The "swiftboating" of and character assassination campaign against Paul Krugman is in high gear

[Better Believe It]

It's clearly time for all "centrist" conservative Democrats and "moderate" conservative Republicans to unite and join the chorus of personal attacks against Paul Krugman.

Don't seriously debate, discuss or challenge any of Krugman's views on Democratic Underground.

And the best way to avoid that is by engaging in a personal assassination campaign against Krugman.

Just keep up and intensify the personal attacks in the hopes people won't read or seriously consider Krugman's ideas.

Attack Krugman ruthlessly and endlessly!

If you throw enough mud against Krugman some of it is bound to stick.

[Baikonour]

1. But..but...Krugman once said negative things about Obama!

:eyes:

[Cha]

3. Krugman didn't mind character assassinating

Obama. He should be able to take what he gives.

[Baikonour]

8. Giving fair criticism is character assassination?

[Cha]

36. It wasn't "fair criticism"..we were there

during the primaries and we know.

[QC]

88. All criticism of Obama is wrong, by definition. n/t

[Better Believe It]

15. Nonsense. Just part of the 'centrist" p.r. attack against Krugman

You can't challenge Krugman's ideas effectively from the right so you engage in yet another personal attack. I haven't seen Krugman engage in any "character assassination" campaign against Obama nor have you.

Have you ever questioned or challenged any of Krugman's articles or do you generally engage in personal attacks against those you disagree with?

[Cha]

38. Tough Shit if you haven't seen it..Krugman

was all over the fucking place making dirty remarks about Obama 'cause Krugman wanted Hillary. Too bad, Obama won..and he get over it.

[Baikonour]

53. I'd like to see one of these "dirty remarks" please.

[Cha]

76. Krugman really can take a flying fuck at a doughnut.

Thanks for dredging this shit up again..

<snip>
"It's no secret that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has his problems with Barack Obama. But in his column Monday, Krugman made it clear that he's no huge fan of Obama's supporters, either. Decrying the bitter partisanship that he sees taking over the Democratic race and saying the campaign is turning into "Nixonland," Krugman lays the fault at the feet of Obama supporters exclusively.

"I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," Krugman writes. "I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration -- remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again."

<more>
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/11/krugman/index.html

Krugman's a fucker.

[leftynyc]

89. That's not about President Obama

It's about his supporters - try again.

[Cha]

100. You try again..fucking Krugman is so jealous

of Obama he can't stand it.

[amborin]

61. nonsense; Krugman never did that; constructive criticism of someone's policies and actions is not

character assassination

[Desimal]

28. so now debates are settled via opinion polls

Our job as critical thinkers just became much easier.

[Dinger]

81. *Shakin' In My Boots*

:scared: :scared: :scared:

Paul Krugman 2012! (PREZ)

P.S. I love Paul Krugman!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Looks like someone's drank the Krugman Kool-aid.

[Cha]

5. I'm gonna miss

bornagain.

[Better Believe It]

Krugman is too liberal and pro-worker for you?

Have you been drinking Leiberman/Nelson Kool-aid?

[AtomicKitten]

22. Pro-worker my ass. He supports cheap labor and outsourcing.

http://www.slate.com/id/1918

You either didn't know or your kool-aid is strong, Obi-wan.

[amborin]

62. you keep repeating this total smear---total misrepresentation of K's postion

Krugman wrote a thought piece on 3rd world labor and labor markets....he is pro-union and pro-labor

[AtomicKitten]

67. Nonsense. He's pro-free trade and calls those opposed "protectionists."

Kinda like you are "protecting" his POV penned in his own words.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

[quiller4]

74. You are all right. At different times Krugman has defended

outsourcing and strongly supported free trade. More recently he has supported Labor's contention that there is a major distinction between Fair Trade and Free Trade policies and announced that he supports only free trade that is fair as well.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with changing one's mind. I don't doubt that Krugman has modified his views because he has seen sufficient evidence to convince him of the error of his previous statements. However, he has yet to make some sort of pronouncement to that effect.

[Every Man A King]

103. He is worse than most pro Free-traders

because he knows its bad, but supports it anyway:

"Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.

So what’s the answer? I don’t think there is one, as long as the discussion is restricted to trade policy: all-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little."

