thing, and that Krugman's win was akin to Obama's. It wasn't.

Or maybe you can discern the ideological message being sent by naming these winners:

2011: THOMAS J. SARGENT , and CHRISTOPHER A. SIMS for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.

2010: PETER A. DIAMOND , DALE T. MORTENSEN , and CHRISTOPHER A. PISSARIDES for their analysis of markets with search frictions.

2009: ELINOR OSTROM for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons and OLIVER E. WILLIAMSON for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm

2008: PAUL KRUGMAN for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.

2007: LEONID HURWICZ , ERIC S. MASKIN , and ROGER B. MYERSON for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.

2006: EDMUND S. PHELPS for his analysis of intertemporal tradeoffs in macroeconomic policy.

2005: ROBERT J. AUMANN and THOMAS C. SCHELLING for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.

2004: FINN E. KYDLAND and EDWARD C. PRESCOTT for their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles

2003: ROBERT F. ENGLE for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH) and CLIVE W. J. GRANGER , for methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends (cointegration)

2002: DANIEL KAHNEMAN for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty and VERNON L. SMITH, for having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms

2001: GEORGE A. AKERLOF, A. MICHAEL SPENCE, and JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Krugman's job category? He's an economist, a professor of economics, an economics and public finance columnist for the New York Times, as well a political editorial writer for the New York Times.

Am I missing something here? This seems like a question that could have been answered by Google.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I said that sounded autobiographical.

Why would that be?

Because it seems more like Krugman himself is the type of person that stupid people think are smart.

Huh? Krugman is smart. So it wouldn't make stupid people seem stupid to think he's smart.

[Westside Steve]

Yes heck, you are correct. Krugman is a very intelligent and educated man. 1 might think that it would be stupid to glean ones political advisor from a man from someone who's experience is in theoretical economics, but....

Of course his statement had nothing to do with his expertise, it was really a snark against Gingrich and those who like him.

I have noticed of course that before Newt became the front runner, the self appointed left wing intelligensia used to think he was smart too.

Mostly your guys would attack him for morals or some perceived inconsistencies in his positions.

Now of course you've received your marching orders. The new talking point is that he's stupid ha ha ha ha ha.

Maybe cal is correct and you boys really do sleep with the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Personally I'd guess it was more following orders of david axelrod.

But basically, no, krugman is not stupid and neither is gingrich.

Krugman's statement is no more insightful than anything beck hannity or limbaugh toss out.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I thought Krugman's statement was clever, actually. It rings true to me. In a party that seems to grow more and more anti-intellectual with every passing year, with fewer and fewer of what I would consider "smart" or "wise" people at the head of it, Newt is what passes for really smart. But that says more about the Republican Party than it does about Newt's intellect. So I just disagree with you. Newt's read a bunch of history books, and can talk until seasons change, so that sounds brilliant to lots of people. But what comes out of his mouth, or his pen, isn't all that mind-boggling.

Newt isn't dumb, of course. Far from it. The bigger point is that he's entirely flawed and an incomplete personality. He's hardly the genius he imagines himself to be, and there's nobody who thinks Newt Gingrich is as smart as Newt Gingrich does. But there are ranges of intellect, and I wouldn't put him in the high end. And there are also things like temperament and judgment and good sense and ability. I'm not of the opinion that Newt is the type of person you let run a country, and the country has already learned what it's like when Newt runs the House.

As for the "marching orders" stuff ...I mean, come on. Frontrunners get hit because they're frontrunners. If Bachmann were in front - and she was for a spell, if you can wrap your head around that - everyone would be still talking about Bachmann. Go look at the growing list of Republicans - even some of those still in office - who have already publicly declared that they can't support Newt for president. And it's not because they don't know him, and haven't worked with him. It's because they do, and they have.

But hey, if I have to pick from a list of people to run the country and it includes Rick Perry and Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, I'd vote for Newt, too. I'd just vote for Romney and Huntsman first.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation, as best I can think it through including reading between the lines:

"I think only intellectuals want gay perverted marriage to be legal, and assaults on children to be legal, and drugs to be legal,

and all the people should get a lot of money from those who have some of it, and only intellectuals should be allowed to vote,

and like, I think that all the people who don't have any money should be supported by the federal government with free everything,

and only intellectuals want to have sex with exotic animals made legal, and I want in on some of that handout action,

and only intellectuals want to get rid of God out of everything and everywhere

because I agree with them and Calfox makes me cry when he uses phrases and compound words like "pseudo-intellectuals" and "perverted stuff".... "

[Westside Steve]

Well, a couple of points, Heck.

First, I'm not at all surprised that you thought that was a pretty funny line.

