Krugman Slams Firedoglake for Promoting "Fake" Obama Scandal

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

What the folks at Firedoglake should ask themselves is this: do you really want to become just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals?

The bottom line is this: Jon Gruber is a technical expert, some of whose research has been supported — entirely properly — by government agencies. And we need his input into policy.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/jonathan-gruber/

[tridim]

1. FDL is lost, it's way too late. nt

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

4. I know. They have gone off the deep end

[hlthe2b]

8. I empathize with Jane, though... Given her fight with breast cancer

I think she is just TOO close to the fight and unable to find a balance between her hope and disappointment with Obama.

I wish she could step away for a while...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Makes you wonder how DU would have handled the Clinton nontroversies.

Whitewater, travelgate, etc.

[Romulox]

3. "I am a great and powerful OZ! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" nt

[FrenchieCat]

6. Saying something that means nothing is not saying anything.

There you go again; doing it some more.

[Romulox]

7. Follow somebody else around, ok? I'm not interested in your brand of inter-personal drama.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

14. I happened to click onto this thread and read the comments,

like I sometimes do, being on a discussion forum and all.

I saw your "means absolutely nothing" statement and felt free to comment on it.

Don't flatter yourself to believe that I'm following you around, because I'm not.
You just happen to be in this thread....again, saying nothing at all.

[seeinfweggos]

60. you are right! fuck jane hamshire and her followers!

[inna]

81. what's wrong with you?

on edit: i hope that was satire on your part.

[seeinfweggos]

91. no, fuck her and her buddy grover norquist and any of their followers

she has decided to be a right wing enabler and can therefore kiss my liberal ass and go straight to hell.

[inna]

92. She is not a "right wing enabler" and Norquist is not "her buddy".

You're misinformed.

On edit: She is a progressive hero, a people's champion, and a tireless fighter for the meaningful health care reform.

[seeinfweggos]

93. progressive hero? lol nt

[Donnachaidh]

15. spoken like the trues expert on saying nothing.

:eyes:

Those pom poms really need cleaning. I'll bet you can write it off as a business expense, too. :sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

21. pot, meet kettle.

I'd rather have pom poms while on Democratic Underground
discussing a Democratic Administration,
than a fucking pitchfork, a rope, a torch and hyperbole, instead of facts.

I know who's going to bring me progress, and it ain't the same fools who gave us
george Bush for 8 fucking years,
as they went around promoting the idea that Republicans and Democrats are the same.

So fucking yeah! Rah-Rah Democratic Party! You're goddamn right!

Yep....I said that on Democratic Underground.

Now, you go ahead and hate that......see if I give a fuck about what you think!

As for deducting this as a business expense,
as a self employed accountant,
I already know that you can't write off items purchased for your hobby
as a legal deduction. If you are trying to insinuate something,
than baby, you are just plain wrong, again.

[DevonRex]

5. FDL has already become just like the right-wingers with fake scandals.

They chose that path. Choices have consequences. Krugman is right.

[snooper2]

35. You ever think...

That there is a following on the left for some of that shit and they are just cashing in on it?


Same with some of the folks that write Truther books. Some of these niche markets can pay out :)

[DevonRex]

36. I do think it's highly possible that FDL is just cashing in on the idiots'

wish to read anything and everything anti-Obama. There is a small but faithful market for it - old Edwards supporters, PUMAs, Nader supporters and a few others that I won't mention.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

51. Bashing liberal blogs and being a Cowboys fan

you might be beyond help.

[snooper2]

55. bashing a (singular) blog..

oh, and you must be an Eagles fan :rofl:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. No I am a football fan

America's team is universally hated but living in the Cowboys bubble you may not be aware of it.

[Bobbie Jo]

66. LOL

Ok...I thought it was funny. Then again, I get 'sports humor.' :rofl:

[Don Caballero]

9. Hamsher should retire

She has lost all credibility. No one reads her trashy site anymore. Garbage.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

11. If she does

She should turn her blog over to dday.