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1&hp

He has no solution. Therefore its a race to the bottom.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Psst. Krugie's pro-outsourcing. Might want to check out what's in your cup. nt

[amborin]

64. Krugman is pro-labor and pro-union! always has been! your smears are based on a thought piece he

wrote on 3rd world labor and labor markets......he was NOT advocating outsourcing at all

[Occam Bandage]

73. Sure. He's also pro-outsourcing, and derides "protectionists."

[babylonsister]

47. Lots of people around here have. Baffling.

And why did you change your name? I loved the old one-what does this one mean, or do I want to know?

[Forkboy]

122. Why is it baffling? He's been right about a lot of things over the years, things from a left view.

And why do so many DUers seemingly want to reduce every single person in politics to a simple black or white caricature that one must either love or hate? Is there no middle ground where one can see that he's said some things that were spot on, and he's said some things that weren't spot on. You know, like every other single human being?

As always on DU, there's two sides accusing the other of drinking some kind of kool aid, never realizing that both sides of this soon to be binary equation seem to be taking some pretty hearty gulps.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Poor Paulie...

He coulda been sumbuddy...

[Better Believe It]

18. He is somebody. He won a Nobel. What have any of the conservative "centrist"

Democratic/Republican Senators won for their shameful cuts in education and other badly needed programs.

Mind saying why you think those cuts are just wonderful?

[ErinBerin84]

23. uh, wasn't the person being sarcastic?

Meaning, I'm sure Krugman can take it....He doesn't really seem to be the "Don't Cry for me, Argentina" type.

[jefferson_dem]

44. Of course, I was being sarcastic.

Some can't take off their concerned contrarian hats for even a moment.

[ErinBerin84]

46. heh

[Uzybone]

26. So did Milton Friedman

winning a Nobel doesn't mean you know everything.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Economics: the only field where the Nobel Prize can be awarded three years in a row

to three people who do not agree on anything whatsoever. Saying "I have a Nobel economist in my corner" is not indicative of anything, for your opponent might well have twenty in his.

[AngryAmish]

80. Macroeconomics really is not science

If something is unfalsifiable and one cannot make predictions about the future using it as a framework, then it is not science.

[Uzybone]

6. put away childish things

even Krugman would tell you this is not about him. We have bigger problems than a NYTimes column.

[jefferson_dem]

10. The Cult of Krugman

An amazing thing to watch...

[BeyondGeography]

7. Oh stop, even The Tenured One knows deep down he is just not that important

Which is why his screeds tend to get whinier every time Obama succeeds.

[Better Believe It]

21. Really? If true, why did you bother to even post here?

He won a Nobel. You didn't.

But you go ahead and shower us with your nuggets of golden wisdom on the economy.

We're listening!

[BeyondGeography]

37. No one questions his value as an economist

It's when he veers off into politics that it all falls apart for Ivory Tower Man.

[countingbluecars]

9. What, is Krugman god?

I thought it was ok to criticize.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Only OK to criticize the President......

Not the opining columnists. They are to be revered as they direct the traffic minus the traffic.

[Dawgs]

16. According to some he is.

The only criticism I've seen of Krugman is that he needs to stick to economics. Is that so bad?

[Baikonour]

54. The definition of irony.

The criticism of Krugman comes from his criticism of Obama.

LOL!

[GodlessBiker]

11. I think all Nobel Prize winners should be ignored and marginalized.

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

13. Krugman is no populist/progressive with his support of cheap labor and outsourcing.

http://www.slate.com/id/1918

It's funny in a sad demented way that those calling Obama supporters kool-aid drinkers for allowing him more than 5 minutes to effect change are the ones apparently drinking their own brand of kool-aid with their mistaken vision of who Krugman really is and what he stands for.

Most people are okay with less than purism, but considering the 24/7 efforts to knock Obama down, I think it's only fair to mention this bit of hypocrisy.

[amborin]

66. Krugman is pro-union and pro-labor, your smears are based on a thought

piece he wrote on 3rd world labor markets....he is NOT in favor of outsourcing

[AtomicKitten]

72. His record indicates otherwise and your Jedi Mind Trick isn't working.

[themaguffin]

14. The problem is that the threads are not based on his economic analysis

Whether or not it's politically viable to come up with a truly strong stimulus package is irrelevant to the point that Krugman and others clearly state that a significant package is necessary.

