Dr. Krugman on Obama

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Ok, I made a slight error on her quote, the jist of what she said remains the same

Go into another country, kill their leaders because they're of a different faith, and then convert them to Christianity.

Any way you want to look at it, she's not in the same league as Krugman.

Again though, I take that stuff as being a part of her vile attention-whoredom and not her actual views. Perhaps I'm giving her too much slack, but I'm comparing their actual extreme views, and not what they've written or said to get attention.

Perhaps Hannity would be a better comparison? But he isn't a columnist...

Krugman is a far left extremist who paints doomsday pictures of our economy and blames Bush and white conservatives for it constantly. He has a very, very negative and bitter view of conservatives as a whole. He's completely partisan. NY Times is very liberal and he is their most extreme writer. He's the furthest left of all the mainstream columnists.

Therefore, his views of Obama don't phase me in the least.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Given the grave doubts raised by Obama...and his lackluster polling numbers vs Rudy/McCain...even Huckabee! I imagine once the hits start coming...he'll go down hard and I don't think he'll be able to pick himself back up, it'll be 1988 all over again

I'd like to see evidence of this? The latest polls I've seen have shown Hillary having MUCH higher negativity ratings than Obama and Obama beating all the GOP contenders by wider margins than Hillary.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Again though, I take that stuff as being a part of her vile attention-whoredom and not her actual views. Perhaps I'm giving her too much slack, but I'm comparing their actual extreme views, and not what they've written or said to get attention.

Perhaps Hannity would be a better comparison? But he isn't a columnist...

Krugman is a far left extremist who paints doomsday pictures of our economy and blames Bush and white conservatives for it constantly. He has a very, very negative and bitter view of conservatives as a whole. He's completely partisan. NY Times is very liberal and he is their most extreme writer. He's the furthest left of all the mainstream columnists.

Therefore, his views of Obama don't phase me in the least.

The big difference is that he uses facts. Facts are very important.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

The big difference is that he uses facts. Facts are very important.

He uses facts to draw absurdly partisan and extremists conclusions. This is no different than other right wing extremists. If people don't like Coulter argument (she was the only columnist I could think of who was far right enough to compare political views with) fill in any extreme right winger.

If somebody posted an article from Hannity saying Rudy is a bad candidate, vote for the most polarizing conservative instead... I would have the same opinion. His opinion on who to vote for means absolutely nothing to me. In fact, his endorsement would make me second guess my support for that candidate.

[motivez]

You still haven't shown me anything he's said that even comes close to some of Coulter's more tame remarks. They're no where near each other in "extreme" positions, just because you disagree with Krugman for being staunchy liberal doesn't mean he's an "extremist" the same way Coulter is.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

just because you disagree with Krugman for being staunchy liberal doesn't mean he's an "extremist" the same way Coulter is.

He's an extremist like Coulter, but no.. not in the same way. I've said that throughout the thread. Coulter is vile, bitchy, a complete attention whore, and a disgrace to herself. However, Krugman is an extremely far left columnist, about as far left as it gets. Coulter is an extremely far right columnist, about as far right as it goes. I completely agree Coulter is far worse of a person and a columnist, but Krugman's biases are very similar and therefore his opinion means about as much to me.

And I've tried linking some of his articles that show his bias. You can't sum Krugman up in a one line example like you can Coulter. It's the overview of his political ideology. He has a doomsday image he paints of the economy that be blames solely on Bush and racist conservatives. His view of conservatives is one of inherent racism and extreme negativity. He's a hack.

[Thorgrim]

YouTube Video

More problems with Obama as a primary candidate

[ballz2wallz]

I'm not sure what makes an academically accomplished man 'sound and logical'. Faculty members at universities are often times the most whacked out, far left extremist people out there.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

What a joke, Ann Coulter can't really be compared to any other political commentator.. she's so much worse than everyone else out there.. and she's no where close to Krugman.. He's an admitted liberal partisan, but nothing like Ann Coulter.

I don't know how you can say such a thing. Allow me to show you.

We start with such a high opinion on said Krugman:

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Now, Dr. Krugman is a NYTimes editorialist and makes no qualms that he is a liberal...he is also however, accomplished academically, which is a rarity...politically active and relevant AND doing work in your field that gives you awards, also he teaches as Princeton, etc...it's really hard to make any sort of argument that he isn't intelligent, and with his writings of the NYTimes, it's hard to say he's not a valid figure in the Democratic Party

He is VERY respected by liberals across the board, from the DailyKos to Atrios to FDL, etc etc

So his opinions matter, and his critiques of Obama have been sound, logical, calm and in my opinion: dead on

Here we see academic credentials, career credentials, awards, and respecting communities. These are all given as reasons to listen to what Krugman says.

