Hankest:

I think an excellent case could be made that Newt tried to act like a PM. But if my memory serves most of the media (which is to say "the media" in general) didn't treat him as such.

I may be wrong, my memory is about as keen as my spelling.

You are correct. Your memory is indeed quite faulty on this one.

The media was so enamored of Newt--treating him not just as PM, but as a Hegelian "world historical figure" emodying the zeitgeist of his age--that President Clinton actually had to come out and say, "I am not irrelevent!"

Yet, as numerous bloggers have noted recently, Newt was a profoundly unpopular figure throughout this whole period, a fact which never seemed to have dawned on the media. They also bought (and perpetuate to this day) the myth that Gingrich's brainchild, the "Contract with America" was the reason the GOP won in 1994--when polling at the time showed that most Americans had either never heard of it, or had no idea what was in it.

Did they treat him as a controversial figure? Yes, to a certain extent, but the subtext was invariably that this was a good thing--he was "shaking things up" and this is what Washington needed and the American people wanted. Plus, of course, it was because he was a world historical figure. You know. Like Napoleon. But with the good sense of Disraeli.

Glenn

you said are using this poll ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria

I don't think you meant that to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president.

I have no idea how people feel about Pelosi going over there.

-- Hankest

A better quality troll!

Hankest is indeed a concern troll, which is really the only possible strategy a troll can take around here and have even a cricket's prayer of succeeding with.

And yet, Hankest's trollery far outweighs his concern, since there are any number of commentators here who can look at his "concern," look at Glenn's post, and point out the obvious mismatch.

Like this:

No, Glenn did not mean "to imply the people being polled felt that way about Pelosi opening such talks rather than the president." He's not an idiot, and neither is anyone else here, aside from the trolls. He meant precisely what he said--that Pelosi was acting on a well-supported mainstream premise. To wit:

Hence, Nancy Pelosi's belief in engaging the Syrians in dialogue -- a belief endorsed by, among others: (a) the uber-establishment Baker-Hamilton Commission, (b) the Israeli government, and (c) the vast majority of American people ("By 64% to 28%, respondents favored the group's recommendation to open direct talks with Iran and Syria") -- is, in American Media Land, depicted as some sort of radical and fringe idea, something which threatens to make Nancy Pelosi, two months after she took office, "the most controversial House Speaker yet."

Read in context, Glenn's meaninig is perfectly clear. It's quite likely that fewer folks would have wanted Pelosi to take the lead, rather than Bush. But you go to diplomacy with the diplomats you've got.

Yet, since Pelosi--unlike Gingrich--did not deviate from the official American line, work to undermine it, or create instability in the region, it's unlikely that the numbers would be all that different, especially given Bush's spectacularly low approval ratings.

Nonetheless, all that is irrelevant. Glenn's point was not that Pelosi had the express support of the American people for taking the initive herself. It was that Pelosi was acting in accord with the desires of the American people, as well as the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the Israeli government. I'm quite certain that both Baker-Hamilton and the Israeli government would have preferred Bush's initiative rather than Pelosi's as well.

But that doesn't undermine Glenn's point, either. A political leader does not always follow the polls, but a responsible one will lead the polls by doing what will accomplish what people want, even when they are not yet clear on the means. In a case like this, it is certainly sufficient for Pelosi to act in accord with what the American people want, what the Israeli government wants, and what the bipartisan foreign policy establishment wants. And it's sufficient for Glenn's point that she was doing so.

m.b.f.:

You can see it in the way they argue. Popper and Ayer and Flew and Carnap and what not said for something to mean something it's got to be yes or no, for or against.

Watch them argue enough and you can see what they're for, and what they're against.

For instance:

Iranian hostages. When Iran had the hostages, they said it meant we should go to war with Iran. When Iran let the hostages go, they said it means we should go to war with Iran.

Conclusion: They want to go to war with Iran.

They've already made up their minds, they're just waiting for an opportunity to make it happen.

Rather than Popper, Carnap & co, I think it would be more appropriate to invoke Wittgenstein's language games in this context.