What should Krugman say something less than what is needed is what is in fact needed?

Come on people.

[Dawgs]

17. Can you rephrase your post?

I can't tell if I agree or not.

[themaguffin]

19. I am saying that Krugman shouldn't understate the seriousness of the situation

whether or not what really needs to happen is politically viable should not be the basis of Krugman's statements of the economic situation.

[AZCat]

34. Exactly. Krugman is an outsider, not a politician.

Leave the political decisions to those with the requisite authority and responsibility.

[themaguffin]

48. should the Pres and Congress ignore experts of other fields too?

Jesus Christ people what the hell happened in here?

This is turning into the No Nothing Freeperville crowd.

[Occam Bandage]

50. No. They should pay attention to experts when they speak within their fields,

and they should ignore experts in one field (say, international economics) when they start talking about fields they know nothing about (say, political strategy).

[themaguffin]

94. so Krugman stating the severity of our crisis is unwarrented and irrelevant?

[AZCat]

111. I don't think I made myself clear.

I think Krugman shouldn't moderate his opinions based on political calculations, because that isn't his role.

[Two Americas]

83. wow

We should all trust the leaders, they know better than we do, we are all outsiders and we need to be quiet and leave the decisions to those in authority?

Isn't that what we have been hearing from the Bush supporters for the last 8 years?

[AZCat]

113. Please see post #111.

I don't think I did a very good job expressing myself. I apologize for the confusion. Krugman is valuable precisely because he doesn't moderate his opinion. He provides an informed outsider's perspective for both the citizens and those in authority.

[Two Americas]

116. I see yes

I am not an English major, so I am afraid I can't comment on your post.

:rofl:

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry that I misunderstood you.

[Occam Bandage]

20. I believe his views on international economics are largely beyond reproach.

I think his views on politics are the same type of sheltered brick-throwing that any political agitator can perform. His views on the domestic economy are to be taken seriously. His views on how to pass a stimulus or health-care package are not to be taken any more seriously than those of any amateur speaking outside his or her field.

[MarjorieG]

24. Not assassination to say Krugman has a political tin ear and is academic, ivory tower.

Sometimes on target, but often not helpful. Like with mandates or nothing, vindictively.

Give me Robert Reich any day, saying the same thing but better.

[Occam Bandage]

31. I agree. It's not "assassination" to say he's speaking outside his field, or to say

that a tenured economics professor in New Jersey doesn't necessarily have the firmest grip on political reality in Washington.

[Mass]

35. He will be bashed as well here if he starts saying that Obama could be wrong.

Some people on DU have a hero worship complex, and are not ready to see that people can honestly disagree with their hero (nothing to do with Obama, which is asking people to give their ideas, BTW, just with the DUers in question, who want a god and not an human being as president).

BTW, I do not disagree with you analysis of Krugman. I simply think some of the criticism have nothing to do with that.

[DevonRex]

27. So we have to be in lockstep with Krugman?

[rvablue]

29. I think anyone who has a problem with Krugman should watch ABC News

from Sunday night.

He completely let the Republicans have it. And didn't say a word about Obama or the Democrats.

Why must we eat our own. When will Democrats learn. Just because he has written some critical things about the stimulus bill doesn't mean we aren't all on the same side.

I really think some of this Krugman hating is shit-stirring, frankly.

[Occam Bandage]

32. "Some of this Krugman hating is shit-stirring"

So is some of the rally-round-Krugman defense.

[rvablue]

40. I'm not "rallying around" Krugman

I simply happpened to see him on ABC News last night battling it out with that lame-brained George Will.

He repeatedly and concretely layed the economic mess at the feet of Shrubby and the GOP.

And I was glad to hear it on the MSM.

And so, my post was meant only to say why don't we chill a little bit on this Krugman-hating. We're on the same side at the end of the day.

I'm just so sick of the infighting amongst progressives/liberals/Dems. The GOP did this to our country and instead of us laser-beaming our criticism towards them, we start going after each other.

So, I'm not "rallying around Krugman" ... it's just that I don't see him as "the enemy."

