Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Politics

Presented Without Comment

"What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush -- but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials." Paul Krugman

"They have acted like terrorists."  Joe Biden

Categories > Politics

Discussions - 20 Comments

Paul Krugman's comment: March 25, 2010. Nice try.

The wind up. The pitch. Swing and a miss. That point was belly button high and right down the middle of the plate. I don't know how he failed to make contact.

From Steve Benen:

"Let’s also not forget the rhetoric from congressional Republicans themselves. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he could “empathize” with a terrorist who flew an airplane into a building on American soil. The year prior, shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said if the Democratic majority didn’t allow Republicans to influence policy debates, the GOP would have to emulate the “insurgency” tactics of “the Taliban.” Sessions, a member of the Republican leadership, added, “[W]e need to understand that insurgency may be required,” and that if Democrats resist, Republicans “will then become an insurgency.” The Taliban, he went on to say, offer the GOP a tactical “model.”"

So we are agreed on the partisan hypocrisy and absurdity of "Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush -- but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials"

Good to know.

Mr. Krugman is truly amazing--so amazing that he may need to get a second Nobel prize. That is because he is so obviously living in a parallel universe, but somehow appearing in ours, that it can only be due to some ability he has to penetrate the normal barriers of space and time between dimensions--a discovery for the ages. I wonder how he keeps things straight sometime--it must surely be confusing, this living he does in a world where all are noble hearts and purity while writing to a world that is fallen.

For my own part, besides standing in envy and awe at his abilities to bounce between temporal planes, I can only express my firm hope that his parent reality would be willing to trade some of their Democrats for our own. I'm not sure what the alternate world would get out of it, but we would benefit to no end, and it is thus a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Krugman writes about economics at the New York Times and teaches economics at Princeton University.

If you have ever read anything the man has written about economics, one has to wonder if he is actually being paid to do either job, if he slept through his economics classes while in college and if he paid for his college degree. He is completely clueless about economics. Why even pay any attention to him?

He isn't stupid. Just sticking to the stuff he writes in the New York Times, Krugman produced a thoughful and well written piece on the Euro a while backin the New York Times Magazine. He isn't JUST a partisan and dishonest creep.

Find Biden saying that before Krugman wrote that editorial, and I'll accept your critique. (Come on, with Biden that shouldn't be too hard) As it stands, it appears that Biden (and from all evidence, he was just affirming another assertion) was simply confirming what republicans themselves assert. Besides, don't you think that a group of Republicans utilize colorful rhetoric behind their own closed-door in-party meetings. Let's not be so sensitive, now.

Anon, I'm not interested in whether you accept my critique (that's harsher than I mean it to sound.) If Krugman wants to condemn Biden in similar terms and promise to blame any future act of violence aimed at any political figure no matter how ambiguous the motives of the perpetrator on the Democrats then I'll be glad to say that Krugman is honestly demented rather than dishonestly partisan.

I'm not sure how Biden's affirming a Democratic House member's assertion that the Republicans are terrorists helps your point. Sounds like a climate of hate. Right Mr. Krugman?

As for colorful rhetoric, I wouldn't care so much if SOME PEOPLE who should know better didn't write stuff like this:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/

"Let's not be so sensitive, now."

Just doing my little bit to hold our self-appointed policeman of eliminationist rhetoric and meteorologist of climates of hate up to the ridicule he deserves.

And you don't think being dishonest is stupid? Take a look at the dishonest person in the White House and tell me he isn't stupid.

No. I think it is being dishonest. And being dishonest (whether from calculation or an inability to control one's passions) on one set of subjects in one set of circumstances does not imply that someone must therefore not be knowledgably and must not have valuable insights on some other set of subjects.

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this -- it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done." (Mitch McConnell, August 2, 2011) Seems like a good definition of a "terrorist" to me

"Seems like a good definition of a "terrorist" to me"


Just do long as major media figures don't hold you personally responsible for the next act of violence directed at a political figure.

Dishonesty equals lying. Lying is stupid. When one lies, they eventually pay the piper. Again, look at the dishonest person in the White House. One lie after another....

Dishonesty about the role of Palin in the Arizona shooting does not = "He is completely clueless about economics" It does not = he is stupid It equals he is dishonest about some things, which is valuable information in evaluating his public pronouncements. It can also be a self-validating way to choose to ignore his comments on technical matters where he has specialized knowledge.

When someone is dishonest about something, then all their credibility and integrity goes to hell in hand basket, no matter what their credentials are or if they happen to make true statements about something else. They can never be trusted again.

Krugman is a journalist who writes columns in the New York Times. He is not the guy next door who works for a car dealership.

Krugman is stupid. He has lost all credibility and integrity by being dishonest and lying.

Krugman, Obama, Al Gore and Nixon all fall into this category - supposedly smart and intelligent people who lied and were dishonest in order to promote their personal agendas. They are stupid people.

Calling Krugman stupid works better as self-adminsitered therapy than as anaysis. Whatever gets you through the day.

Or to put it differently: Herman Cain was dishonest in trying to explain away a set of comments he made about not being willing to appoint Muslims to his cabinet if he was President.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/jun/08/herman-cain/cain-denies-claims-he-said-he-would-not-appoint-mu/

Now that doesn't mean he is "stupid" or that he doesn't know anything about running a profitable pizza shop.

Calling Krugman stupid doesn't get me through the day and doesn't do anything for self-administered therapy. Wow who peed in your cheerios this morning.

Krugman is an incompetent journalist and economist and he isdishonest and lies about things. I am not looking for therapy. Just telling the truth. The guy's columns are so dishonest and reek with a personal agenda. He is supposedly a journalist and a professor. He needs to be like a minister and stand way above the pig feeder. Unfortunately for Krugman, he swims jofully in the pig feeder.

As far as Cain is concerned - not good. He made a bad political move in making the comments regarding appointing Muslims in his cabinet. I did not like the way he handled it. As far as him being stupid in comparison to how stupid Krugman is - Cain has a long way to go to get that stupid.

Re: Cain "When someone is dishonest about something, then all their credibility and integrity goes to hell in hand basket, no matter what their credentials are or if they happen to make true statements about something else. They can never be trusted again."

Wow. That's harsh.

Your little dance with comparing Cain and Krugman is just not working with me. You can compare all you want, but no matter how you slice the bread Krugman is a stupid, lying fool.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/16896