It is such a small quibble, to be sure: but this is the Internet. Small quibbles are our lifeblood.
After all, we are talking about people who spend most of their time floating about in the liberal bubble world of the DC beltway and the rest of their time talking with constituents who believe “The Day After Tomorrow” was a documentary and that Paul Krugman is the cobra emperor of intellectuals (i.e. grown in a lab from the DNA of famous, but long dead liberal thinkers).
While I … grant … that Serpentor has sometimes been styled the ‘Cobra Emperor,’ it’s a little more complicated than that. As only comic books / animated television can make it. But again, that’s a small quibble. Goodness knows that Krugman has the arrogance down pat:
PS: I had more – mostly some technical observations on the proper way to regulate one’s comments section, coupled with a fully-justified sneer or two towards Lefty antiwar projector-types like Krugman – but, really, the better thing to do is not dwell on those poor unfortunates and instead offer up a prayer or two for the lost, and their loved ones.
Is it cruel to point out that when Paul Krugman says that an alien invasion would save Keynesianism…
…he’s pretty much cribbing off of Reagan’s observation that an alien invasion would unite humanity and war among us?
Or is it just sad that Krugman comes across as profoundly intellectually stunted, in comparison? I mean, if we’re going to have an alien invasion serve a higher purpose then I’d personally prefer a more meaningful one than salvaging a somewhat dunderheaded liberal economic theory.
Anyway, in the process of watching Paul Krugman skirt as close of the edge of racism – i.e., recognizing objective reality about our current President – as he dares, the fellow exudes this sentence:
The 2008 race was looking close until Sarah Palin and Lehman came along.
Dude. That’s not even wrong. I mean, I was there for 2008: the race only started looking close when Sarah Palin came along. It took the American economy melting down – and John McCain’s in-retrospect stupid response to it* – to put it away for President Obama, sure… but Sarah Palin was the only thing that gave that campaign any internal energy at all. This should have been well known, even to those associated with the New York Times: I can only conclude that Krugman has somewhat, ah, peculiar requirements for maintaining a particular narrative.
I mean, seriously. Jeebus, Krugman, order a wig and fake glasses for your wife like every other liberal male of your social class and proclivities, already. This was hardly dignified of you.
*IIRC, at the time I thought that his was brilliant. Well, that’s how you learn.
I’m honestly sorry to say this, but when you start your article with “Amanda Marcotte is right,” you’ve pretty much just taken your credibility, shot it in the back of the head, and are now frantically digging a hole to bury the corpse in before somebody comes to investigate the loud noise.
The ironic bit? Absent those Fatal Four Words, Krugman’s column might have been seen as a sign that the fever might be breaking: it can be summed up as Obama is actually… really, really uninterested in doing his job and isn’t any good at it, is he? That would have been great: not so much for Krugman’s sake – well, not for Krugman’s sake at all. It would have been for the sake of all those more salvageable people who shared Krugman’s original delusion that we elected some sort of transcendent man-god in 2008. Alas, this probably isn’t a harbinger of that, after all.
I mean, there’s nothing particularly unusual about Paul Krugman not reading conservative/libertarian material: I for one don’t waste my professional time reading any more liberal/progressive opinion pieces than I absolutely have to, and frankly I don’t usually have to. Of course, I am more or less a political agitator and instigator – but then, that is what Paul Krugman really is, too.
Only, I’m better at it than he is. Honestly, the poor man should stick to economic theory.
To which I reply: just as long as you leave, coward. Admittedly, it’s a convenient cowardice for the country. While it would have been brave for David Obey to stick around and try and fix the short- and long-term damage that he and his fellow-Democrats have done to the Republic, well, it’s nothing like certain that he would know how. So… less whining and more packing, David Obey. The world lusts to forget your name.
Still, Obey did a nice job blaming everybody except himself on his way out the door. As Stacy McCain noted, Paul Krugman found that really useful: Krugman is clearly itching to start up a good auto-de-fe in the Democratic party in 2011, and Obey’s commentary will be perfect for going after the first marrano…
Not that he knows it, yet. Why? Because when Joe Biden Opens His Mouth, it’s always a random disaster. As Andrew Malcolm reports:
Speaking for Mark Critz, a Democrat running for a House seat who’s “the real deal” as opposed to some others who Biden says have been “real turkeys,” the Obama administration’s chief gaffemeister said:
We’re going to be creating somewhere between 100 and 200,000 jobs next month, I predict.
Which is a pretty wide range.
It’s also an admission that the administration still hasn’t actually stopped the bleeding:
But let’s set a more modest goal: return to more or less full employment in 5 years –which means seven lean years of depressed employment. To keep up with population growth over those 7 years, the United States would have had to add 84 times 127,000 or 10.668 million jobs. (If that sounds high, bear in mind that we added more than 20 million jobs over the 8 Clinton years). Add in the need to make up lost ground, and we’re at around 18 million jobs over the next five years — or 300,000 a month.
So that’s a useful benchmark. Even if we add 300,000 jobs a month, we’re looking at a prolonged period of suffering — a huge cost from the Great Recession. So that’s kind of a minimal definition of success. Anything less than that, and it’s bad news.
And guess which right-wing shill of the conservative movement said that? – That’s right: Paul Krugman, back in December of 2009. Guess Biden’s behind on his technical reading…