Newt vs Krauthammer: Intellectual Dishonesty on Display

It’s good to see that others took notice of Charles Krauthammer swooning over Barack Obama’s ‘elegance,’ and other little nuances, which some of us viewed as near treason over the months (an not exclusive to Gingrich). Krauthammer has pummeled Newt and dismissed others as hardly being worthy of his attention. Today, Newt’s PAC is hitting back. Bout time!

George Will might have fired the first shots and the Wall Street Journal and National Review might have answered the call – but the leader of Establishment Media’s war against Newt Gingrich is now clearly Charles Krauthammer of Fox News. The long time former speechwriter for ultra liberal Walter Mondale uses several minutes of his time on the “Panel” each and every night to denigrate Gingrich personally while talking down the Former Speaker’s election chances.

“Remember, this is the man who was calling Barack Obama elegant long after most Americans had seen through the teleprompter” said C. Edmund Wright of Winning Our Future, a Super PAC supporting Gingrich and conservative issues. “He wasn’t quite as bad as David Brooks – who was strangely fascinated by Obama’s pant crease – but Krauthammer and Brooks and Will represent an establishment mentality that is frankly foreign to most Americans and certainly most conservatives.”

Wright added that while he respected Krauthammer’s intellect for many years, “it is really disturbing to see him make the petty denigrating comments about Newt – similar to or worse than what he’s said about Sarah Palin – while pretending that the Speaker’s immense accomplishments never happened. And the way he cherry picks poll numbers to characterize the race is simply intellectually dishonest.” Read the entire email here.

Linked in the Trunkline at White House 2012 – thank you!

Linked by Katy Pundit – thanks!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • There are those times when Krauthammer was spot on about issues, but he has the mind set of so many mainstream media types these days. If it’s all sparkle and dazzle they love it. Newt isn’t all warm and fuzzy, he doesn’t send a chill up one’s leg.

  • Krauthammer pronounced Newt dead and finished after Newt made the mistake of making the comments about Paul Ryan’s budget plan and deficit reduction. He called it “social engineering from the right”. Newt has admitted to that mistake but apparently Krauthammer has not noticed or does not want to notice. Probably the later.

    Consequently, the revival of Newt on the polls has been a great defeat for Krauthammer, and unlike Newt, he is not a man that says “I was wrong” very easily. In fact, he criticizes Obama for not admitting mistakes, but Krauthammer is very much the same. He never admitted being wrong about Sarah Palin and I don’t expect he will ever admit being wrong about Gingrich. In contrast, Gingrich is the only politician in the great stage that does admit when he has been wrong. He called his environmental “couch scene” with Nancy Pelosi “the dumbest thing he has made in a long time”. Refreshing!

    The fact hat Gingrich’s economic plan is probably the best of all candidates is not something we are going to hear from Krauthammer. That is where the selection process should be focus, with all other thing being equal, the economy is the major selecting factor. Gingrich’s growth plan is simply the best.

    Krauthammer is right in many, many, issues; but when he falls into a side that ends up being mistaken, he has great difficulty in extricating himself from it.

  • Ran

    I don’t understand Krauthammer’s popularity. Charles has a consistent habit of stating the obvious, which is fine, but is there ever more? Now with his inaccuracies on parade, one would say “less.”

    He also has a consistent track record of fawning over elitists and statists and a brutal record of trashing libertarian and constitutional-conservative candidates. It’s one thing to go ad-hominem, it’s another to do so foolishly.

    It’s the little things, too, this notion for example that Obama is somehow “elegant.” Barry is aloof and effeminate, but that’s not to say refined; simplistic is better. There is’t anything sophisticated or polished about him. When Barack is liberated from his speech writers and teleprompters he is awkward, clumsy, inaccurate and dangerously insecure. So how – on what basis – could a reputed savant like Krauthammer find Obama “elegant?” Crease in his pants again?

    Another example: Charles had also accused Sarah Palin of lacking the intellectual sharps necessary for leadership. Palin turned about and offered-up Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan “Winning The Future” as “classic WTF.” It was a brilliant Churchillian impromptu thrust. Wasn’t her first. Palin’s clarity on the issues puts the lie to Krauthammer’s condescension.

    The skilled intellect – “refined” if you will – sticks to facts first, policy second and leaves the ad-hominem nonsense to itself.

  • Pingback: Friday Roundup 12/30/11 Almost There Edition | Katy Pundit()

  • Pingback: Trunkline 2012: Friday’s Campaign Trail News Wrap-Up from White House 2012 – 12/30/11 « White House 2012()

  • Pingback: Newt vs Krauthammer: Intellectual Dishonesty on Display | FavStocks()

  • I lost all respect for Krauthammer when he smeared HERO for freedom against islamotyranny Geert Wilders as a “fascist” – it revealed Krauthammer as an ignorant dhimmi tool and nothing he has said since has been worth a tinker’s damn to me. Screw him.

  • Krauthammer is a neo-con. And so is George Will, if I’m not mistaken.

    Somewhere I read that neo-con = right-leaning liberal. Not sure if that’s true, exactly. But it’s close.

    Now, both Krauthammer and Will have done some good work. But their excoriation of Mitt Romney is unacceptable. Also, as Zilla mentioned above, I’m really furious with Krauthammer’s position on Geert Wilders.

    I tell you this right now: GOP columnists and pundits need to quit cannibalizing the Party and focus on getting the present Occupier in Chief out of the Oval Office. Anyone — and I DO mean anyone — would be better as President. Or, at least, not someone who’s doing as much damage as Obama has done and plans to continue doing in 2012.

    • AOW, I’d like to hear Krauthammer say that: anyone is far better than Obama. Maybe he has and I missed it. I’m talking about the good things and some comparisons, but if I’m negative anywhere, I make it clear that I will enthusiastically vote for anyone on the Republican ticket who is the nominee. I will be enthusiastic. It won’t be an act. If my choice (don’t have a solid one as yet) isn’t the pick, I’ll be over it quickly and pick up the mantle.