Krugman Bashing

[Stevendsmith]

There has been a great deal of Paul Krugman bashing by conservative columnists and bloggers as of late. Among other things, he has been accused of being a hypocrite, a liar, a stalker, and a poor fact-checker. I'm inclined to chalk this up to a right-wing smear campaign against one of the most visible and devastating critics of BushCo, but does anyone have insight onto the basis of these charges?

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. His new book, The Great Unraveling.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393058506/qid=1067541089/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6753127-9803154?v=glance&s=books

[burythehatchet]

4. Thought I would post one of the reviews from the Amazon page

7 of 70 people found the following review helpful:

Krugman is a liberal whiner, October 27, 2003



Reviewer: A reader from Anchorage, AK
This book shows all about that liberals are nothing but stupid crybabys and whiners. Krugman thinks that if you are a lazy drug addict the goverment should give you MY MONEY so you can take more drugs and kill people! He does not prove one thing he says, he just makes things up because he knows that stupid liberals will believe anything he says against President Bush! He works for the lieing New York Times . Heres a newsflash for him: Bill Clinton is the disgrace, not President Bush. Clinton caused the Moslum threat and Bush is killing them and that drives the liberals CRAZY! I love it!!! if Krugman is so happy about soicalism he should go live in russia or cuba. the Krugman and Al Franken (stupid NOT FUNNY idiot) are traiters and want to wreck America. They should join the talliban. Those books are for idiots. If you want to read all about how liberals are idiots read Ann Coulters book and Michal Savages book. Oh I forgot liberals are to stupid to read.











Was this review helpful to you?  


WELL...was it?

[Grins]

10. Yes it was..

It was great!!

This guy writes this drivel and, typically, doesn’t illustrate or justify a single argument he has with Krugman. I haven't read Krugman's book, but I assume that he never said a word about the government giving THE AUTHOR'S money to drug addicts. I assume the writer meant drug “treatment”, but you never know. Besides, Rush is taking the place of a lazy drug addict anyway.

And, of course, I also loved it when he said "...Clinton caused the Moslum(sic) threat"!!!

What I most enjoyed was this goober from Anchorage, Alaska (Can't you just picture this guy in your mind? Huddled in some cabin in the woods cleaning his arsenal of guns for the time when the “gummint” dares to go “git him.) saying that liberals are too (oops...sorry, should have been "to") stupid to read, but he never catches one his (many) misspellings or errors in grammar, i.e., "lieing" NY Times, "soicalism", "The Krugman and Al Franken are", "traiters", "talliban", "Michal". It’s just my opinion, but I believe that doing a lot of reading improves your spelling. Could his poor spelling and grammar be the result of only reading Coulter and Savage?

This guy never had an original thought in his life!

[Hand]

2. Yes...

It's called FEAR. The Krugmeister hits them where they hurt and they know it.

He RULES!!!

[paradisiac]

5. fear

I think that's a big part of it.

From an article on Guardian, I do get rattled

The letters that Paul Krugman receives these days have to be picked up with tongs, and his employer pays someone to delete the death threats from his email inbox.

[pmbryant]

3. Just ignore them

The conservative spend so much time smearing Krugman because his analysis of Bush's policies is so accurate and hard-hitting, unlike so many others in the popular press.

There is no basis for their smears.

--Peter

[Kolesar]

6. I suspect these "blogs" are written by professional GOP politicos

Krugman is a big threat to the Bush administration, so they are researching everything Krugman writes and trying to counter it.

Powerful people read the NYTimes columns, and Krugman can be quite influential in the eventual undoing of this hypocritrical, lying administration.

[Khephra]

7. Cockburn just did a horrible review of Krugman for the Nation

I'll go with Krugman in a Krugman vs Cockburn fight anytime!

[dudrane]

8. Why?

Why? What's so horrible about Cockburn? And what issue of the nation was this?

[Khephra]

9. Most of the time there's nothing wrong with Cockburn.

But in either this week or last week's issue of the Nation he spends most of the review attacking Krugman for being slightly deluded because of Krugman's views on Clinton's economic policies.

Now don't get me wrong, Cockburn has some good points. I'm not a "true-believer" when it comes to thinking Clinton did no wrong. But it just seemed to go way over the line in terms of personal attacks upon Krugman imo.

[pookastew]

11. Cockburn was WAY out of line.

He lost me for good with his attack on Krugman.


And not because of ideology, but because it was painfully jealous. Jealous and nasty.

Cockburn has always verged on tumbling over the "Hitchen's cliff", which means simply being contrarian to get attention. With his nasty personal attack on Krugman he went over the line.