[inna]

18. in your dreams.

:P

[librechik]

22. All or nothing mentality? Where would we be without EmptyWheel?

It's a group blog. If you hate Hamsher, so be it. Your vitriol is offensive.

[CakeGrrl]

10. Something many may not want to acknowledge here, to their detriment

So many people get so high and mighty about how they're sooooo much better than Freepers or RWers in general because they're on the side of right or they don't 'march in lockstep'.

But I've seen behavior that's just as bad lately: intractibility, refusal to acknowledge other viewpoints, shouting down of others who don't agree, projecting one's own behavior on others "It's not MY fault", the whole shebang.

It's getting into dangerous territory when certain quarters begin ginning up stories to advance their beliefs and causes. And it's even worse when those may be founded on sketchy information.

There's a "piece" posted over on GD: P about the WH pooh-poohing "liberal angst" over Healthcare. Never mind that that term is never used by the WH Communications Director in question, nor is it proven that the quote the article used is directly tied to a question about Healthcare: The knives and pitchforks were out as people went rabid over another perceived affront by the WH. Mission Accomplished by the OP.

If it keeps up, 2012 could be pretty ugly, and some on the Left will be shaking their heads wondering what happened. Stuff like that goes to show how ANYONE can be easily played regardless of their political leanings and principles.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

12. Agreed

[blondeatlast]

23. That's a valid concern.

I'm amazed at how easily we seem to jump on the freshest poo being flung. That's why I was so disturbed about the Hamsher/Norquist thing--Norquist knows how to get in a tiny crack and make it a full=fledged fault.

Sadly, DU in its current state is ripe for Norquist's--what's his term for it?

Oh, yeah--ratfucking.

[monmouth]

31. Being a Democrat/Liberal is risky business....n/t

[bobbolink]

79. "Let there be peace, and let it begin with me"

We dirtyhippiecommiepinkobums took that seriously, and DID look at our part in things.

Some of us have been urging "progressives" to go back to that method.

It never seems to "take". It's all "over there".

[freddie mertz]

13. I agree with Krugman HERE: "Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes."

It does seem that he is both advising the WH directly AND conducting an HHS funded study that "includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal."


So he is working for the administration AND evaluating it's proposal for the HHS.

That seems a bit complicated to me.

I may be wrong, I'm new to the controversy.

[GreenArrow]

58. "So he is working for the administration AND evaluating

its proposal for the HHS."

In other words, he's a stooge, a dupe, a hired gun, and so on. Nothing complicated about it at all.

[freddie mertz]

86. That is what I was driving at.

How can he work for them AND be an objective evaluator?

Maybe he is, but it looks fishy on the surface.

[NJmaverick]

16. Good for Krugman for speaking the truth

consider how Krugman has lambasted Obama in the past there can be no doubt to Krugman's integrity on this issue.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

17. Exactly

[berni_mccoy]

19. It's too late for FDL. They are already "just like the right-wingers".

[2 Much Tribulation]

20. The piont is not that Gruber can't speak, but that he shouldn't lie/omit who PAYS HIM for work

And that work is directly related, no matter how "scientific", to the issues at hand. The public deserves to know on who's payroll(s) somebody is so they can take their "expertise" into account in that way, to whatever extent they wish, or don't wish to.

[inna]

24. exactly.

-1 to Krugman on this one.

It is simply not right for the White House to cite Gruber's analysis to illustrate the benefits of the bill they support without disclosing that Gruber is on the government payroll. A biased insider can't be an unbiased outside observer. But that's exactly the approach of the Obama Administration, to the tune of $780,000 in tax dollars.

as simple as that.

[Teaser]

71. It's a FUCKING GRANT.

Do you know how they work?

[intheflow]

76. Agreed.

A fair and just society would demand accountability from politicians regardless of party or ideological world view. And isn't that what we're striving for on the left? A fair and just society. I don't see how this is any different from, say, Armstrong Williams' nondisclosure in 2005.

