Glenn Greenwald shows, post-Iowa, how out of touch the punditocracy was with "anything actual real." Well worth reading.
(H/T: AS)
The craptasticity of conventional wisdom
Friday January 4, 2008
Categories: Politics (general)
Filed Under: casting stones, conventional wisdom
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I've noticed that even today. As talking heads discussed Huck they missed the point of why he won. Sure, he had a base of evangelical support, no doubt about it. But it is more than that. Just look at the national polls that show him only a few points behind Rudy. That could go up or down, there is a long road ahead and anything could happen, but the evangelical base is just that, a base to jump off from, and he appears to be doing it rather well with minimal organization and money.
But Huck is right about one thing, the pundits are constantly saying he can't do it. Yet he keeps proving them wrong. And I have a feeling he will continue to prove them wrong. Which is really kind of cool to see these guys get egg on their face on a regular basis. Maybe eventually they'll get it. Maybe when he does a lot better in NH than anyone is expecting...maybe. But maybe not. Who knows.
Now, I could be wrong, but my gut tells me he will get the nomination, and possibly win the presidency. I think whether he does not not depends who gets the nod on the democratic side. If Obama, I think that would prove to be an interesting contest...two people who are saying the same general things but with different specifics on how to get there. If it ends up being between those two, I'm not sure if Huck wins or not, could go either way. But if Huck is contrasted with HC, I think he stands a pretty good chance. Folksy and lovable will appeal a lot more than shrill.
But, we'll see. I've already gone on record saying that Huck will win it all. He has a lot of the right ingredients for it. But, like I said, there are any number of things which could change that too, in my mind. November seems a long ways off right now.
But Huck is right about one thing, the pundits are constantly saying he can't do it. Yet he keeps proving them wrong. And I have a feeling he will continue to prove them wrong. Which is really kind of cool to see these guys get egg on their face on a regular basis. Maybe eventually they'll get it.
It's worth pointing out that 'liberal' blogs realized pundits were insanely wrong years ago. Literally wrong about every single thing, and never ever ever getting called on it or slightly ashamed about their wrongness.
It's somewhat ironic this is a post linked to Greenwald, as he's been screaming about it for years, mainly about their constant utter wrongness about anything whatsoever to do with Iraq and Iran. (Does the term 'Freidman unit' ring any bells? Why is Tom Freidman still paid to write a single sentence about the Iraq war?)
'Political pundits' are people who just repeat establishment talking points. No one's quite sure how many of them are aware of this and how many of them are complete and utter idiots. Most of these talking points are Republican, but whether that is because most talking points are Republican or if this is some sort of 'conspiracy' no one is sure of either.
But it's actually kinda fun to watch their establishment wrongness aimed towards the Republican party for once.
Anyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention knew Huckabee was going to sweep, and it's obvious that he's probably going to get the GOP nomination no matter how much the GOP establishment loathes him. In any sane world, they'd have been made to look so foolish (Giuliani? Really?) that they'd have to run away to Canada and change their name.
But, you seem, being right does not actually matter. Either right about the future, or even being right about the present. Pretty soon they'll be talking about how the US and Poland defeated Chad and Spain in WWII, winning the 1965 World Cup, and no one will flinch.
Anyway, the pundits will continue to spew gibberish for another month, repeating anything that the GOP desperately wishes was true. And then, when Huckabee wins, they'll pretend like they didn't say he had no chance at all or didn't repear constantly how he was about to get crushed.
Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, the pundits are still desperately pretending that the frontrunner is still Clinton with Obama right behind her, and Edwards somehow not on the radar at all. That was their story before Iowa, and they've got plenty of practice not letting facts get in the way of their narrative.
I think the lesson for the pundits here - and for everyone who makes a living commenting on politics - is that a year, a month, a week, and by times even a day are very, very long periods of time in politics, and the world can change quickly.
The other thing that has to be remembered is that most journalists are almost criminally indolent, and have a much easier time spewing the conventional wisdom than doing any serious analysis.
I still think that ridiculous press conference is going to hurt Huck down the line, but it was too late and too insider baseball, evidently, to affect the results in Iowa.
I admit to being completely snowed by my own sense of CW on the Leno visit the night before the caucus. ISN'T HE CRAZY NOT BARNSTORMING IN IOWA? I asked on this very blog.
Crazy like a fox, evidently. Full credit to the Huck campaign.
Does anyone else reading this thread (crickets, the wind sighing) see the irony in a critique of pundits (and bloggers) getting only 4 (and now 5) responses? Speaking of time frames, 24 hours is a very long time in online discussion. I'd have expected to see at least a dozen replies by now. Shrug.
David, right on.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.