If you have "no place to go," come here!

Krugman: 0 day(s) without a category error

vastleft's picture

The villain rotation is back, and this time it's Alan Simpson who might make Obama "cave[] in."

(h/t Joe via "Corrente Mail")

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

You know, it seems fairly plain that a bunch of politicians who did not act in accordance with your priorities when they firmly held power are not going to do so now that their power has attenuated. And just to reiterate a point made about a million billion times, if your representatives in the People's House routinely act counter to your priorities, then perhaps it is not that they are being somehow manipulated into concessionary doubt, but rather that they have different priorities.

votermom's picture
Submitted by votermom on

the unceasing, Sisyphean torture of pushing the Democratic part up the hill only to have it roll the fuck over you on the way back down

Submitted by Hugh on

To put it politely, Krugman has his head up his ass, again. He does this all the time. He'll mention depression one week and then write 4 or 5 columns blaming our economic woes on Republicans, as if the Democrats weren't just as kleptocratic, just as guilty. So this time he called Obama conservative. Now we get a bunch of columns again attacking Republicans. Obama may cave, blah, blah, blah, ignoring that it won't be a cave precisely because Obama is a conservative.

And then there is the ongoing embarrassment of his man-crush on Ben Bernanke, the guy who got Krugman his job at Princeton:

Thus on the same day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect of chaos, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for help in confronting mass unemployment.

Because as we all know unemployment has always been Helicopter Ben's top priority. I'm pretty much at the point of just saying that Krugman is another corporatist hack. Much like Obama, he throws in a few progressive phrases to mask his overall conservatism and defense of the Establishment.

Submitted by jawbone on

is trying to alert America, via his role at the NYTimes, that this is no longer a nation where Republicans believe in any sort of compromise. Seemingly, they believe only in attacking Democrats, especially Democratic presidents, on any imaginable grounds, many of which are things they themselves did when in power. But destruction of the opposition is their goal when out of power -- no matter the damage they inflict on the nation.

The headline for this piece, There Will Be Blood, came to mind immediately for almost anyone reading or seeing Simpson's delight in a coming political bloodbath. And There Will Be Collateral Damage from these political bloodbaths. These collateral damages may well include real people dying from lack of timely government actions.

How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking about bipartisan outreach, and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can avoid a federal shutdown this spring. [This is hardly exculpatory of Obama. "Caves" is not a good word to use about any president and it emphasizes Obama's weakness on principles and tendency to try to make nice to Republicans.] But any respite would be only temporary; again, the G.O.P. is just not interested in helping a Democrat govern.

My sense is that most Americans still don’t understand this reality. They still imagine that when push comes to shove, our politicians will come together to do what’s necessary. But that was another country.

It’s hard to see how this situation is resolved without a major crisis of some kind. Mr. Simpson may or may not get the blood bath he craves this April, but there will be blood sooner or later. And we can only hope that the nation that emerges from that blood bath is still one we recognize. (My emphasis, note)

Americans are said to not like hearing bad news. If so, Krugman is finally taking this very bad news to the op-ed page of the NYTimes, a very large bully pulpit.

Re: Bernanke, I think Krugman sees no other way to accomplish any assitance whatsoever for job creation in this nation. It appears Obama will cave to the Repubs rather than asisist the unemployed. Based on the public comments from his econ team, they see high unemployment as just the way things will be. And Krugman has not stinted on criticizing Bernanke and the Fed on the jobs front prior to this, iirc (but I have not read everything of his).

I'm glad to see Krugman actually saying Obama bears responsibility for how this crisis has been handled. Too bad Obama didn't use his high approval ratings, when he had them, to accomplish actions which would work for the general welfare instead of corporate welfare.

Now, it would also be nice to see Krugman emphasize that the Cat Food Commission is Obama's commission, managed by Peter Peterson and his staffers, packed with Obama's picks, including Simpson, to go after SocSec and other parts of the social safety net. That would be very nice to see on the op-ed pages. Since Simpson is his pick for co-chair, and his other pick is a Corporatst DINO also after SocSec, Obama can hardly be caving to either Simpson or Bowles. He knew what they would do, which is why he appointed them.

That would be nice to see emphasized.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It persists the fantasy that Obama is on our side and just needs to steel his resolve.

Submitted by Randall Kohn on


When a well-respected columnist at the universally-renowned paper of record writes a column titled "There Will Be Blood", it's a rude slap in the face of Versaille from an unexpected quarter. It takes iron mental discipline (to be kind) to ignore or discount that.

Submitted by lambert on

... of what Krugman was saying, but rather that his saying it at all was an interesting data point.

Although I feel that mindful observation and deconstruction are often both/and and not either/or.

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

By that I mean "social reality."

Krugman is "a well-respected columnist" and the Times is "the universally-renowned paper of record" (depending on the universe of discourse, of course). I said nothing about how well deserved the respect and the renown actually are. Therefore what I wrote stands as self-evident truth. And based on some responses here, there appears to be a cone of cluelessness here as to why a column like the one Krugman wrote and the Times published might have the import I claimed it does.

But hey, who needs Krugman when you've got Arthur Silber. Good luck with that.

Submitted by Hugh on

Sigh. What is that saying I see around here? I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate. Much the same could be said about our elites and their institutions. You might have a point if our elites had not failed as massively and systemically as they have. But it was precisely those failures which really sparked the progressive blogosphere into existence. Those failures are the reason we look past the reputation (often created and validated by those very same elites ) of members of the elite and their institutions to examine and test what they are actually saying. They blew the trust factor a long time ago. Their ideas either stand examination or they don't. It is just incredible that you would assert that we should cut either Krugman or the Times slack because well, just because. How is that any different from the far right's and George Bush's mantra of "Trust me"?

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

Because although every word of your comment is true, none of it applies to what I wrote. Nowhere did I express or imply either love or trust for either the columnist or his newspaper.

All I did was point out that both Krugman and the Times seem to be finally moving, if gingerly, toward the real world – and that because of their real-world status, this was a major shift and a major sign. That’s not cutting slack, it’s assessing impact.

I would never suggest taking Versailles at face value. But we do need to be operating on the same planet.