Now, let's do the same for Ann Coulter:

Now, Ms. Coulter is a legal correspondent for Human Events and makes no qualms that she is conservative...she is also however, accomplished academically, which is a rarity...politically active and relevant AND doing work in your field that gives you awards, also she writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate, etc...it's really hard to make any sort of argument that she isn't intelligent, and with her writings of five New York Times bestsellers, it's hard to say she's not a valid figure in the Republican Party

She is VERY respected by conservatives across the board, from the Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly, etc etc

So her opinions matter, and her critiques of liberals have been sound, logical, calm and in my opinion: dead on

Now to me, there really hasn't been any special reason why Krugman should be so respeced, and Ann isn't. In fact, this is not even a good argument as to why either should be respected, as it is written. If you want to see Coulter's real credentials, one should read this:

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers —Godless: The Church of Liberalism (June 2006),How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

I'd say she's more than qualified to have valid opinions of what's going on politically. Certainly if Krugman is, she is too. But, if you cannot respect her opinion, then you cannot respect his. You can't have it both ways can you?

[Thorgrim]

clerking and being an editor of a law review are not academical awards, they are basically both student positions

the rest of her work is typical law work, nothing special at all

compare this to:

He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000. He is married to Robin Wells, a fellow professor at Princeton, his second marriage;[5] he has no children from either.[6] From 1982 to 1983, he spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is also a member of the international economic body, the Group of Thirty.

In the early-1990s, he helped popularize the argument made by Laurence Lau and Alwyn Young, among others, that the growth of economies in East Asia was not the result of new and original economic models, but rather increased capital and labor inputs, which did not result in an increase in total factor productivity. His prediction was that future economic growth in East Asia would slow as it became more difficult to generate economic growth from increasing inputs.

More importantly, he has won:
1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal
2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences, the "European Pulitzer"

also he writes textbooks that are used around the country:
Amazon.com: International Economics: Theory and Policy (7th Edition) (Addison-Wesley Series in Economics): Books: Paul R. Krugman,Maurice Obstfeld

read more: Paul Krugman - The Prince of Asturias Foundation

It's like comparing Joe Montana to Randle Cunningham

Krugman is a true academic achiever who also is an important democratic figure

Ann Coulter is a shock jock, who had a promising start in law and realized she could make a lot more money by saying outrageous things that she herself doesn't even believe...

[JaJae]

By again posting his resume I think you're missing the point of his post. His resume is meaningless to people who have read his column and take it on the merits of his writings. He is a far left extremist which typically can only come from years and years of education in extremely liberal academia where such extremism is as you've pointed out often rewarded. We can sit here and compare resumes all day of people like Krugman, Coulter, Hannity, Hitchens, Robertson, etc. In the end it doesn't matter.

The original post tried make Krugman out to be a man who is a gift to elite liberals everywhere and whose opinion is one that should be trusted. But in reality, he's a far left extremist. He's about as far left as liberal columnists can get. I can't think of one liberal columnist who surpasses him. There really is no other liberal columnist to compare him to, you have to start comparing his extreme bias and partisanship to the likes of Coulter. I see little difference in Coulter being a "shock jock" and a complete partisan hack vs Krugman who is just a complete partisan hack. People who are that far to the extreme are not people whose opinion I'd take seriously when it comes to deciding who I'm going to vote for.

[Thorgrim]

Why would someone's non-political accomplishments ever be meaningless?

Should we discount ever PhD who takes very progressive positions?

There are ofcourse, many other progressive columnists who I think you would find have the same positions as Dr Krugman but naturally do not have his academic achievements in the field of economics

Joe Conason, Robert Scheer, E.J. Dionne, Bill Moyers, Bob Herbert, Eleanor Clift and sadly Molly Ivins who has passed away

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Why would someone's non-political accomplishments ever be meaningless?

Because they're unrelated to his political views.

Should we discount ever PhD who takes very progressive positions?

If you would like to that's fine I guess, but I wouldn't. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he isn't a complete partisan hack. Throwing around his educational achievements as if it vindicates his obscene partisanship is irrational and irrelevant.

There are ofcourse, many other progressive columnists who I think you would find have the same positions as Dr Krugman but naturally do not have his academic achievements in the field of economics

Joe Conason, Robert Scheer, E.J. Dionne, Bill Moyers, Bob Herbert, Eleanor Clift and sadly Molly Ivins who has passed away

Post their positions then. That's like saying Buckley agreed with Coulter on this issue, so Coulter is a good source.

[Thorgrim]

Because they're unrelated to his political views.