[Occam Bandage]

41. Didn't say you were.

The OP, on the other hand, is another matter.

[kenny blankenship]

86. He is pro-stimulus and pro-Obama. But he is insufficiently pro-Obama

and I'm sure I don't have to remind you why that is a crime.

[dionysus]

30. i like paul but he doesn't seem to comprehend that obama can't dictate the stilulous bill.

there's those guys called republicans and DLCers that we need to vote for it...

[Better Believe It]

39. So who here supports the Senate cuts in the stimulus bill??? Speak up!

Anyone?

Don't be shy.

I'm listening.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Who here supports a gas tax holiday?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

43. I don't support herpes.

I don't demand that Obama abolish it.

[Better Believe It]

45. "Funny" evasions won't work here. Do you support the Senate cuts or not?

A straightforward answer please.

Thank you.

[Occam Bandage]

49. It isn't an evasion. I don't like the Senate cuts, but I recognize that

they're something of a necessary evil; Obama can no more dictate the terms of the bill then he can abolish herpes by executive order. I do note with some pleasure, though, that the Senate version of the bill is still larger than Obama's original $775B proposal; that tells me that Dems know how to pass a bill and still make it look like the Republicans are being obstructionist.

[Better Believe It]

55. So you agree with Krugman's opposition to the cuts and yet you attack him???

Do you believe that the Democrats could not pass (dictate) a strong bill because Republicans would filibuster against a stronger stimulus package?

I'm not sure if that's your reasoning or not.

If it is, there is one huge hole in that position.

[Occam Bandage]

56. I do not attack his disapproval of the cuts.

I attack his theories for how a better stimulus bill might be passed, because I think they're either hopelessly naive, or designed more as red meat for his audience than as serious political analysis. I don't know which, but I tend to believe the first; I usually don't believe in malice or deception when simple ignorance will do, and ignorance is understandable with anyone speaking of a field they know nothing of.

[Every Man A King]

51. No one does.

But what is your point? Obama is not the King of America. We need to pass something and there are still enough republicans in the Senate to threaten Filibuster with a few conservative dems. Why are you and Krugman mad at Obama? You need to be mad at Susan Collns, Ben Nelson etc... but you have no idea how politics works so you spout out this nonsense.

[Better Believe It]

57. And yet people attack Krugman for opposing the cuts!

[AtomicKitten]

58. Nonsense. Krugman is not being attacked for opposing the cuts.

However, if it helps you digest the kool-aid you are drinking, have at.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Nobody has done that. nt

[Better Believe It]

65. The Republicans might filibuster against a stronger stimulus .... and your point is?

Let them filibuster!

What's the problem with that?

All filibusters end.

A Republican filibuster will be broken.

"You need to be mad at Susan Collns, Ben Nelson etc"

Oh, I am angry with the Gang of 18 who drew up this greatly weakened alternative stimulus package.

Here's a link to my post on that group.

The "Bi-Partisan" Senate Gang of 18: The Dishonor Roll of Senators Behind The Stimulus Cuts
This is the bi-partisan group that cut Senate funding for infrastructure and other vital stimulus programs.

Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Begich (D-AK), Tom Carper (D-DE), John Tester (D-MT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Michael Bennett (D-CO), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8178324

[Occam Bandage]

71. You don't seem to understand how filibusters work in the Senate.

This isn't the 1960s any more. Filibusters no longer require anyone to talk, or in fact for the bill to still be discussed. If there are not 60 votes for cloture, the bill cannot be voted upon. It doesn't matter if people are talking or not, or even if there are any Senators present in the chamber. They can discuss the bill if they like. They can go home if they like. They can open discussion of other bills if they like. They can do anything they like except to call a vote for that particular bill. Reid can call a cloture vote as many times as he likes, but if he can't ever get 60, the bill dies in discussion.

"Let them filibuster" is a meaningless statement. The filibuster starts and ends with the cloture vote. If that fails, the Senate either continues to debate the bill if Reid wants that, or it discusses a different bill if Reid wants that instead. I assume you are suggesting that Obama should dictate an enormous bill to Congress, and then that Reid should call daily cloture votes and disallow the Senate from doing anything else. The dangerous part of that, though, is that it would not be the Republicans having to defend why they are plugging up the Senate, it would have to be Reid explaining why he was not allowing the Senate to debate other necessary bills, and "I am trying to extort them through inaction into voting for my bill" is not going to play very well.