[katandmoon]

25. I wonder what the reaction to this would be if Gruber was working for BushCo instead of ObamaCo

Somehow, I don't think the reaction would be quite the same.

[KittyWampus]

27. Obama and his Administration are quite different than Bush's.

[katandmoon]

56. So there would be no outrage if this occurred when Bush was prez

[alarimer]

80. Yes because Democrats (and liberals) are hypocrites just like Republicans

Frankly, ALL of Obama's actions on health care are suspect, from his consulting with Tauzin (is there a bigger health insurance tool than Tauzin) to the flip-flopping on almost all of his promises. He is a fucking corporate tool and I for one have had enough of these corrupt assholes we seem to elect all the time.

To hell with all Obama apologists.

[jsamuel]

26. he skips the entire point of disclosure

while I understand his point, he ignores the most glaring issue; that Gruber was touted as an independent outside supporter of the plans by the WH without disclosing his involvement in those plans

This much I disagree with Firedoglake; It isn't the money he got paid. It is the fact that Gruber's own methods were used to formulate the plan he is supporting. That is a conflict of interest when his involvement is not disclosed. He has a vested professional interest in arguing that the plan is the best it can be. It will reflect well on his methods.

[Romulox]

28. Krugman's argument is pathetic. "Conscience of a (Neo) Liberal". nt

[amborin]

29. +100000 Krugman is angling to replace Geithner, or someone

he drank the kool aid long ago

[inna]

33. I'd be ecstatically happy if Krugman replaced Geithner.

No such luck, unfortunately. Not a chance in hell. :(

[amborin]

94. agree! Geithner has to go; more on his bad moves:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/07-5

[bvar22]

30. Gruber's "paid Expert Opinion" ..

..has been pasted all over DU regularly by those supporting the current bill.
It DOES make a difference to KNOW that Gruber IS on the Payroll.

Krugman himself acknowledges this.

"Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes —"

Krugman has used Gruber's "product" in his own Opinion Pieces supporting the HCR Bill, so it would be fair to say that Krugman has some personal investment in rehabilitating Gruber's reputation.

FDL is on the side of Truth and Transparency on this issue.
It DOES make a difference.

[inna]

32. exactly. -1 to Krugman on this one. nt

[DevonRex]

37. However do you find the time to post in so many places? nt

[inna]

40. not NEARLY in as many places as you do.

Unlike you, I post several comments a week, at the most, and don't have time to spy on people.

[DevonRex]

41. Piss off?

Now that wasn't nice. :rofl:

[inna]

43. go flame and harrass someone else.

run along. :hi:

[Jane Austin]

38. Oh, great.

I left FDL years ago because of Hamsher's authoritarian behavior.

Now I've got to read her cheerleaders on DU?

Blergh.

[DevonRex]

39. Those are just the ravings from

the Crazy Tree.

[bvar22]

44. Hey...YOU don't HAVE to read ANYTHING.

Or you can just stick to those who use paid "experts" to support their positions.
Much easier than thinking for yourself.

Once again:
It makes a difference to KNOW someone is PAID for their "opinion".

[Jane Austin]

45. I can find that out from reading Krugman.

I was talking about running into a clot of Hamsher cheerleaders here on DU.

You may be writing about the content of Krugman's column, but the cheerleaders are just saying how wonderful Hamsher is.

[bvar22]

49. You have to admit...

...that in this case, Hamsher got it right, and truth and transparency gets a WIN.

I want a hundred more Firedoglakes, and I want our government to FEAR them.


“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”---Jefferson

[Jane Austin]

52. In fact,

No, I don't.

We don't need irresponsibility on our side.

[Zynx]

64. Jane Hamsher has quite a bit of an agenda herself.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

67. Yes, and not a good one

if you are a progressive

[sendero]

34. Hmmm.....

.... my standard is simple. If Bush or someone in his administration had done the exact same thing, what would the reaction be here on DU?