You don't know that, and even if you did, I think it makes it all the more relevant

If you would like to that's fine I guess, but I wouldn't. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he isn't a complete partisan hack. Throwing around his educational achievements as if it vindicates his obscene partisanship is irrational and irrelevant.

His international praises/awards in economics do not make him less guilty of anything, but they do show he is not ignorant on economics

Post their positions then. That's like saying Buckley agreed with Coulter on this issue, so Coulter is a good source.

You have yet to say anything radical he has written...

You posted two things, you complained that Krugman talked about a southern strategy coming from the GOP, when the GOP has admitted to it and apologized...that's something you'll find in the encyclopedia britannica...not something indicitive of a shock jock

He also cited how many people have an irrational hatred of Al Gore, I believe that is true, as do many others...

Again, you put these comments next to wishes timothy mcveigh had bombed the ny times building...i am forced to scratch my head

[JaJae]

Here's a recent column by someone a little annoyed with Krugman's recent charge of essentially claiming Reagan was a racist.

BY BRUCE BARTLETT
Monday, December 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

In his new book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman makes a strong case for his belief that the political success of the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the past 40 years has resulted largely from their co-optation of Southern racists that were the base of the Democratic Party until its embrace of civil rights in the 1960s. A key piece of evidence for Mr. Krugman is that Ronald Reagan gave his first speech after accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 near Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. In the course of this speech, Reagan said he supported "states' rights." Mr. Krugman says this was code declaring his secret sympathy for Southern racism.

Others, including Mr. Krugman's Times colleague David Brooks and Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, have come to Reagan's defense, denying that he was a racist or had any racist intent in his 1980 speech. That's fine but unlikely to change the minds of those like Mr. Krugman who are determined to smear the Republican Party with the charge of racism, and who are adept at finding racist code words like "law and order" by Republicans that are completely convincing to liberals and Democrats in support of this accusation, even though they are invisible to those with no political ax to grind.

However, if a single mention of states' rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards, what about the 200-year record of prominent Democrats who didn't bother with code words? They were openly and explicitly for slavery before the Civil War, supported lynching and "Jim Crow" laws after the war, and regularly defended segregation and white supremacy throughout most of the 20th century.

Following are some quotes from prominent Democrats largely drawn from my new book, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past." Even with the exclusion of all quotes that contain the N-word, it is clear that many of the Democratic Party's most important historical figures have long made statements that reduce Reagan's alleged transgression to a drop in the ocean. If we are going to hold him and his party accountable for a single mention of states' rights, then the party of those listed below is far more culpable in promoting and defending racism.

OpinionJournal - Extra

[Thorgrim]

Democrats that filibustered civil rights were racist? Yep

Did the US Army that beat Hitler and freed Europe from Nazi Germany...hold deep-seated racism that was even firm policy?

Blacks' and Whites' blood were seperated...and of about 20,000 navy officers, zero were black, they even still segregated units like during the civil war...you know how many black Marine officers were commissioned during WW2? Zero

Looks like we should shame the US Army of the 1940s and today, because in the 1940s they were hostile and openly racist

The whole point of this is...as the GOP said, they conducted a southern strategy that EVEN THEY DON'T DISAGREE ABOUT

If anyone wants to call up the RNC and tell them that there was no southern strategy, there's nothing to be sorry about, Democrats were worse, take it back take it back!! Go ahead, but I think that person would find themselves alone and wondering why they are defending someone as innocent after they willfully confessed and stick by it

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Democrats that filibustered civil rights were racist? Yep

Did the US Army that beat Hitler and freed Europe from Nazi Germany...hold deep-seated racism that was even firm policy?

Blacks' and Whites' blood were seperated...and of about 20,000 navy officers, zero were black, they even still segregated units like during the civil war...you know how many black Marine officers were commissioned during WW2? Zero

Looks like we should shame the US Army of the 1940s and today, because in the 1940s they were hostile and openly racist

The whole point of this is...as the GOP said, they conducted a southern strategy that EVEN THEY DON'T DISAGREE ABOUT

If anyone wants to call up the RNC and tell them that there was no southern strategy, there's nothing to be sorry about, Democrats were worse, take it back take it back!! Go ahead, but I think that person would find themselves alone and wondering why they are defending someone as innocent after they willfully confessed and stick by it

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with what I posted.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with what I posted.

You posted a link to racist Democrats in the past, as if the oldest political party in the United States is tied to all it's members positions of what, 200+ years?

You imply Krugman is wrong about the southern strategy I inform you that even the GOP had admitted to it, you reply by showing me that there have been people called Democrats who were racist, I show how that means nothing...you then claim I'm running off topic

I shouldn't reply to your posts?