[Better Believe It]

98. Do you have a link for that nonsense you just wrote or did you just

dream it up after talking it over with a few friends?

The Democrats (who run the Senate) and Senator Reid can require Senators to be on the floor to talk when engaged in a filibuster.

They make the Senate rules, not the Republicans! Who do you think dictated the rules when the Republicans controlled the Senate?

Reid has permitted Republicans to "call in" filibusters and that privilege can be retracted at any time.

They can't "filibuster" at home unless the Democrats permit it.

Now you're presenting some Republican spin on a Republican filibuster by claiming Senator Reid would be holding up the Senate by calling cloture votes!!!!

Once the Republicans end the filibuster the work of the Senate on stimulus and other legislation can proceed.

Please don't echo Republican talking points on filibusters!

Of course, Senator Reid could always use the s0-called "nuclear option" which the Republcans used so effectively in 2005 or a "point of order" parliamentary motion can be voted down in order to establish a new Senate procedure and precedent that would change Senate rules.

---------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.


A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[stillcool]

92. Who here knows how legislation is created?..

Who here is calling their Senators, and Representatives regarding what the final bill will have in it? Who here knows what is in the bill? Rather than praise/rip a columnist, how about we 'do' something?
http://www.capwiz.com/sjhs/dbq/officials/

[last_texas_dem]

52. He's never won an election so he doesn't know what he's talking about

and his opinion means nothing. After all, it's America's politicians who always get it right regarding political strategy.

:sarcasm:

(OTOH, maybe some of DU's biggest blowhards should take into account the first precious nugget of wisdom (that they seem to find so applicable to Krugman) regarding the value of their own "advice.")

[amborin]

59. character assassination and smears...against the leading left of center economist

par for the course?

i hope not but it's seeming to be increasingly the case

a lot of smears have been leveled against Krugman on these boards, including a recent total mischaraterization of a thought piece he wrote about labor and labor markets in the developing world

of course, Krugman was smeared also on here during the primaries, because he dared support Clinton

whereas previously, it was generally recognized on this website that Krugman was a brilliant left wing economist who dared to speak the truth about the sorry state of U.S. politics, that quickly changed to hatred and ad hominum attacks...

here's my take on things:

i, personally, worked hard for Obama's election and i'm elated at Obama's moves on the environment, science, global climate change, and union organizing, to name a few....

I'm sure many others are elated about those things and many more

that's great! we're all elated to have a wonderful Democrat in office.....no question....

does that mean we have to stifle debate about our new president's policies and actions?

I hope not! Does that mean we have to line up and genuflect at every single move made? I hope not also, but it sure sounds like it.

What a lot of people on these boards don't seem to get is:

democracy depends upon factionalism, freely articulated dissent, discussion, constructive criticism, and debate

there are people on these boards who will simply not tolerate ANY criticism of or debate about Obama's policies or actions.

That's tantamount to cult worship.

[AtomicKitten]

63. "cult worship" allows some to overlook Krugman's pro cheap labor/out-sourcing/free trade POV.

Purism is a double-edged sword.

[amborin]

68. Krugman is pro-union and pro-labor, and NOT in favor of outsourcing

you are smearing him based on a mischaracterization of a thought piece he wrote on 3rd world labor and labor markets

[AtomicKitten]

69. Your Jedi Mind Trick isn't working.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

[rvablue]

90. C'mon....that's no fun .... you're letting FACTS and clear REASONING

spoil a good old-fashioned myopic, sychophantic temper tantrum.

Kidding, of course, amborin.

Thanks for pointing out the truth!!

[AtomicKitten]

93. Yes, pay no attention to the pro cheap labor, pro free trade arguments he's made.

Your ilk is famous for clinging to a false vision passionately.

[Better Believe It]

70. Exactly I'll second those comments.

[rvablue]

91. It's not the debate that bothers some ....

your fourth sentence is really the answer as to why all of these threads are popping up.