I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect OUTRAGE.

So I'm a little confused.

[Jane Austin]

46. That was just SOP for BushCo.

Wouldn't have raised much of an eyebrow before the next such situation superceded it.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Krugman may be a Nobel Prize winner ... but he's still underneath "a whore" for

the ruling elite. I remember how he scoured Candidate Obama for the sake of his perceived paycheck Hillary Clinton.

I have no respect for the "integrity" of Paul Krugman. :thumbsdown:

[berni_mccoy]

53. Calling Krugman "under a whore" is why FDL and nuts like you have lost your way.

[ShortnFiery]

77. Back at you - And what about "nuts like you?" Nice, you're influencing many people here

and the upside down logo of DU is also scoring you more allies. :crazy:

[inna]

83. exactly. WTF was THAT about?? what an epic fail. :rolls eyes: nt

[ShortnFiery]

88. You forgot the kitchen sink. eom

[RoyGBiv]

47. K&R

[Joanne98]

48. More wimpy bashing of the fighters!

I support FDL 100%!

[inna]

50. +1

So do I. :toast:

[shadowknows69]

89. +1

[JAbuchan08]

54. Guess Krugman has found his way back from under the bus.

[FrenchieCat]

59. There's a lot of buses out there......

and it seems to me that the only one that should count,
is the one carrying the American people; not so much
the ones carrying people with axes to grind.

[JHB]

62. Yeah. Amazing how quick and full the turnaround is.

Or maybe it's not all that amazing, just depressing.

(Which is not a comment on either Krugman or FDL, but on those who throw people under the bus)

[seeinfweggos]

57. krugman is a corporatist cheerleader whore!!11!!!!

right? i mean anybody who thinks the firebaggers are full of shit must be one, right? oh, and krugman thinks the hc (even if it's the senate version) should be passed.

[Nikki Stone1]

61. Krugman Shoots the Messenger: Blames Wheeler, FDL for Fueling “Fake Scandal” over Gruber

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/11/krugman-shoots-the-messenger-blames-wheeler-fdl-for-“fueling-a-fake-scandal”-over-gruber/

"Gruber received $780,713 in government contracts in 2009. In addition to the HHS contracts, he was hired by the Department of Justice, the NIH and the State Department for work this year. Krugman is right to say that the government awards these kinds of contracts to academics on a regular basis. But there is a fundamental difference between the HHS contract and the others.

Krugman says “Gruber’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing.” But in point of fact, he was hired expressly to advise the West Wing...."

[bvar22]

63. Hamshire and FDL scores another "WIN".

Even Krugman admits it in his column:

"Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes —"

Krugman USES Gruber's stuff to support his (Krugman) position, so Krugman is NOT without bias.



“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”---Jefferson

Score another one for Hamshire and FDL.

[berni_mccoy]

70. It's fun to watch all the Obama haters who LOVED Krugman when he criticized the stimulus plan

now turn on their economic hero because Hamsher gives marching orders to dog-pile on him. Exemplary of the way these people would eat their own and water their liberty (elm) tree with the blood of those they held dear.

[Nikki Stone1]

78. Even Krugman can get it wrong sometimes.

:)

[berni_mccoy]

84. Did he get it wrong then, or is he wrong now? Not sure...

[Nikki Stone1]

85. Read up and study, grasshopper.

:)

[Capers]

68. What I learned about Gruber is something I needed to know.

If Krugman has a problem with me knowing, fuck Krugman.

[inna]

69. Krugman Shoots the Messenger

Krugman has always been quick to defend his academic pals. Ben Bernanke has “done a fine job in the crisis” and should be appointed to a second term. And now, in order to defend Jonathan Gruber, he insults Marcy Wheeler for being “just like the right wingers,” and fueling a “fake scandal.” This despite the fact that the Washington Post and the New York Times both say that Gruber misled them, as do a host of journalists who feel Gruber should have disclosed his financial ties to the administration — including Ron Brownstein himself.