So since we both agree the krugman is an educated man I doubt that you would think it was as hilarious had someone made the same statement about the president.

Especially since you seem to think that a law degree is not much of a test for intelligence.

Now remember I'm not saying little Obama is stupid, but many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter.

But to the other point, sure I understand that the front runner will attract more fire.

That's not what I meant by marching orders. I actually spend more time watching the left lane news than I do fox. Seems to me that the plan is to pimp the guy that's not in the lead.

When gingrich was a long shot they all talked about how smart he was and how is really not that conservative and that republicans should wake up and see that.

Now republican darling of the left is huntsman. I hear how smart and wonderful and by golly conservative he is. I don't have much doubt that should he take the lead he'll be painted as big an idiot as rick perry.

Furthermore I understand your criticisms of gingrich. He might well be an ego maniac a loose cannon non disciplined what ever.

And if my main goal was to change the president I suppose it might be a better idea to vote for mitt.

But I'll think on that andmake my decisions closer to next fall.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Dude he just posted 2 posts ago.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

@westside-steve said:

Well, a couple of points, Heck.

First, I'm not at all surprised that you thought that was a pretty funny line.

So since we both agree the krugman is an educated man I doubt that you would think it was as hilarious had someone made the same statement about the president.

Especially since you seem to think that a law degree is not much of a test for intelligence.

Now remember I'm not saying little Obama is stupid, but many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter.

WSS

Let me straighten some things out for you. And perhaps you'll defer to me because I know a little bit about this stuff.

David Axelrod does not write the president's speeches. He's an advisor, and he has a hand in message crafting, but he's not writing speeches. You know who writes Obama's speeches? It's often President Obama. Certainly all of the major speeches are largely written by the President himself, and the final drafts are all his. And he's also got a speechwriting team, like any president, led by a guy named Jon Favreau. But nothing but the most general stuff is written for the President without him being involved in the process. It's also common knowledge that the best speechwriter in the White House is the president himself. (Obama famously thinks this as well.) So to say he's just reading David Axelrod's words off a teleprompter is just wrong on a whole host of levels. It's an effort to use falsehoods to make him sound like he's an incompetent actor, or what you like to call "an empty suit." The problem with this line is that it's simply not true.

Will that stop you from using it? Of course not. You love it too much.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As to your question, I think it's clear, judging from his books/writing to his educational background and years as a professor to his grasp of policy and his ability to articulate it to the fact that he came from pretty much nothing to become the President of the United States, that President Obama is a remarkably bright guy. I don't think any fair observer questions his intellect. Whether or not that translates into a great or effective politician is another story. I happen to think that if you could merge Obama's personal disposition and character with Clinton's political skill you might really have something. I think Obama could use some Clinton, and Clinton could have really benefitted from some Obama.

As for your mix up, I do think a law degree is a decent barometer for measuring someone's intelligence. I just think it's laughable to suggest that graduating from Harvard Law and editing the Law Review and becoming a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago is even remotely the same thing as graduating from Regent University Law. It simply isn't. That should be a pretty easy distinction to make, even for you. One is one - if not the - toughest, most selective, and most highly respected law school in the world, and the other is ranked at the bottom of every survey.

So there's no reason to hold up a JD and insist that it levels the playing field. Michele Bachmann gives us evidence of her policy ignorance almost daily. And policy is her job. What are we supposed to think of people who live and breathe issues for a living and still can't display a working knowledge of the relevant issues? That they're really smart?

[Westside Steve]

Yes dear I know you you think you made a big fun point but of course I realize that david axelrod doesnt write obama's speeches.

I merely use him as your guys used karl rove as the pit from where all evil springs.

Or the way napoleon used farmer jones.

And you did make the point that not all tax lawyers are smart.

Only the democrats right?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

and let me repeat that my buddy Doug went to cleveland state or toledo or somewhere and passed the bar on his first try. Unlike 3 others from that section who had gone to harvard.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess when you write that "many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter" I'm supposed to know that what you mean is that Daxid Axelord is not writing the words on the prompter. You're making an unrelated point about Democrats and Karl Rove somehow. And assuming people who think Obama is smart are relying solely on his speeches, which would be dumb because they were written by someone else and he's only performing them. Except you're not saying they were written by someone else. Even though that's what you always mean when you call him an "empty suit."

Gotcha, buddy.

[Westside Steve]

No, I didn't think axelrod wrote the president's speeches.

Then again, outside of possibly having some kind of a vague notion, I don't suppose the president writes formulates or plans too many of his policy items either.

BTW I doubt that bush did.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And I apologize for confusing you with the Rove reference.

WSS