Even though Obama won the presidency, defeated Clinton in the primaries and we ALL got behind him to get him into the Oval Office, there is a small cadre that cannot let the primaries go.

And, yes, very sad what is being done to Krugman. He beat the Republicans down and blamed them for this entire mess .... and yet, because he supported the ideas of another DEMOCRAT in the primaries he will now be treated like dirt by some. But only a very, very, very small "some."

[AtomicKitten]

97. Funny how Clintonites lecture against primary rehash, yet here you are bringing it up.

You go straight to the boondoggle of primary rehash because you can't come up with a cohesive argument other than denial + accusation of primary rehash.

The truth is Krugman was a Reagan adviser and has passionately argued for free trade, calling opponents of free trade "protectionists." He has argued on behalf of cheap labor vis a vis outsourcing. That's a fact, your denial notwithstanding.

By stooping to the accusation of primary rehash, you illustrate the saying: He who smelt it, dealt it.

[pretty]

75. The president said that if someone has a better idea for the economy

They are welcome to share it. Has Krugman shared any good ideas, or just criticized from the sidelines?

[ellacott]

85. It appears that he is just criticizing from the sidelines

[bvar22]

77. K&R

The talking points must have been handed out early.
The "Centrists" are swarming.




Centrism !!!....because it is so EASY !
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING, and get to insult those who do!
:woohoo:

[AtomicKitten]

78. can't think of much more centrist than being pro cheap labor, pro free trade

but, hey, if BS'ing on Krugman's behalf floats your boat, have at

[Occam Bandage]

79. Krugman is pretty centrist. He's in favor of health-care insurance mandates instead of single-payer,

and he's a big fan of cheap foreign labor. He's definitely left of center, but at the same time he isn't a progressive firebrand or anything.

[Dinger]

82. Ninth Rec From Ding : )

:)

[kenny blankenship]

84. I think the term you're searching for is "necklacing"

[ellacott]

87. It's nothing like necklacing

It's not even close.

[stillcool]

95. Oh dear. Can no one criticize Paul Krugman?

Must we all be in 'lock-step'? No dissenting opinions? I will not be silent! If I had known he was like this, I never would have voted for....oops..I didn't vote for Paul Krugman. Drats! Ruined my whole schtick.

[anonymous171]

96. Krugman was attacking the original stimulus plan.

He's a good economist but he has no political feeling whatsoever.

[SIMPLYB1980]

99. Krugman let his Nobel Prize go to his head.

He deserves what he is getting. The man has shown many times that he is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. Attacking moderates is a bad idea. If the far left manages to push the moderates out where do you think they will go. Right straight back to the republican party. I for one don't want to see that happen.

[ShortnFiery]

101. No Paul Krugman is doing this to himself. Instead of opening up back channels of communication

he instead chooses to take "pot shots" via commentary. Paul Krugman is a brilliant economist but NOT a man of thoughtful "common sense." :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

102. Exactly.

Obama has invited Krugman to the White House, but apparently Kruguman prefers to lob cheap shots at Obama from the comfort of his Op-Ed column in the NY Times. Krugman is a good economist, but his less than constructive (and as it turns out hypocritical) criticism of Obama vis a vis censtrism invites scrutiny. Krugman has some 'splaining to do himself regarding his pro free trade and pro cheap labor views penned in his own hand. Purism is a double-edged sword.

[Better Believe It]

106. "Obama has invited Krugman to the White House" Link please

[AtomicKitten]

107. here you go:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/obama_to_krugman_show_me_the_workable_ideas.php

[Every Man A King]

104. I'm assassinating him from the LEFT on his

pro "Free-Trade" stance. I'm assassinating him from reality on his political advice to Obama.

[bridgit]

105. Krugman knows his audience, and many here have mightily *seized* upon...

his inductive usage of the word "centrist". DU is already, plenty, from the top to be bottom throughly & absolutely DISGUSTED with what they consider "centrist" in such entities as the DLC. To counsel even balance is to be tainted as "centrist", and by extension a DLC tool. So he knows as I say very well his audience when he seeks to paint "centrist" support for Obama's stimulus package as an evil not be tolerated or accepted, however...