Krugman owes everyone an explanation as to why he thinks it’s okay to smear someone fairly investigating a legitimate controversy in defense of a friend who misled people for months, who stood on the sidelines mutely while the White House promoted his work as objective verification of their own policies in a self-generated validation loop.

And he owes Marcy Wheeler an apology.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/11/krugman-shoots-the-messenger-blames-wheeler-fdl-for-“fueling-a-fake-scandal”-over-gruber/

[debbierlus]

73. Krugman seems to blow with the political winds.

[debbierlus]

72. We need his input? If he is supporting this shit bill that enslaves the American people

To the health care industry...we don't need his imput.

We don't need any more phony rationalizations and talking points to justify this sell out of the American people for the blood sucking leeches that call themselves insurance and pharmaceutical companies

[berni_mccoy]

75. Maybe the bill isn't as bad as FDL and others would have you believe. Admit it, you've been misled

by the MSM... you could easily be misled by FDL. And now that Krugman has exposed their sensationalism for what it is, FDL sets out to destroy Krugman and publish not one, but several rebuttals, none of which make sense or lack emotional derogatory tone for the man.

FDL has invalidated it's own credibility and Hamsher has set sail for the ruinous waters of Grover Norquist, Fox News and the teabaggers. She's reaping what she's sowed here.

[WillyT]

74. This Is A SLAM By Krugman... LOL ??? - Your Pom Poms Are Showing...

Pretty gentle in total.

The truth is that this is no big deal. Gruber’s grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; it’s basically the same kind of thing as, say, an epidemiologist receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. You wouldn’t ordinarily say that this tarnishes the epidemiologist’s credentials as an independent analyst on infectious diseases, unless you want to say that nobody receiving a research grant can be considered independent.

The only reasons you might see this differently would be if Gruber were either receiving a sweetheart deal, or seemed to have changed his views to accommodate his sponsors. Neither is remotely true. Gruber is very much the go-to guy on modeling reform: it’s hard to think of who else could be doing the work better. And his position on reform has been entirely consistent.

Should Gruber have made a fuller disclosure? Yes — I think he was being too much of an academic, taking for granted that everyone understands the difference between being a political hired gun and receiving a research grant. Should he disclose the contract every time he writes anything? Well, maybe — but a brief mention should suffice. When you’re writing 800-word op-eds, you need to reserve as much space as possible for real content.

And I have every intention of continuing to cite Gruber on matters related to health care. He’s the top micro-modeling expert, and getting this stuff right is more important than this essentially trivial controversy.

Same link...

WHOA !!! TOTAL BODYSLAM !!!

:wow:

Sure man... whatever.

:shrug:

Oh... and...



Yay team!!!

[Hello_Kitty]

82. This one line from Krugman is such bullshit

When you’re writing 800-word op-eds, you need to reserve as much space as possible for real content.

The disclosure didn't have to be in the body of the oped. The NYT editors would have put a disclaimer at the end as they normally do. And Krugman knows this very well.

[freddie mertz]

87. Krugman is looking worse and worse on this issue.

Finally read all of it, and the WH attempt to cite Gruber's research as "objective" when he is in fact working for them is not a good thing.

[HuckleB]

90. Once again, the amateur nature of FDL is brought to light.

[Telly Savalas]

95. Did FDL point out any methodological issues with Gruber's work

that would demonstrate how he's shilling for the White House?

An argument that Gruber is being hired by the White House to distort the truth would hold a lot more water if it showed how the truth was being distorted.

[slipslidingaway]

96. No they focused on the lack of disclosure and I am not sure Marcy Wheeler...

ever said that he was shilling for the WH.

Appearances do count.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/jonathan-grubers-rent-a-scholarship/

And there are other contracts as well.

[anonymous171]

97. Further proof that Krugman is a terrible political analyst.

I would love it if the Left adopted the conservatives post-modern tactics.