As is the case with all commercial packaging i.e. Josie & The Pussy Cats, where orange becomes the new pink, etc; "centrist" is the new 'compromise', and compromise was for the likes of Ayn Rand and "evil" that becomes born when each side gives some of what they want in return for some of what they do not want until in the opinions of others: a flat, weak, favor-less, homogeneous, room temperature porridge is produced,

Krugman knows he can't start spouting Ayn Rand to a left-wing that offers him praise; a product whose virtues of selfishness were tailor made for the republican mind already insync with views on what it truly means to be a free individual free from compromise. And some, and that is what is "clear" has occurred here; have wrapped their arms, their hands, their heads, their brains, their hearts and their souls all the way around it just, it would seem, so that they will be able to affirm by way of disparaging the concept of "centrist", and in that process further disincline themselves toward compromise in a world filled with yellow dogs and blue dogs, and republicans that will not compromise regardless and so the union is split where for some that was their goal from the git-go period

I hope that in the days to come misunderstanding that hearts are hearts, spades are spades, diamonds are diamonds & clubs are clubs will be a fleeting pastime indeed ~

Bush's "Compassion" Is Liberalism in Disguise

[Danger Mouse]

109. CENTRIST!

[bridgit]

117. Pft-hahahahaha: WING NUT!!

[rucky]

108. right here on the DU!

[Jennicut]

110. Anyone is allowed to be criticized

Obama, Krugman, whoever. I did not like Krugman referring to Obama supporters as essentially a cult. He won't go meet with Obama. Jealousy, anyone? His views are okay but like others have said he acts all high and mighty and pure and then at the same time supports free trade. I just don't like him that much or the way he has gone about dealing with Prez. Obama in the past and now. I like a lot of Krugman's ideas, I don't like him.

[Danger Mouse]

112. I've noticed that not once have you ever posted anything positive about Obama.

Don't have anything nice to say?

[Better Believe It]

114. That absolutely false. But that's what someone who would rather engage ....

in personal attacks than political debate and discussion frequently does.

So are you now going to join the conservative bashfest against Krugman and any other liberals you hate?

[Danger Mouse]

118. I don't hate you...don't give yourself so much credit.

And I won't join any 'bashfest' against Krugman. I'm just not going to worship at his altar, either. He doesn't impress me, and I will point it out when I feel the need to, because DUer's don't need to march in lockstep behind Krugman anymore than they need to march in lockstep behind Obama.
Anyway, if I am incorrect in my assessment of your posting habits, I apologize.

[Occam Bandage]

119. You're not incorrect in your assessment.

He has indeed never posted anything positive about Obama. The closest he has come, as best I have been able to find, is some anti-Hillary stuff he posted back during the primaries.

[Danger Mouse]

121. I didn't think so, but it'd be great if he could maybe show an example?

I want to be able to consider people's opinions. I respect them more when I feel like they look at more than one side of an issue. If somebody can't be positive sometimes, I don't have much to say to them...if somebody can't be negative sometimes, I don't have much to say to them either. That's just how I feel.

[Better Believe It]

125. You're now on Ignore because of your lies and dishonesty

Do you expect me to reread all of my posts and do your work for you?

Chances are you've seen some of those positive posts but simply refuse to recognize them.

So this will put an end to your bull shit lies.

You're now on ignore.

[Occam Bandage]

126. Sadly, I still exist, and will continue to call 'em as they is. nt

[Political Heretic]

115. I like Obama and I like Krugman - go figure.

[rvablue]

123. Me, too!

Krugman does, after all, lay the blame for this mess at the feet of Bush and the GOP.

I thought that was something that DUers believed, too. The two men are on "the same side", so to speak, so I don't get where the hate of Krugman comes in.

But I guess the fact that Krugman is offering up suggestions and using his area of expertise bothers some.

Dunno????

[Better Believe It]

124. If you're a "centrist" Democrat or "moderate" Republican you hate liberals like Krugman

Some here have thanked the three Republican members of Congress for chopping the hell out of the stimulus package!

Now what the hell is that all about?

[Teaser]

120. where'd you get all that straw?

[ProSense]

127. "'swiftboating' of and character assassination campaign against Paul Krugman"?

What utter nonsense. "Swiftboating"? Beyond ridiculous. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

[Better Believe It]

128. For the weekend DU crew